User talk:Thryduulf/archive21

WP:PROF

Draft of WP:Prof

I want to nominate some more Eubot redirects for deletion, but it would be too much work

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019

This Month in GLAM: July 2019

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation dos and don'ts

Precious anniversary

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

2019 Arbitration Committee pre-election RfC

Please comment on Talk:Mindhunter (TV series)

Duplicate anchors not allowed You do realise that this edit is redundant? The anchor already exists, it's autogenerated by the section heading. If you look at the emitted HTML, in between the <h2>...</h2> tags, you will find

<span class="mw-headline" id="Incidents_and_accidents"><span id="Incidents_and_accidents"></span>Incidents and accidents</span>

where the attribute id="Incidents_and_accidents" occurs twice, which is forbidden by the HTML spec. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• So what is the correct way to preemptively ensure that links aren't broken if the section header changes? That's what I understood the point of the anchor template was? Thryduulf (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:HEADINGS shows uses of anchors within headings. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Your help desk question

You did not get a response to this question but maybe

WP:VPT would be the place to ask. I'm going to play around with it but I don't know anything about timelines.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• @Vchimpanzee: thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What I tried didn't work. I'm on a different computer.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 13:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

Administrator changes

Bradv • Chetsford • Izno

Floquenbeam • Lectonar

DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

• Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
• The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Miscellaneous

• A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Thryduulf/archive21,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on and off wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages. [1]

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English). [2]

Find more information about this project. [3] Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 16:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: August 2019

This Month in GLAM – Volume IX, Issue VIII, August 2019 Headlines Côte d'Ivoire report: Strategic salon around GLAM perspectives Finland report: Continuing our work with the Saami communities Indonesia report: Digitization of banknotes and introduction to structured data on Commons (continued) Netherlands report: Wikidata map making workshop Norway report: Women in Red: collaboration with The National Library in Norway and Oslo Metropolitan University Sweden report: GLAM communities of practice; Problematic data UK report: New and old collaborations USA report: Wikimania 2019 Special story: Wikimania GLAM Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons report: Recent presentations, workshops and blog posts Wikidata report: Work for us, or just tell us what you think of us WMF GLAM report: Updates on OpenGLAM Calendar: September's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 07:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Thryduulf/archive21,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation's annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well the Wikimedia Foundation supports your work on and off wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 20:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Template editor

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Template editor. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Administrator changes Barkeep49 Beetstra • KillerChihuahua • Kusma Arcadian • Extraordinary Machine • Xeno JamesBWatson → JBW Interface administrator changes Evad37

CheckUser changes Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens Oversight changes Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Guideline and policy news

• Following
  C2F: One eponymous article
  , which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

• As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

• The
  2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process
  has begun. The community consultation period will take place October 4th to 10th.
• The
  incident
  . It will be open until October 30th.

Miscellaneous

• The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Portal/Guidelines

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Portal/Guidelines. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: September 2019

This Month in GLAM – Volume IX, Issue IX, September 2019 Headlines Colombia report: The GLAM team from Wikimedia Colombia in OpenConLatAm Finland report: Photographs and events France report: European Heritage Days Indonesia report: Image donation by Indonesian Air Force Italy report: Wikimedia Italia Summer School Sweden report: Open cultural heritage; More libraries in Africa on Wikidata; Global MIL Week 2019 Feature Conference; Kulturhistoria som gymnasiearbete; Wiki Loves Monuments UK report: Oxford, Khalili Collections and Endangered Archives USA report: Hispanic Heritage and Disability Awareness Month Special story: Help the Movement Learn about Content Campaigns & Supporting newcomers in Wikidata training courses! Wikidata report: Tie a knot in your handkerchief WMF GLAM report: GLAM Manager Role Announced! Calendar: October's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 17:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AE log

Hey Thryduulf. On mobile right now so can't fix it myself, but did you log this AE sanction on the AELOG? Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 09:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No, following Sandstein's lead with the blocks of Roscelese I logged it on the case page. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality#Individual sanctions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the ping. I think you forgot your signature on the log page. Sandstein 14:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That I did do. Now fixed. Thryduulf (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • But, come to think of it: There don't seem to be any remedies in the Christianity and Sexuality case that authorize this restriction on Slugger O'Toole. It would need to be a discretionary sanction, probably under the gender issues case, and therefore logged at AELOG. And I haven't checked whether the awareness requirements for a discretionary sanctions are met in this case. Sandstein 14:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Sandstein: Hmm. I haven't got time now to investigate or do anything about this (and likely wont until tomorrow), but if it is just as simple as moving it from Christianity and Sexuality to another case that does have discretionary sanctions then you have my full permission to just do that. Thryduulf (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Hello, Thryduulf. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.

Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Editing News #2 – Mobile editing and talk pages – October 2019

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter

Inside this newsletter, the Editing team talks about their work on the mobile visual editor, on the new talk pages project, and at Wikimania 2019.

Help

What talk page interactions do you remember? Is it a story about how someone helped you to learn something new? Is it a story about how someone helped you get involved in a group? Something else? Whatever your story is, we want to hear it!

Please tell us a story about how you used a talk page. Please share a link to a memorable discussion, or describe it on the talk page for this project. The team would value your examples. These examples will help everyone develop a shared understanding of what this project should support and encourage.

Talk Pages

The Talk Pages Consultation was a global consultation to define better tools for wiki communication. From February through June 2019, more than 500 volunteers on 20 wikis, across 15 languages and multiple projects, came together with members of the Foundation to create a product direction for a set of discussion tools. The Phase 2 Report of the Talk Page Consultation was published in August. It summarizes the product direction the team has started to work on, which you can read more about here: Talk Page Project project page.

The team needs and wants your help at this early stage. They are starting to develop the first idea. Please add your name to the "Getting involved" section of the project page, if you would like to hear about opportunities to participate.

Mobile visual editor

The Editing team is trying to make it simpler to edit on mobile devices. The team is changing the visual editor on mobile. If you have something to say about editing on a mobile device, please leave a message at Talk:VisualEditor on mobile.

Edit Cards

• On 3 September, the Editing team released version 3 of Edit Cards. Anyone could use the new version in the mobile visual editor.
• There is an updated design on the Edit Card for adding and modifying links. There is also a new, combined workflow for editing a link's display text and target.
• Feedback: You can try the new Edit Cards by opening the mobile visual editor on a smartphone. Please post your feedback on the Edit cards talk page.

Toolbar

• In September, the Editing team updated the mobile visual editor's editing toolbar. Anyone could see these changes in the mobile visual editor.
  • One toolbar: All of the editing tools are located in one toolbar. Previously, the toolbar changed when you clicked on different things.
  • New navigation: The buttons for moving forward and backward in the edit flow have changed.
  • Seamless switching: an improved workflow for switching between the visual and wikitext modes.
• Feedback: You can try the refreshed toolbar by opening the mobile VisualEditor on a smartphone. Please post your feedback on the Toolbar feedback talk page.

Wikimania

The Editing Team attended Wikimania 2019 in Sweden. They led a session on the mobile visual editor and a session on the new talk pages project. They tested two new features in the mobile visual editor with contributors. You can read more about what the team did and learned in the team's report on Wikimania 2019.

Looking ahead

• Talk Pages Project: The team is thinking about the first set of proposed changes. The team will be working with a few communities to pilot those changes. The best way to stay informed is by adding your username to the list on the project page: Getting involved.
• Testing the mobile visual editor as the default: The Editing team plans to post results before the end of the calendar year. The best way to stay informed is by adding the project page to your watchlist: VisualEditor as mobile default project page.
• Measuring the impact of Edit Cards: The Editing team hopes to share results in November. This study asks whether the project helped editors add links and citations. The best way to stay informed is by adding the project page to your watchlist: Edit Cards project page.

– PPelberg (WMF) (talk) & Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

re this, I'm guessing you know it was my attempt at humor; but given that it's been many moons since we chatted, I just wanted to make sure you didn't think I was finding fault. And yes, I fully agree with the "verbose" part. I doubt ANY arb would enjoy reading those walls of text. But hey - if it holds off til January, maybe you'll be back on the committee. It is a chore that you were pretty good at. — Ched (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure about the humour and I was fighting a broken keyboard so not in the best place to pick up on subtelties! I've not made a decision yet about whether I'll stand this year, but if I do I'll be recused from the portals mess as I was moderately involved a few months ago until I allowed myself to get bullied out of it. Thryduulf (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh .. well I didn't realize you'd tried to find a way forward a few months ago. Sorry about the keyboard (and I guess my poor attempt at humor) - hopefully you'll be able to pick up a new one soon. I can't imagine anything but supporting you if you do decide to run. Good to see you again Thryduulf. Cheers. — Ched (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Thryduulf, I wanted to emphasize my concern about there not being a full community discussion to regarding Ritchie333's AE block before you unblocked. While I believe the block should stand, I can accept community consensus to unblock, but that has definitely not taken place yet. There had only been ~3.5 hours of discussion before you unblocked which is an absurdly short period of time to establish any sort of consensus. In addition to several opposes in the discussion, there was certainly substantial opposition to an unblock on Ritchie's talk page. I would not call the discussion that has occurred so far "consensus to unblock". Forgive me for being confrontational, but I really do find this action very disturbing. I would ask that you please self-revert and allow the discussion to play out at AN per

@Waggie: The opposition that I saw was primarily to overturning the block, not opposition to unblocking - a point I made clear in my summary. While it was a short discussion at AN (which was the appeal location) there was a clear consensus and that consensus has only grown stronger since the unblock. Thryduulf (talk) 10:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Waggie, I happen to agree with Thryduulf on this and I think it's worth mentioning: Not only was there ~3.5% hours of discussion on WP:AN, but there was also broad consensus across multiple other pages which had been going on for 2-3 days. examples: Ritchie's talk, PMC's talk, etc. Just my 2-cents. Apologies for butting in Thryduulf, but I thought it was a point worth mentioning. (and TY for your efforts in this matter) — Ched (talk) 10:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A good close Thryduulf, well done. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 15:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Relief, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Waggie: we argued already for days, - 3.5 hours was only that particular venue. A block that takes away the article editing time of not only the blocked, but also of the commenters, is not a good block, Yunshui said that well. - @Thryduulf: thanks from project quality article improvement, aka the cabal of the outcast ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It's also worth noting that you can't get a feel for the AN discussion just from reading the bold words as there is no correlation between the word chosen to be bolded and the opinion expressed in the comment. For example those in favour Richie333 being unblocked have used all of "endorse", "support" and "oppose" while those same words have been used by those with different opinions. It's especially confusing as at least one person bolded a single word in a comment supporting both the block and the appeal. Thryduulf (talk) 10:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the whole discussion, please do not assume that I did not or that I am "confused" - frankly it's a bit condescending for you to suggest so. I do not feel that enough discussion or consensus was built to meet the burden of "... the clear and substantial consensus of [...] uninvolved editors at AN..." per WP:AEBLOCK when you unblocked. I agree that it is currently leaning more towards support for unblock now that earlier, but I still must very strongly disagree with your decision to unblock so early in the discussion. Despite there being prior discussion elsewhere, AN is a different forum and has a different audience. I'm sorry that you aren't willing to hear or understand my concerns in this regard. Note that it took you 6.5 hours (far more than the 3.5 hours you allowed for discussion) to respond to my concerns here even when you were pinged and had only just made the unblock less than an hour prior, how is a concerned editor supposed to have time to voice their concerns at a venue which they may not be pinged to in such a short period of time? I was even active on Wikipedia during this discussion period and didn't even realize a discussion was taking place until after you unblocked. As an administrator, you are most certainly aware that building a clear community consensus takes time, even if a discussion seems to swing far to one end of the pendulum at the start. If you will not reconsider your decision, then that is most unfortunate especially. Best wishes, and thank you for your time.

talk) 15:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I think anyone can read the consensus there is that the block should have been undone. Moreover the consensus is growing that the block was a bad one in the first instance and that the Arb was too involved. I think if you're keen to keep the spotlight on the poor behaviour of the blocker then that's just fine, we do need to examine that. We probably also need to examine the real meaning of IBANs now, as it's pretty clear the community aren't in agreement with the interpretation made by some of the Arbs. Otherwise, I think it's best to just move on in the understanding that Thryduulf interpreted the consensus correctly. More than 12 hours later and nothing has changed, except perhaps the strength of feeling against the block has increased. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: This is not the place to discuss ibans in general, but in most cases they unambiguously work and we need to be careful not to throw them out when working out how to deal with the ones that don't and to bear in mind that the ultimate goal of everybody here should be to take the course of action that most benefits the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At no point did I say we should throw them out. This specific case has highlighted what looks like a bureaucratic loophole which, if left, may completely disrupt the purpose of IBAN. If we are now classing subsequent edits to the same article as "harassment" and infringement of an IBAN, we should make that plain as it will affect many individuals. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Waggie: Please do not mistake my disagreeing with your arguments for not listening or not understanding. I read the entire discussion at AN, took into consideration the extensive discussion elsewhere as background and concluded that there was a clear and substantial consensus to unblock. I am always willing to reconsider my decisions - and when I woke up this morning and read all the messages that had been left after I went to bed I did exactly that. That I came to the same conclusion as I did the night before does not indicate a lack of willingness to reconsider, to listen or a lack of understanding of the points made by those disagreeing. It just means that you were not and are not on the side of consensus - it happens to all of us. Thryduulf (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if I don't feel that you addressed my concern about the timespan of the discussion before you unblocked, but I do apologize for assuming that you were not listening or understanding, that was rude of me and comes from frustration regarding your (to my view) hasty actions. However, there's nothing constructive to be gained for anyone by arguing further. Best wishes and I hope that we can interact more agreeably in future.

talk) 16:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Discussions on individual talk pages have a limited audience, and particularly on a blocked editor's talk page, there's a reticence to add more supporting voices in favour of a block, as people know it's not the designated venue for an appeal to the community and do not wish to pile-on negative criticism. It's a moot point now for this situation, but for future, as per standard practice at the administrator's noticeboard, it would be helpful to allow at least 24 hours for editors around the world to take notice and have the chance to weigh in. isaacl (talk) 16:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously it didn't get to you that it was a block not justified by the action, rather objectively. Bad enough that a user had to suffer that for so long. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allowing for editors around the world to object (or not object) to the block would make it clear that the follow up action had support from the global Wikipedia community. For better or worse, the whole community likes to know their opinions will be considered. isaacl (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In normal circumstances, yes I'd have left it for longer at AN, but editors from all over the world had been expressing their opinion in multiple locations for multiple days prior to the AN thread. Thryduulf (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to note that I did see the ping from Thryduulf's talk. TY for the use of your page. I don't have anything further to add. — Ched (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thryduulf. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.Katie^talk 17:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

Administrator changes GermanJoe • Girth Summit • Kees08 • Nosebagbear DESiegel • GB fan • MSGJ • Voice of Clam • WilyD DeltaQuad • Fang Aili • Pakaran Bureaucrat changes DeltaQuad • Pakaran Interface administrator changes MSGJ

CheckUser changes L235 • Mz7 • SQL • ST47 Ivanvector DeltaQuad Oversight changes L235 • Mz7 • ST47 • Stwalkerster • The Blade of the Northern Lights • Xaosflux DeltaQuad • DGG • Julia W

Guideline and policy news

• An
  resysop criteria
  should be made stricter.

• The follow-up RfC to develop that change is now open at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2).

• A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates for the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections. The self-nomination period will close November 12, with voting running from November 19 through December 2.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 community sentiment on binding desysop procedure. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thryduulf, thank you for posting this RD. I feel a little awkward asking this, but if you have a moment, would you be so kind as to click on 'give credit' for it? This is only the third RD I have contributed to, and the first I have nominated myself, so I am a bit excited about it! I expect that I'd feel differently about the 10th or 20th, but I would appreciate having this on my talk page :-) Cheers, RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I never think to do that (I don't care about those messages so I forget others do). Thryduulf (talk) 07:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'd like you to update your comment to reflect my pronouns here, which are she/her. That change is not very civil. Thanks! Jokestress (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth is referring to someone using gender neutral pronouns misgendering!? Thryduulf (talk) 09:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Just saw this. To answer your question above, here's how your conduct looks to me:

• 1. you quoted text that correctly gendered me
• 2. then used a mix of pronouns in your own writing, some of which matched the quoted text
• 3. then switched all of yours so they did not match the quoted text "for consistency."

Then when I asked you to change it to reflect the pronouns on my own page, in every article that covers me, and in the quote you used:

• 4. you used strikethrough and commented on it rather than simply making the change without strikethrough as you had done at step 3.

To me, that seems to fall somewhere between

microagression

. It's the kind of thing that has a cumulative effect when trying to collaborate as a minority on Wikipedia.

I hope you take my answer as an opportunity to reflect on why you made those choices. Here's a nice set of guidelines: [4]

And thanks for pointing me to the banning policy. I had never read it! That is quite a document.

Finally, I want to apologize if I have caused you to have negative emotions. I know some people don't like my conduct or contributions, but I still believe in the promise of this project. I have tried a number of ways to make the community more open and accepting of diversity through changes large and small, and that sometimes leads to tension. It is not personal, though! Jokestress (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM – Volume IX, Issue X, October 2019 Headlines Australia report: WikiD at the Design Museum Colombia report: Wikimedia Colombia in Argentinean event Czech Republic report: Wikipedia Week of Libraries in Broumov Estonia report: Nordic cooperation + Wikisource + library information Finland report: Collaborative histories France report: GLAM working group at WMFr; Partnership with AAF Indonesia report: Numismatic items from Sumatran Numismatic Museum Malaysia report: Wikipedia Penang Meetup 2 @ Tuanku Fauziah Museum and Gallery, University of Science Malaysia Netherlands report: Share Your Data master classes for GLAMs; New project manager WMNL; Images from Africa Norway report: Radio Cinema at the National Library in Oslo Sweden report: Nordic Museum publications on Wikidata and Commons; Wikipedia training in Härnösand; Open cultural heritage data in focus in Visby UK report: Khalili; Museums + Tech; Oxford WIR placement ends USA report: Spooky Autumn meetups Special story: #WikiForHumanRights Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons report: Getting started, Tool highlights, Blog posts and presentations about SDC Wikipedia Library report: Books & Bytes–Issue 35, July–August 2019 Wikidata report: We Are Seven Wikimedia and Libraries User Group report: October 16th meeting minutes Wikisource report: Community Wishlist Survey 2020 and Wiki Advanced Training 2019 WMF GLAM report: 1Lib1Ref, Wikimedia Sweden Research and other updates Calendar: November's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I'm taking it upon myself to try to moderate a discussion among Portal power users with the intention of creating a draft guideline for Portals, and I'd like to invite you to join this discussion. If you're interested, please join the discussion at User talk:Scottywong/Portal guideline workspace. Thanks. ‑Scottywong| [converse] || 02:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I like your box on barnstars, above on this page. could you please tell me how one would set that up? I really appreciate any help. thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sm8900: it's just badly hacked together tables. Take a look at User:Thryduulf/boxen (which is where it is transcluded from) and take a look at the code, copying what you need. If it isn't working as it should then someone at the WP:Help desk is more likely to be able to provide useful assistance than I can (and likely get it working better than mine is!). Thryduulf (talk) 16:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox person. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thryduulf,

Before I venture too far off-topic at

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 16:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A trout is an informal and humorous, minor admonishment for someone who has done something wrong when they should and it should be obvious to all parties why. It is not something that should ever be served cold, nor when there are multiple good faith opinions that the action taken wasn't wrong. Generally it is best applied when the person on the receiving end feels they deserved it now they have the benefit of hindsight, or if they still it was wrong but are clearly acknowledging the consensus that it was wrong and indicating they accept that consensus and wont do it again. Where someone digs their heels in and maintains they were right, not accepting the consensus, then it's not a trouting matter - it's not a situation where humour is the right approach. Thryduulf (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 20, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, SQL^{Query me!} 20:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thryduulf. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.

Bishonen | talk 09:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC).[reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).

Administrator changes

EvergreenFir • ToBeFree

Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

Beeblebrox

Deskana

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

Guideline and policy news

• An
  request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats
  are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
• Following
  edit filter mailing list
  has been opened up to users with the Edit Filter Helper right.

Technical news

• Wikimedia projects can set a default block length for users via MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry. A new page, MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry-ip, allows the setting of a different default block length for IP editors. Neither is currently used. (T219126)

Arbitration

• Voting in the
  2019 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 2 December 2018 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page
  .

Miscellaneous

• The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.

Hey there. I recently noticed and commented here (you may remember working on the images for that memorial). I noticed that HJ still isn't around. I know you may be in touch with him. Do you have any news, or should I email him if that would be appropriate? I know what it can be like to be away for a long time, and it can be for various reasons, so I thought I'd check with you first. Carcharoth (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth: HJ is alive and well, just busy with his offline life. Emailing him will not be a problem if you want to get back in touch. 13:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that is good to know. (PS. You didn't sign properly so no ping got sent.) Carcharoth (talk) 13:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gah, too many tildes! I've pinged HJ on Facebook as well so with any luck he'll pop in again when he can. Thryduulf (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thryduulf. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.

Bishonen | talk 19:51, 8 December 2019 (UTC).[reply

@Bishonen: See the #AE log section above. This is logged on the case page per Sandstein's precedent. I'm also curious why you felt this needed to be addressed by email rather than on my talk page message. Thryduulf (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I thought all arb enforcement sanctions went in the central

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log/2019, which redirects to Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2019. As to why I e-mailed you, that was my unfortunate Bishzilla-type tact: I thought you might have forgotten to log it, and didn't want to say so in public. I was remembering how little I liked getting this reminder, for my own part, though I hope I wouldn't in any case have been quite so rude. Bishonen | talk 21:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC).[reply

]

(talk page stalker) Forgive me for sticking my nose in here, but one of the things the clerks are supposed to be doing is moving the enforcement actions from individual case pages to the central enforcement log. I just saw this thread and thought maybe I could do that. However, discretionary sanctions doesn't appear to have been authorized in this case, and there were no remedies that applied to this editor (nor were they a party), so I'm questioning the validity of this sanction. Is there a different DS topic area that this should be logged under instead? Or is this a regular administrative action? – bradv🍁 21:36, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bumping this in case you missed it. Thanks! – bradv🍁 04:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yeah, I'm still thinking about what the best way forward is. Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv, Bishonen, Sandstein, and L325: and anyone else. I'm not in the right headspace at the moment to think about this, but it needs sorting. You have my full permission to revoke and/or modify this as required. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@L235: fix ping. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. I remember coming across this earlier in the year but was very busy with a few other projects. Looking at this again, it seems to me that: (a) the Christanity and Sexuality case doesn't provide authority to sanction Slugger O'Toole, and (b) the GamerGate DS may cover this, but Slugger O'Toole wasn't formally aware of GamerGate DS. I think the course of action here would be to vacate the original sanction and leave a GamerGate alert for Slugger O'Toole (and perhaps strongly urge Slugger O'Toole not to file administrative reports against Roscelese). Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM – Volume IX, Issue XI, November 2019 Headlines Australia report: Wiki Loves Monuments Finland report: Combining the old and the new France report: Wikimedia training workshops; Conference in the city of Arles Netherlands report: IHLIA starts monthly Wikipedia writing sessions, Wiki Techstorm 2019 New Zealand report: Wellington talks and edit-a-thons Poland report: Transgressing the boundaries of internal academic discourse Sweden report: Minor grants and Library training USA report: A busy conference season, a new Caribbean community and introducing a tool for adding artwork metadata Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons report: Continued development, documentation, and blog posts Wikipedia Library report: Books & Bytes-Issue 36, September–October 2019 Wikidata report: Research published Wikisource report: Results of Community Wishlist Survey 2020 Calendar: December's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

	Merry Christmas
	Tough luck on missing out on getting to elected to ArbCom, even though you had more votes than three of the winners. Best wishes for the holiday season and the New Year. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have used several of your contributions to ARCA this year, and was pleased during the nominations call to see you going forward. Thanks for volunteering and I hope you were pleased by the support you received. Things could be worse – you could have been given a seat!

 ■ 14:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you. I do plan to stick around and pitch in where I can! Thryduulf (talk) 14:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true. No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well T. MarnetteD|Talk 21:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thryduulf, There is currently a discussion here involving Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents/Factors to which you were a major contributor. I'd like to take the draft to RfC and propose it becomes a project wide guideline or policy per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Proposals. I'm asking for your permission to do this and for any ideas you may have to help the process along. Thank you, - Samf4u (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've just seen the results. Shame. I always valued your input: intelligent, knowledgeable, balanced, fair, and insightful. It was, though, a very crowded field this year. Try again next. SilkTork (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I suspect the "balanced and fair" lost me a few votes from the WO crowd. Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly; though I think it was a very crowded field: almost all those who got in are ex-arbs, and/or functionaries, and/or high profile. I think people feel reassured by names they know which are associated with responsible roles. And I suspect tactical voting would have come into play, for you were a contender. Anyway, I think you should try again next year. SilkTork (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see. I didn't finally decide to stand this year until about three days before I put my name forward (I waited the few days so I would be available to answer questions), so ask me again a week or so before nominations open if I've not put my foot in it between now and then! Thryduulf (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yah, in what was supposed to be a transformative election, we've ended up with pretty much the usual suspects. Not saying that's a bad thing, because they're all competent, but I would have preferred a few more varied voices at the table, and I think Thryduulf is someone who would have provided that. But hey ho.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	Have a WikiChristmas and a PediaNewYear
	You're one of my favourite Wikipedians. Be good to meet up again. Be well. Keep well. Have a lovely Christmas. SilkTork (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and yes meeting up again would indeed be good. Merry Christmas to you and yours as well. Thryduulf (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Thryduulf: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 18:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Happy Holidays

, 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:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはThryduulfたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 04:58, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TheSandDoctor ^Talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! 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:Xmas6

}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 14, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyoko^talk 03:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re your question there: Not of course an arbitrator, but I'd be interested in your analysis. I fear it would be a lot of work. Last night I spent a couple of hours going through 50 consecutive A7s in RHaworth's deletion log from a couple of months back to assess my concordance with his decisions, but I'm having trouble organising the data tonight and my computer keeps crashing on me. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).

Administrator changes Dreamy Jazz • Newslinger • Rosguill Deor • Spartaz • Xeno Angusmclellan • clpo13 • Edgar181 • Matthewedwards • NCurse

CheckUser changes Bradv • Casliber • David Fuchs • Maxim • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy • Xeno Oversight changes Bradv • Casliber • DGG • David Fuchs • Maxim • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy • Xeno Someguy1221

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment asks whether partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. If enabled, this functionality would allow administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces, rather than the entire site.
• A proposal asks whether admins who don't use their tools for a significant period of time (e.g. five years) should have the toolset procedurally removed.
• Following a
  Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist
  .

Arbitration

• The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
• Following the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Bradv, Casliber, David Fuchs, DGG, KrakatoaKatie, Maxim, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy, Worm That Turned, Xeno.

Miscellaneous

• This issue marks three full years of the
  Admin newsletter
  . Thanks for reading!

This Month in GLAM – Volume IX, Issue XII, December 2019 Headlines Armenia report: GLAM+Wikidata Collaboration between Armenia and Albania Czech Republic report: Edit-a-thon Prachatice 2 Kosovo report: Transitional Justice edit-a-thon held in Prishtina New Zealand report: A Wikipedian in Residence and a Wikipedian writes Norway report: Plaintext Wikipedia dumps for the National Library Sweden report: Swedish Performing Arts Agency; Bibliographic data about Swedish periodicals USA report: White Elephant; WikiWednesday Salon; Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons report: New blog posts Wikidata report: Job vacancies and item 80 million WMF GLAM report: Mapping GLAM-Wiki collaborations Calendar: January's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

FYI. You might not have intended to respond in the "parties" section here. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your edit on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Workshop, as the workshop phase is now currently closed and no further edits should be made to the page. The talk page remains open of you need to discuss further. CodeLyoko^talk 15:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CodeLyoko: Sorry I missed your closure notice as I was viewing SmokeyJoe's contributions diff-by-diff. Thryduulf (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the requested move of

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Administrator changes Ergo Sum • Nick Moyes • QEDK • Wugapodes Dennis Brown Aude • BrownHairedGirl • CALR • Jengod • John Reaves • J.smith • Kim Dent-Brown • K1Bond007 • MECU • Refdoc • RHaworth

CheckUser changes Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos Interface administrator changes Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
• The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

• Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock
  }}.
• When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [5]

Arbitration

• Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2020 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2020, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2020, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• The English Wikipedia has reached
  six million articles
  . Thank you everyone for your contributions!

Hi. The

]

This Month in GLAM: January 2020

This Month in GLAM – Volume X, Issue I, January 2020 Headlines Australia report: Burning Finland report: Wikiviews from Benin: Wikipedia in the Tower of Babel France report: Paris musées; Bibliothèque Sainte Geneviève Indonesia report: 1st PD Day in Indonesia; visitation to GLAM institutions Italy report: Brand new and old faithful wikimedian in residence! New Zealand report: Macrons and museums Norway report: Sámi cultural heritage Sweden report: FindingGLAMs Challenge; Art by Edvard Munch from the Thiel Gallery; More European archives on Wikidata; OpenGLAM now! – watch the presentations; Wikipedia in Libraries Switzerland report: Wikidata for Libraries Hackday Series USA report: Knowledge Graphs and Meetups Special story: New Book Calendar: February's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 13, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

Administrator changes Money emoji Athaenara • DeltaQuad Fishhead64 • Kudpung • Mikaey Bureaucrat changes DeltaQuad

CheckUser changes DeltaQuad Oversight changes DeltaQuad

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
• A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

• Following a
  Twinkle preferences
  .

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2020 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: BRPever, Krd, Martin Urbanec, MusikAnimal, Sakretsu, Sotiale, and Tks4Fish. There are a total of seven editors that have been appointed as stewards, the most since 2014.
• The 2020 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Ajraddatz and Uzoma Ozurumba; they will serve for one year.

Hi, I was curious if you could do the favor of deleting this image? I wasn't feeling entirely motivated to read how the image deletion page works, but I do know that this picture is in fact a copyrighted picture and the uploader lied about it being his own work. The image was shot by Paul Moseley. Second Skin (talk) 02:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @Second Skin: The image is not hosted on Wikipedia but on Commons, so c:COM:D applies, more specifically, see c:COM:CV. When using the {{Copyvio}} tag, you will need to fill in its |source= parameter with an Instagram URL that is more specific, since the Paul Moseley link above leads to an album of many photos, amongst which I couldn't find the one in question. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Second Skin: I am not an administrator on Commons so I cannot help you further than Redrose64 already has. If you do need more assistance then the place to ask is at the Wikimedia Commons help desk. Thryduulf (talk) 11:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second Skin, (talk page stalker)  Done ~~ Alex Noble - talk 14:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.

The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: [email protected]

For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas³ (talk) 05:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thryduulf. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grant of auto-patrol

Thryduulf, I apologize in advance but I am coming up short in how to put this gently. As sysops we all have areas of core competency. And then we have a much bigger toolset. As sysops we are entrusted to be careful when we leave core competency and wade into the remainder of the toolset. This is why a variant on the question of How would you use your admin tools in a scenario you were unfamiliar with? is not unusual to find at RfA (or wasn't at one point). It seems to me that reading the relevant policy page in an area you don't normally use the sysop toolset and then deciding they met the criteria is one thing. Deciding to wade into an area which, and here's where I am particularly sorry for not being able to be more gentle, it's clear you don't understand the mechanisms at play and deciding to make an exception is a whole different matter. You're right that Autopatrol could use some tweaking. But so could your approach in situations like these. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I seem to have upset you over this, but I genuinely do not understand how anyone could read the information page at Wikipedia:Autopatrolled and come to the conclusion that making a small exception to what are explicitly suggestions and guidelines for typical situations in order to resolve a problem identified by someone who does work in the relevant area would be anything other than uncontroversial. Doubly so when that page identifies the purpose of the right is for it to be given to users who can be trusted to understand and not violate basic core policies when creating article and "Non-article pages", when the people I gave it to are users I trust to understand and not violate basic core policies when creating Non-article pages.

If this is as incorrect as you seem to be indicating, then the information page needs a fundamental rewrite to make it clear that:

• exceptions are never permissible (use words like "always"/"never" and "requirement" not "typical" and "suggested"_
• the right is irrelevant to the project namespace (don't say "articles and other pages", instead say "articles, templates and files" or whatever is actually relevant - it isn't stated anywhere)
• granting the right is very much a big deal (don't say it can be given to a user when an admin trusts their work, say it can be given only when an admin who regularly patrols new articles, templates and files trusts a user to create new articles, templates and files")
• nobody who doesn't understand the right intimately should be doing anything with it. (Explicitly say this, rather than as current wording that strongly implies the opposite)

You cannot expect someone unfamiliar with a particular aspect of the admin toolset to infer the exact opposite of what the information page about the relevant tool says, given that reading the information page and following what it says is exactly what we expect admins to do (and exactly what I did) in these situations. Thryduulf (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect someone unfamiliar with a particular aspect of the admin toolset to not use that particular aspect of the admin toolset, and certainly not to make a small exception, and absolutely not to double-down when multiple editors, fellow admin, and arbs, have expressed disagreement with the exception made. The first sentence of WP:Autopatrolled reads: Autopatrolled is a user right given to prolific creators of clean articles ... Are the editors you gave autopatrolled to "prolific creators of clean articles"? No? Then they shouldn't be autopatrolled. Frankly, I don't understand how you don't understand that once you give an editor autopatrolled, that editor's mainspace creations are taken out of the patrol queue, and won't be patrolled. This defeats the purpose of new page patrolling, when you give it an editor whose creations should still be patrolled (like me for example). There is no community consensus to exempt arb clerks from having their mainspace creations patrolled like the rest of us, and it's inappropriate for you–who admits to not being familiar with this–to unilaterally make this exception. (It would still be inappropriate even if you were familiar.) And by "inappropriate", I mean "abuse of tools". Responding by saying that either you're right or the info page needs to be rewritten is also inappropriate, by which I mean, "not compliant with ADMINCOND". (Sorry, but the gentle approach clearly isn't working.) Correct me if I'm wrong, but this was literally the first time you've ever given anyone the autopatrolled right. Why you think you know better on this issue is beyond me. Please self-revert. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: When an admin comes across a situation relating to part of the admin toolset they are not familiar with they have two choices, they can leave it to someone else to deal with or they can investigate to see if it is something they can learn about - either are perfectly acceptable. In this case I chose the second option and chose to read the information page about it. That information page explicitly states that it applies to both articles and non-article pages. It explicitly describes its purpose as being to ensure that the contributions of users who can be trusted not to violate core policies are separated from those who cannot be so trusted (or who we don't know whether they can be trusted or not trusted). It explicitly states that administrators are able to grant the right to users they trust, and gives suggestions about when it is appropriate for someone doing article work - with the only caveat being for "very new users". There is no mention anywhere on that page that patrolling project space pages is irrelevant (if it did I presume that Pigsonthewing, who evidently has the right to mark pages as patrolled, which is explicitly stated as a big deal, would not spend his time doing so or spend time making a request about it). I think I implied it earlier, but I'll now make it explicit, that any admin can remove the right from the two people I gave it to, I'm not going to do it myself right now as I'm tired and worked up about this so I'm not in anywhere near the correct frame of mind to be making any admin actions. However I do not agree that pointing out a fundamental contradiction between the explicit wording of the information page and the apparently intended meaning of the information page is something that can be dismissed as a minor misunderstanding. Thryduulf (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) yes it is the first time I've given someone the autopatrolled right. I did it right after reading the information page about it, so while I evidently do not know better than you or barkeep about the intended meaning of the information page, and I'm not saying my actions were right. What I am saying is that my actions were consistent with the explicit wording of the information page when read by someone who is not familiar with what it is apparently intended to say. Thryduulf (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course exceptions are permissible and I would oppose the rewriting you're suggesting must happen if I'm right. Understanding the nuances enough to know when to make an exception is fine. Good even. My contention, is, in this area, you didn't understand that nuance and so weren't the right sysop to be making an exception. There are no doubt many areas of the toolset where you are quite versed and could make all the right exceptions and I would be out of my depth. This was my point here - not to question your general fitness as a sysop but to suggest that in areas where you're not in your core administrative competency, that making exceptions was not the correct move. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I've written on another page, I don't see this as a big deal. The risk that an editor trusted well enough to be an arbitration clerk would publish an unsuitable page into mainspace is slight. The criticism of Thryduulf here strikes me as unwarranted or at best excessive, and I would oppose reversing his grant of the rights. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect

WP:PERM/A. – Joe (talk) 09:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

NB: There was a parallel discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Granting autopatrolled rights to arb clerks. – Joe (talk) 09:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49 and Serial Number 54129: (in the parallel discussion) SN54129 wrote "I did it because nothing explicitly said I couldn't" while pretending that a tool that in spirit is clearly intended to reduce new page patrollers' workloads is somehow essential to backroom pages such as these. The entire point is that there is nothing in the information page that expresses that that is the spirit of the tool, or that (as others such as NYB have noted) there is any reason why it would be a big deal for I user trust not to violate core policies to be given a right that is, according to the information page, explicitly to be given to users who are trusted not to violate core policies. It's not about not being explicitly told not to do something, it's that the page explicitly indicated that it would be fine to do it. This is why the page needs to be significantly rewritten - what it says is and is not permissible is very different to what those who work in the area say is and is not permissible. It also sounds from these discussion that the right shouldn't be granted automatically to administrators - I've been here 15 years and have created way less than 25 articles and there are plenty of other administrators who were granted the tools because of their non-content work, so there should be no reason for our contributions to skip the patrol queue. I've already indicated that I have no problem with someone else removing the rights, but Newyorkbrad has indicated that they do oppose. Thryduulf (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sigh. Once again, nonsense and bureaucracy abound. And once again the issue revolves around trust. If Thryduulf trusts Cthomas3 to have auto-patrolled rights, then that should be enough. (or any Admin A granting User B the right) ... UNLESS we're suggesting that we the community no longer trust Thryduulf (or any other Admin) with the ability to check the auto-patrolled box. Nonsense in a box IMO. Support Thryduulf continuing to being an admin. — Ched (talk) 09:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ched: Support you reading the entire discussion(s) and realizing that since broader issues are also at play, it is unhelpful to personalize them further. Many thanks. Nor is it helpful to distract. ——SN54129 09:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Serial Number 54129: Support you not making assumptions - but here we are. If this isn't about the two people at hand, then this is the wrong place for the discussion. — Ched (talk) 09:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I can only echo Ched's, "Sigh. Once again, nonsense and bureaucracy abound." 8-(

Autopatrolled is so trivial a right that even I have it (if anyone thinks I don't warrant it, then they're entitled to remove it, per usual process). I am only surprised here that someone can achieve the lofty heights of arb-clerk and not already have it. If PotW spotted this and felt it needing sorting (for some obscure technical minutiae), then the obvious, right and useful thing to do was to grant it and get on with our day. Anything else past this is nonsense and a waste of everyone's time. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Tempest in a teakettle - This is a trivial right, and if it makes the clerk's and patrollers' jobs easier, then I see no reason to deny it, other than for bureaucracy's sake, of course. Sigh per Ched. —DoRD (talk)​ 11:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It might be a tempest in a teakettle. However, autopatrol does nothing to make the clerk's jobs easier. Whether it does anything to make a patrollers job easier is itself debatable. But that's what should be driving grants of autopatrol (or not) and that piece, at least, is clear on the current information page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Then take that up with PotW, who said that a clerk without autopatrolled was going to be either at a disadvantage, or would cause pointless effort for those following in their wake. Not Thryduulf, who quite reasonably issued it. Now whether or not this is useful here, you've given no reason to question it being handed out, even if it's just a long-service, not-arrested-yet badge. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a regular patroller, I think what Thryduulf has done is reasonable . I'd have no difficulty with giving any reasonably trusted user the right for a special purpose. The right is really just a convenience so we can concentrate the patrolling where it's needed most. DGG ( talk ) 16:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi:

First - please refer to me as "he". Using the third person plural pronoun for an individual is not only ungrammatical, it's rude!

I only just now have seen this stuff.

I mostly use the mobile app these days. I expected to receive any notifications about this via that. I would have responded in a timely manner if I'd gotten them.

So I demand that this situation be reopened. It's not an editor's fault if the tech fails to notify him.

My key response is this:

Angela Merkel's official title is Bundeskanzler (Federal Chancellor). No one is English refers to her thusly. We use the word we already have: chancellor. The French prime minister's real title is President of the Council of Ministers.Again, this position is almost never described in English thusly. Similarly, unless it's going to be policy that we must refer to every foreign leader by his or her foreign language title, there's no reason to insist that Gaelic terms be used for the English language terms that accurately describe the position. To insist otherwise is the most absurd sort of pettifoggery and pedantry.

Finally, I don't know where that guy got off threatening me with a "block." I've almost certainly been an editor longer than he has and I'll put my record up against anyone's.

Thanking you in advance for your cooperation.

PainMan (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If you wish to appeal your AE sanction you need discuss things with the administrator who imposed the sanction, in this case that is user:QEDK not me - I could not reopen the request without discussion with them first anyway - not that I have any interest in doing so given the aggressive tone of your message that attacks other editors rather than addressing the issues at hand. Thryduulf (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @PainMan: I am not sure what you want me to do, if you want me to amend your sanction, no. You can file an appeal so that we can re-hash your contributions to the topic area, this time with your participation (hopefully), until then no change to the sanction. And, please don't edit old archives, it looks like you had already replied and the admins are crazy people for not noticing your participation. Best, qedk (t 心 c) 16:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM – Volume X, Issue II, February 2020 Headlines Armenia report: Wiki project on Museums with My Armenia Brazil report: Moreira Salles Institute GLAM initiative in Brazil Finland report: The Helsinki then and now exhibition France report: GLAM related blogposts Indonesia report: Proposing collaboration with museums in Bali; First Wikisource training in the region Netherlands report: Students write articles about Media artists, Public Domain Day 2020, Wiki Goes Caribbean, WikiFridays at Ihlia - Wikimedia Nederland in January & February 2020 Norway report: Wikipedia editing workshop with the Norwegian Network for Museums Serbia report: Great dedication of librarians Sweden report: Historic photos; Support for international Wikimedia community; Library training tour; Many GLAMs improved on Wikidata UK report: Kimonos and Khalili Ukraine report: Winning photos Wiki Loves Monuments shown in different cities; Libraries Lead an All-Ukrainian Challenge USA report: Black History Month and Open Access Anniversaries Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons report: Summary of pilot projects, and what's next Wikidata report: Leap into Wikidata! WMF GLAM report: New Team Leadership, GLAM-Focused Grants Review, OpenGLAM Declaration Research Calendar: March's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

I forgot to add another reason as to why I nominated Floof in the first place, so I am asking that you read the argument and edit your side of the debate to mention the additional argument. 209.237.105.108 (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on IARUNCOMMON requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Not supposed to be in article space

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by

I have created

WP:IARUNCOMMON for you. PorkchopGMX (talk with me - what i've done) 17:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

So are you like the kind of person whose incredulity is set just high enough so that you can go through life without becoming convinced or sure of anything? I don't think you are. But I don't see anything in your response that constitutes a solid reason for declining my appeal. I don't expect you to have blind faith in me, because faith that is blind isn't good. But did you read my talk page? It's not a big deal at this point, but I do understand the reason why the topic ban was imposed, and I have come to terms with that. Anyway, thanks for your input, see you around. Sotuman (talk) 05:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes I did read your talk page. It is up to the person appealing a restriction to convince the uninvolved administrators hearing the appeal that the restriction is no longer needed because they understand (a) what they did wrong, (b) why it was wrong, (c) that they wont do the same thing again, and (d) they are listening and responding to advice from others so that they wont cause other problems going forward. Your appeal did not do that. Thryduulf (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it appears that you tried to create a redirect at

#REDIRECT [[target page name]]

You can check redirects with the Preview button before saving them. If you have created a working redirect, the preview will show the name of the target page alongside a bent arrow (or "Redirect to:" label in text mode). — Smjg (talk) 12:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

Administrator changes Cabayi • Lee Vilenski Boing! said Zebedee Jonny-mt • MarkGallagher • PeaceNT Money emoji → Moneytrees Bureaucrat changes SilkTork • WereSpielChequers

CheckUser changes NativeForeigner Oversight changes Someguy1221 Daniel Case

Guideline and policy news

• There is an
  ongoing
  request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

• There is a plan for new requirements for user signatures. You can give feedback.

Arbitration

• Following the
  Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft)
  and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.

Miscellaneous

• The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.

The outing I was referring to in my evidence went beyond my newbie mistake of leaving my email addy. It went further than that - he violated my privacy by digging into my domain registrations, not for Earthwave Society but for my name personally. I think they call that doxxing. He traced my identity using a photograph and even advised me how easily it can be done. Also, I had retired in 2014 when I returned to WP - I refer to it as "semi-retired" because the ranching business is like Hotel California. Anyway, I documented my early experiences in a collapsed section on my user page under the section title "The first few years", and the subsection "2015 learning highlights". It may or may not help clarify things ... and then again, it may not be worth the time or effort to even worry about it. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you're talking about Jytdog, if you haven't already, you should be posting this for the arbitrators to see rather than me - the workshop is over now so I've done all I can do. Thryduulf (talk) 09:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was in response to a comment you had made with reference to Jytdog's COIN cases in the aggregate. If my memory serves, my impression was that you felt Beall's was the only substantial case out of 7, but perhaps I misinterpreted your point? I can't seem to find that comment to provide a diff - it may have been on a TP - so if I'm mistaken, you have my apology in advance. I just wanted you to know to what extent he was digging over a few fish articles and in his absurd attempt to prove I had a COI when I created the Racz article. Enjoy what's left of the weekend, and thank you for the many years you've served the community while exercising good judgment, helping to maintain a standard of excellence, harmony and proper behavior in the community. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words, but I don't recall making a comment about whether any of the COIN cases were substantial? Either I'm getting forgetful in my old age or you're misremembering someone else's comment as mine? Both seem about equally plausible to me! Thryduulf (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Found it - it was your closing statement. Did I misunderstand you? I often go back and review the comments made in various cases to confirm that I have read everything in proper context, and that the allegations are supported, verified and corroborated. I also want to make sure that the person under scrutiny is not being treated unjustly because of something I may have said or done. Some have interpreted that part of my personality as being unable to DROPTHESTICK when that isn't the case at all. My mind simply needs assurances. 😊 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, I think you have misinterpreted me there. In my evidence statement on the 2020 case I wasn't analysing any of the incidents in any way other than counting how many unique ones involving Jytdog there were and determining which private email(s) related to which incidents. Jytdog's outing of you was done in the context of a COIN report I also don't mention the incident involving Beall at all as I was not privy to any private correspondence about that. The final paragraph is only about the number of unique incidents the private information I have relates to - one of them (I can't remember off hand which) was the subject of what appeared at first look to be three independent discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When assurancesare all you needjust ask the questionand you’ll be freedBurma-shave TY. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 21, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM – Volume X, Issue III, March 2020 Headlines Australia report: Know My Name; Public libraries of Queensland join Wikidata Colombia report: Gender gap, Wikipedia and Libraries from the GLAM team France report: WikiGoths; WikiTopia Archives Indonesia report: Volunteers' meet-up; Wiki Cinta Budaya 2020 structured data edit-a-thon Ireland report: Video tutorials; Celtic Knot Conference 2020 Kosovo report: WoALUG and NGO Germin call Albanian Diaspora to contribute to Wikipedia Netherlands report: Nationaal Museum van Wereldculturen contributes to Wikimedia Commons again; Student research on GLAM-Wiki at Erasmus University Rotterdam Serbia report: March Highlights - Everything is postponed Sweden report: FindingGLAMs; Wikipedia in libraries; Art from the Thiel Gallery Collections; Kulturhistoria som gymnasiearbete UK report: Colourful Kimonos from Khalili USA report: Women & Editing in the time of virus Special story: COVID-19 Wikidata report: Lockdown Levellings WMF GLAM report: Mapping GLAM-Wiki collaborations Calendar: April's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.