User talk:Vanderwaalforces/Archives/2024/10 (October)

thanks for approving my page so fast.

Hello Vanderwaalforces, User:Waonderer has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Waonderer (talk) 11:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Waonderer (talk) 11:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi there :) Thank you for creating Tsangyang Gyatso peak, happy editing! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Manfred Little Konzett has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Manfred Little Konzett. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 07:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

DCWC closing update

The 2024 Developing Countries WikiContest has come to a close! After a thrilling finish to the event with a slew of submissions on the final day, we have our winners. With 608 points, Thebiguglyalien (submissions) comes in third with his series of Kiribati and Botswanan submissions; BeanieFan11 (submissions) flies into second place at the last second with 771 points after a string of good articles about sportspersons; and after leading for much of contest's three months, Generalissima (submissions) finishes with a whopping 798 points to take home the Gold Belt Buckle. Congratulations to our winners!

In addition to his spot in the top three, BeanieFan11 (submissions) also wins the special awards for submitting under the most countries (44 countries) and for writing the most articles about women (15 Did you know? nominations)! Magentic Manifestations (submissions), after making 16 submissions under the Indian flag—15 of them good articles—receives the awards for most submissions for a single country and most featured or good articles promoted. For their submission of one FAC review, five FLC reviews, and 20 GAN reviews, Simongraham (submissions) wins for most article reviews.

The results of the contest have far exceeded any expectations the coordinators had for it at the beginning: among the submissions to the event were 3 FAs, 10 FLs, 88 GAs, dozens of article reviews of every kind, and more Did you know? submissions than we can count! Regardless of your level of participation, every contestant can be proud to have contributed towards a major step in countering the systemic bias on Wikipedia. Every year, millions of readers and editors around the globe use Wikipedia to educate themselves and communicate with others about parts of the world that often receive less attention than they deserve. Thank you for participating with us in the contest and contributing to this effort. The DCWC will return next year and we look forward to seeing you contribute again! However, before that...

We need your feedback! Join the conversation on the talk page to discuss your reflections on the contest (even if you didn't participate!) and help us make it better.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or ask one of the coordinators: Ixtal (talk · contribs), sawyer777 (talk · contribs), or TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs). (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list.) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Image

Here's the image, up to you whether you use it or the other one, idm Kowal2701 (talk) 20:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Now, this is the deal ;) Thank you, we’re using this! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Done. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe add it to the top of the participants section? Kowal2701 (talk) 06:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I did now. I also added the userbox template :) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Irrelevant edit war?

To @Vanderwaalforces and @Russ Woodroofe:

If editor A thinks a page is not notable and tags it, then editor B decides it is worse and appropriate for an AfD, should editor B remove the notability tag of editor A? IMO no, they should never remove others input unless it is obviously inappropriate. Of course if editor A tags for notability then changes their mind it should in principle be removed; although the template guidance does not require this.

If you look at the current voting this will rapidly become irrelevant. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ldm1954 Hi Prof. This was not an "edit war" in the first place. If I had reverted Russ Woodroofe's edit after he reverted mine, then we'd be looking at WP:3RR with the phrase "more than three reverts" replaced by "more than two reverts". I understand edit warring so well that I sometimes use to ask for other users' input if I am reverted. In this case, I didn't bother because it was indeed "irrelevant", the outcome of the AfD is already clear. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The "how to use" on template:notability are clear. The notability tag isn't a badge of shame to keep on an article. If an editor removes it, you should not re-add it, but nominate for AfD -- see "The template must not be re-added". (I do not think it is obligatory to remove it when nominating for AfD, but do think that it is good style to so remove, as it is redundant at best.) The only circumstance where I think it is appropriate to re-add (although this is not explicitly in the documentation) is immediately after a no-consensus close, where it might be a reminder to renominate the article after some months. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:IGNORE; docu with a template is a guide not a law. We have all seen editors (particularly IPs) miscellaneously deleting things including tags without justification or even an attempt at justification. I will certainly strongly disagree with you about removing another editors opinions unless there is a strong reason, which in this case I do not see. Anyway, it was irrelevant from the start. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Meh, even if an IP deleted a notability template (without otherwise addressing), then I would tend to nominate for AfD rather than re-add. The opinion is expressed by the AfD nomination here. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

September 2024 NPP backlog drive – Points award

		The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia
		This award is given in recognition to Vanderwaalforces for accumulating at least 500 points during the September 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped play a part in the 19,000+ articles and 35,000+ redirects reviewed (for a total of 26,884.6 points) completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

September 2024 NPP backlog drive – Streak award

		Unnecessarily complicated Gears Award
		This award is given in recognition to Vanderwaalforces for accumulating at least 150 points during each week of the September 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 19,000+ articles and 35,000+ redirects reviewed (for a total of 26,884.6 points) during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

September 2024 NPP backlog drive – Points leader

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		This award is given in recognition to Vanderwaalforces for collecting the most points during the September 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your staggering 3,214 reviews (3,265.2 total points) played a huge part in the 19,000+ articles and 35,000+ redirects reviewed (for a total of 26,884.6 points) during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog!!! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Elections: Call for Candidates

Administrator Elections | Call for Candidates

The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Call for candidates.

Here is the schedule:

• October 8–14 - Candidate sign-up (we are here)
• October 22–24 - Discussion phase
• October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase

Please note the following:

• The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
• Prospective candidates are advised to become familar with the community's expectations of adminstrators, which are much higher than the minimum requirement of having extended confirmed status. This includes reviewing successful and unsuccessful RFAs, reading the essay Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, and possibly requesting an optional poll on their chances of passing.
• The process will have a one week call for candidates phase, a one week pause to set up SecurePoll, a three-day period of public discussion, followed by 7 days of no public discussion and a private vote using SecurePoll.
• The outcomes of this process are identical to making requests for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA or administrator elections.
• Administrator elections are also a valid means of regaining adminship for de-sysopped editors.

Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. A separate user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.

To avoid sending too many messages, this will be the last mass message sent about administrator elections. If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Closures

I hate to ask this, but I think it's important: have you been using artificial intelligence to write RM closures? The wording in today's close at Talk:Tangier Incident (film) caught my eye, and looking back it seems quite a few of your other closures show signs of AI usage too. This is a serious issue for all the reasons described at WP:LLM, so if I'm right, I hope you'll be honest about what happened so we can try to find a way forward. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Extraordinary Writ Hi there. When closing requests in the past, I was asked to make sure my closing statements are as detailed as possible, so that editors do not have to ask for explanation on how I concluded with my closing rationale. I didn’t have to re-read my statements but I just did to confirm, but I don’t see how they look like they were LLM that generated them. When doing things like this, I try to be as formal as possible for clarity’s sake. Were they too detailed or the statements too long or what? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I’m more concerned with, are my closures not correct or not reflecting the consensuses built from these discussion? Please let me know so that I’d know what to do (or if possible, tell me what to do :-)). Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The closures have parts I agree with and parts I disagree with. But that's not the issue: the issue is that the community expects decisions to be made by human beings rather than algorithms, and these closures (Talk:Tupelo is another) strongly suggest AI involvement—not because they're formal or detailed or long, but because LLM content just has a very distinctive style that's easy to recognize once you're familiar with it. If I'm wrong, you can say so, but I'd appreciate a straight yes-or-no answer rather than an evasive response. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

My reply above implies that NO is the answer to your question. I am also familiar with LLM content and can tell when it is involved.

If I may ask, what parts do you not agree with? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

You imply, but you don't say, which is odd. At any rate: I don't believe you're being honest with me, but we're clearly not getting anywhere, so I'm just going to leave it here for now. (I'm not interested in critiquing the closures themselves.) If you ever want to revisit your answer, I'll be around. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Extraordinary Writ I do not use LLM for my closures! I do not understand why you believe I am not being honest with you. Do you want me to say I do use LLM when I do not, just to fit into your narrative? Because this is already pretty ridiculous, plus the fact that you are “evasively” doubting my very own capabilities and intelligence, you are, as a matter of fact, “evasively” saying I cannot write responses or close requests in a detailed manner. This isn’t what good faith is I beg you, but I’m accountable for any action I take and will always provide clarity if need be. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Your work on Wikimedia

Hello Vanderwaalforces, I hope you're doing well. I'm also fine. I've had the chance to closely observe your work on Wikimedia and I really admire it. Your approach, especially the way you treat new users, is commendable. I believe you have the qualities to be a great admin, and I encourage you to consider applying for it. Keep up the good work! Jannatulbaqi (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jannatulbaqi I deeply appreciate your comment, comments like these keep me going. I also deeply appreciate your feedback on adminship. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Collingwood Blues

I am wondering why you did not move the article to Collingwood Blues (2020) when closing that RM. My first comment was neutral on the primary topic question, but indicates that there has been a consensus for the format suggested by Necrothesp. ModernDayTrilobite also indicated acceptance of that result, and there was no opposition expressed (in the event of a lack of primary topic result). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@BarrelProof Damn. Obviously, I had this in mind. In fact, my course of action was to keep the disambiguation in place and then move the current team to Collingwood Blues (2020) for the sake of clearer disambiguation. I didn’t know I did not add this to my closure statement because it is clear from the discussion. I’d get to this ASAP, I’m currently out. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. No pressure on speediness. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@BarrelProof This is sorted out now. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks! —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

The Working Man Barnstar!

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	This is for your tireless efforts on Wikipedia tasks, assisting others to gain their grounds and for your recently created scripts that is assisting me and other reviewers to identify unattributed translations. Ibjaja055 (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

There is a mop reserved in your name

You are a remarkable editor in many ways. You would be a good administrator, in my opinion, and appear to be well qualified. You personify an administrator without tools and have gained my support already!

Maliner (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

+1. Reading Beans 16:37, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

+1 Ibjaja055 (talk) 08:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Hate to rain on the parade, but I'd urge caution for RfA. I would see yours being more controversial than Significa's liberdade. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Nah. Controversial as ScottishFinnishRaddish’s. Reading Beans 16:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Recent situations like [1][2][3] + the speed/time spent editing does not give me enough faith that an RfA like this would even get to a crat chat. I don't want to be discouraging without a very good reason, but I also don't want to give people false hope. It's why I felt it was important to pitch in with my two cents like I did earlier. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I think those are mistakes and your concerns are genuine but then these are things that are caused by an oversight. The AfD doesn’t give me serious concerns IMO and neither of them gives me the impression that they’d abuse the tool. Best, Reading Beans 17:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments. I’ve received enough feedback privately from several admins/editors to not know what to do. Happy editing! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Clovermoss Not out of curiousity, can you say when you mean by "the speed/time spent editing"? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Whenever someone is reviewing thousands of pages (like you are), people tend to get concerned about quality and whether things are being done correctly. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Clovermoss Ah, I see, you were referring to reviewing, not editing. That certainly clears things up, as I was quite puzzled by what you initially meant by editing. Now, to address the issues raised by GreenLipstickLesbian (I don't want to mention Thebiguglyalien's concern because I clearly implied it was an oversight) regarding unattributed translations by certain users—an issue which, as my investigations have revealed, has been prevalent since at least 2020—it's rather baffling that these concerns have only surfaced now.

As for the quality of my reviews, though it is not for me to assess my own work, I am acutely aware of what constitutes a quality review. To those who, whether on-wiki or off-wiki, have questioned the integrity or thoroughness of my reviews, I invite you—no, I implore you—to examine my curation logs. It is far more constructive than vaguely alluding to concerns (especially off-wiki—though I am not suggesting that you are responsible for that). I alone understand the meticulous process I follow in conducting my reviews, and the depth of my capability is, frankly, self-evident. My logs speak for themselves in demonstrating the substantial volume of "quality" reviews I have completed. However, as I mentioned before, I will refrain from passing judgment on myself. I know my proficiency, and anyone questioning the quality of my reviews should simply review my logs and act accordingly.

Furthermore, it must be acknowledged that mistakes are inevitable, and trust me, an issue is an issue, whether those who are affected by it like it or not. The fact remains that such errors have been made by countless other NPPers, many of whom have not faced the level of scrutiny I have. Were they addressed in private, I wonder? Perhaps politely? I cannot say, nor does it concern me. As the adage goes, "there is nothing new under the sun," and I firmly believe there is no editorial mistake on English Wikipedia that is unprecedented. However, what is crucial is how these issues are communicated, how the user interprets them, and, most importantly, how the community wields them, in their entirety, as a measure of a contributor's proficiency. I cannot help but think that my being African and Black plays a part in why the same mistakes, which others (especially non-Africans) have made in the past, are now being used to evaluate my competency and effectiveness. Because I wonder why a user would think I am using LLM to close requested moves. Maybe because I write very well and can put words together? I wonder. My proficiency is evident in my contributions as a normal editor who has several good articles and FLs, some underway.

I share this not out of bitterness, but to ensure it is recorded in the history of my talk page. I am proudly African and Black, and I am a remarkably strong and intellectual individual. I have much to offer this encyclopedia, and my contributions can be just as, if not more, proficient than many are presuming.

Moreover, I can vouch that every issue raised since I began New Page Patrol has been addressed comprehensively. In fact, I took it upon myself to develop a script to help identify potential issues—such as unattributed translations. Through this effort, I’ve identified hundreds of such issues committed by fellow NPPers, who, like me, were not immune to errors in the past but whose mistakes went unnoticed. These mistakes are likely to persist if unchecked.

I take some satisfaction in mentioning this to the very admin who recognized that an additional trial period for me at NPP was unnecessary. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying that you don't care about quality, but it's something that gets brought up every time someone who does a lot of anything shows up at RfA. As I keep saying, I just want you to be able to make an informed choice, and my instincts scream at me that your RfA would be more controversial than Significa's (look at her opposes). It's possible I'm wrong and maybe you'll pass with flying colours, but I feel obligated to offer a dissenting view because a lot of people feel absolutely horrible if their RfA fails. People have even left the project (see this one). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

My concerns are your approach sometimes when people come to you with criticism. It's normal to be somewhat defensive but it's something that makes people wary about how someone will act when they have more power. As for I take some satisfaction in mentioning this to the very admin who recognized that an additional trial period for me at NPP was unnecessary, believe me, I have some conflicted feelings about this. I had a very long conversation with another admin where I convinced them that you deserved a chance to even be granted a trial perm and I'm glad I granted it. But then you popped up in my email and seemed quite upset that I didn't grant it to you on a permanent basis which is not a good look. Neither is your initial response to GLL's advice. I'm glad you're asking people to give you constructive feedback now but it can be hard to trust people when you've had iffy interactions with them before. I granted you the permanent right early because I don't think your mistakes overrule your good efforts. I do think that you care about quality. But as I was saying with my comment above, RfA is a different beast sometimes. I don't think you've recieved more scrutiny than other NPPers. There have been countless ANI threads about Onel5969's reviewing, even though they're someone I admire and are pretty much always right on the merits. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Mistakes happen, but we all have a responsibility to respond and grow based on feedback. If someone believes there may be a problem, especially an admin / fellow NPP reviewer, we owe it to ourselves, to Wikipedia, and to the person bringing it up to consider it thoroughly. For what it's worth, I have also received messages about the speed at which you've reviewed @Vanderwaalforces. I have not personally had time to investigate the issue, as I'm quite busy IRL and with a number of tasks on wiki that I've already committed myself to, but if the person who actually gave you the chance brings up an issue, I think you should take some time to chew on it. I appreciate your contributions, I haven't had the time to investigate this particular,y but we all could do better in various aspects of the tasks that we take on, myself included. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I hate to rain on the parade but I understand why VWF is vexed at this point. In a (probably) now archived TP message here, Extraordinary Writ, opined that they are using LLM to close RMs simply because (in my opinion) the closures are well detailed. This accusation by EW was ofcourse not backed up by any diff or data or anything, to prove that VWF actually uses LLM, they neither apologised nor did they provide evidence for their accusations.

VWFs reviews are fast but they’re not a jerk, they have a clue and they’re handling feedbacks well in my opinion. I have seen a lot of supposed complains from you both about the quality of their reviews but save for those issues raised by GLL, I haven’t really seen any diffs from you both to support the problem VWF could be causing, I’m sorry but I can’t see it. So, while we’re raining on the parade, some diffs could really come in handy.

Talking about criticism, the issues raised by GLL is something that almost every NPP could be guilty of (including myself if I was still reviewing) and VWF took the criticism to heart and wrote a script that could help him and others during NPP.

We scream and talk about systemic bias when we do little to combat it. There is a shortage of manpower in Africa but it does seem to me that we don’t even try to encourage editors from there. My NPP rights were stripped off without any ANI drama nor a gross misconduct (as opposed to Onels [I respect them for their work]) or whatsoever and I am fully certain that it is only a matter of time before he’s will be stripped off too due to supposed messages recieved by Josh. These messages of course cannot be shared to VWFs.

If there’s a fear of VWFs running for adminship, I think there’s no need for it, you guys are already doing a good job with the backlogs there. Best, Reading Beans 21:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

If I could share the email, I would, but I wouldn't post it without their permission. I never said anything about it before this thread because I didn't want people to hold it against them. I know plenty of people that would oppose someone at RfA if they got an email like that. I don't think it's fair to say this is about systemic bias when my current concerns are literally that and the response to GLL. I think it's reasonable for people to be wary based on that. I never said I agreed with the LLM concern. The rest of what I said was relevant to RfA as a process (e.g. speed of reviewing). I'm starting to repeat myself without adding much more useful to this conversation, so I'm probably going to stop here unless that changes. I don't hold anything against either of you personally, but please try to assume that when people bring up concerns, they're doing so in good faith. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Not to continue an old conversation but I’m just seeing this. I’m not saying that these concerns are raised in bad faith, if you think so then I’m sorry but you clearly didn’t get my point.

Every editor here is contributing in good faith and so when raising concerns, diffs should be presented and not mere accusations, it diminishes the spirit of sportsmanship. I would also love if you understood that my concern raised about these concerns are done in good faith. Best, Reading Beans 20:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't think you're getting my point either and we're talking past each other. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. Till next time. Best, Reading Beans 20:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I will say something directed at VWF, though, because this whole thing is probably very disheartening from their perspective. I want to emphasize that I do think you do good work. Please don't let all of this derail that and make you think it isn't worth trying to keep going, because it is. Just try to keep an open mind, listen to feedback like you promised to above, and you'll be fine. As I've said before, I'm all for a growth mindset. People usually only come to people when they notice what's wrong and sometimes it can make it hard to see the forest from the trees, y'know? Personally, I ruminate a bit whenever something bothers me. I just can't get it out of my head. I don't want that to happen to you. People give feedback because they want you to improve, not because they hate you. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I absolutely do not want to dissuade Vander from the work they're doing, it is very much appreciated, but the speed at which they've been reviewing is a genuine concern and I don't think arguing against it is going to make them feel any better @Reading Beans. It's forcing me to consider whether I should provide more detailed criticism instead of basically just saying "chill a bit". Clover and I are trying to offer generic criticism, to essentially say to take it easy and be careful because it's about quality and not quantity. At the same time, the size of the backlog is obviously concerning, which is why Vander is making the effort they are. I don't want to provide more detailed diffs and dig in further because a simple message to slow down should be enough, but you're begging us to tear them down, and that's really not going to make them feel better.

To put it bluntly, I don't give a damn what anyone may do at RfA some day. Hell we don't even know whether they want to some day, but you're implying because there's a possibility some day that they may that we shouldn't provide feedback. That's ridiculous, and not providing feedback would more than likely lead to a failure whereas feedback that's taken seriously would actually help with such an effort. Clover and I are obviously not unfamiliar with NPP, we're not saying this stuff to be jerks. My goal is to help everyone how I can and to do what I can to help improve Wikipedia. I'm not sure how your message that you're confident they'll be stripped of rights someday is supposed to help them, but you need to work on your cheerleading skills.

I understand you want to help a fellow editor, but you're asking us to be harsher. If I had a more serious concern I'd have showed up before now, but don't literally beg admins to find problems with someone you're trying to protect. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I love the job VWF is doing here, he’s one of the best editors from my continent and that is why I want to know exactly what the speed is actually doing. If you think that providing examples (as GLL did) then it means our dictionary are a lot different.

I actually don’t give an f about RfAs either, like I said above, you lots seems to be handling every backlog pretty fine. So, feedbacks (like the feedback from EW) needs diffs if VWF is to improve! That is all I’m saying.

BTW, what cheerleading skill should I improve on, Hey man im josh? I’m not begging you to use your administrative powers to do anything; I am asking editors to provide diffs or validation towards their accusations. If you don’t provide the diffs for the wreck their speed is causing, how will they improve? You seem not to be getting the point here. Telling an editor to slow down is simply telling them that they’re not good enough and that they should edit for 30 minutes if they planned editing for an hour. I’m not sure how your message is supposed to them but you need to work on your messenger skills.

To VWF: you’ve heard them. I’d encourage you to reduce your speed because we need quality reviews as opposed to the quantity reviews you’re doing—not my word, it’s theirs. Best, R.B. 06:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Reading Beans: I'm going to be blunt because you're dragging this on much longer and much farther than it needs to be and you're inferring things that weren't meant to be inferred. I'm not going to provide diffs and hard criticism of another user just because you're asking us to. You're very clearly the one not getting the point here. I'm not going to criticize Vander just to make you happy. You've said you expect their perms to be removed, which nobody else has said, so if you believe that you should be the one providing diffs and feedback.

One thing you're incorrectly inferring is that asking someone to slow down means they're doing something wrong. It means that the speed at which they're reviewing COULD become problematic if they get too comfortable. It means they could open themselves up to problems and accusations, not that there's an existing significant issue that needs immediate addressing.

If you really are a fan/friend of Vanders, I very much encourage you to WP:DROPTHESTICK. I have had an open line of communication with Vander in the past and I will utilize that if necessary. I will not give them an unnecessary dressing down because you've begged for it. Hey man im josh (talk) 09:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t and I’m not begging for anything, I’m saying that everyone should be responsible for their accusations. If admitting that I’m begging makes you happy then fine, I am. As I’m dropping the stick, I also encourage you to drop the stick. Best, R.B. 10:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

For clarity for any lurkers, I wanted to note that I've been communicating with Vander directly, and will be happy to continue to do so. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I hope you don't ever think your contributions are not appreciated. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Elections: Discussion phase

Administrator Elections | Discussion phase

The discussion phase of the October 2024 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• October 22–24 - Discussion phase
• October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
• November 1–? - Scrutineering phase

During October 22–24, we will be in the discussion phase. The candidate subpages will open to questions and comments from everyone, in the same style as a request for adminship. You may discuss the candidates at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Discussion phase.

On October 25, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Notification of administrators without tools

	Greetings, Vanderwaalforces. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: Saqib
Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow. To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 21:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Notification of administrators without tools

	Greetings, Vanderwaalforces. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: Serial Number 54129
Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow. To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Elections: Voting phase

Administrator Elections | Voting phase

The voting phase of the October 2024 administrator elections has started and continues until 23:59 31st October 2024 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Voting phase.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
• November 1–? - Scrutineering phase

In the voting phase, the candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies for a vote will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)