User talk:RoySmith/Archive 54

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AN Close

Good morning RoySmith,

Thanks for closing this! I suppose it's a long shot, but since you commented on the BLP appeal, I'll give it a shot before going out for the day. By my count, the !votes were 30-21, and many on the support said they did not believe my edits would be unproductive to the enclyopedia and that the situation made an early appeal reasonable. As I said at my case, the emotional part is mostly the incredibly huge scope of the ban (not the anti-trans BLPs/ORGs, the rest that was collateral) and the increased harassment that resulted, so I'd really appreciate it if you use your discretion to allow me the limited exception as there's no evidence I'd do wrong there and a lot of the community willing to give me a shot for the full thing. I just wanna edit LGBT rights in New York and the like over pride, and it would go a long way to making the ban feel relatively painless and non-punitive for the next few months.

I won't be able to respond for a while since I'm going out. Best regards, TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

@TheTranarchist I put in an effort to be restrained and professional in my closing statement. I'll be more blunt here. Just let this be. Really. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you should honestly reconsider. The fact that the original ANI thread was filed by a sock should be enough to lift the topic ban. The fact that TheTranarchist is still TBANned, despite 1) the circumstances behind the ban and 2) the supports outnumbering the opposes (and yes, I know that Wikipedia is not a democracy) should be enough for that TBAN to be lifted. LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 17:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
As an uninvolved editor, I'm curious how you get a majority supporting undoing it @LilianaUwU. My most favorable to the supports count (giving full weight to moral, weak, and conditional supports) still doesn't get a majority and Roy, in his head count, found opposes outnumbered supports. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
While it wasn't a significant majority (my count seems to hover at around 20 on each side), the nature of the TBAN should be enough to revert it. LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 18:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
I went back and recounted and I was able to come up with a count (being favorable in support and strict with oppose) that did come out in favor of removing the ban. So fair enough on that. While I'm commenting something that has struck me and caused me to think quite a bit, as an uninvolved editor, is a theory around repeated conversations that I was first introduced to regarding requested moves. The theory is that if there are repeated proposals to do a move, and which all are close but are closed with no move, the issue doesn't go away until finally a discussion closes with moving the page. At which point there doesn't seem to be nearly the same effort (and often no effort) to move it back suggesting we should have probably done the page move far earlier and something in our processes was broken. This theory has largely held true in my experience around RMs. And what I have been wondering about is if this isn't the sanction version of that theory. There are some reasons to think it isn't, but I haven't been able to completely dismiss the idea. This is not to say that Roy, Isabella, or Eek did anything wrong with their closes, just something I can't stop thinking about as I read the AN request. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Honestly, I'm not going to comment on the quality of the rest of the close, but I dislike that both closes in this case seem to have given at least some weight to numerically very close vote counts, with all the post closure issues that entails. This discussion ended up with "no consensus to unban", which makes sense to me in isolation, but then the previous discussion was closed with a consensus for a TBAN, despite having a similar vote tallly. Which begs the question: Based on the quality of the arguments only do we have a consensus that this TBAN made sense in the first place or do we not? Because if in both cases it comes down to an extremely narrow vote tally in the end, my argument would be that in both cases that should have resulted in a no consensus close and no vote tallying! note: this doesn't nessecarily make either close unreasonable or illegitimate. I haven't looked into either close closely enough to be that harsh, but it does leave me frustrated. --Licks-rocks (talk) 10:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I was trying to figure out what it was about this close that I disliked in a vacuum (regardless of my feelings about the editor), and I think what you said, Licks-rocks, just about sums it up. It seems a bit distasteful to me to take the "guilty until proven innocent" tack on two no-consensus closes, partly because there are a significant plurality who think the TBAN is and was excessive. I'm also thinking Barkeep49's comment above seems to accurately encapsulate the situation we have. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
The fact that the original ANI thread was filed by a sock should be enough to lift the topic ban Firm disagree. The fact that there was so much discussion around the topic, and then the appeal, (and wasn't there a close review too?) demonstrates that there was validity to the topic, regardless of who submitted it. — Czello (music) 20:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Tewdar's five-step plan:
  • Stay away from GENSEX
  • Practice encyclopaedic writing style
  • Appeal when six months is up
  • Don't start any more appeals until six months is up (don't listen to anyone who tells you this is a good idea)
  • Profit (hopefully) 😁
 Tewdar  20:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Oops, for some reason I thought I was commenting on TheTranarchist's talk page. Ah well. I'll just leave it here now, I suppose.  Tewdar  21:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
It should also be borne in mind that this is an early close and some of us were still drafting a response and !vote — in my case partly on behalf of the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group.
  1. This ban started out as harassment by a sockpuppet rather than relating to a clear problem based on her editing, and itself led to an increase in harassment. This is both unjust and clearly detrimental to TheTranarchist’s mental health.
  2. The ban is overbroad — the intention of a TBAN on GENSEX is more usually to prevent queerphobic vandals who are disrupting across the very broad category. If we genuinely have concerns about TheTranarchist’s editing for POV around hate groups, we could easily meet those concerns through a narrower ban that did not prevent her from writing about less-controversial topics in queer history.
  3. A substantial amount of the discussion was focussed away from the topic — how an appeal “should look” rather than the merits of the case, that TheTranarchist was talking about details of the original case despite that it was widely considered a trainwreck of a case, frankly paternalistic handwringing over her mental health
  4. Importantly, lots of the oppose !votes completely ignored the idea of making a more-limited exception to the TBAN, allowing TheTranarchist to edit constructively in an area that will avoid the aspects of mental health harm she has described without realistically posing any risk to the encyclopædia (even if we accept that any such risk exists). This feels like it could be much better harm mitigation if we’re not willing to vacate the original TBAN.
The User Group governance team would ask that you reconsider this premature close. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies), as a representative of the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group. 23:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
@OwenBlacker please can you advise where the LGBT+ User Group have discussed this and come to a consensus to support this close challenge and for you to be the representative of the User Group speaking on their behalf in this matter (I can't see anything obvious at the user group talk page or in your contributions). For the record, I'm completely neutral with regards to the topic ban, the appeal and the close. Thryduulf (talk) 01:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: Not all conversations of the UG governance team happen at formal meetings and, given the on- and off-wiki harassment faced by several members of the team, formal minutes are posted after a time delay, to ensure everyone has an opportunity to review what is being shared. In any event, we would be unlikely to share detailed notes about discussions of safe-space or harassment cases. Feel free to check with Bluerasberry or FULBERT, if you feel you doubt my word, rather than taking it on good faith. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: The notes are at meta:Wikimedia_LGBT+/Governance/2023-05-24#Notes. Wikimedia LGBT+'s process is not formalized but yes, there was group agreement to speak on behalf of Tranarchist as an organization. I will share an opinion - wiki text on talk pages or in notes is often not viable or reasonable for use to communicate sufficiently. I was the note taker so my perspective is heavy in that text. The notes are my interpretation, as we do not record private details. If you check the notes, it is more of an outline of what the group sees routinely for LGBT+ harassment than about this case specifically. My own additional way of describing Wikimedia LGBT+'s support is that regardless of any specific details to this case, user:TheTranarchist has been victim of extraordinary harassment through no fault of her own, and this harassment came to her in great part because of participation in Wikipedia's administrative process. Non-LGBT+ editors do not experience these outcomes as a result of their participation in wiki administration. Wikimedia LGBT+'s strongest consensus is particular unfair and cruel things happen to LGBT+ editors when non-LGBT+ editors do not experience these things, and some kind of accommodation would make the process more equitable. I am not blaming any particular person or process. There is a systemic problem. Serious sexual and gender based harassment comes out of the system and infrastructure itself. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Harassment is a serious problem onwiki, and one I think a lot about and try to help using the formal and informal power I have. However, @Bluerasberry Non-LGBT+ editors do not experience these outcomes as a result of their participation in wiki administration. goes too far. There is no doubt that LGBTQ+ editors experience harassment because of their wikipedia activities, and experience harassment at a higher rate than non-LGBTQ+ editors. However, I am aware of other editors being harassed for other elements of their identities, including editors targeted for being women (cis and trans) or for their nationalities. We have obligations, as a movement, to think about what we can do to support specific victims of harassment and what we can do to help groups that receive disproportionate harassment, within the limits of being a website and one whose goal it is to build the world's knowledge. However, all harassment is wrong and pretending that only certain groups get harassed actually make it harder, I feel, to find better ways to address this issue. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't want to put words into @Bluerasberry's mouth, but I would be surprised if he didn't agree with you there. Certainly, for my part, I try to frame things as "minoritised editors and editors working in minoritised content areas", because I am sure all those groups you mention (and others) also experience more harassment than average (as it the case in most online communities).
Different groups will have slightly different kinds of harassment, so there will be some targetted tactics that can help specific groups — including editors of colour, female and non-binary edits, editors outside the Anglophone Global North, as well as LGBTQ+ editors of course — but systemic processes to address harassment are clearly going to be the most significant part of any successful attempt to reduce harassment both on- and off-wiki. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the responses, but in future I would appreciate less of the apparent assumption of bad faith in my question. I've never before seen a user group take a stand regarding an individual editor in this manner, but I have seen many times someone claiming to speak for a group of people they do not. With no way to verify for myself which was the case here I asked in good faith for clarification, and a simple answer that it was indeed discussed off-wiki would have been sufficient. Just because LGBT+ editors are often the victims of harassment, etc this does not mean that every person who may or may not agree with you has that motivation. Thryduulf (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
I apologise. I am so accustomed to seeing similar questions asked in barely-veiled bad faith it is hard to remember to assume good faith sometimes. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
When the ban appealer themselves sets a deadline for the appeal to be closed early, in less than 7 days, I don't think we should object, when exactly that happens, after plenty of discussion. The appealer and like-minded editors should learn to take the loss (in fact, 3 losses in a row) because there is a good time to try again at the 6-month mark. Listen to Tewdar. Stop bothering RoySmith. starship.paint (exalt) 01:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Considering your use of wins and "losses" here, and your gravedancing 'summary' of the close on her page, I do think there is someone who is too emotionally invested in this appeal, Starship, but it might not be who you think! Parabolist (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
@Parabolist: Your description of "gravedancing" could not be further from the truth. I specifically quoted the parts of RoySmith's close that would help in a future topic ban appeal, and above I singled out Tewdar's advice above that would also help in a future topic ban appeal. I also endorsed the 6-months mark as a good time to appeal. Seriously, if I were too emotionally invested, why in the world would I do that? starship.paint (exalt) 03:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
@OwenBlacker: I have to say, this is just about the worst possible way Wikimedia LGBT+ could respond. LGBTQ editors like me (and for that matter CaptainEek, I'd think) have had to work time and again to counter expectations that all LGBTQ editors will act in lockstep. A comment like this reenforces that offensive stereotype, while contributing absolutely nothing, because Wikimedia LGBT has no role in the English Wikipedia's governance structure. If y'all want to counter queerphobia on enwiki, maybe encourage more editors to do quality work in the GENSEX topic area. Part of the reason this TBAN was able to happen in the first place is because there aren't enough competent, non-POV-pushing GENSEX editors to mentor new editors who have potential but are also making serious mistakes. Y'all's time would be much better spent working on that than inserting yourselves into disputes over a single editor's conduct. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
@Tamzin: I'm sorry that you feel it is inappropriate for the user group to express solidarity towards queer editors experiencing harassment and inappropriate sanctions; thankfully the UG's membership does not feel so, having agreed at Queering Wikipedia 2021 and in the Community Engagement survey ahead of QW2022 that these should be one of the priorities for the user group. I also fail to see how anything here makes a suggestion that "all LGBTQ editors will act in lockstep". I know that you do not agree with some of the user group's actions and can only suggest that perhaps you might like to engage and contribute to the change you would like to see, which might allow you to see the ways in which the user group does encourage editors to work on quality content around gender and sexuality, as well as supporting LGBTQ editors and editors in LGBTQ-related content areas in the face of an often hostile community living through increasingly hostile times. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
@OwenBlacker: If you want to create initiatives against queerphobia on enwiki, great, do that. When I returned to editing in 2021—a year in which Wikimedia LGBT+'s budget was, if I'm reading this correctly, $44,000—we had no guidance on not misgendering editors, so I had to write that. Our only documents on keeping bigotry out were limited to two subcategories of bigotry, so I had to write better guidance. We still have a Frankenstein's monster of a guideline on how to write about trans people. Wikimedia LGBT+ would be well-situated to propose a better version, but instead we're amidst another chaotic RfC that adds to it piecemeal and fails to address the core of how trans people perceive ourselves. And if you are going to get in the business of becoming a pressure group in individual user conduct discussions, you're sure picking your battles strangely. We had almost half the community !vote that an admin systematically opposing trans RfA candidates, and then explicitly saying she did not think trans people should be admins, was not a bannable offense. Where were you then? And when I, a nonbinary person who actually engages in these discussions and faces the slings and arrows, the transparently bigoted accusations of bias or advocacy despite a record of even-handedness (to the extent that I've been repeatedly criticized for holding positions I had just spoken in opposition to), when I say that what you're doing here is irresponsible and promotes negative stereotypes of LGBTQ users, your response is that you're sorry I feel that way? Please. You do not speak for me. You do not speak for most LGBTQ Wikipedians. Go find something to do that actually benefits queer editors and the encyclopedia. Maybe spend a few months engaged in these discussions, not as a "representative of the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group" but as an editor, and then tell me that comments like yours above help anything. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
User:OwenBlacker, I truly cannot understand how you thought this comment was appropriate. Your message rather clearly implies that Tamzin doesn't care about harassment, and that only you do. Tamzin, a prolific queer editor and pioneer in this area who has done an incredible amount of work in improving the culture of this project and its enforcement processes, along the way being the subject of bigotry and attacks...
Advocacy for equitable enforcement processes is one thing...this is another. It's hurtful that you've come here to disparage, on behalf of the Wikimedia LGBT+ governance team, the people who have done so much work for queer editors on this project.
There is so much the user group could be doing...and it just isn't this.
You do not speak for me. You do not speak for queer Wikimedians. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 22:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
It's after midnight here and I'm very sleepy, so I can't absorb all of this for a more considered reply right now, but there is a User Group meeting tomorrow. If you and @Tamzin have suggestions on how we can make a better, more supportive environment and better content and policies here and elsewhere in the Movement, please do come along and contribute.
The rest of this conversation would be better placed away from RoySmith's talk page; feel free to copy Tamzin's first reply to me and the conversation thereafter onto my talk page and i will try to bring about a more constructive conversation there, of that is something either of you is interested in. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 23:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
FWIW, if my talk page is providing a useful forum for discussion, I'm OK with it. Whatever works for you. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
@OwenBlacker: asking for the purposes my edification, has there been a recent policy change requiring a certain amount of time to pass on an appeal for being closed? I'm not familiar with this case so don't really have an opinion on it, but I would like to know if I'm unaware of what would be a significant change to policy from how Wikipedia has always operated.
To my knowledge, the community requires a minimum time to pass before a ban is imposed, but there is no similar requirement for appeals, and traditionally, they are closed whenever a close feels consensus has developed, which is how the overwhelming majority of discussions at AN and ANI are closed. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
@OwenBlacker I don't think premature close quite describes it, I personally got the sense discussion was active and it was going to last a day or two longer, but I don't think any new arguments were going to be introduced so it wasn't necessarily a premature close. I think points 1-4 stand though and the support means a lot.
@Tamzin, I don't see anything in Owen's comment about acting in lockstep, Wikimedia LGBT+ has no role in the governing structure, but its governance committee made up of editors, who through Wikipedia's processes do. I'm not just saying this because they happen to be supporting me - I feel such groups can generally support whatever position they like and issue a joint statement if they happen to have a consensus. Nobody is obligated to agree or disagree with them.
I must say though, Isabele Bellato stating I'm sorry things went the way they did. Were it not for the perceived bias because of who I am, I would have closed the original discussion much earlier, CaptainEek's comment at the appeal that I admit that I felt a certain solidarity with TT, and that was part of the reason I felt hesitant to close it. But a closer's job is not to impart their will, it is to impart the community's will. Perhaps in trying to account for my own bias I overcorrected and misread the community's will, and you just saying you have had to work time and again to counter expectations that all LGBTQ editors will act in lockstep leave me feeling that if even queer admins are deliberately going out of their way to avoid even being perceived as biased, there's a bigger problem on the environment of Wikipedia than Wikimedia LGBT+'s governance committee happening to support a fellow editor's appeal. Which is not to call out any of you as responsible, but just to comment on the larger encyclopedic environment.
@RoySmith, I'm sorry all this discussion clogged up your userpage. I personally think it could have been interpreted as in favor of the limited exception, since many supported the full unban, some supported the limited exception, and nobody explicitly opposed the limited exception, but that's not in my hands. I think @WaltCip, @Licks-rocks, and @Barkeep49 summarized my thoughts on this better than I could, so I'm admittedly hoping maybe they might've made you reconsider the limited exception as a compromise consensus rather than an all-or-nothing one to give me just a little ROPE and some breathing room, but no hard feelings if you don't.
And to anybody else who wants to drop in to comment here, please don't. Let it die here, I don't want a repeat of the close review and this has been enough of RoySmith's time. I'm sorry for not stepping in to do this sooner, but I was taking a wiki-break to de-stress and try to forgive myself for my foolish optimism giving me false hope. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Just noticed that this reply has come in while I was typing mine. Sorry for the sudden ping-ping to Tamzin and RoySmith in particular. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Lithuaniaball2 LTA case

You mentioned in the SPI that the LTA page I made kinda helped with identifying Knotsbaal2 as a sock - ironically, I've been thinking for a while that making said page may not have been a very helpful thing to do as I didn't want to accidentally build some shrine for vandals per WP:DENY. Tbh, I've been seriously considering putting that Db-author tag on it or moving it to userspace during the past few days. But now that I see what happened with Knotsbaal2 on the SPI (saving a lot of time by avoiding having to type a lengthy paragraph about Lithuaniaball2's behavior and thus why Knotsbaal2 was a Lithuaniaball2 sock), I was thinking that I can keep this page (and that it's better to keep it published than to delete it) - after all, Lithuaniaball2 is one of these cases where it could be useful for patrollers to have some background knowledge of as someone unfamiliar with their M.O. may be able to suspect them of being LTA due to their editing habits but may not be able to name other confirmed accounts or the sockmaster. -- Prodraxistalkcontribs 02:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 June 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
  • As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.

Technical news

  • Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Tech News: 2023-23

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • The RealMe extension allows you to mark URLs on your user page as verified for Mastodon and similar software.
  • Citation and footnote editing can now be started from the reference list when using the visual editor. This feature request was voted #2 in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey. [1]
  • Previously, clicking on someone else's link to Recent Changes with filters applied within the URL could unintentionally change your preference for "Group results by page". This has now been fixed. [2]

Problems

  • For a few days last week, some tools and bots returned outdated information due to database replication problems, and may have been down entirely while it was being fixed. These issues have now been fixed. [3]

Changes later this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 6 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 7 June. It will be on all wikis from 8 June (calendar).
  • Bots will no longer be prevented from making edits because of URLs that match the spam blacklist. [4]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 22:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Syed amjad08

I just wanted to write to thank you for taking a glance through the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pankaj_Choudhary_(professor)_(2nd_nomination) related to the socking case of Syed amjad08. I looked through histories, and found a lot of UPE warnings and/or incomplete disclosures, but nothing that was clear with the possible exception of Kinkordada (where 10 mainspace edits + letting the account age is usually a clear sign). Apologies for not collecting better diffs. It is good to hear that it looks like normal canvassing to you.

I'm hesitant to use the SPA tag on editors that have a modest number of edits to other topics, but perhaps I'll leave a comment to the closing admin. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Scottywong case opened

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/Scottywong. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 21, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

New Nalanidil sock?

Hello Roy, when you find a moment, could you please check if this account is another Nalanidil sock, the behavioral patterns seem exactly the same: Roßwintha. Examples:[5], [6], [7]

Here is a link to the SPI case archive: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nalanidil/Archive. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@Netherzone Could I ask you to file an SPI report? That'll make it easier to process. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Done, and thank you for the suggestion. Hope I did it correctly, it was the first time I filed a SPI report (I used Twinkle). Netherzone (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Tech News: 2023-24

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • The content attribution tools Who Wrote That?, XTools Authorship, and XTools Blame now support the Dutch, German, Hungarian, Indonesian, Japanese, Polish and Portuguese Wikipedias. This was the #7 wish in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey. [8]
  • The Search Preview panel has been deployed on four Wikipedias (Catalan, Dutch, Hungarian and Norwegian). The panel will show an image related to the article (if existing), the top sections of the article, related images (coming from MediaSearch on Commons), and eventually the sister projects associated with the article. [9]
  • The RealMe extension now allows administrators to verify URLs for any page, for Mastodon and similar software. [10]
  • The default project license has been officially upgraded to CC BY-SA 4.0. The software interface messages have been updated. Communities should feel free to start updating any mentions of the old CC BY-SA 3.0 licensing within policies and related documentation pages. [11]

Problems

  • For three days last month, some Wikipedia pages edited with VisualEditor or DiscussionTools had an unintended __TOC__ (or its localized form) added during an edit. There is a listing of affected pages sorted by wiki, that may still need to be fixed. [12]
  • Currently, the "Sort this page by default as" feature in VisualEditor is broken. Existing {{DEFAULTSORT:...}} keywords incorrectly appear as missing templates in VisualEditor. Developers are exploring how to fix this. In the meantime, those wishing to edit the default sortkey of a page are advised to switch to source editing. [13]
  • Last week, an update to the delete form may have broken some gadgets or user scripts. If you need to manipulate (empty) the reason field, replace #wpReason with #wpReason > input. See an example fix. [14]

Changes later this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 13 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 14 June. It will be on all wikis from 15 June (calendar).
  • VisualEditor will be switched to a new backend on English Wikipedia on Monday, and all other large wikis on Thursday. The change should have no noticeable effect on users, but if you experience any slow loading or other strangeness when using VisualEditor, please report it on the phabricator ticket linked here. [15]

Future changes

  • From 5 June to 17 July, the Foundation's Security team is holding a consultation with contributors regarding a draft policy to govern the use of third-party resources in volunteer-developed gadgets and scripts. Feedback and suggestions are warmly welcome at Third-party resources policy on meta-wiki.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 14:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

June 21: WikiWednesday Salon back in Manhattan!

June 21: WikiWednesday @ Prime Produce
WikiWednesday is back in Manhattan!

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our WikiWednesday Salon, with in-person at Prime Produce in Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan, as well as an online-based participation option. No experience of anything at all is required. All are welcome!

We are proud to announce that monthly food has returned!

All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct. In addition, to participate in person you should be vaccinated and also be sure to respect others' personal space, and we may limit overall attendance size if appropriate. Prime Produce encourages the wearing of masks when indoors, and especially be mindful of those in your proximity.

7:00 pm - 8:00 pm
(Prime Produce, Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan)
Also online via Zoom

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Tech News: 2023-25

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • Flame graphs are now available in WikimediaDebug. [16][17]

Changes later this week

  • There is no new MediaWiki version this week.
  • There is now a toolbar search popup in the visual editor. You can trigger it by typing \ or pressing ctrl + shift + p. It can help you quickly access most tools in the editor. [18][19]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 20:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

AlisonW case request accepted

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/AlisonW. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 30, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Page lock

Hello RoySmith, I see you've blocked the sock puppets [20], can you lock the Adal kingdom redirect they've been edit warring on that page for several years now. [21]. Thanks. Magherbin (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Done. RoySmith (talk) 15:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Another Nalanidil sock?

Hey Roy! I am wondering if I could ask you for advice regarding an account I strongly suspect may be a sock of Nalanidil based on their contributions on the Romani people main and talk page, I would like to ask for a second opinion from you since I know you are also familiar with these socks and I am unsure whether an SPI would be warranted? This new account Ninhursag3 popped up right after the second to last Nalanidil sock was banned, they have the same editing style and push for their own original research and formatting on the Romani people article that got them banned in the first place, should I file an SPI in your opinion or do they not look related on a superficial brief overview for you? Thank you, TagaworShah (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I took a very brief look. It's at least plausible, so yes, please file an SPI. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, will do! TagaworShah (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
From my discussion with @Horahane: User talk:Ninhursag3#TagaworShah it was pretty clear that I'm a different person, also I have discussions with many different users and made many different edits, not just on the topic of the Roma.
Since @Horahane (previously @Nalanidil) was nice to me, how can she get a legitimate account? From here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1161435286 " I get that those comments can constitute personal attacks Wikipedia:No personal attacks but I think this person has potential to be a good wikipedia user if she tones down her comments and is more neutral. I also feel kinda guilty that I gave the link to our discussion but it's also proof that I'm not a sockpuppet of hers. Can @Nalanidil be reinstated if she stops making sockpuppet accounts and sticks to one account? Ninhursag3 (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Question regarding sockpuppetry case

Hi, I hope you're doing well. I see that you have marked the latest report on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nalanidil as unrelated. Was that regarding CU or behavioral evidence? I guess they might not be related to Nalanidil, but Kumanof and Gacal Kızı appear to be particularly close in terms of interests and POV. Should I open a separate case for them, or was your comment definitive and for all accounts? Thanks. Aintabli (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I'll answer on the SPI page, since other people might also be interested. RoySmith (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Tech News: 2023-26

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • The Action API modules and Special:LinkSearch will now add a trailing / to all prop=extlinks responses for bare domains. This is part of the work to remove duplication in the externallinks database table. [22]

Problems

  • Last week, search was broken on Commons and Wikidata for 23 hours. [23][24]

Changes later this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 27 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 28 June. It will be on all wikis from 29 June (calendar).
  • The Minerva skin now applies more predefined styles to the .mbox-text CSS class. This enables support for mbox templates that use divs instead of tables. Please make sure that the new styles won't affect other templates in your wiki. [25][26]
  • Gadgets will now load on both desktop and mobile by default. Previously, gadgets loaded only on desktop by default. Changing this default using the |targets= parameter is also deprecated and should not be used. You should make gadgets work on mobile or disable them based on the skin (with the |skins= parameter in MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition) rather than whether the user uses the mobile or the desktop website. Popular gadgets that create errors on mobile will be disabled by developers on the Minerva skin as a temporary solution. [27]
  • All namespace tabs now have the same browser access key by default. Previously, custom and extension-defined namespaces would have to have their access keys set manually on-wiki, but that is no longer necessary. [28]
  • The review form of the Flagged Revisions extension now uses the standardized user interface components. [29]

Future changes

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 16:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Undeleting The Constitution Party of North Carolina

Hello, I'm Average Ninja and I was directed to you to talk about unmerging this article from the national Constitution Party.

The reasoning for my wish to have this specific article undeleted is because circumstances revolving around the state-affiliated party had changed. At the time the deletion process was occurring, the Constitution Party of North Carolina didn't have ballot access at that point. It wouldn't be until 2018 that they would have ballot access in the state. Furthermore, there wasn't any information that made the state-affiliated party distinct from the national party at the time. I want to be able to share that information that has developed since then in its own wikipedia page. Hope you respond soon, thanks for taking the time to read this. Average Ninja (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Here's the page in question. As of right now, the article is merged with the national party.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Constitution_Party_of_North_Carolina&redirect=no Average Ninja (talk) 13:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
@Average Ninja: Hmmm. The AfD in question was almost 10 years ago. The general rule is that for old AfDs (and this certainly qualifies as old), there's no bar to somebody creating a new version if they think there's now better sources, or the subject has become notable when it wasn't before. I see that you already tried that, but David Gerard reverted it and directed you to WP:DRV. To be honest, David, I disagree with your recommendation; DRV doesn't really deal with this kind of situation. I assume from your edit comments that you were acting in your individual editor capacity, not as an admin enforcing an AfD result? But in any case, I'm hesitant to revert your edit because I don't think it's in the remit of an AfD closer to enforce their own close, and as an admin, I don't want to get involved in resolving disagreements about content.
Overall, I think the best place to discuss this would be at Talk:Constitution Party (United States). If there's consensus there that the state party now needs a stand-alone article, then that's what should happen. And likewise if there's consensus to keep the combined coverage of the individual states in one article about the US party article.
Also ping UtherSRG who handled this at WP:REFUND. RoySmith (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
I had started a discussion independently at Talk:Constitution Party of North Carolina with David Gerard, before I saw the link of this discussion at WP:RfU. Jay 💬 14:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023).

Administrator changes

added Novem Linguae
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed MBisanz

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Two arbitration cases are currently open. Proposed decisions are expected 5 July 2023 for the Scottywong case and 9 July 2023 for the AlisonW case.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Reddit discussion

As OP I would just like to say I agree with your closure, except that I would never have raised it on Meta, as at their worst they have similar instincts to Conde Naste/Reddit. My background was on Usenet and it sickens me to see open source contributions even if they are non referenced opinions monetised and then constrained. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I also grew up on usenet, back in the days when we were doing 2400 bps dial-up. Whatever your feelings about the WMF (and I suspect I share some of them, not to mention the recent Reddit API debacle), meta really is the right place to propose new projects. As for carving out a reddit-like space on enwiki, that's pretty much a non-starter. RoySmith (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 July 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Tech News: 2023-27

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

Changes later this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 4 July. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 5 July. It will be on all wikis from 6 July (calendar).

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 22:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposed decision posted for the AlisonW case

The proposed decision for the AlisonW case has been posted. Statements regarding the proposed decision are welcome at the talk page. Please note that comments must be made in your own section. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 15:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RoySmith/Archive_54&oldid=1167009046"