User talk:Thryduulf/archive23

After thinking about it, I think you took a reasonable approach. What was important was to prevent edit-warring over whether the sub-article should exist. We shall see how the RFC is closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021). Administrator changes Hog Farm Mattflaschen • Nandesuka • Savidan • Wangi CheckUser changes Berean Hunter • Xeno Oversight changes Someguy1221 • Xeno Arbitration The standard discretionary sanctions authorized for American Politics were amended by motion to cover post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people, replacing the 1932 cutoff. Miscellaneous Voting in the 2021 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2021, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2021, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote. Wikipedia has now been around for 20 years, and recently saw its billionth edit! Discuss this newsletter Subscribe Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM – Volume XI, Issue I, January 2021 Headlines Belgium report: The Public Domain Tool; Data Donations; Wiki Loves Heritage Belgium 2020 Brazil report: Heading 2021 with new (and renewed!) GLAM-Wiki projects Colombia report: Public domain day in Colombia Finland report: AvoinGLAM France report: #1lib1ref; Training courses; What's next ?; Wikidata and archaeology vocabulary Germany report: Coding da Vinci Niedersachsen wraps up Serbia report: A month in the spirit of references Sweden report: Record numbers of digital museum visits UK report: Protests & Suffragettes - Wikipedia work in 2020; Khalili Collections USA report: Wiki 20 WMF GLAM report: Digital Public Library of America makes an impact in 2020 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/RexxS. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 13, 2021, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, SQL^{Query me!} 04:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I take it from Bishonen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021). Administrator changes

TJMSmith

Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

Interface administrator changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
• A
  subcriterion a
  , which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
• A request for comment seeks to grant page movers the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at Wikipedia:Page mover/delete-redirect.
• A
  request for comment
  asks if sysops may place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
• There is a
  protection
  .

Technical news

• When blocking an IPv6 address with
  just block the /64
  range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
• When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at
  WP:RfPP
  , and even link to the specific revision.
• There have been
  Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322
  ).

Arbitration

• By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
• The Kurds and Kurdistan case was closed, authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2021 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AmandaNP, Operator873, Stanglavine, Teles, and Wiki13.

This Month in GLAM – Volume XI, Issue II, February 2021 Headlines Albania report: Recruiting two PMs; Budget Report 2020; Wikipedia 20th Bday Australia report: Who do we think we are? Brazil report: New GLAM tutorials in Portuguese Estonia report: WikiMuseum Finland report: Focus on learning Indonesia report: PD Day 2021 in Indonesia, #1lib1ref, Wikisource workshop Netherlands report: Historical Maps; Share your Data on colonial heritage; Knowledge platform for heritage institutions Serbia report: Amazing results of the January #1Lib1Ref campaign Sweden report: Medieval ballads; Project HBTQI Switzerland report: 50 Years Women's Suffrage in Switzerland & More UK report: Khalili Collections USA report: Black History Month and Smithsonian anniversary WMF GLAM report: Project Grants, Analytics for GLAMs, and Shared Citations 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.

Your behavior at TfD right now falls well within attempting to bludgeon the process to death, and you're not going to get anywhere with your current methodology and actions at TfD. Please carefully read

I have read, and re-read,

WP:BLUDGEONING and I am happy that my comments do not violate it - Xeno explains it well in this comment

. You will also note that my most recent comment (my only one in over a day) was not "arguing with a delete voter" (or even a person (it's not a vote) advocating keep, I am in favour of deleting the templates) but expressing a view in a valid meta-discussion.

If you believe the templates should not be deleted your time would be better spent actually refuting the arguments made in favour of deletion rather than complaining about being asked to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, to note, I am not here to discuss the merits of keep/delete. I am not even interested in doing so. I solely made this comment to ask you to correct your behavior. As for you claiming otherwise, I will note I reviewed and read through your arguments before writing this warning, and firmly believe you are doing what I stated. There is a limit to how much people want to repeat themselves to explain somethin'. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 00:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding on the linked comment: a charge of bludgeoning (a behaviour covered by

WP:DE

) cannot be simply based on the number or volume of edits, it needs to be judged based on the disruptive character of those comments.

To force someone to restrict themselves to a certain number of edits or kilobytes is a risk to the consensus process (and unfair to chronic copyeditors who submit instead of preview! =).

In such a regime, irrational "votes" can overwhelm the process and disenfranchise participants if individuals can be said to have used up their right of reply and overstayed their welcome by comment volume alone without other evidence of disruption (IDHT, wikilawyering, etc.) being evidenced as well - which I don’t think can be said here.

Also- this is a hobby; concision is hard: I apologize that this comment is long because I did not have time to make it short. –xeno^talk 00:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at

Hi Thryduulf, I was very glad to see your suggestion for a more descriptive name for ArbCom-authorized DS and community-authorized GS that doesn't include the word "sanction". This definitely has been on my mind for some time now. What are some alternatives that you would like? So far, I've come up with "special enforcement areas/zones", "topic areas under heightened scrutiny". I want to emphasize the what (this is a topic under scrutiny, tread carefully) more than the process (admins have additional discretion etc., which is less likely to be relevant for most editors who see a DS banner). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@L235: I shared all my best suggestions to date in my comment in the consultation, "topics under heightened scrutiny" isn't great but isn't bad, I don't like "zones". "Supplemental scrutiny topics" or "additional scrutiny topics" get the same across a bit more succinctly. Thryduulf (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thryduulf

Wondered if you could help with a WP:BLPTALK issue? On the talkpage of Northern Independence Party, an accusation of anti-semitism has been made against a living individual by an IP. They were challenged for a source, and the one provided is a Jewish Chronicle article which stated (correctly) that the individual was anti-zionist, but did not accuse him of anti-semitism. I am concerned that this violates BLPTALK and that it is potentially libellous under British law (where I reasonably believe both parties to be resident). Is there any way to delete this edit from the page and the record, and what procedure must be followed? I have also raised this at Swarm's page as I consider it probably urgent, so which ever of you see it first is welcome to advise. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:OVERSIGHT), which I'll do on your behalf now. Thryduulf (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks, wasn't sure what to do. All the best. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021). Administrator changes

Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS

Guideline and policy news

• Following a
  subcriterion a
  has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
• Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.

Technical news

• When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
• Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)

Arbitration

• A
  discretionary sanctions procedure
  is open until April 25.

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: Language and linguistics request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

Hey! I saw that you expressed interest in my new tool. It is hard for me the judge the nature of this interest from that diff, but if you've been following my talk page, you may have seen the videos I posted showing five ways the tool can be used. Do any of these uses interest you? And if so, would you like to try to tool out? Sam at Megaputer (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in following what happens with your trial, but I don't meet the requirements to be part of it. I haven't seen the videos yet and I'm not in a position to view them right now, but I'll take a look and offer any feedback I have when I can. Thryduulf (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And if I don't start picking up volunteers soon, I may have to lower the barrier to entry. We'll see how it goes Sam at Megaputer (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is you're opinion on so called "backdoor" emptying categories in order to get them deleted under C1? I'm asking because I know in the past you have pointed out about pages getting deleted "out of process" being problematic since there's no way for other users to check etc. There was a discussion last year at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive 19#Where does it actually say you should not just empty a category you don't like? on this. There did seem to be consensus that if a category gets emptied because the pages didn't belong in the category that's OK and I'd also give an example of Category:Unparished areas in Northamptonshire that I created last year, it seems this year all the unparished areas have been parished (but the OS doesn't show this yet) so that being emptied was probably OK. I'm rather mixed on if it should be allowed or not, one side of me says its acceptable under BRD since if the category was only recently created or its deletion doesn't seem controversial its probably OK as long as the category is small. The other side of me says deleting categories should be discussed at CFD and indeed can be backdoor. I did however recommend that an editor can demand a full CFD if they object to a category being emptied even if newly created. I do feel (as I noted in the discussion) that if people feel emptying categories to get them deleted under C1 is generally inappropriate the best thing would be to repeal C1 and require all empty categories to go through CFD. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't do a lot of work with categories, so I'm not not the best person to ask this question of. However, in general if there are good faith objections to a speedy deletion nomination (for any reason) then speedy deletion must not be used and it should go to the relevant XfD. I haven't looked at the specific examples you've given, but if there are no articles about unparished areas in Northamptonshire because there are no longer any such areas, then I don't see why it would be problematic to delete the category for them. I have no opinion about the general utility of CSD criterion C1, but the general presumption is that it is the responsibility of the person wanting to change the status quo to demonstrate the need for/benefits from change. Thryduulf (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM – Volume XI, Issue III, March 2021 Headlines AfLIA Wikipedia in African Libraries report: Wikipedia in African Libraries Albania report: Wiki Loves Folklore 2021; I edit Wikipedia Brazil report: The Brazilian House is the theme of new GLAM dissemination activities Finland report: Enriching indigenous items in Wikidata Germany report: A virtual exhibition on 20 years of Wikipedia Netherlands report: Wikimedians in Residence for Media Art Project LIMA, Wikimedia and libraries, Wikimedia training related to shared heritage Sweden report: GLAM in Sweden in March UK report: Leeds Museums & Galleries, the British Library and the Khalili Collections USA report: Women's History Month in the US WMF GLAM report: Media Search, Image Suggestion API, and Project Grants 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.

Hello, I've just read the edit comment you left here about not inserting blank lines between colon-indented comments. Would my reading of the Accessibility#Lists section of the Manual of Style, that an acceptable solution for separating comments is to insert a line with the same number of colons, be correct? Quite a lot of the blank lines you removed were from among other editors' comments and weren't inserted by me, at least consciously. Do you know whether those lines actually appeared as the result of my editing?     ←   ZScarpia   12:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that markup like

::Paragraph 1

::

::Paragraph 2

Is not preferred and I've seen other editors removing the blank lines. Whether that is for screen readers or some other reason I'm not certain. If you want to separate paragraphs like that, then using Paragraph 1<p>Paragraph 2 is better. From memory, I tagged you as you appeared to intentionally insert the blank lines while others were not clearly added intentionally but I've not checked again. Thryduulf (talk) 12:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, using the colon technique doesn't work: a blank line doesn't appear in the output. If I'd wanted to insert a blank line to separate out this reply from your comment, what would be acceptable ways of doing it? I'm assuming that just inserting blank lines around comments are no more acceptable than inserting them within. When I clicked on Preview, the Wikipedia parser(?) itself added in a blank spacing line; when I irst added this reply, it followed on directly from your previous comment. I suspect that may be the root cause of the problem: the parser adds space where I don't want it and deletes it from where I do. After performing previews, I usually re-format spacing back to the way I want it, which is why I add blank lines.     ←   ZScarpia   13:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should not be adding blank lines for any reason. If indentation is not enough (although I don't recall ever encountering that) then use <p> or <br> markup. Thryduulf (talk) 13:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I note that MOS:Accessibility#Lists says: "Do not use line breaks to simulate paragraphs, because they have different semantics." (the spacing line before this reply was again inserted there by the 'parser', not me)     ←   ZScarpia  

The technique described above by Thryduulf at 12:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC) is recommended by RexxS (talk · contribs) and approved by Graham87 (talk · contribs). That's good enough for me. What is not acceptable is leaving lines that are completely blank in the edit window. Semantically, this

::Paragraph 1
::
::Paragraph 2

makes three items in one list (itself nested in the single item of another list), the second item being empty (and which is filtered out by the MediaWiki servers, so it never reaches your browser), whereas this

::Paragraph 1

::Paragraph 2

makes (i) one item in one list (itself nested in the single item of another list); (ii) one item in one list (itself nested in the single item of another list) - in this case the two outer lists are separate, and semantically unrelated. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect

]

King killed by a red hot poker

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect

As for RfDs on redirects you created, such as "British King who has his head cut off", "British King who abdicated", and such, I will still have the RfD running but I would commit myself to cease any new commenting (I might still refactor myself, but you may roll them back if you see it as too far), and I ask that you stop new comments on my existing points, too, unless it is a refactoring. In a reverted edit I refactored a few statements of mine regarding your redirects, so as to reduce my pointiness. I hope that you may do the same.

If in the future (until a time we both agree) I see one of your redirects, and I see it as

I hope that this no-fault, voluntary agreement will be a good middle ground for our compromise, as well as a good start for seeking a consensus (RfC maybe?) about the fate of such redirects. At the end, we both just want Wikipedia to improve. Let's compromise,

• FWIW, when I reverted the refactorings I hadn't seen this comment. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 00:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. I assume good faith,
    talk) (formerly DePlume) 00:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • @
      NotReallySoroka: I've seen this. I'm not awake enough to properly respond right now, but I will do so before editing the RfD discussions again. Thryduulf (talk) 03:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • I have refactored it a bit more. --
        talk) (formerly DePlume) 04:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Two heads up, sir:

1. I believe that I have demonstrated my willingness to abide by the above terms, seeing that I have made no new comments at the RfDs.
2. I have retired and is currently waiting for a self block (User talk:Bishonen#Applying for Release to Elsewhere) Please take a look at my request, grant it (if you do not mind and if you can choose to not recuse over that), and take a note at user page where I talked more about my retirement.

Thank you for your contribution,

talk) (formerly DePlume) 16:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry, I've been rather busy away from Wikipedia yesterday and today so I've not had chance to look in detail. I'm hoping to get time this evening. Thryduulf (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

NotReallySoroka: I continue to reject your assertion that my actions were at all POINTY but I accept your apology regarding the apparent targetting (and yes, I was too firm in my assertion in that regard). I do intend to continue refuting what I see as incorrect arguments at the RfD and will not be editing my old comments, but if you do not make any new comments I will not be responding to you. Thryduulf (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

If the only reason for deletion was G5 (i.e. it wasn't also a copyvio or something like that) then I see absolutely no reason why a refund would be denied if the requested was explicitly prepared to accept responsibility. After all G5 is a "may" delete not a "must" delete situation, and if a user in good standing believes they are beneficial to the encyclopaedia then we should not delete (or undelete) the content. If the content is simple though (something you can easily recreate without much effort) then it's usually going to be less drama all round just to recreate it.
If a REFUND request has been declined and you still want the content undeleted then you can make a request at DRV. Thryduulf (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what happened was yesterday a sockpuppet who was very prolific in the area of Asian pop was identified and all of their pages were tagged CSD G5s. I deleted the ones where they were the sole contributor, untagged the ones where there were multiple contributors, but several editors who also work on content creation in this area objected to the deletions, one after the pages were tagged and today after the articles had been deleted. I've restored stale drafts and contested PRODs before but I hadn't encountered a challenge on a CSD G5 so this was a new one for me. Some editors have extremely strong feelings about obliterating all the work of sockpuppets so I just was looking for a confirmation or explanation, both of which you provided. Thank you, Thryduulf. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thryduulf. I asked a question at

Firstly it sounds odd that an RM would find consensus to usurp a redirect if the links to that redirect were intended for a different topic - was this brought up in the discussion? If it did however, then yes the links should be updated and a hatnote added to the page now at the redirect. It wouldn't surprise me if there was a tool that could mass update the links but I've never used one myself, maybe

WP:BOTREQ will get an answer. Thryduulf (talk) 11:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

For context the specific redirect I mean is

WP:CR. I could probably BRFA a bot to update the incoming links I guess, but I was assuming RMs that might result in the context of existing incoming links changing isn't an uncommon use case (eg when a page is disambiguated) so a tool might already exist for something like this? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh, I just realised it's at RfD now (Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_21#Wikipedia:CR). I guess this can take a pause for now till there's a consensus there. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for actually pulling the trigger on this one, which should have been done two relists ago. I don't like drama or the spotlight - hence why I edit as an IP address - but I was prepared to close the discussion myself as no consensus if there was another useless relist. I'm glad to see that no such thing had to happen. I hope you will be equally bold against equally useless relists in the future, when I don't have a similar stake. Have a nice day. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 22:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).

Administrator changes

Enchanter • Carlossuarez46

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, consensus was found that third party appeals are allowed but discouraged.
• Consensus was found in a previous RfC
  for a community based desysop procedure, though the procedure proposed in the 2021 RfC did not gain consensus.

Technical news

• The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.

Arbitration

• The
  discretionary sanctions procedure
  was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.

This Month in GLAM – Volume XI, Issue IV, April 2021 Headlines Albania report: WikiGap 2021; Workshop “When State Security was engaged in Science”; Women in STEM; International Roma Day Edit-a-thon Australia report: A Wealth of Wiki Women Belgium report: Projects by Wikimedia Belgium Brazil report: Festa da Wiki-Lusofonia celebrates Wikipedia 20 Czech Republic report: WikiGap 2021 report DRCongo report: WMDRC - UG report: Wikipedia in library Estonia report: Finding new ways of making art visible + 360° panoramas of Estonian museums Finland report: Saami place names France report: Journée Wikimédia Culture et numérique 2021; French open content report Germany report: Northern Exposure for cultural heritage data India report: Proofread competition on Bengali Wikisource in collaboration with British Library Indonesia report: Wikisource Competition 2021; Museum Daerah Deli Serdang is now on Commons Italy report: A Wikipedian in residence at the Civic Museum of Modena: report Netherlands report: WikiVrijdagen with Atria and IHLIA, Wikimedians in Residence will increase the visibility of media art on Wikipedia, Wikimedia training: shared heritage, Papiamentu and Papiamento: Wikipedia is up and ready to go! New Zealand report: West Coast WikiCon and Performing Arts Aotearoa Serbia report: Great impact of cooperations Spain report: New partnerships Sweden report: More music; Enriching GLAM photos with SDC; Swedish GLAM survey Switzerland report: GLAMhack 2021 & more UK report: University of Edinburgh Library Wikimedia Community of Interest; Khalili Collections; British Library USA report: The Met, Smithsonian, and a busy Edit-a-thon season Wikipedia Library report: Fostering Connections: Wikimedia and Libraries Global Meetup Wikimedia and Libraries User Group report: Extended Date Time Format for Wikibase WMF GLAM report: Wikimedia Hackathon, Product Updates, and Office Hours Calendar: May'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.

Your feedback is requested at

Could you please cease

Suggesting you are ignoring policy when all the evidence points to you ignoring policy is not a personal attack. If you want to me to comment on your arguments then you have to actually present some that are not just repetition of the arguments multiple people have commented on multiple times already. Thryduulf (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree obviously. In fact it seems to me to be the other way around. And it's a behavioural problem IMO. Andrewa (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course free to disagree with the evidence but doing so does not change the evidence, nor does it turn a factual statement into a personal attack. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thryduulf/archive23: We wanted to THANK YOU for expressing your support in our grant application to develop Web2Cit: Visual Editor for Citoid Web Translators and for volunteering to take part in the project. We have great news to share: our proposal has been approved! In the following weeks, we will be processing some paperwork and refining our next steps for this project. We aim to give updates so you can follow the development of the project and you can understand when and how you can contribute! But for now, we wanted to thank you and invite you to celebrate with us! Both Diegodlh and myself are very thankful for your support. --Scann (talk) 12:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

I'm letting you know in advance about a meeting I'd like to invite you to regarding the Universal Code of Conduct and the community's ownership of its future enforcement. I'm still in the process of putting together the details, but I wanted to share the date with you: 27 June, 2021. I do not have a time on this date yet, but I will let you soon. We have created a meta page with basic information. Please take a look at the meta page and sign up your name under the appropriate section.

Thank you for your time.--BAnand (WMF) 02:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I believe this deletion is not a valid application of G4; the article needed to go to AfD, or have the deletion declined outright. The version you deleted had 19 references; 15 of those date from after the AfD; it is in no way "sufficiently identical" to the version deleted at AfD. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of those references addressed the reasons why it was deleted at the AfD, but I'll restore it and send it to AfD (it might take me a few minutes though). Thryduulf (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: now at AfD - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Munawar Faruqui (2nd nomination). Thryduulf (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will attempt to examine the coverage later. I want to note that my count of the sources was mistaken; some of those are retrieval dates, not publication dates; but there are, nonetheless, later sources, so the substance of my point stands, I believe. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).

Administrator changes

Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless

Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)

Guideline and policy news

• Consensus was reached to deprecate Wikipedia:Editor assistance.
• Following a Request for Comment the Book namespace was deprecated.

Technical news

• Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.

Arbitration

• After a
  Reliable Sources Noticeboard
  to discuss disputed sources.

This Month in GLAM – Volume XI, Issue V, May 2021 Headlines AfLIA Wikipedia in African Libraries report: A busy month at AfLIA Argentina report: Museum, Archives and Libraries on May Armenia report: Presence of Museums in Wiki Projects Australia report: Librarians unite across Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand for 1Lib1Ref Brazil report: Wiki Loves Bahia: 2021 is the year of Bahia on Wikipedia in Portuguese Côte d'Ivoire report: Glam-wiki 2021 29 May in Côte d'Ivoire India report: Collaboration continues with British Library Indonesia report: #1lib1ref in Indonesia; Online talk show with Wikimedia Nederland Italy report: Conference, webinar and projects Kosovo report: National Gallery of Kosovo Collection now on Wikidata Netherlands report: Over 15,000 images available from Elsinga Collection, 1.9 million records on slavery and slave trade digitally accessible New Zealand report: A busy month in Aotearoa North Macedonia report: GLAM activities of GLAM Macedonia Serbia report: A month in the sign of edit-a-thons Spain report: Viquiprojecte:Muixeranga Sweden report: Working with UN Human Rights; Aftermath to the fiddler competition; Music manuscripts from the 18th century; Digital visions; Should museums work with Wikipedia?; Wikidata project with museums has results Switzerland report: Strengthening GLAM Partnerships Uganda report: Wikipedia for Museums in Uganda UK report: British Library, Khalili Collections USA report: Hackathon outputs, data roundtripping and Asian American heritage Special story: Wikimedia Hackathon report: Upgrading GLAM tech tools and PAWS Wikisource report: Indic Wikisource community online gathering WMF GLAM report: Grants and conferences Wiki World Heritage User Group report: May's report Calendar: June'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.

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

Earlier this year, the Editing team ran a large study of the Reply Tool. The main goal was to find out whether the Reply Tool helped newer editors communicate on wiki. The second goal was to see whether the comments that newer editors made using the tool needed to be reverted more frequently than comments newer editors made with the existing wikitext page editor.

The key results were:

• Newer editors who had automatic ("default on") access to the Reply tool were more likely to post a comment on a talk page.
• The comments that newer editors made with the Reply Tool were also less likely to be reverted than the comments that newer editors made with page editing.

These results give the Editing team confidence that the tool is helpful.

Looking ahead

The team is planning to make the Reply tool available to everyone as an opt-out preference in the coming months. This has already happened at the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedias.

The next step is to resolve a technical challenge. Then, they will deploy the Reply tool first to the Wikipedias that participated in the study. After that, they will deploy it, in stages, to the other Wikipedias and all WMF-hosted wikis.

You can turn on "Discussion Tools" in Beta Features now. After you get the Reply tool, you can change your preferences at any time in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk)

00:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I am just writing to you as an uninvolved admin. Something a bit weird has gone on here, it's an article about an Argentine department which theoretically covers the Falklands and all sorts of other excellent penguin habitats currently administered by the UK. The page has been blanked and replaced by a redirect to a subsection of the Province of Tierra del Fuego page which does not include the deleted text.

Am I right in thinking this should not have been done without a deletion discussion? --Boynamedsue (talk) 07:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or merge I suppose...Boynamedsue (talk) 07:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was just a bold edit. If you disagree you can revert it like any other edit. I've not got time at the moment to look into the content to see if I agree or disagree with the redirection. Thryduulf (talk) 10:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks, have reverted. Without getting into the content of this particular article, what are the criteria that mean you have to do an AfD rather than just blanking and redirecting the page to a subsection of another article? Boynamedsue (talk) 10:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the title is a useful search term for content elsewhere then redirect it, if you don't or if you believe there is some reason the history should be deleted, then use prod or AfD. If you think redirection will be controversial, then you should usually discuss it first but it's not mandatory (i.e. it's the same as any other bold edit). Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at

Hello Thryduulf, I was intrigued to see your use of <br><!--¶--> in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steam locomotive components – I haven't seen <br> and <!--¶--> used before in this way. Could you let me know how it works and what is the advantage over a simple <br />? Thank you.  :-) DAHall (talk) 13:37, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The <br> adds line breaks while avoiding

WP:LISTGAPs. the comment around the linebreak makes the source easier to read as it gives visual sepraration of paragraphs. It's pretty common in template code. Thryduulf (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

–– Thank you for that. Excellent! DAHall (talk) 12:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where do the pilcrows come in? Which edit is this about? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: The edit concerned is this one, the pilcrows are only on this page (my talkpage) and are being used to represent the linebreaks in my original comment. Thryduulf (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so not pilcrows, and not <br /> tags but actually newlines. Have you seen User talk:Isaacl/Archive 3#Thank you for two neat methods? One near the start of Floq's post, the other in the second half of the thread. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both methods noted there are new to me. Thryduulf (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... for what you said on User talk:SlimVirgin - missing pictured on my talk, with music full of hope and reformation --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).

Administrator changes Trialpears AGK • Eliz81 • Mulad • ThaddeusB • Vianello • Who Lacrimosus → Ikuzaf Interface administrator changes Ragesoss

CheckUser changes AGK • DGG Oversighter changes AGK

Guideline and policy news

• WP:REFUND
  even after the namespace is removed.
• An
  TFAs
  .

Technical news

• IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.

Arbitration

• The community authorised
  COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion
  at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.

Your feedback is requested at

]

This Month in GLAM: June 2021

This Month in GLAM – Volume XI, Issue VI, June 2021 Headlines AfLIA Wikipedia in African Libraries report: African Librarians Week 2021 Albania report: CEE Spring Campaign in Albania and Kosovo Argentina report: A course on opening cultural collections Belgium report: Edit-a-thons with Wiki Women Design Brazil report: A metadata roundtripping model for museums France report: European Archaeology Days; Edit-a-thon in Romanity Museum Guinea report: GLAM with Harmattan Guinée 15 June 2021 in Conakry Italy report: Festival and edit-a-thon dedicated to the world of archives Netherlands report: Training at Het Nieuwe Instituut in Rotterdam; training for Suriname and the Dutch Caribbean has concluded New Zealand report: Making artists visible Serbia report: Wikidata development and culture of Rudnik and Takovo region Spain report: Museums writing challenge and Viquimarató Carmelina Sánchez-Cutillas Sweden report: Free music; Kulturarv som gymnasiearbete; Statistics Sweden – now as open data; KTH library training Switzerland report: Diversity in GLAM Program Uganda report: Wikipedia for Museums in Uganda UK report: British Library and Khalili Collections Ukraine report: #1Lib1Ref in Ukrainian Wikipedia USA report: Meetup/CCCCWI; Vaccine Safety Wikipedia Edit-a-thon; WikiWednesday Salon; San Diego Wiknic; Black Lunch Table / Black visual artists Special story: Play, experiment and cross borders at Hack4OpenGLAM Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons report: OpenRefine starts Structured Data on Commons development and is searching for two developers WMF GLAM report: Conferences and Structured data modeling Calendar: July'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.

The consensus is we don't name the dead or survivors of aviation disasters unless they have a WP article. Here are just some of the many discussions-

• Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Northwest_Airlines_Flight_255#Should_Cecelia_Cichan_be_mentioned_by_name?
• Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1943_Gibraltar_B-24_crash#Question
• Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Galaxy_Airlines_Flight_203
• Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Aviation_accident_task_force#Here_we_go_again-_Munich_air_disaster
• Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pakistan_International_Airlines_Flight_705 Go to section Names of victims and survivors.

Plus see ANI discussions here[1] and here[2]. Most of those discussions took place in the last two years. There is one exception- the cockpit crew of the aircraft(s) involved....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:28, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know why you felt the need to leave this message on my talk page rather than in the RfD discussion I presume you're referencing and where you should direct all future comments, but none of what you said makes the slightest difference to my opinion. The place to discuss article content is AfD not RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Sweetener. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 26#Sweetener until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. UserTwoSix (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).

Administrator changes BusterD Kees08 • Nickshanks • Protonk • Schissel • Ultraexactzz • Wknight94

CheckUser changes TheresNoTime Oversighter changes TheresNoTime ST47

Guideline and policy news

• An
  G13
  speedy deletions.

Technical news

• Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)

Arbitration

• Following an
  requested move discussions
  .

Miscellaneous

• You can vote for candidates in the 2021 Board of Trustees elections from 4 August to 17 August. Four community elected seats are up for election.

Hi, I'm hosting an online meetup this Saturday;

@

Rubbish computer: thank you for the invite but I'm not around this weekend and also really don't enjoy video calls (even social ones) which is why I've not been to any of the ones over the past year. Please do ping me when things start happening in person again though. Thryduulf (talk) 23:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@Tom (LT): Normally I'd say no problem at all, but I really don't have time at the moment and likely wont until the week after next. Please ping me again then if that's not too late for you. Thryduulf (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of trying to publish it in the late September signpost, so we certainly have enough time. I'll recontact you in a few weeks. Thanks for volunteering. Tom (LT) (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ping to Thryduulf now that it's been a few weeks. That went by quickly! Tom (LT) (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tom (LT): I'll take a look in the next couple of days. Thryduulf (talk) 00:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM – Volume XI, Issue VII, July 2021 Headlines Albania report: Collaboration with the New Vision Organization in Tirana; Summer of Wikivoyage Campaign 2021 Australia report: Representation and erasure: opportunities and risks that Wikipedia presents for First Nations knowledges Brazil report: A wikicontest to celebrate and make visible the state of Bahia India report: Rabimas proofread contest ends on Bengali Wikisource New Zealand report: New Zealand holds its second Wikimedia conference, and a performing arts Wikiproject gathers steam Serbia report: New chances for GLAM success Sweden report: Photos of Childrens theatre UK report: A Thousand Images of Islam, British Library Updates USA report: Smithsonian Wiki Focus: Black Women in Food History; San Diego 73; Black Lunch Table Black artists WMF GLAM report: A conversation about depicts and Structured Data on Commons Calendar: August'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.

Your feedback is requested at

]

Precious anniversary

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at

I am in no way making light of the overall situation. But I just thought I should tell you that reading your comments made me think of the Parrot sketch.  : ) - jc37 02:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like. Thryduulf (talk) 03:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).

Administrator changes

Jake Wartenberg

Emperor • Viridian Bovary

Ashleyyoursmile → Viridian Bovary

Guideline and policy news

• Feedback is requested on the Universal Code of Conduct enforcement draft by the Universal Code of Conduct Phase 2 drafting committee.
• A
  high-risk templates
  .
• A discussion is open to decide when, if ever, should discord logs be eligible for removal when posted onwiki (including whether to oversight them)
• A
  TFAs
  has resulted in a 30 day trial of automatic semi protection for TFAs.

Technical news

• The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is in progress to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. Comments and new proposals are welcome.

Miscellaneous

• The 2021 RfA review is now open for comments.

I have also sent

Thank you for the note. I agree with you about 001 and 004, and I'm also not sure about 003 - probably it's worth a discussion at

WT:UKT. Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

This Month in GLAM: August 2021

This Month in GLAM – Volume XI, Issue VIII, August 2021 Headlines Albania report: Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos (WPWP) Campaign in Albania and Kosovo Australia report: How Australian libraries are turning to Wikipedia during the global pandemic Brazil report: Transbordados: WikidataCon's preconference for Latin America discusses GLAM and decolonization Côte d'Ivoire report: Glam-wiki 2021 10 Juillet en Côte d'Ivoire France report: Wikimedian in residence; Some projects for this autumn India report: Second proofread competition starts on Bengali Wikisource in collaboration with the British Library Italy report: Summer school in July and two new WiR in August Netherlands report: 50 cool new things you can now do with KB’s collection highlights, and New old photographs of Algeria, Mali and Morocco by Angeline van Achterberg New Zealand report: A Wikimedian at New Zealand Opera Serbia report: Villas and castles of Serbia Sweden report: History, history and future UK report: Khalili Collections reaches 30 articles USA report: Wiki salons and Kearny Mesa Special story: Hack4OpenGLAM is ready to start Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons report: OpenRefine starts SDC development WMF GLAM report: GLAM conversations and feedbacks for a better Wikimedia movement 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.

Done. Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 20:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On a slightly different note, I really regret doing that summary the other month that may have killed Word Before Last. Can you please ignore it and carry on doing 2 at a time? Its annoying I cannot undo it. Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 20:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In an attempt to not spend all my wiki time on word association, I'm only playing the exclusively grid-based games so I've not looked at Word Before Last in months, maybe years. Thryduulf (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do you close Patchwork? Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 19:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Same way as Ultra. Get a permalink and make a note of it, note the starting and ending words, and record all three in the intro. Then replace the grid with a clean one (I should have put one on the talk page), making any changes to the patches you desire (if you do this, put a clean copy of your design on the talk page). Pick a start word at random. Thryduulf (talk) 19:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't you have to make note of all the finishing words in the individual patches? Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 19:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish, but anyone wanting to see that can probably look at the completed grid just as easily. Thryduulf (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at

I removed Shock Waves (film) from the two blue squares [3], because it already existed in the main grid. Take care. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

doh! Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).

Administrator changes Blablubbs Alvestrand • Black Falcon • Deathphoenix • Dppowell • Mark Arsten • JGHowes (deceased)

Oversighter changes Callanecc Mkdw Interface administrator changes Galobtter

Guideline and policy news

• Following
  high-risk templates
  .
• Following a discussion at the Village Pump, there is consensus to treat discord logs the same as IRC logs. This means that discord logs will be oversighted if posted onwiki.

Technical news

• DiscussionTools has superseded Enterprisey's reply-link script. Editors may switch using the "Discussion tools" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features.

Arbitration

• A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
• Following the closure of the
  are authorized
  for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
• The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.

Miscellaneous

• Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
• The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.

You spelled fourth amendment wrong. Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 16:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bugger. Not much I can do about it now though. Thryduulf (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just took another look and saw it was a simple typo "amendmenn to" instead of "amendment to" that I've just fixed. Thryduulf (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the RfD for Vitamin E oil was closed as delete, but a "page with this name was deleted" notice does not appear for me at the original page. I think this might be particularly useful in this case given that the close left the door open for future scenarios where the redirect could be recreated, so reference to the previous RfD would be informative. Cheers! Mdewman6 (talk) 17:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdewman6: I accidentally suppress-deleted it rather than just deleting it. I unsuppressed it, but it seems that there isn't a deletion log entry to unsuppress (or at least I couldn't find one) so I guess that's why the message wasn't displaying? Anyway, I restored it and deleted it again referencing the RfD so the link is there now. Thryduulf (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! Mdewman6 (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at

• 85.67.32.244 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

[CC: Tavix] I've found this user's contributions at RfD largely helpful, even if we've disagreed a few times, but something clicked today: Hungarian IP owned by Digicable. Speaks fluent English. Interested in the UK. Seems at least somewhat familiar with French. Makes lots of repeated edits to their comments. Arguably "deletionist" bent regarding misspellings. Engineering background. Remind either of y'all of anyone? Or am I just seeing ghosts from too much time at SPI? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but I'm not seeing the chatty asides or comments about non-English languages or diacritics. Unless Tavix feels otherwise, I'd be inclined to just keep and eye on them for now, especially as their contributions at RfD currently mostly constructive. Thryduulf (talk) 09:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We do have a chatty aside at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 27#New York City station (Grand Central Terminal), and comments about non-English languages at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 6#Wanasur. I will say though, he usually gives himself away with incoherent rambles and I'm impressed he has kept that under control if it is in fact him. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, those comments on the New York redirect are quite reminiscent but the Wanasur comment about Indian languages feels off somehow, but I can't explain why. One thing with him though was that his behaviour always did run in cycles, almost like a manic depressive - at times he'd be calm, rational and helpful while at other times he'd get a bee in his bonnet about something and he'd fill RfD with tangentially relevant (at best) rambles (to be clear I'm not suggesting that as a cause, just using it as an analogy). Thryduulf (talk) 13:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

​Well, I'll defer to y'all then. I only know the case from digging through archives. I'll let y'all know if I see anything that tips the balance in the direction you're talking about. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 5 I see a lot of small changes to comments and coming back to make more after some hours, which is another thing that was not uncommon for them, and they described themselves as an Englishman on one discussion (I forget which) - the same nationality as Mr Trew. I'm not ready to call it a duck just yet, and any checkuser info will be long stale, but I'm leaning more towards that way. Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody stand back. I know regular expressions.

Was looking at the Wikipedia Library RfD and saw something that made me think, "I bet that's a distinctive quirk": Striking (or in this case humorously pre-striking) part of a comment using <s>single word</s><u>single word</u>, no space in between. Everyone has their own particular way of doing that sort of thing, but omitting a space there is relatively uncommon; and the humorous pre-strike I usually don't see on Wikipedia (more of a Discord/reddit/etc. thing). So I ran a regex search. Of the 11 instances of someone using this pattern:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 5 § List of rights-related basic topics, DeleteKeep: SimonTrew
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 3 § Manual geomorphological modification implement, articleessay: SimonTrew
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 22 § Murda Land, citiesplaces: SimonTrew
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 9 § Wave 4, your wish is my commandent (humorously pre-struck): SimonTrew
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 17 § NRJ Games, CommentDelete: AngusWOOF
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 31 § First photograph of the whole illuminated Earth taken from space, Apollo 17, resulting in the famous "Blue Marble" photograph, said to have been at least partly responsible for launching the modern environmental movement., CommentDelete: AngusWOOF
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 18 § Floof, Weak retarget per AngusFLWOOF (humorously pre-struck): 94.21.10.195 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), which is Trew per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SimonTrew/Archive § 10 October 2020. (See NRP's rangeblock.)
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 3 § U+1F614, firstsecond choice: J947
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 14 § 3.11 (hey, you and I are both in this one), TRFDed: Hijiri88
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 6 § Jamie Spears, overridingcontesting: AngusWOOF
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 5 § Wikipedia Library, butcheredit (humorously pre-struck): 85.67.32.244. The one that caught my attention.

Well, I think we can safely rule Angus, J947, and Hijiri above suspicion. What we have in total, then, is evidence that only two people regularly use this format at RfD, and that only one of them ever uses it for something other than actually amending a !vote or correcting an error. On its own I don't think this would be enough to block, but this means we now have a geographical/ISP connection (Hungary, Digi Communications; see also Special:Diff/982879450), an area-of-interest connection (RfD), a background connection (engineer from England), a commenting-style connection (frequent edits), and a writing-quirk connection (this). Personally if this came to me at SPI that would be enough for me to recommend a block (although in fairness I wouldn't clerk this case since I'm a bit too close to involved for comfort). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 09:22, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see I'm above suspicion. :) — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 03:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking in on this, since they're continuing to edit. I'm happy to take this to SPI instead if you're busy. Or to dig for more behavioral similarities if you're not busy but are still on the fence. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 15:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to take it to SPI if you want. Chances are it'll be a couple of days at least before I get a chance to dig any deeper unless there is a new smoking gun edit. Thryduulf (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You missed my moaning yesterday, on a similar matter. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: I was looking forward to joining you but then something came up and then something else came up it ended up just not happening. Please ping me when the next in-person meetup happens. Thryduulf (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin and Tavix: and at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 15#Deathtoengue we have ranting about Eubot and an admission they've been involved in previous discussions about it, which combined with the decreasing sense of many of their comments has removed all lingering doubts I had. If I didn't feel so involved with them in a couple of discussions, especially Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 12#Department of Administration I'd be blocking myself. Would one of you like to do the honours at SPI so someone uninvolved can do the admin work - It'll take me far longer and I'm not likely to do as good a job as I hardly ever post there. Thryduulf (talk) 22:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that seals the deal. This is damning as well. Obvious ducks are obvious, so I have blocked. I will note at SPI for the record. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SimonTrew. Now time for the clean-up. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tavix, thrown in User:Spinach2021 while you're at it. ;) Drmies (talk) 01:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd already listed that one before the case was archived, Doc. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 15:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tavix, and thanks for documenting at SPI. Filing that SPI has been on my daily to-do list for the past few days, but kept not getting around to it. Want some help on all the striking, or got it yourself? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I've started with the most recent logs at RfD and I am working my way back. Maybe you could start with the RM discussions to prevent potential toe-stepping-on? -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tavix: Got a bunch, also G5'd a draft. Think there's a few more left, but I'll get them tomorrow. I also took a look at their mainspace contribs and concluded I didn't see a benefit to reverting them; of course, any user can still do so if they see fit. P.S. Someone might want to revoke TPA over at User talk:85.67.32.244. Do blocked users send pings? If so, they've sent a fair number. (As it happens, every time they've mentioned my username they've missed one of the requirements for a ping to send, so I can't tell.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 06:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for all that work. Thryduulf (talk) 23:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I could've saved myself some trouble if I'd looked at his contribs more closely. This edit summary from the 1st is all the evidence I really needed (cf. Special:Diff/793409232). But oh well, we got the job done one way or another. :)

It's a shame, though. I think if he and I had been active at RfD at the same time we'd've gotten along. I hope he can work through whatever it is he's gotta work through, rather than keep socking. And if not, I've got a good enough read on him now that I know how to handle the next one at SPI. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have a read through the ANI discussions, especially the one that got him topic banned from RfD. He started out as being a very good (albeit idiosyncratic) contributor at RfD but over time the balance between helpful and unhelpful contributions got worse and worse. It's a real shame as clearly he intends to be benefiting Wikipedia but he needs to learn that Wikipedia is collaborative, the rules do apply to him, and that when we say restrictions are against the individual not the account we do actually mean that. Thryduulf (talk) 01:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've read some of the threads. (I usually do, to know what the priorities are in terms of DENY, BANREVERT, etc.) Ugh. I don't like dealing with "good-faith" sockpuppetry cases; they just depress me. I'd much rather deal with some bigoted vandal or nationalist POV-pusher than someone who thinks they're making the encyclopedia better but isn't. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 15:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM – Volume XI, Issue IX, September 2021 Headlines Albania report: Diaspora Edits Wikipedia Campaign Argentina report: New parnership agreements and more training! Australia report: Preserving paralympic history Belgium report: Wikimedia Belgium GLAM report September 2021 Brazil report: WikidataCon's right around the corner: find out how to participate France report: Wikidata training in Musée de Grenoble Italy report: Call for Italian museums, archives and libraries Kosovo report: Diaspora Edits Wikipedia Campaign Netherlands report: GLAM at WikiconNL2021, ISA-campaign Tag the species Naturalis en Rijksmuseum Serbia report: New WiR and presentation of our activities Spain report: Women Gastronomes Edit-a-thon Sweden report: Kulturhistoria som gymnasiearbete; Uploads from museums in Göteborg; Wiki Loves Monuments; LGBTQIA+ edit-a-thon UK report: British Library and Khalili Collections USA report: New page patrol not assuming good faith towards workshop editors Content Partnerships Hub report: Working towards a thematic hub on content partnerships Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons report: First steps for Wikimedia Commons reconciliation service WMF GLAM report: Updates on grant-funded technical projects 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.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of governors of Texas by age is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of governors of Texas by age until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

List of governors of California by age has also been included in the nomination with List of governors of Texas by age. OCNative (talk) 22:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).

Administrator changes Clpo13 Brian0918 • JDoorjam • Karanacs • MrDarcy • Mindspillage Interface administrator changes Evad37

CheckUser changes Dreamy Jazz • Ferret • GeneralNotability • Girth Summit • RoySmith Oversight changes Dreamy Jazz • LuK3

Guideline and policy news

• Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.

Technical news

• Toolhub is a catalogue of tools which can be used on Wikimedia wikis. It is at https://toolhub.wikimedia.org/.

Arbitration

• GeneralNotability, Mz7 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections. Ivanvector and John M Wolfson are reserve commissioners.
• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves to stand in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections from 07 November 2021 until 16 November 2021.

Miscellaneous

• The
  2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process
  has concluded with the appointment of five new CheckUsers and two new Oversighters.