This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

It seems to be continuing. I pinged you. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm looking at his recent contribs. Cheers, Mark Ironie ( talk) 21:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I am currently interacting with Buffs in several different places. I asked him to please not tag me or address me any further and I believe I have stated twice now that I am uncomfortable interacting with him due to degrading comments about Native Americans (comparing ourrespected community members and groups of members to white supremacists and flat earthers because the majority (he says 'fringe') dare to speak out against appropriation, stereotyping and racism. His tone feels threatening, he seems to be baiting anyone who does not hold his point of view and I feel as though he is trying to bully me off of the pedia. I have interacted with individuals with diverse opinions but have never been met with this type of over the top treatment. I have remained civil and have quoted his harmful remarks back to him specifically but he says that it didn't say it that way to similar responses, I have quoted his words back exactly as they were stated. I also do not think it is to the pedia's benefit to have equate a respected author, who happens to be a tribal judge, to flat earth theorists. I do not know how to proceed to get him to leave me alone because asking him certainly doesn't work. I do not enjoy feeling harassed or targeted not do I enjoy seeing him demean respected individuals. Thank you for your attention to this issue. Indigenous girl ( talk) 23:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, I can not find the civility warning that you gave him or I would have responded there. Indigenous girl ( talk) 23:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm so sorry about Buffs' actions and words. I'm currently weighing options on the best way to approach the situation. He removed the civility warning I put on his talk page with an edit summary of "I've read it" so that is why it is missing. This is his prerogative. I find it disingenuous but it's his talk page. Please let me know if there are any more disturbing interactions with him. Cheers, Mark Ironie ( talk) 05:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Indigenous girl ( talk) 12:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Buffs' Response

The only reason I'm responding here is that I received an alert that I was tagged (clar - I assumed you were asking for my input or you wouldn't have tagged me). I am only going to address the above remarks here. I would respectfully request a response from Mark alone.

1. Mark, you're an admin and should know that the removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Calling it "disingenuous" implies I did something wrong/nefarious and is unnecessarily casting negative aspersions on my actions when none are even implied and such actions are explicitly described by the Wikipedia community as appropriate. Likewise, I don't need an apology from you on my behalf for my actions/words.
2. IG's remarks are inaccurate and, yet, continue to be repeated. We are supposed to comment on content, not contributors, and, yet, she continues to take words and phrases out of context in order to demonize me instead of what was actually said. I've VERY clearly explained that, but to no avail. Both remarks were made as illustrations as to the flaws in their given logic, not remarks directed as comparison with the authors. Rather than address the flaws in their logic, they've decided to use false equivalence and make intentionally misleading statements impugning my character. So, in case it isn't clear...
   • I do not feel now (nor ever have in the past) said or felt that the authors mentioned were in ANY way equivalent to white supremacists
   • I do not feel now (nor ever have in the past) said or felt that the authors mentioned were in ANY way equivalent to flat earthers
   • I do not feel now (nor ever have in the past) said or felt that the opinions of the authors should be discounted because "they dare to speak out against appropriation, stereotyping and racism."

Now, I do NOT believe based on the given evidence at the time that such opinions are widely held among Native Americans regarding the given topics. Even the most prominent controversy regarding the Washington Redskins doesn't have a clear majority opposing its usage among Native Americans and it's been frequently researched/polled. I find it highly doubtful that less-publicized issues suddenly attract a large following, much less a majority. I do NOT dispute that activists exist and that some people disagree/oppose usage in these contexts. I only dispute the accuracy of the claim that it's as widespread as IG and Corbie seem to believe. As such, some of these opinions are being given WP:UNDUE weight. BUT, given evidence, I'm willing to change my mind as well!

In the first situation, given the opinions of a single highly-partisan activist, and interview/analysis of the same activist, a single book, and a personal blog with no editorial controls, I'm basically seeing the opinions of 3 people. None of them cite ANY polling data, just their personal outrage. That these individuals/actions are prominent lends credence to the assertion they are notable, but not to the accuracy of their feelings or whether they speak for a WP:fringe group, a small/vocal minority, a sizable minority, or a strong majority with the given sources. The quality of their argument and the evidence are what matters, not solely that that outrage exists.

For reference: what I actually said (sans the inflammatory descriptions) [1] [2] and the (ignored) further explanation: [3]

IG and Corbie (and IG in particular) have both leveled personal insults toward me/disparaged my contributions and continue to falsely claim things I've done via (intentionally?) inaccurate statements. Edits I've made have been undone with snarky remarks and wholesale reversions accomplished with no attempt to make improvements solely because I disagree with their POV (and not because my edits are inaccurate in any way). IG also stated that I have tried to silence people because they oppose stereotypes/racism. This is loaded language which attempts to demonize me by implying that I support racism. In editing, I recognize there are going to be disagreements; that's inevitable. But with all the snarky remarks by both and with no warnings for civility leveled at them, it feels very much like one-sided threats of a block.

Lastly, it seems that "feelings" appear to be ruling the day when it comes to IG. "I asked him to please not tag me or address me any further", but then she continues to address me/my comments. "I'm uncomfortable [because he said something I didn't like]". Talk pages and discussions are not something where you get to dictate who is/isn't involved. The fact that discussion is "uncomfortable" is precisely because she is choosing to be offended and looking for reasons to be offended. These two are framing statements about logic with examples as racist and stereotyping in order to dismiss any/all opinions I have on the subject at hand and marginalize my discussion. If you want to be on Wikipedia and participate in discussions, you do not have a right to not be offended.

That said, unless specifically addressed, I haven't spoken to IG or Corbie since the 1-strike-and-you're-out warning you placed in my file. Please respond in due course. Buffs ( talk) 18:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Mark, In both instances cited below, IG specifically addressed me by name ("...unless specifically addressed..."), so I responded. The only reason I responded here to Mark was that he tagged me. I have not lied. I've made that case above and I await your reply, Mark. Have a good day. Buffs ( talk) 21:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Moar DARVO

Hi Mark,

Well, Buffs continues to lie about his actions. He's continuing to deny what he said about Natives in the "white supremacy" and "flat earth" diffs: [4] [5] and is continuing with the gaslighting. Here's a timeline on some of the, er, highlights:

Buffs states, falsely, above: " That said, unless specifically addressed, I haven't spoken to IG or Corbie since the 1-strike-and-you're-out warning you placed in my file."

Buffs incivility towards many people really began to cross the line at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Indigenous girl expressed several times that he was making her very uncomfortable before she outright asked him to never contact her again: "As an indigenous person I find the comparison to flat earthers and organized white supremacists to be extremely troubling." 23:10, 26 March 2019. "I do not feel comfortable collaborating with (Buffs) at this point." 12:37, 27 March 2019. "I am not comfortable interacting with you" 16:51, March 27, 2019.

After more disruption at Talk:Order of the Arrow, you gave him: Only warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on Talk:Order of the Arrow. 02:28, 28 March 2019

Indigenous girl asks him to leave her alone, "I did not cite this source. I didn't look at the following page until yesterday...Please do not tag or address me any further. I am uncomfortable interacting with you." 19:11, March 28, 2019

Buffs removes warning edit summary: "I've read it." 21:09, March 28, 2019

Buffs ignores her requests and proceeds to address Indigenous girl yet more, wanting to talk about why he makes her uncomfortable. 21:40, March 28, 2019

And now he does it again, here on this talk page. Following someone to another talk page and saying, "I'm not addressing this to her" and then talking about her, is not a magic formula that stops the harassment. It's just more DARVO. These are only some of the diffs I could gather, and I haven't included his continuing posts at the RS board and OA Talk, which she is ignoring, but still. There are plenty more, as all of us who've had our time and energy wasted over the past few weeks can attest. I also have diffs for how he's continued to address and be incivil to me, but I think you've seen those. I'll post them if you like. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Will both of you stop obsessing about one another and go work on an article? GMG ^talk 21:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

  Truce? We obviously differ on how we see this. I've made my points. You've made yours. Let's let Mark review and address as he sees fit. Buffs ( talk) 21:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

  Your aggressive incivility and your statements about respected, and regular, Native Americans (specifically, Native women) have been, to quote another commenter, reprehensible. Only if you agree to stop editing all Native-related articles. Actually, at this point, I don't even think that would be enough. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

As the other main blocking admin on this sock drawer, I'd like your thoughts on this possible block evasion. I took care of some of them, and you blocked others, including the account with the most similar patterns to a new account that has shown up recently. I'm not sure if this is the last version of the talk at ANI, but if not it's pretty close to it: [6]. This is a discussion I had with Bbb23 along the way, re, it doesn't really matter which drawer we put them in: [7]. So, now we have:

Repeated addition of inappropriate images and inaccurate descriptions to Native American articles, as we saw with Chitt66 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) notably, Chitt's sock: Higher Ground 1 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).

New account, created March 19, 2019: BuckyBeaver2019 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Beaver account has been warned for this and copyvios by myself and Diannaa on usertalk, but just continues with the behaviour without responding. Same disruption, same refusal to engage. I've been doing cleanup, so I'm conferring with you before following my instincts here. Or we could just give them more rope. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The lack of communication on talk pages is a problem. BuckyBeaver2019 made another addition of three images to the article after User:Diannaa put a detailed warning on Bucky's user page. Of the three, two seem to be from flickr with CC-by-2.0 license. The other image, from the Cleveland Museum of Art, has a Creative Commons 1.0 Public Domain. In other words, those were legit and not copyvios. My editorial opinion is the images aren't a good choice for the article and detract from the focus. I'd say Bucky has adjusted from copyvio to legit images since the warning. That is a positive change in behaviour from Diannaa's warning. I think it's too early to bring the block hammer down and not enough history to say they are a duck. So my advice is to wait. Cheers, Mark Ironie ( talk) 22:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree on the waiting. Just giving a heads up. I didn't give a talk page warning after the first disruptive edits, but just cleaned them up along with detailed edit summaries. I should have, along with just reverting it all (read the captions on the first diffs...). I was willing to assume those were the user's first efforts. (It's still possible they were, but...) Then I started noticing the familiar pattern. Too soon to say with certainty, but some feathers are floating by. The main parallel here is not just the copyvios, but the wildly inaccurate captions (saying people live in sweatlodges, that the AIM flag is actually a call to remind Natives to connect with the Earth or somesuch - stuff it sounds like they're just making up). That same sort of odd stuff was being added with the same style and frequency by some of the other socks. That's what really set off the WP:RADAR. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah, now I see the point for the heads up. Yeah, that pattern is very familiar in context. I'll try to keep an eye on this as well. Cheers, Mark Ironie ( talk) 00:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mark Ironie! You created a thread called Editor needs help with citations and reliable sources at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{ bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{ nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot ( talk) 19:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear Mark Ironie, I do not think my user page violates user policies. If it does, please offer suggestions for editing and I will make corrections at my page. I do admit it is very personal. But I have seen other user pages that are also very personal. They are just very fancy due to the owner's computer skills that I lack. They are also very self centered. (Some examples: /info/en/?search=User:Robert_McClenon /info/en/?search=User:CorbieVreccan /info/en/?search=User:Doug_Weller I am only a grunt. I am VERY computer illiterate. All I can do is add text. That is all I know. The LOSS of my darling wife is deeply felt. Especially today on mother's day. We had something very special. Please reply soon. Thanks. Miistermagico ( talk) 17:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear Mark Ironie, I suspect I have been misunderstood. I never suggested another editor as having a "pathological personality disorder". I said a "narcissistic disorder". These and their cause, symptoms, etc. and treatment are very different. When this other editor accused me of (If I understood HIM correctly) of adding books to "further reading" with which I had connections to the publisher (and I guess the author) that had no historic value on the subject of witchcraft, I thought this to be very ODD. My actions were due to a desire for financial gain???? Kick backs?? This is WEIRD!! As one deleted example The Witch of Lime Street: Seance, Seduction, and Houdini in the Spirit World by David Jahner. Houdini's inquiry and exposure of Mina Crandon is unlikely worthless in the study of witchcraft and science. What ever. I do not suggest books to scam bucks. There is something wrong with this picture. Whatever pleasures your fancy tickles me to death. Thanks for NOT banning me from this great encyclopedia. It is very exciting to watch it mature as time passes. Happy Magic. Miistermagico ( talk) 15:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

This article has been deleted, meaning I can no longer retrieve and work on it. It's quite clearly an article based on an existing company, although it may have been lacking references in some areas. However, the bulk of the content was referenced and clearly shows the existence and influence of the company on a global scale.

Having been "speedily deleted" means I can no longer edit the content, I have no guidelines as to how to improve it, and I will have to create a new page from scratch. I think this action was unnecessary and over the top, and I'd like to recover the original. Thank you. Batmansgran ( talk) 06:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

BatmansgranIf you would like a copy of the deleted text, I will send a copy to you via email. For your privacy, do not put the email address here. Go to your user account preferences (link should be at the very top of any page near your name.) Select the User profile tab, page down to Email options and fill in an email. This email is not visible to other users. Once that is set up and confirmed, go to my user page and in the left column will be a link to "Email this user".

My advice on the article if you want to resubmit a draft: Almost every sentence of the deleted draft contained promotional language. See #5 in the link. Scrub the article of these phrasings and opinion. Words like "revolutionary", "premier innovator", and "most technologically advanced" are not encyclopedic and show a strong point of view. The draft text reads like a press release. Citations need to be reliable sources and verifiable. It might be helpful to read Your first article. Cheers, Mark Ironie ( talk) 16:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

[Feel free to refactor your original message where you pinged me above this reply — but I prefer answering it here rather than on Buffs own user talk page.] Thank you for sharing your view regarding the nature of Buffs' edits and the overarching dispute. Some parts I was somewhat aware of, others are new to me. I will say this, however: I will tolerate no nonsense. I hope to get to the underlying issues and if there is tendentious editing, it will be responded to harshly. The AP2 DS gives me a lot of leeway, up to and including article and even topic banning participants, if need be. Thanks again. El_C 01:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Here is fine. I only posted on Buffs talk so there would be no confusion about what I was saying. It felt more transparent to make sure he saw it. I'm a little unclear about the AP2 above but obviously it involves discretionary sanctions. It makes sense to have some trusted admins with the power to do those sanctions. I hesitated before commenting on the situation with Buffs. I couldn't really do anything since I had participated briefly but I have been watching this situation closely for months. It is sometimes difficult to parse, particularly with some surrogate editors participating on Buffs' behalf, but it is clear to me. If I can provide support or info, let me know. BTW, thanks for taking an interest in this. Cheers, Mark Ironie ( talk) 01:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I may take you up on that. At any event, I appreciate you having taken the time. El_C 02:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

No problem. If the clear opportunity had presented itself, I would have personally taken him to an appropriate noticeboard. Buffs is astonishingly good at skirting the brink of clear violations of policy, so good that it is only through long-term observation that one can discern the patterns. Weirdly, I almost admire the skills in use because they are subtle. The sense of timing and misdirection is so well-developed that I've never seen a comparable case in my time on WP. Cheers, Mark Ironie ( talk) 04:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm disinclined to refactor my message there. Except in cases where the conversation has become incomprehensible for some reason, I don't think it's helpful to anyone. Cheers, Mark Ironie ( talk) 17:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

You just deleted this talk page per WP:U2. I know I'm not an admin, but I don't think that applies here. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 17:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@ MJL: Uh, yeah. Fever is really not conducive to sound judgment. I'm going to restore both User and talk pages because I'm not sure either rationale for speedy is applicable. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Cheers, Mark Ironie ( talk) 14:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

[Thank you for the ping Well the user page is U5 because it's just a vandal who's only mainspace contribution is this. The userpage is just to provoke a reaction from people and promote their twitter account. I certainly hope you feel better soon though! – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 15:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. I see someone else deleted the user page. I was going to do it but forgot, just spaced it out. Obviously, I'm still not quite operating with a full deck here. On a normal day, I wouldn't have deleted the talk page. Again, thank you for helping me not violate policy. Cheers, Mark Ironie ( talk) 17:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes Johnuniq • Kosack • Valereee Ad Orientem • Ched • Gadfium • Jonathunder • Nick • Yelyos Bald Zebra • Beetstra • Doug Bell • Journalist • Ruud Koot • Splash • Voice of Clam Interface administrator changes Dinoguy1000

CheckUser changes RickinBaltimore Oversight changes Beeblebrox RickinBaltimore

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the page Wikipedia:Office actions has been changed from a policy page to an information page.
• A request for comment ( permalink) is in progress regarding the administrator inactivity policy.

Arbitration

• Editors may now use the template {{ Ds/aware}} to indicate that they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for a topic area, so it is unnecessary to alert them.

Miscellaneous

• Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
• The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

  Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

		... writing skills and enjoyment of reading might have something to do with creating an encyclopedia.
		Some of us still think reading comprehension, the ability to analyze text, and the ability to write well are essential, valued skills. In appreciation. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 03:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• Goshdurnit, thank you, that's very kind. And damn straight. I got fancy words, 10, 25, and 50-cent words. Sometimes I bring 'em out, shine 'em up, and show them to the young'uns. If they ask me kind-like, I might pull out my rhe-tor-ick and tell them nested arguments with me-ta-phor-ic cozies. I like to see if they can find the logical fallacies and give them a peppermint when they do. Cheers, Mark Ironie ( talk) 05:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I notice neither of you ... addressed any of the substance or points of my comment above. Here we go then. I will address the substance of your comments. I will continue to do so until I either complete the entire comment, or hit three strikes for false or misleading claims. Fair? Here you go:

There is a qualitative difference between IG's participation here and Buffs - Fact claim, let's see what you back it up with.

She asked a question about the treatment of Saxifrage and the use of hidden text - False and misleading. The first half of her comment reiterates her desire for an IBAN with Buffs, explicitly named in her comment. The second half does question the treatment of Saxifrage, but in reference to Buffs' hidden comment which she says just seems to be mean and underhanded. I have no issue with this – I don't see a reason to use hidden comments at AN either – but it's not what you portray it to be. That's strike one.

Buffs, instead, addressed his comments directly to her... - Misleading by omission. Buffs was directly named in her comment, and it was his comments (the diffs are right there in her comment) that she was referencing. You know that, so why twist it? Strike two. ... and complained about not being able to post on her talk page - It's interesting how the words we choose reflect our biases: IG has concerns; Buffs has complaints. It's how you write about the two individuals that shows your bias against one of them. That's a consistent theme in your comments.

Though others have said things he considers "off topic" she is the only one he tried to order to delete her words, asking her to "remove your remarks" - False and misleading. I'd ask is not an order, it's a request. Strike two-and-a-half. Moreover, he asked you (yes, you) to refactor or strike your comments (e.g. please refactor your comments to reflect what I was actually blocked for) multiple times, and he's expressed dismay that nobody has asked CV to retract his response or provide evidence. Strike three.

I was hoping to get to [a]fter Bishonen called the close a "classic supervote", that emerged as the main reason for overturning the close .... False, for the record. I called it a supervote in the first sentence of my request for a review, and Lepricavark called it a supervote in their second comment too. Both of which precede Bishonen's participation in the thread. For that matter, I had not heard of WP:Supervote until CV brought it up. When I talk about a supervote, I am referring to WP:CONSENSUS. Not an essay, not a guideline, but a Wikipedia policy and pillar. When I say supervote I mean – as do probably most other editors who use it – that somebody has "closed a discussion as they wanted it, not as there was consensus to do so". I.e. made a supervote.

There was no reason to bother dismantling your comment, though. I don't trust others judgements unless I have a reason to. In your case, I have reasons to distrust your judgement, and I have since I first commented to you about your conveniently ignor[ing] things. I look at the diff, and assess it without considering your input – I usually do this regardless; people are prone to colouring things with how they see them, not as they are. You are not bias immune (nor am I). Why here instead of at AN? Because the thread is well on the way to being derailed, and that dis-incentivizes uninvolved parties from commenting (who wants to spend hours wading through bickering) and makes closing the thread much more painful (as previous). Mr rnddude ( talk) 02:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. Cheers, Mark Ironie ( talk) 15:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for that thing you wrote about that other thing. Much appreciated. Guy Macon ( talk) 01:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. Cheers, Mark Ironie ( talk) 15:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

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.

Hello Mark Ironie,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Coordinator

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion

• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
• Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.

Not English

• A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.

Tools

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September 2019 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the September newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since June 2019. June election: Reidgreg was chosen as lead coordinator, and is being assisted by Baffle gab1978, Miniapolis, Tdslk, and first-time coordinator Twofingered Typist. Jonesey95 took a respite after serving for six years. Thanks to everyone who participated! June Blitz: From 16 to 22 June, we copy edited articles on the themes of nature and the environment along with requests. 12 participating editors completed 35 copy edits. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. July Drive: The year's fourth backlog-elimination drive was a great success, clearing all articles tagged in January and February, and bringing the copy-editing backlog to a low of five months and a record low of 585 articles while also completing 48 requests. Of the 30 people who signed up, 29 copyedited at least one article, a participation level last matched in May 2015. Final results and awards are listed here. August Blitz: From 18 to 24 August, we copy edited articles tagged in March 2019 and requests. 12 participating editors completed 26 copy edits on the blitz. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: As of 03:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors had processed 413 requests since 1 January. The backlog of tagged articles stood at 599 articles, close to our record month-end low of 585. Requests page: We are experimenting with automated archiving of copy edit requests; a discussion on REQ Talk (permalinked) initiated by Bobbychan193 has resulted in Zhuyifei1999 writing a bot script for the Guild. Testing is now underway and is expected to be completed by 3 October; for this reason, no manual archiving of requests should be done until the testing period is over. We will then assess the bot's performance and discuss whether to make this arrangement permanent. September Drive: Our current backlog-elimination drive is open until 23:59 on 30 September (UTC) and is open to all copy editors. Sign up today! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Baffle gab1978, Miniapolis, Reidgreg, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 03:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

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 a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: 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 arbitration case regarding Fram was closed. While there will be a local RfC focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to 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.

Hello Mark Ironie,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 800 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools

• It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
• It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.

Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes

• Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
• Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.

Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

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 RfC was closed with the consensus that the 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.

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Instead of contributing to an edit war by restoring irrelevant (but well sourced) text, why not instead join the discussion at Talk:Skowhegan, Maine and wait for a consensus? Thank you. Magnolia677 ( talk) 23:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I reverted your change. Any change regarding this needs to wait for a consensus. Follow WP:BRD and participate in the discussion! That or just walking away are the only non-disruptive paths you can choose. John from Idegon ( talk) 01:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

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 RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new 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 a proposal, the 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.