User talk:Andrevan/Archives/63

Numbered indenting
Sorry to bother you again, but you understand these things. I know how to use # for numbered indenting, but I need to alter it. In order to get numbers 3 and 4, they must be the third and fourth #. But I want to quote two paragraphs that are numbered 3 and 4. (I am not going to quote numbers 1 and 2). Let's use this as an example text. I only want to quote the last two but must preserve that numbering:


 * 1) Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
 * 2)  Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
 * 3) Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
 * 1) Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

How is that done? -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 18:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * No problem, I don't mind helping with these questions. Maybe something like
 * e.g.
 * Lorem ipsum
 * foo
 * bar
 * baz
 * Andre🚐 18:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Cool! That works. Thanks -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 19:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, no charge :-) Andre🚐 19:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Update of Lawfare (website)
I finally got around to updating the article and moving it. Now we need to update the links to the old "blog" location: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Lawfare_(blog) -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 20:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I believe there is an AutoWikiBrowser type tool that will allow you to do many at once, and somewhere there is a noticeboard or some user who can do that, I am not one of them, but I know it's not something you should attempt to do manually, when a script or bot can do it Andre🚐 21:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It just dawned on me that Lawfare (website) might be better. It's an online multimedia publication, and that just means it's a website with varied types of content. A short name is a nice thing. What do you think? Pinging Soibangla. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 21:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that might be better. I looked to see if Lawfare sells any bound material, but not that I can determine. Andre🚐 23:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll go ahead and fix that matter. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 00:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 00:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

NPP Awards for 2023

 * Thanks, Dr vulpes! Andre🚐 02:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

New pages
I noticed this in the latest Administrators Newsletter:


 * The New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,000 unreviewed articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!

I wonder about that. For security and reader protection, shouldn't all unreviewed new pages automatically get a big banner at the top that declares the article is not yet reviewed or vetted? Readers should know. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 02:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't know. Practically speaking, anything egregious does generally get flagged pretty easily. The stuff that's hanging out in the queue needs a closer eye as it's not obviously a problem. Andre🚐 03:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ....that anyone knows about. There could be some pretty fringey stuff that sits there with Wikipedia's name on it. It should automatically get a tag that must be removed by a reviewer or experienced editor. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 03:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It is certainly the case that hoaxes and bad articles exist, even new ones happening as we speak, but I don't have any solution to that. There are heavier implementations of flagged or reviewed revisions and pending changes. I'm not entirely sure where those are applied to, but they do exist. Pending changes Andre🚐 03:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There needs to be an automated process that flags and tags (with the banner I suggested) any new article without any human action. That would put the article on the list of new articles to be reviewed. The process should automatically send a message to the creator of the article with advice and warnings about potential abuse and where they can seek advice and help. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 03:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Even if you got approval to create a bot to add such a tag and/or template banner to an unreviewed page, any editor (assuming the page isn't semi or ECP) could just remove it by clicking on the edit button.
 * To do it in a way that could not be easily removed by any editor would likely require a underlying software change to the MediaWiki software. I don't think there's any functionality for this already in the software. For that you'd need to get broad community consensus, and then convince the Foundation to actually implement it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As a practical matter, new articles go on the list to Special:NewPagesFeed, although I guess it's only visible if you get the reviewer right from NPP. Then when they are reviewed they get marked as such and you can see revisions can be patrolled, etc. I'm not the expert on the ins and outs, I just started doing it recently, but if you're interested, @Valjean, you should consider applying, as it's a fairly easy and enjoyable task in my experience so far. You're an experienced user, although you might need to participate at AFD a bit first, since I think that's kind of the qualifying activity, and you only have a smattering over there but looking good at around 67%. Anyway, the software doesn't do anything like automatically contact new article creators, but in practice, I think people do get welcomed by editors when they do stuff that gets noticed. Some things definitely slip through, there are old things from over a year ago still in the feed, but, in theory at least, there are systems adjacent to this. Andre🚐 04:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * T321179 would be one solution to this problem. It would display a small tag to everyone when a page in mainspace is not marked as reviewed. However it is technically challenging, and would also require consensus. I'm not sure the village pumps would go for this. Another option if you just personally want to see if an article is reviewed or not is User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/ReviewStatus. Hope this helps. – Novem Linguae (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Cool, didn't know about that, I'll enable, thanks Novem Linguae, Valjean, you can enable the Gadget per User scripts to install the User script installer. Andre🚐 20:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Blocked
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 15:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

WTF? -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 15:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Repeat: ArbComBlock. 109.180.50.169 (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It would seem the Israel/Palestine issue has claimed another victim. It seems suboptimal to block any editor if their behavior in certain topics is less than perfect. This system of ARBCOM punishment meant to stop tempers from flaring probably just incentivizes editors to step right up to the line without going over. I don't think that's a reasoned way to moderate content disputes.  Chris Troutman  ( talk )  17:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but I don't see anything in his contribution history that relates to that topic. If it is, then this block appears to be either punitive or petty. Maybe it's something else that is revdeleted? This seems strange and damaging. It has a chilling effect that creates fear, poisons the well, and places ArbCom in a bad light. That's unfortunate. Moneytrees, we need clarity on this matter. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 17:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Valjean Speaking for myself, Arbcom had communication with Andrevan about what led to this, he is free to appeal via email. Arbcom only makes these blocks when there's some private aspect, we wouldn't make a block for an edit that violates an AE TBAN for example. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 19:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Red-tailed hawk · Robertsky
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Ameliorate! · Ancheta Wis · Anthony Bradbury (deceased) · Cobi · Ev · Moondyne · Worm That Turned

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Worm That Turned



CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Enterprisey · Izno

Guideline and policy news
 * An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news
 * Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size.

Arbitration
 * Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
 * Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

Miscellaneous
 * Voting in the 2024 Steward elections will begin on 06 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 27 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
 * A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
 * Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
 * The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in February 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with Unreferenced. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

What is this?
What is this? I've communicated with Andrevan, and he tells me he got blocked with no communication or reasoning. He has attempted communication himself, but the committee hasn't answered his e-mails since 1 January, at which time he denied posting Wikipediocracy troll posts. He has no access to posting on this page. , the community, as well as User:Andrevan himself, needs much more information from you lot. Bishonen &#124; tålk 18:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC).
 * I believe there was a misunderstanding on my part: there have been no e-mails in either direction since 1 January. So it's not like Andrevan has been posting and getting ignored since then. Still, the block came out of the blue, and with no explanation, today, several weeks after communication had ceased. Why? Bishonen &#124; tålk 18:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC).
 * And what would posting at Wikipediocracy have to do with Wikipedia, unless it's really bad? I am not registered there, but someone alerted me to attacks against me there. I was being viciously attacked there by an admin (and others) who is active here for using my user space to create articles. This involved trolling, harassment, and calls for me to be topic banned and sitebanned here. It was nasty, and an editor who asserted he was Andrevan defended me and told them off. (I can't be sure it was really Andrevan, and that's none of ArbCom's business (justifying a denial to them), unless it was something really bad. What was it about posting there that was THAT bad?) That defense of me was a good thing. The last I knew, it is allowed to use userspace as a draft place for article creation, and that admin's behavior there should lead to them losing their bit here. Harassment, personal attacks, and trolling against good faith editors by an admin are serious matters. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 19:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Bishonen, @Valjean, speaking for myself, I don't mean to be terse and vague in my responses, it's just of the draws of making a public action based on things you can't talk about publicly. Andrevan was sent a further explanation about an hour ago and we are discussing this. Workload (ACM and a case) and the new Arbs getting on the list later than usual contributed to a delay here, I will apologize for that. Wikipediocracy stuff isn't a determining factor in the block. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Moneytrees, I'm glad the delay in explaining has ended. I did not indeed mean to ask about matters you can't discuss in public. Bishonen &#124; tålk 22:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC).
 * I've made the suggestion that ArbCom use a slightly more descriptive block log entry (so ArbComBlock for canvassing/harassment/sockpuppetry/etc rather than just ArbComBlock, though this gets harder for more sensitiive block reasons like the rare child protection blocks we still end up having to place or some other reasons which I hesitate to even state as a category because of the confidentiality involved). We'll see if that is a change that gets support because as noted it does get tricky in a number of cases that we place blocks.That said, I've been surprised by the idea that Andrevan had no idea why they were blocked, rather than believing it to be for the issue which they'd communicated with arbcom about (and received confirmation of their reply to ArbCom). Because it involves sensitive matters we had to get agreement on the wording - which is why he didn't receive an immediate reply - but it was the block was for thing we'd asked questions about earlier in the month. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but from what I can tell, this discussion relates to confidential communications between Andrevan and ArbCom. One editor in this discussion has made, perhaps or surely inadvertently, a public allusion (that I will not repeat) to possible grave misconduct, which might be construed by some as potentially defamatory, and might "stick" to Andrevan's reputation, while Andrevan is prohibited from participating in this discussion. I recommend this discussion be revdeled in its entirely. soibangla (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * , I must be missing it. Email me? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * AT this comment. 109.180.50.169 (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I just got wind of this discussion. As I understand it, Andrevan is not permitted to even access his talk page. Now, as long as he does not disclose any confidnetial information, what in heaven's name is wrong with him coming here and giving his side of the story? Just cutting him off just does not seem fair. Coretheapple (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * When Arbcom removes access to a talk page when making a block it is (or at least was during my time on the committee) for one of two reasons. Either they were abusing their talk page (i.e. the same reason normal admins remove talk page access when blocking) or there is a reason it is desirable for all communication to be direct with arbcom until the matter is resolved. In this case I see no evidence of talk page abuse, so it will almost certainly be the second option. Remember that the only things a blocked editor is permitted to use their talk page for are to appeal or seek clarification of their block. As Arbcom are the only ones who can respond to such requests there is no benefit to allowing talk page access, which additionally keeps discussion in one place and avoids comments from the peanut gallery which are almost always unhelpful (whether made in good faith or otherwise). Thryduulf (talk) 12:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thryduulf's experience doesn't match my experience. In my experience, talk page access is removed as part of the arbcom block/ban, unless an arb forgets. In which case sometimes it gets corrected (normally if it's notice promptly) and sometimes is just left (normally if it's not and there's been no issue). Barkeep49 (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding the different experience, either things have changed in 9 years or my memory isn't perfect (or both). Thryduulf (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * "...avoids comments from the peanut gallery", lol  ——Serial  12:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that wasn't brilliant phrasing! I mean it keeps such comments clearly separate from the comments made by the blocked party/parties and arbitrators. Thryduulf (talk) 12:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We all knew what you meant  :)  but yes, the phrasing was rather on the nose!   ——Serial  13:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Have some peanuts from the peanut ghetto, . Bishonen &#124; tålk 15:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC).
 * and, thanks for the explanations. That makes sense. In the meantime, I'll enjoy the peanuts and wish Andrevan good luck. We eagerly await his return in six months(?). (I am assuming the standard offer of being allowed to appeal in six months applies. Right?) -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 17:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Valjean the standard offer may or may not apply. It will depend on (at least) the reasons for the block, what has come up in the communication between Andrevan and Arbcom (that Barkeep indicates has happened). It may be that there is no minimum time for an appeal (e.g. it might be conditional on some action taking place and an appeal is allowed as soon as it has) or it may be the minimum time is longer than 6 months. As long as it is not before any minimum period has elapsed, whether and when to appeal is of course entirely at Andrevan's discretion (every appeal should be made at a time convenient to the person appealing), and is not guaranteed to be accepted. The time between an appeal being received and a successful appeal being granted is likely to be between a few days and a few weeks, depending on multiple factors. tl;dr a successful appeal may happen in a matter of days, weeks, months, years or never. Even arbcom members would only be able to say the minimum time before an appeal would be entertained. Thryduulf (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. That sounds reasonable. I just assumed six months as the minimum, but it's true that blocks can be shortened or lengthened. (I was once blocked as an April Fools joke and that block was shortened.) Feel free to email me. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 21:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Thu Feb 8 NYC Hacking Night + Feb 21 WikiWednesday
(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) 14:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Trumpism lead is now mistaken
I have posted my perspective on the talk page and would appreciate any comments you can make in response. J JMesserly (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The user of this talk page is sadly not able to partake at present. I myself have provided a brief response over there to your concerns, which IMO are without merit. Zaathras (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Tue March 5: Wiki Gala NYC
(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) 06:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Sdkb · The Night Watch
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg East718 · Isabelle Belato · Mzajac · Staecker · Stan Shebs · Sugarfish · Tamzin



Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg SilkTork

Guideline and policy news
 * Phase I of the 2024 RfA review is now open for participation. Editors are invited to review, comment on, and propose improvements to the requests for adminship process.
 * Following an RfC, the inactivity requirement for the removal of the interface administrator right increased from 6 months to 12 months.

Technical news
 * The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages.

Miscellaneous
 * The 2024 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ＊ぜ, AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Doǵu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, MdsShakil, Minorax, Nehaoua, Renvoy and RoySmith as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
 * Following the 2024 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Ajraddatz, Albertoleoncio, EPIC, JJMC89, Johannnes89, Melos and Yahya.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)