User talk:Vanamonde93/Archive 49

The article you deleted
Hi, I honestly don't know what the real reason for deleting the article was. Although there is a tie between the two parties (5 with deletion and 5 with the move to a more suitable title). Can anyone deny that the rate of violence between the two parties has increased exponentially about a year ago? Does everything that happens enter into the usual cycle of violence for 74 years? The Israeli side even called what is happening a military operation that has been taking place since the same period that was mentioned in the info box and the context of the article. So where is the original research and SYNTH they claim. Why wasn't the discussion closed a week ago when it was clear that the desire was to move the article, not to delete it entirely? Sakiv (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I explained the reasoning quite clearly. If, as you say, "the rate of violence between the two parties has increased exponentially about a year ago", then it should be easy to provide sources covering that increase in violence. You did not provide such sources. I can't speak to why the discussion wasn't closed sooner, because I saw it today, saw a clear consensus, and closed it. Please read our description of consensus; headcounts don't matter much if the arguments on one side are weaker. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, then this article has become my personal property, and I am the only one who claims that the escalating violence is clearly visible, and every week there is a massacre. More trivial events generate entire articles about them and editors pour in at lightning speed, but this is not. I no longer understand what is happening in this project. Well no problem.--Sakiv (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for Palestinian intifada (2022–present)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Palestinian intifada (2022–present). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Sakiv (talk) 01:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Palestinian exodus MRV
Hey, could I ask for further explanation of the final paragraph, i.e. "there is also consensus that the closure did not reflect the substance of the discussion"? I think anybody looking at the entire process since last year would take the rather obvious conclusion that there was no consensus for the move. I think from a numerical perspective there was probably more people arguing the no consensus closure was incorrect, but that's clearly more down to some form of tag team editing in the I/P space rather than actual community consensus. Sceptre (talk) 23:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure. While I recognize that there's tag-team editing in the IP area (believe me, I'm well aware; I've worked as an admin at AE for quite a while) I don't think you can therefore conclude that everywhere there's disagreement there's no consensus. Also, a new discussion should be just that, else we'd never allow repeat discussions; I don't think it's reasonable to combine arguments from multiple move requests. There were substantive arguments, on both sides of the discussion, which needed evaluation with respect to policy; your closure didn't include such an evaluation, and several folks at the MRV said so. Also, when arguments are evenly matched on the policy, numerical tilt does matter; I don't think you can just ascribe it to tag-teaming. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The thing is, by just putting the cutoff of the entire process to the RM starting January 6th, you're effectively rewarding disruptive editing. A closure of a discussion clearly does not mean that the arguments in them become immediately spent; otherwise, people would just create never-ending discussions until they got the result they wanted. The only way one could make a determination other than "no consensus" is by completely disregarding a good half of the RM. I recommend that you re-evaluate the MRV with respect to the entire move process; else, I'm very minded to ask for review at AARV. Sceptre (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no basis in policy to combine results of two separately closed discussions. If someone is bludgeoning the process to the point of disruption, they need to be dealt with in a forum to handle disruption. The discussion was allowed to be opened, and allowed to run for a while with input from many editors: it's not appropriate to set that input aside. I haven't dictated a result for the RM, just found consensus that it be reclosed; and even one of the editors endorsing your closure supported a reclose. Are you so attached to your closure that you'd rather take this to AARV rather than let another editor determine consensus? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Nor is there a basis to completely set aside a very recent discussion, and discussions often look back at recent related discussions to determine the long-standing consensus. Otherwise, it allows for bad-faith actors to game the system. Say another RfC opened up about Vector 2022 today, and only a dozen editors took part, but the majority of them wanted V2022 to be rolled back. Should the views of those twelve editors override the hundreds that took part in the first RfC? Don't be silly. Sceptre (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Additionally, looking back over at the discussion, the vast majority of arguments in favour of overturning relied almost entirely the RMCI definition of INVOLVED, which not only does not enjoy wider community consensus, but was described by yourself as "somewhat weak". With that in mind, this close goes from "questionable" to "inexplicable" in my mind.
 * I'm in the process of writing up a close review request at AN (which, from looking further, is actually the proper forum, as you didn't use the mop), so please treat this as the required notification. Sceptre (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I was writing out a lengthy reply, when you add that you're already taking this up at AN. I don't see why you'd ask me questions if you're uninterested in the responses. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Except multiple experienced closers, including admins, did find a consensus in the past move request, which you also closed as no consensus without evaluating the arguments in any way, putting lie to the claim that The only way one could make a determination other than "no consensus" is by completely disregarding a good half of the RM. Finally, if you intimate that other users are engaged in tag-teaming or disruptive editing without evidence I will be asking for sanctions for violating WP:ASPERSIONS in a WP:CT designated topic that you are formally aware of. Thanks in advance.  nableezy  - 16:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * So why haven't you opened up an WP:ANI thread? I'd assume if you really had a problem, you'd bring it there instead of sea-lioning. But it's not against Wikipedia policy to observe that a group of editors are editing in the same way in tandem. Sceptre (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Let me just comment this, Sceptre, noting that I've closed the RM as consensus to move: I don't know how you can say that "the rather obvious conclusion that there was no consensus for the move", when it doesn't seem like you have ever actually analyzed and evaluated the discussion. Even for your initial closure, you relied on the analysis of the arguments of the previous closer, UtherSRG, and of what the MRV said, to do your closure. That requested move should have had a proper close by someone who was willing and able to evaluate the discussion substantively by themselves. If that had happened, I would agree with you that starting another requested move immediately is somewhat disruptive. Now I'm not saying that my close is the only close possible, and I could see someone else closing as no consensus, but to determine consensus you do need to actually evaluate the discussion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 23:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 March 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Making a page
Can I make a page if its not about me or someone else and is also factual? because now I feel I have to ask you Madmayhalf (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, you may create a page, so long as it complies with our policies on notability, verifiability, and no original research. I've left some messages on your talk page with more helpful links that you should read before getting started. As a new user, you will have to create a draft article (that is, with the title beginning "Draft: ), and an easy way to do that would be through the articles for creation process. Happy editing, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Scott MacNicol
, You deleted my page Scott MacNicol but I have just found many new sources on ProQuest that I can use to vastly expand the page and improve it (the deletion vote was very narrow anyway), would you be able draftify it into Draft:Scott MacNicol so I can use the many new sources I just found to vastly expand the page and improve his page? Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 06:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I would be willing in principle, but can you give me an example of the sources you have found? given the dispute at AfD about whether the sources you had provided there were enough, I think you'd need ones showing at least comparable coverage. I have ProQuest access through TWL, so a link should do it. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * , I found, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and . Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd screwed up my first ping, so I assume you're watching; but christ, I asked for one example. I'm not sifting through 17: I spot-checked two randomly, and they're going to get you into the same battle about routine coverage as happened at the first AfD. Can you please give me your best source? Vanamonde (Talk) 21:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * , is probably one of the best sources (besides the non-ProQyest ones), but if you want you can look at the other sources I found, many of which seem to go into his background:  , , , , , , , and . Keep in mind these are also not nearly all the sources I found about him, as I found many more in my previous statement. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, done, somewhat against my better judgement. Be thorough, please, but also don't add any puffery. The coverage is borderline here; I cannot tell if this would survive a second AfD. But I can't confidently say it wouldn't either, so I think it wouldn't be right for me to deny this. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks
Sorry, I did notice one other mention afterwards, but I'd looked for it in 'aftermath' before. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)


 * No problem. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Grazer AK 1902 0–1 SK Sturm Graz
Hi there. Haven't spoken in a while. You closed this AfD back in November as a merge to a draft. I just completed the merge, but am not sure what to do with the mainspace article, since we shouldn't redirect to a draft (it's what I've done in the short term, but not sure it's correct). Onel 5969  TT me 20:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi . We would generally prefer to preserve history when a merger has taken place, but yes, a cross-namespace redirect isn't ideal. I would suggest moving it to draftspace temporarily, in the expectation that Draft:Graz derby will eventually be moved to mainspace, and this title can be moved back and redirected. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok. Done.  Thanks for the reply.  Onel 5969  TT me 21:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 April 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2023).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Aoidh
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg KillerChihuahua



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

Guideline and policy news
 * A community RfC is open to discuss whether reports primarily involving gender-related disputes or controversies should be referred to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

Technical news
 * Some older web browsers will not be able to use JavaScript on Wikimedia wikis starting this week. This mainly affects users of Internet Explorer 11.
 * The rollback of Vector 2022 RfC has found no consensus to rollback to Vector legacy, but has found rough consensus to disable "limited width" mode by default.
 * A link to the user's page will now appear in the subtitle links shown on . This was voted #17 in the Community Wishlist Survey 2023.

Arbitration
 * The Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case has been closed.
 * A case about World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been opened, with the first evidence phase closing 6 April 2023.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Procedural notification
Hi, I and others have proposed additional options at Village_pump_(policy). You may wish to review your position in that RfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Template talk:Canadian party colour&#32; on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 22:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

WikiCup 2023 May newsletter
The second round of the 2023 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to have scored 60 points to advance into round 3. Our top five scorers in round 2 all included a featured article among their submissions and each scored over 500 points. They were:


 * Iazyges (1040) with three FAs on Byzantine emperors, and lots of bonus points.
 * Unlimitedlead (847), with three FAs on ancient history, one GA and nine reviews.
 * Epicgenius (636), a WikiCup veteran, with one FA on the New Amsterdam Theatre, four GAs and eleven DYKs
 * BennyOnTheLoose (553), a seasoned competitor, with one FA on snooker, six GAs and seven reviews.
 * 🇩🇪 FrB.TG (525), with one FA, a Lady Gaga song and a mass of bonus points.

Other notable performances were put in by Sammi Brie,  Thebiguglyalien,  MyCatIsAChonk,  PCN02WPS, and  AirshipJungleman29.

So far contestants have achieved thirteen featured articles between them, one being a joint effort, and forty-nine good articles. The judges are pleased with the thorough reviews that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2023).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Spicy
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Ale jrb · Dbachmann · DGG (deceased) · Jimbo Wales



CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Jimbo Wales

Oversighter changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Jimbo Wales

Guideline and policy news
 * A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.

Technical news
 * Progress has started on the Page Triage improvement project. This is to address the concerns raised by the community in their 2022 WMF letter that requested improvements be made to the tool.

Arbitration
 * The proposed decision in the World War II and the history of Jews in Poland case is expected 11 May 2023.

Miscellaneous
 * The Wikimedia Foundation annual plan 2023-2024 draft is open for comment and input through May 19. The final plan will be published in July 2023.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Games on Tap Board Game Cafe
In WP:Articles for deletion/Games on Tap Board Game Cafe you rejected GNG because of the four GNG references that had been discusses was from a college paper. But what about the other three - one from the biggest daily in the country - in a different city! One from the biggest national paper in the country. And the third from a local paper! Nfitz (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a substantial misreading of what I wrote. There is a substantial gray area between sources that clearly constitute SIGCOV and sources that do not, and there can be good-faith disagreement about such sources. This was the case at the AfD under discussion, but there was enough of a numerical tilt toward deletion that that option had consensus. The only point I made about the sources was that the college newspaper source specifically gets less weight. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with the close decision BTW. Perhaps the wording should be rephrased. Also, it certainly isn't a college newspaper, which seems unnecessarily derogatory! It's a university newspaper, it may even have more journalistic integrity than the local rag (Waterloo Chronicle). Nfitz (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In my lexicon there isn't much distinction, but the important thing is that it's a newspaper run by students, which typically have far less oversight than the larger newspapers we would consider reliable. A neighborhood newspaper would be similarly lower weighted; this isn't a slur on student papers. In any case, I'm not making my own argument there. I'm glad to hear you're not contesting the decision. I'm not sure I feel the need to adjust the closing statement, because the close doesn't hinge on that point; but if anyone makes a deal out of it, please feel free to point them to this discussion. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There's no distinction? The one is a glorified high school, with trades programs for those who can't get into universities. The other are serious academic institutions with research and "teachers" have PhDs. Come on ... heck in Quebec, college includes Grade 12 and is where you take a pre-University program before going to University. Nfitz (talk) 03:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I rather think that Amherst or Williams would be rather upset to be considered a "glorified high school". Vanamonde (Talk) 03:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Never heard of them. And why does it matter what less advanced foreign countries do? Nfitz (talk) 03:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The definition of a college isn't limited to what you understand by the term; it means different things in different places, and is applicable to institutions that are quite prestigious, regardless of whether you've heard of them. As such I'm not seeing why anything I wrote is derogatory, as it was me using the term "college newspaper". I think we ought to move on. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In US, it is very common to refer to universities as "college" or even "school" in daily use (perhaps, out of innocent habit, as a euphemism or humblebrag, or as elite signaling; see eg). And in my experience, student-run newspaperers associated with universities are commonly referred to as "college (news)papers" and I personally cannot recall them being called "university newspapers" although I am sure there are regional variations and the latter term would be in use. Abecedare (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That seems to be from (and perhaps in) a less-developed foreign country,User:Abecedare. One doesn't to the article about Biden and call him the Prime Minister of the USA (although I suppose Governor would be a more appropriate misnomer). Nfitz (talk) 04:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I misunderstood but wasn't the AFD related to an establishment in US's 51st state? :) Abecedare (talk) 04:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure User:Abecedare what Puerto Rico has to do with it. (or is it the District of Columbia - I can't remember which group of disenfranchised group of mostly-nonwhites is closest to suffrage). Nfitz (talk) 04:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Touché. Abecedare (talk) 04:56, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It isn't just the US, though... Vanamonde (Talk) 15:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You can't compare a constituent college of a university to a college. They are two different things. No one who went to a constituent college of a university would say they went to college (well, unless perhaps it was a seminary or such - which isn't the case here) - that would almost be derogatory given the prejudice against those who only attended college. Though RMC would be an exception - but that's military. See also College (Canada). Nfitz (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What's your point, Nfitz? I've amply demonstrated that "college" has multiple meanings, and is used for institutions that are seen (rightly or wrongly) as prestigious. If you still choose to take offence...that's not really my problem, is it? Vanamonde (Talk) 04:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 May 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

You Deleted My Page
Hello --

I recently logged in to see that Crexendo®'s Wikipedia page, that I created at the request of the CEO, was deleted. I am responsible for this page and am an employee of the organization. Feel free to check my LinkedIn. (Chris Schumacher Senior Content Marketing Manager at Crexendo). I need to know how to fix this. Please help me. Clschumacherr (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I see Rosguill is already addressing the conflict of interest issue on your talk page. As to the rest, there isn't much to be done here. When the community decides that the topic you wrote about isn't notable, really your only option is to move on. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:26, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Our old page, which was recently updated, was taken down as well with that. Is there any way that we can have the old page restored before it was updated/edited? Clschumacherr (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What page are you referring to? Vanamonde (Talk) 23:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The original Crexendo® Wiki page. It was was edited due to severely outdated information, which is why it was updated, but it's better to be visible rather than deleted forever. Is restoring it possible? Clschumacherr (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 May 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject Women in Green June 2023 Good Article Editathon notification
 Hello :

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a  month-long Good Article Editathon event in June 2023!

Running from June 1 to 30, 2023, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) editathon event – another Wildcard Edition! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to any and all women and women's works during the event period. Want to improve an article about a Bollywood actress? Go for it. A pioneering female climate scientist? Absolutely. An award-winning book or film by a woman? Yes! GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to receive a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Alanna the Brave (talk)

You are receiving this message as a member of the WikiProject Women in Green. You can remove yourself from receiving notifications here.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Grammar mistakes in close?
In your close of Murray Rothbord bibliography, I think you meant " The arguments to delete are both numerical" instead of keep. Normally am AfD closer comment shouldn’t be edited, but here may be worth making a common sense edit. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Indeed, thanks. Fixed. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Minor feedback
I'm not sure it's worth mentioning, but I question your reasoning in your close at Articles for deletion/List of restaurants in Hungary. Your statement there was "The result was keep‎. There is consensus that the list may serve a valid navigational purpose iff clear inclusion criteria are set out; there are many comments here suggesting that only wiki-notable restaurants be included, but determining the criteria is out of scope here. Were this article to balloon into a list full of non-notable entries, the arguments for deletion would carry a lot more weight. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)"
 * I disagree with the "iff" part, if by that you mean the mathematical expression "if and only if". Several persons agree that the list is valid for navigational purposes, whether or not there are clear inclusion criteria.
 * I disagree that if the article ballooned, that that would add any credence to it being deletion-worthy. That would only justify editing it down, or tagging it, or having discussion at the Talk page.

I personally think that this AFD and many others like it about lists of things, which are sublists of world-wide lists like List of restaurants should be immediately closed as administrative matters, because it is patently obvious they are part of a valid list-system.

About this one, there was no way in hell that it could be closed "delete" (if it were, that would be disputed at deletion review). Your closure seems to me to suggest to participants, unhelpfully, that there was any merit at all to the nomination and reasons for deletion proffered. Also you did not contradict (which I think you could/should have) several bad ideas that were stated in the deletionists' reasoning.

I do appreciate that you did not choose "no consensus", rather than waffling, and that you made the "right" decision. I hope you take this comment as feedback meant to be helpful. This is important work, and I do appreciate your contribution in applying yourself diligently to this closure and others. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 22:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for stopping by. Feedback is always welcome, but FWIW, I used the mathematical expression (and linked it for clarity) intentionally, and I didn't exhaustively debunk bad arguments because those existed on both sides: the contributions of the p-blocked user were almost entirely unhelpful and there were some OSE arguments. With respect to your specific point, a list full of unlinked entries, or an otherwise unsystematic list, doesn't necessarily fulfil a valid navigational purpose, a point which was made at the AfD. Conversely, the arguments for deletion were based in policy, and NOTINDISCRIMINATE in particular carries considerable weight when inclusion criteria are not defined well. I suppose I could have made it slightly clearer that there were two different reasons why inclusion criteria were determined to be important. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 June 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2023).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Ingenuity
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Ddstretch · Prodego · Resolute



CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Courcelles

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
 * Following a community referendum, the arbitration policy has been modified to remove the ability for users to appeal remedies to.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors June 2023 Newsletter
Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Qlone
Thanks for closing Qlone. I got caught in an edit-conflict just as you closed it, and I'm realising now I posted after the close. I've let it stand, as it doesn't change anything, and the third source I highlighted helps put this to bed further. Nfitz (talk) 22:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Horní Poustevna railway station
Hi. May I ask how you came to the conclusion that the result of this debate was to redirect? This seems to be your personal opinion, not in any way a summary of the opinions expressed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


 * It is in no way my personal opinion. The first argument to keep mentioned sources that ought to exist (which is weak), and the existence and age of the building (which aren't notability criteria. Your argument did not cite specific sources, and the sources in the article were convincingly challenged later. As such there is no substantive argument for a standalone page, and when such consensus exists, redirecting is preferred unless there are arguments specifically against redirecting. I also left the possibility of a merger open, as well as that of recreation if sources are found. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Necrothesp - I'm a random passer-by here, but, I see only a couple of railway timetables and I really don't see how those could ever have been enough to support a WP:GNG pass. Looking at the discussion, I see "there must be sources!" as the only keep argument, but that was convincingly rebutted. I wouldn't bother DELREV'ing this TBH. FOARP (talk) 07:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Right-wing populism&#32; on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 05:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Mackay Davashe
RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * It was my pleasure, Novem, and apologies for going AWOL sooner than expected afterwards! If I can help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 17:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Ygm
!! Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I've been without internet access for a bit, Moneytrees, apologies. I'll get back to you by the 29th if that's alright. Best, Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 17:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Delete edit history containing abuse at Talk:List of cities by homicide rate
Old friend. :) Gad to see you're still here and doing what you do best. Hope things are fine with for you in RL. I can assure you I'm doing well in that regard.

Back to business for old time's sake: delete the history of my revert and the original edit containing serious abuse (though old). Special:Diff/1160724596.

While linking to various policies, guidelines, noticeboards are still in my brain muscle memory, I thought why not make you handle this tiny issue and we get to say hi. :)

Be well. - Joel.

Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Always good to hear from you, ; glad to hear you've been well. I've been keeping busy, and haven't had much time for Wikipedia for the last few weeks; hope to return to full activity in the near future. Any chance you will be doing the same? :)
 * To be quite honest, I'm inclined to leave that edit be. It would qualify for RD2 on its own, I would say, but it's not so egregious that it's worth my deleting a bunch of intermediate revisions. Were it directed at any specific editor, rather than all of us, I would likely have deleted. Warm regards, Vanamonde (Talk) 23:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I've gotten rusty heh. I forgot rev deleting can depend on all the previous revisions. That makes sense then! It's not worth it, my revert is enough.
 * That's nice to hear that as always, you're ready to dive back in :) As for me, not likely anytime soon given my current RL scenario. I would never say a firm no for certain long-term wise though. A lot can happen in ten or fifteen years and factoring in how fast technology is changing. When life permits, I would gladly come back to editing in full capacity like in the old days--in whatever form this online encyclopaedia exists in by then. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023).



Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Novem Linguae
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Deckiller · Electionworld · MBisanz · Penwhale · Raul654 · Roadrunner · Viridae · Yannismarou

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

Guideline and policy news
 * Contributions to the English Wikipedia are now released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0) license instead of CC BY-SA 3.0. Contributions are still also released under the GFDL license.

Technical news
 * Discussion is open regarding a proposed global policy regarding third-party resources. Third-party resources are computer resources that reside outside of Wikimedia production websites.

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.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 July 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

WikiCup 2023 July newsletter
The third round of the 2023 WikiCup has come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 175 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:


 * Thebiguglyalien, with 919 points from a featured article on Frances Cleveland as well as five good articles and many reviews,
 * Unlimitedlead, with 862 points from a high-scoring featured articles on Henry II of England and numerous reviews,
 * Iazyges, with 560 points from a high-scoring featured article on Tiberius III.

Contestants achieved 11 featured articles, 2 featured lists, 47 good articles, 72 featured or good article reviews, over 100 DYKs and 40 ITN appearances. As always, any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)