User talk:Newslinger/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Learning from the JazzClam case

WP:AE#JazzClam has long been closed, and what the community decided originally is now implemented, but I'm still trying to learn from this. Why did you request administrative action there, instead of simply blocking JazzClam for edit #1? That that was a violation for which they could get blocked has been explained unmistakably on their talk page, IMHO. ◅ Sebastian 11:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi SebastianHelm, I prefer to propose potentially controversial sanctions on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard instead of applying them on my own. The JazzClam case was complicated, because JazzClam was topic-banned twice: once from "AP2" by community consensus in {{Section link}}: required section parameter(s) missing and once from "editing post-1932 American politics articles" as a discretionary sanction in User talk:JazzClam § Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban. Since these topic bans had slightly different scopes, I wanted to resolve this discrepancy going forward. I also wasn't sure whether edits #2–4 were topic ban violations that needed to be responded to. The AE discussion clarified the scope of the topic ban, and also let me know for future cases that I should avoid using the word "articles" in the ban description unless I want to restrict the ban to article space. — Newslinger talk 03:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, that makes sense. I understand that you wanted this to be clean, rather than simple. And yes, the use of “page” instead of “article” is a lesson I took away from that, too, although it took me time to change that habit[1]. ◅ Sebastian 13:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Email notification

You've got mail! DavidCBryant 12:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Abusing the Wikipedia email function to send hate mail laced with personal attacks, as you did here, is an inappropriate violation of the civility policy. I have responded at User talk:DavidCBryant § Your hate mail. — Newslinger talk 04:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

(Redacted) DavidCBryant 18:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, have fun with your indefinite block for being not here to build an encyclopedia. You might try Metapedia or Conservapedia. Best of luck. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

"Lude Media" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Lude Media. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 24#Lude Media until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

General sanctions for RSN?

I'm curious how you would feel about community authorised general sanctions for discussions concerning reliable sources. This would be something that would in effect just to allow admins to issue limited bans to users who create multiple RfCs and the like. I have to imagine that would be a pretty bad idea all things considered, but I am not sure exactly. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi MJL, that is an interesting suggestion. When an editor is unfamiliar with the conventions of the noticeboard, I think the best approach is to kindly inform them of these conventions, since the editor is most likely participating in good faith. There are instances in which an editor intentionally starts discussions on the noticeboard to cause disruption, but in my experience, these cases are very rare and are adequately handled by our current processes (i.e. a user talk page warning, followed by a report on WP:ANI if the editor is unresponsive). Regular noticeboard participants already express their objections when they see a discussion that does not seem to be a good fit for the venue. General sanctions would tighten enforcement for violations of behavioral policies/guidelines, but in my opinion, these violations do not occur more frequently on RSN than they do on other noticeboards. — Newslinger talk 11:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

SCOTUSblog RfC

Would you be happy to close the RfC here? It's not hit the 30-day limit yet, but it's gone past the seven-day minimum. I'm involved, so cannot do so myself.

Sdrqaz (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done and added to WP:RSP § SCOTUSblog. Thanks for the notice. ​— Newslinger talk 08:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

My pleasure. Thanks for closing it! Sdrqaz (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

unblock request

Moved to User talk:Dm51c § unblock request

 – — Newslinger talk 09:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

A user page

Thanks again for your recent help with promotional pages. What's a good way to handle a case such as Nea studio? It looks like WP:UPNOT, especially given the lack of contributions on other topics, but WP:U5 seems rather unfriendly as a first approach. Any advice would be welcome. Certes (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Certes, the page User:Nea studio also qualified for speedy deletion under criteria G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion) and G12 (copyright violation of https://www.neastudio.com/about), so I have deleted it. Even if G11 and G12 were not being considered, the user page would have still qualified for U5 because Special:Contributions/Nea studio shows that user has only used their account to inappropriately advertise their company on Wikipedia. I've blocked Nea studio as a promotion-only account with a promotional username. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, and I recommend the username noticeboard as the best venue to report promotional user pages when they are attached to promotional usernames. — Newslinger talk 11:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I'd considered UAA for this and similar cases, but was deterred by the big notice at the top only warning me to use it only for the most blatant cases after negotiation with the editor had failed. If its rules are less strict in practice then I'll go there in future. Certes (talk) 12:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

No problem. For vandalism- or promotion-only accounts, username violations are generally treated as serious violations. Discussions are usually reserved for editors who make constructive contributions on topics not connected to their usernames.​ — Newslinger talk 12:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Jihad Watch RfC closure

Hi Newslinger. I considered sending this by email, but was afraid that it would be considered to be stealth canvassing, so I've decided to send it here instead. Would you be able to provide any feedback on my closure of the Jihad Watch RfC? It's since been amended following criticism, but I'd appreciate your expertise as an administrator who's quite active on the RSN side of Wikipedia. A discussion regarding its closure can be found on my talk page, but I want to make it clear that I do not want you to intervene there.

Sdrqaz (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sdrqaz, I am probably not the best person to ask for feedback here, since I participated in the Jihad Watch RfC. However, I don't see anything wrong with your closure, which correctly summarized the content of the discussion, including the prominent parts of the discussion that were unrelated to the RfC statement. It is common for RfC closers to receive objections or complaints from editors who are dissatisfied with the closing summary, and it is up to the closer to decide how to process these objections. You amended the closing summary to use "there being some criticism of the proposer", and based on some of the hostile comments in the RfC, I think this is accurate. — Newslinger talk 06:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the invaluable advice, Newslinger. I fear that asking another administrator's opinion on this matter will open myself to accusations of WP:ADMINSHOPPING, so I'll probably leave it. An editor has advised me that they will object to my future deprecation RfC closures as involved. In that light, would you feel it advisable for me to desist from closing discussions of a similar nature? Sdrqaz (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

When closing any RfC, the RfC closer acknowledges the possibility that the closing statement may be challenged via WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, regardless of whether other editors have indicated that they will or will not make a challenge beforehand. I don't see any problem with you closing RfCs on the reliable sources noticeboard that you have not participated in. As long as you are prepared to respond to any challenges (as you have done in User talk:Sdrqaz § Jihad Watch RFC closure), I don't see any reason for you to desist from performing these closures. — Newslinger talk 10:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the much-needed perspective and insight, Newslinger. I'll do so accordingly. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Sanctions on post-1992 US Politics

You claim I have made disruptive edits on an article related on an article about post-1992 US politics. Can you link me the edit which I made? My edit history only shows one edit on a page about post-1992 US politics, which has not been reverted or challenged in any way. I haven't made any other edits in the topic area. Alfred the Lesser (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Alfred the Lesser, the notice at User talk:Alfred the Lesser § Controversial topic area alert is a standard notice issued to editors who demonstrate interest in a controversial topic area. As stated in the second sentence of the notice, the message does not imply that your edits are disruptive. In your case, the Antifa (United States) article is covered under special rules (active arbitration remedies) detailed near the top of Talk:Antifa (United States). Many editors editing controversial topic areas receive a notice about once per year for each topic area. Please be aware of these rules, but beyond that, there is no action needed on your behalf. — Newslinger talk 16:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I misread have taken interest in. Alfred the Lesser (talk) 12:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked user abusing talk page

Hello admin, you might want to revoke talk page access of blocked user STYLISH ASH. They are abusing their talk page. --Ashleyyoursmile! 07:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. I've also deleted the page under speedy deletion criterion G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). Thanks for reporting this. ​— Newslinger talk 07:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --Ashleyyoursmile! 07:32, 9 February 2021 Over-proOver-protec

unblocking ValueChampion account

Re: the block on user account "ValueChampion".

Hi! I was unable to discuss this through my ValueChampion account or appeal it since I was soft blocked. I understand the reasons why my account was blocked, so I'd like to change the username. However, I'm unable to make any movement on my side, so if you could please help me out there, I'd really appreciate it as I want to continue my contributions with that account. I'm happy to discuss further and will ensure I continue my Wiki journey with more awareness of the rules. Natalia sanku (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Natalia sanku, since the ValueChampion account was only soft-blocked, you are able to continue editing with your current account (Natalia sanku). If you would like to rename the ValueChampion account and continue using that one instead, please follow the instructions at User talk:ValueChampion § February 2021 (the part that mentions the {{unblock-un}} template) while logged in to your ValueChampion account. In your unblock request, please select a new username that meets Wikipedia's username policy. If you choose to use the renamed account, I recommend that you stop using your current account (Natalia sanku) or at least review the policy against sockpuppetry, since there are many restrictions related to having multiple Wikipedia accounts. — Newslinger talk 15:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Over-protection

Someone set a "indefinite" extended protection on this page: Vietnam, it's unnecessary, can you set a timer for it (I think 1 month is ok) or reset to auto-confirmed, please. 59.153.238.189 (talk) 08:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, based on the editing history of the Vietnam article, there has been an extraordinary amount of disruption on the article for over a decade. Extended-confirmed protection is one of the more effective ways to protect the article from vandalism by registered accounts, and vandalism on the article resumed after a prior 1-month period of extended-confirmed protection expired. While the article is protected, you are welcome to submit edit requests on the talk page, Talk:Vietnam.

@NinjaRobotPirate: Do you think it would be a good idea to set an expiration for the extended-confirmed protection, or use some alternative such as semi-protection combined with pending changes protection? — Newslinger talk 10:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection is useless. The sock puppets are autoconfirmed. I usually lift indef ECP after a while, but giving a specific end date just gives the socks a date to put on their calendar, as we've seen. If they don't know when the protection will be lifted, they may move on to other things. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds very reasonable.​ — Newslinger talk 06:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Remove from blacklist

Dear Sir

Kindly remove domain bismatrimony.com from blacklist . It was my mistake, i did not read the guidelines properly of wikipedia, hereafter I will not make the mistake again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Setm4edit (talk • contribs) 11:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I've responded on your talk page. — Newslinger talk 12:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

A thank you + a warning

@Newslinger:, I do appreciate that you corrected me on Wikipedia policy. I do thank you for the email about the problem. What I do not like is the fact that you undid an edit on my page. I would have liked to have undid it as it make me look guilty for something that was a simple fix. In the future, please just alert the editor and make them change it. Do not ever edit another users user page without permission. Ok? Elijahandskip (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Elijahandskip, Wikipedia:Harassment § Posting of personal information states:

Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently.

It also states:

Unless unintentional and non-malicious (for example, where Wikipedians know each other off-site and may inadvertently post personal information, such as using the other person's real name in discussions), attempted outing is sufficient grounds for an immediate block.

When an editor's personal information is disclosed on Wikipedia, it is a serious and immediate issue. Now that you are aware of the doxing policy, please do not post links to sites that contain another Wikipedia editor's personal information again. — Newslinger talk 17:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

163.47.148.143

Can user:163.47.148.143 please be blocked ASAP for vandalism. CLCStudent (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for reporting this.​ — Newslinger talk 16:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

A heads-up about OpIndia

OpIndia is back at trying to dox/harass editors! I can't link their article but if you go to their site, look up "Wikipedia" in the search bar and go to the article from 8 Feb, you'll see that they said "While earlier we could track the IP addresses of editors, that itself seems to have been masked now.", and has written about two editors.

So if I understand them correctly, apparently they were able to track logged in editors in the past which should not be possible for outsiders.

Do expect more traffic at PM Modi's talk page. So far I've seen only two users there who may have been motivated by OpIndia but one was rather polite. 45.251.33.0 (talk) 13:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC) please don't use any notification templates for me, I'm on a dynamic IP range so I'll periodically check this page

Thank you for the warning. I have no idea what Sharma means by "While earlier we could track the IP addresses of editors, that itself seems to have been masked now", since IP addresses of logged-in editors are confidential, as stated in the Wikimedia privacy policy.

@Jonmaxras, Snooganssnoogans, and Vanamonde93: Since you were mentioned in the OpIndia (RSP entry) piece, you may experience a slight uptick in harassment in the coming days. — Newslinger talk 14:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

It probably just means "while earlier edits were made anonymously with IP addresses displayed, recent edits are from logged-in editors whose IP addresses are (and always were) masked", which is a consequence of semi-protecting some of the pages. Certes (talk) 14:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

That would make sense. Thanks for explaining. ​— Newslinger talk 14:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, that seems like fun. Thanks for the heads up, Newslinger...Vanamonde (Talk) 16:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Lol I love a bit of drama. Thanks for letting me know! Jonmaxras (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Alright, I couldn't see this again till today and one user was already harassed to the point where they had to erase all records of their existence here? What the actual ****? 45.251.33.57 (talk) 04:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

It could be due to a serious issue, or it could be out of an abundance of caution. Let's hope for the best. — Newslinger talk 06:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Removing the "alt-right"

My edit summary was and should have been sufficient. The evidence provided by other random people does not suffice for the accusations made in the article. There are other obvious, slanderous, and incorrect accusations made that I didn't touch, but apparently you'd have them stay as well. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be information? It's sad that you'd allow such editorializations like this to occur and it shows that Wikipedia is biased. How sad.

Persilver (talk) 11:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC) Jason

The far-right descriptor is amply supported by 11 reliable sources, including five high-quality academic sources. Wikipedia is not censored, and will not remove reliably sourced information because it offends a reader. If you have high-quality academic sources that show that Breitbart News is not a far-right publication, feel free to share them on the talk page. — Newslinger talk 11:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft Tor Phone

Hi Newslinger, does Draft:Tor Phone have good enough sourcing to move to an article, in your opinion? Any other suggestions or edits are welcome. Thanks. --Yae4 (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Yae4, the sourcing is currently borderline. If the draft is published, there is a high chance that the article will be tagged with {{More citations needed}} and a moderate chance that the article will be nominated for deletion. The main problem is that the International Business Times (RSP entry) is considered generally unreliable, which prevents the International Business Times UK article and the Yahoo! News UK republication from being counted toward the notability requirement. The second problem is that sources which only cover other privacy-oriented phones (e.g. Blackphone and BOSS phone) are not about the article subject proper (Tor Phone), and also do not count toward the notability requirement.

This leaves us with two independent, secondary sources about the Tor Phone that could count toward the requirment: one generally reliable source, Ars Technica (RSP entry), and one borderline source, Fossbytes. (TechLog360 and Sophos' company blog are self-published.) These two sources might be enough to keep the article from being deleted. If you do decide to publish the draft and the article does eventually get deleted, you are still free to make a new section about the Tor Phone in the Tor (anonymity network) article and create a redirect from Tor Phone to that section. — Newslinger talk 19:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Newslinger I appreciate the info'. Borderline sounds almost close enough to risk it. :) How about this one? I didn't start it, but I added some sources and touched it up a little after its last rejection: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:Potato_Open_Sauce_Project . Thanks! -- Yae4 (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

No problem. Unfortunately, Draft:Potato Open Sauce Project looks less reliably sourced than Draft:Tor Phone, primarily because it lacks a single solid source that most editors would consider to count toward the general notability guideline. The XDA Developers blog is borderline, but any post about a new version of POSP that does not include a significant amount of original content beyond the changelog would be considered "routine coverage" under WP:CORPDEPTH. The draft would benefit from an article in a more prominent technology or general news website that focuses exclusively on and includes significant coverage of POSP. ​— Newslinger talk 07:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Gündüz Alp

Wondering if you'd be willing to protect this article again. It's annoying. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I've applied semi-protection for 3 months. If this persists, the next round of protection will be 6 months long.​ — Newslinger talk 13:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

And if you're so inclined, Turgut Alp has a similar problem. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I've semi-protected that article for 1 week, and taken a few more actions at Special:Permalink/1007349423 § Five KızılBörü1071 sockpuppet targets. You may be interested in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KızılBörü1071. Thanks again for the update.​ — Newslinger talk 17:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Perhaps I'll be back. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I need your help

An editor tries to keep false information on a BLP article by reverting an edit that fixed wrong information and provided a reliable source (ESPN.com), instead of an unreliable one. He claims WP:EVADE as the reason although there's not an SPI, let alone a closed one. Besides, it's irrelevant anyways. He can't hurt Wikipedia and its content by other policies no matter what per WP:IGNORE.

He apperantly requested a protection to ensure false information's survival. Would you be able to help me? I just want you to check the edit and source. If you find my words true reinstate that edit back. They're trying the game the system and keep the false information. This is the article: Tony Ferguson. And this is the diff that provided accurate information. Unfotunately it was reverted.88.241.84.60 (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, unfortunately, I cannot help you because proxy editing is prohibited when I do not have an independent reason to implement the requested edit.​ — Newslinger talk 00:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

What about WP:IGNORE? There's clearly a false information in that article supported by an unreliable source according to an rfc at rsn and it prohibits us from improving and maintaining Wikipedia. I thought that was a clear-cut policy that's only useful in cases such as this. Policies in essence should help Wikipedia improve its content anyways, not corrupt it. Don't you agree?88.241.87.124 (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The one policy that "ignore all rules" is not able to override is consensus, and there does not appear to be consensus to implement your requested changes on the Tony Ferguson article. — Newslinger talk 02:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. You're only confirming what I tried to point out. The consensus was reached here at RSN. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_318#RfC:_Sherdog.com. This editor tries to override that consensus by reverting an edit that sourced espn.com instead of sherdog.com which wasn't found reliable, by pointing out to WP:EVADE. He's also violating WP:IGNORE by holding onto false information. So, WP:IGNORE is not overriding consensus here. WP:EVADE - without any confirmation at all - overrides consensus AND WP:IGNORE both at the same time. That's why I seeked out for your help in the first place. There's a false information in the article and this editor reverts anyone that changes it by pointing out to the evasion policy, hence overriding consensus AND ignore all rules at the same time and purposefully degrading the content quality of Wikipedia. If you could only check the edit he reverted and the rfc that was mentioned above, you would understand his true purpose behind the revert and how he overrides both consensus AND WP:IGNORE.88.241.87.124 (talk) 12:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

That RfC concluded that Sherdog "should be used with caution, on a case-by-case basis", and did not conclude that Sherdog needed to be removed from any article. I am not going to intervene in a content dispute on an article that I am unfamiliar with by request of an editor who is evading a block. — Newslinger talk 19:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I see. That's OK, although the RfC closure clearly mentions espn.com as a reliable source, certainly more reliable than sherdog, and that's what that edit simply did, replaced sherdog with ESPN. I just want you to know that he and a couple of his friends will continue to do that and hold onto the false information in a lot of BLP articles regardless of WP:EVADE excuse or not. They'll give various different reasons that won't make sense for why they revert when the same type of edits come from old accounts. I'll report them to you when that happens. I hope you'll remember this. If any IP does something like that, they'll stick with the WP:EVADE excuse so I won't bother about them. Anyways, thanks for your time. I have really appreciated that you at least listened to what I tried to say.88.241.87.124 (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

A word please

Mr Baron von Fenton has created himself a sock puppet of his globally locked/blocked account called Baron Silas von Fenton, so can you block that account urgently please? --82.32.183.60 (talk) 10:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for the report. — Newslinger talk 10:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Request

Hi Newslinger, thanks for attending to my report at WP:AIV. Could you page-protect the Cusper article for a few days? There's a bunch of new editors and IPs arguing about the content and I think it would be best if they joined the talk page discussion that's currently going on to try to reach consensus instead. Thanks, Some1 (talk) 12:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. I've applied full protection for 2 days. During this time, I recommend setting up a request for comment or escalating to the reliable sources noticeboard. ​— Newslinger talk 12:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! Some1 (talk) 12:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Can this IP be blocked?

Hello admin, can this 2.88.93.182 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) be blocked as soon as possible? --Ashleyyoursmile! 12:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the block. Ashleyyoursmile! 12:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

No problem. In the future, if you notice an explicit image being inappropriately added into a page, please file a request at MediaWiki talk:Bad image list (WT:BIL) to get the image placed on the bad image list (WP:BIL).​ — Newslinger talk 12:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Noted! Thank you for letting me know. Ashleyyoursmile! 12:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Question (wanting a review)

Earlier in life you reviewed my user page and found a cite I shouldn't have linked to. I don't want to be in trouble again in the future, so would you be willing to take a look at my User:Elijahandskip#Outside Wikipedia Recognition section and make sure my listings comply with Wikipedia policy? Thank you. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Elijahandskip, I have forwarded your request to the Oversight team for evaluation, and will follow up after I receive a response. — Newslinger talk 02:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I just to verify, there isn't a chance for to be warned/banned from this request since I am the one asking about it, correct? Elijahandskip (talk) 02:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Since I am not an oversighter, I think you would receive a better answer if you ask the Oversight team directly. If the Oversight team does decide to remove the content, you will almost certainly receive a notification that it is removed, which may be in the form of a warning. I am not familiar enough with their blocking criteria to answer the other part of your question. — Newslinger talk 03:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Update of entry about me

Apologies for being so slow to familiarize myself with Wikipedia protocols and procedures. Much technical ineptitude on my part. Thank you for your comments. I’d be most grateful for your help in updating and correcting the entry about me. (The notes should remain largely unchanged.) MAJOR updates/corrections: (1) Please add two important publications: The Cambridge Introduction to French Literature (2015) and Emile Zola: A Very Short Introduction (2020). (As well as adding these to “Works”, replace Emile Zola: A Selective Analytical Bibliography with Emile Zola: A Very Short Introduction.) Also, add “Marcel Proust, Swann in Love (2017)” to the list of translations. (2) I am no longer editor of the Australian Journal of French Studies and no longer President of AALITRA – I therefore suggest deleting the reference to the journal in the first sentence and changing the last paragraph of the text to: Nelson was editor of the Australian Journal of French Studies (2002–20), co-founder of the journal Romance Studies, editor of the monograph series Monash Romance Studies, and President (2007–15) of AALITRA (the Australian Association for Literary Translation). Notes unchanged. MINOR corrections: (1) Last sentence of second para: change to “on topics such as “Paris and Modern Life”…[delete “The Female Body”], as well as translation studies.” (2) Change “About these translations, Nelson said” to “Speaking about his translation of The Belly of Paris, Nelson said:” and insert opening quotation marks at the beginning of the indented quote; (3) Correct the title: Emile Zola: A Selective Analytical Bibliography (i.e. not Selective and Analytical…). (4) Naturalism in the European Novel is an edited collection and should be placed under “Editor”. (5) (Under “Translator”) The Earth should be Earth. Your help would be greatly appreciated. – Brian Nelson Mackie1789 (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mackie1789, and thank you for making an effort to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I highly recommend reading the plain and simple conflict of interest guide (WP:PSCOI), which describes the process for making an edit request for an article that you are associated with. The "Steps for engagement" section explains exactly what to do: your first step is to post the above request in a new section of article's talk page – Talk:Brian Nelson (literature professor) – below a {{Request edit}} template. Your request will then be placed on a list for an uninvolved reviewer to evaluate. If you have any questions about this process, please feel free to ask me or the friendly editors at the Teahouse. Welcome to Wikipedia! — Newslinger talk 03:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Help with previous Outing a COI

Hi, I'm reaching out to you as I saw you were the last admin involved in the disruptive editing by User_talk:138.229.231.148. Last June, I thought I was being clever putting 2+2 together to assume the identity of the editor, whom I believe is a COI. I just recently came across the WP:OUTING policy, which I should have just assumed on my own. My post to the Talk page of the above IP violates this, and while I feel something should be done about the user, I also think it might be appropriate to scrub my edit, versus simply undoing it myself.

A side note, they made one more attempt at blanking a section, which was reverted, but later followed by an acceptable, cited addition.

Thanks for your time and efforts, Strangerpete (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Strangerpete, disclosing on-wiki activity is generally not considered a violation of the policy against posting of personal information (WP:DOX). If one or more IP editors make changes to a biography, it is okay to mention this on Wikipedia. This is because the privacy policy makes it clear to anonymous editors that their IP addresses will be archived in the page history, and IP editors are also shown a banner on the edit page that states: "Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits." It is also acceptable to analyze IP addresses and share the results on Wikipedia, as you have done in Special:Diff/961118751.

On the other hand, finding the legal name, contact information, photograph, or other personal information of an editor through off-wiki sources and then disclosing it on Wikipedia without their consent is prohibited, if they are not currently disclosing the same.

In regards to the editing activity on the Randall Miller article, you may want to post a new report on the conflict of interest noticeboard (WP:COIN). I see that there was a previous discussion that mentioned this article in 2018 at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 128 § Other articles, which may be useful. I hope this helps. — Newslinger talk 21:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your assessment and reply, it's a little tough interpreting the policies sometimes. And I'll see if I can get a moment this weekend to post a report as well. Strangerpete (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

No problem. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions.​ — Newslinger talk 17:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Permission for edit of this page

Hey, please help me make this page more popular and highlight the concerns rightly so the right information is presented in the correct way. So please enable editing of this page. Mb 9702 (talk) 07:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The Love Jihad article is currently protected because it has been affected by disruptive editing. Also, the consensus of high-quality academic sources is that Love Jihad is a conspiracy theory or fabricated claim. Please see Special:Permalink/1007713474 § cite note-conspiracy theory-15 for the list. Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources, and not original research. The unwarranted promotion of fringe theories is not allowed on Wikipedia. — Newslinger talk 08:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

A message

I am suspecting there is a sockpuppet of Mr Baron von Fenton called I own all the world, so can you block it please? -- 82.32.183.60 (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Already blocked and globally locked. — Newslinger talk 08:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

A word please

Hello Newslinger: Fencorp Education may be a sockpuppet of Mr Baron von Fenton, so can you block that account ASAP urgently please? -- 82.32.183.60 (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Already blocked and globally locked. — Newslinger talk 08:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Amanda Holden

Thanks for semi-protecting Amanda Holden last week: I'm afraid that the problems restarted immediately on expiry, so could we have a bit longer? Thanks, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Fortunately, the disruption seems to have significantly slowed down. Thanks for reporting this.​ — Newslinger talk 08:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Source reliability on article talk pages

A couple days ago, I came across NDTV because of Gadgets 360 (specifically this article). I wanted to see if it was a WP:RS (as one does with unfamiliar sources). I don't know about you, but my first inclination is to search to see if the source has an article. I then go to the talk page to see if there has been any relevant discussions I should note before finally checking RS/P and the RS/N archives.

That got me thinking.. what if a source's reliability information was just right there on the article talk page. How would that even get done? My idea is using {{WikiProject Reliability}} to do it. I tested it out at {{WikiProject Reliability/sandbox}}, and here are some of the results.

What do you think? Any thoughts on this as a possibility? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi MJL, and thanks for this novel suggestion. I really like it. Implementing this in the {{WikiProject Reliability}} template is something that has never crossed my mind before. Your example looks great, and I think it would be fairly straightforward to implement by bot. I recall having a discussion with another editor over a year ago about a similar idea, although not as complete as yours, but I can't remember the details and haven't been able to locate the discussion. They might be interested in helping out, if only I can find the discussion. — Newslinger talk 21:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Czar: I think you were the editor who mentioned something like this. Do you recall having a discussion with me about indicating the reliability of sources on article talk pages? — Newslinger talk 21:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Found it at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 61 § Article talk page template inquiry. The other editor was Ceyockey. Sorry for the accidental ping, Czar.

@Ceyockey: Is the idea at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 61 § Article talk page template inquiry something you are still interested in? MJL has a proof of concept here, and it can also be extended to other WikiProjects. — Newslinger talk 21:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)}}

Oh, interesting! I forgot about pages like this which supplement WP:RS/P. Yeah, that would definitely be something other WikiProjects would want to consider. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I would anticipate editors shuddering at giving articles a scarlet letter. Our encyclopedia coverage is generally separate from our own editorial practices. When looking up a source as mentioned, you're doing two separate things: (1) becoming generally apprised about what the source does (and Wikipedia articles happen to be the go-to reference) and (2) ascertaining the Wikipedia community's take on the topic (e.g., going straight to WP:RSP). For the purposes above I'd recommend a user script like WP:Cite Unseen or User:Headbomb/unreliable. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 06:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Just to be completely clear, the proposal would not affect anything in article space, since these WikiProject banners would be placed in article talk space only. Wikipedia editors already use talk page banners to indicate the importance of article subjects through the vital articles project, and reliability banners are just another way to indicate an aspect of the article subject that is relevant to editors who make use of article talk pages. I use both Cite Unseen and the Unreliable/Predatory Source Detector, and find them to be very useful scripts that I would recommend to any editor. ​— Newslinger talk 09:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

God Jul och Gott Nytt År!

Gråbergs Gråa Sång is wishing you the season's greetings.
Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's solstice or Christmas,
Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus,
or the Saturnalia,
this is a special time of year for (almost) everyone.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk • contribs) 13:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Donner60 (talk) is wishing a foaming mug of Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec20}} to your friends' talk pages.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Donner60 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Using rollback by mistake

Hi. I noticed that you have responded to several requests for permissions recently. Since rollback does not require an additional click, it is much faster than other ways of reverting. I do not know how often people use rollback by mistake, but I am already upset because there were already three different instances this month (1, 2, 3) that my edits were reverted using the said tool, and the persons who did those edits claimed that those reverts were accidental. Is there a way to tweak the rollback button such that people need to click twice? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 03:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Newslinger. Nice to meet you. This matter has no major relevance to me, but it brought my attention the way how the user asked me (pointed out directly as a "Rollback abuse") in my user talk page about a mistake I did and is now used as one of his/her examples. I thought an edit summary in a self-revertion could be enough, but I have the impression it wasn't. Anyway, just to let you know: this happened to me because unlike my PC, I logged in my laptop which is a bit slow. At that time, that template was on the top of my watchlist and above the article I wanted to enter. While the page was freezing/uploading, for those or more reason I accidentally made the missclick in the botton. I already removed that page of my watchlist, because I don't even edit there and to avoid any further inconvience since that page is constantly edited, I log to my latop daily and it can appears tons of times on the top of my list. Cheers and sorry for any inconvinience, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 03:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Apoxyomenus, Wikipedia:Rollback § Accidental use of rollback specifically recommends self-reverting a rollback when it is accidentally used incorrectly, so you've done the right thing in this case. Personally, I disable rollback in the website interface through the instructions in Wikipedia:Customizing watchlists § Wikipedia:Customizing watchlists since I prefer to use Twinkle for reverting edits, and the only time I make use of rollback is through Huggle. You may find this to be a more flexible approach to using rollback. — Newslinger talk 08:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi LSGH, among all of the available permissions, rollback is the least significant one. This is because the Twinkle gadget, which is available to all autoconfirmed editors through an option in the user preferences, already provides a one-click revert feature that is functionally equivalent to rollback when using the Wikipedia website on a desktop or laptop computer. Due to Twinkle's popularity, I assign a low bar to granting the rollback permission. Anyone who uses rollback to revert an edit can do the same through Twinkle, and one-click reverts in Twinkle are not even subject to the requirements in WP:ROLLBACKUSE. If an editor wants to use an edit summary with rollback, they can customize the rollback feature with one of the user scripts in WP:USL § Anti-vandalism, or alternatively, use one of Twinkle's other rollback modes that prompt for an edit summary. — Newslinger talk 08:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I am not sure how often people accidentally use those tools, but how often should it happen before revoking rollback? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 06:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

There's no hard and fast rule, although both the quantity and the proportion of incorrect rollbacks would be examined. Some leniency is granted for editors who have recently received the permission (accompanied with a warning). If an editor self-reverts an incorrect rollback, the incident generally does not count against them unless it is a recurring trend. Even highly experienced editors occasionally make mistakes with rollback, although they would self-revert. ​— Newslinger talk 15:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:WPSPAM

Hello Newslinger, I was just wondering if I should be reporting all linkspam that I can find to the talk page, or just domains that have been spammed repeatedly. Could you please advise? Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Pahunkat, submitting a report on the spam noticeboard can be useful for either of these purposes:

1. Reporting a domain that has been repeatedly spammed, so that it can be blacklisted and that the spammers can be blocked
2. Reporting a domain or editor to generate a COIBot report, which may reveal more information or assist with research elsewhere

COIBot is able to detect spam across all Wikimedia projects, and using COIBot reports can be much more efficient than performing the research manually. Because of this, feel free to submit spam reports even if you just see one spam edit. The reports that do not need any action would simply be ignored.

I understand that these reports can add clutter to the noticeboard, so feel free to add a comment with the {{No action}} template to close out any reports with domains that are not repeatedly spammed, after COIBot report is generated. — Newslinger talk 15:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Newslinger, I'll do that from now on :-) Pahunkat (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Requesting an indefinite block

Hi Newslinger, I've asked for an indefinite block on Stpetestan (talk · contribs) at AIV. Their promotional and copyright violation edits at St. Peterburg were not curtailed by your one week block. Thanks and cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the report. The editor has been blocked for one month by another administrator. — Newslinger talk 08:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

User GK349340iti

Hello, I have no idea who GK349340iti is, but they created an attack page and mentioned names of some admins: Template:Did you know nominations/WIkipedia. I'm guessing they are either an LTA or some sock of blocked user. Can you perhaps take a look? --Ashleyyoursmile! 08:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ashleyyoursmile, this does appear to be a long-term abuse case. I have deleted the attack page and blocked the account. Thanks for reporting this. ​— Newslinger talk 08:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've come across them multiple times before, but I've forgotten the name of the master. Pahunkat (talk) 09:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Newslinger. :) --Ashleyyoursmile! 13:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

is this AGF?

Hi Could you please have a look at this. I feel it is attacking me and attributing motive instead of simply talking about my content. Other editors have already given their opinion at the MFD and I have taken the feedback and made improvements to the essay. Thus, I feel the comment is harsh by commenting on my motivation and potentially preventing useful feedback from other editors. Kindly help. Thanks. Vikram Vincent 07:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Vincentvikram, the comment informs me that your guideline proposal is related to a much larger dispute concerning another topic. Editors are allowed to provide context to proposals, and although the comment did not support the proposal, I do think the comment was helpful for understanding the situation from a bird's-eye view. After examining the deleted content at User:Vincentvikram/Yes Marxism-Leninism, I see that the majority of the content from the deleted page has been incorporated into User:Vincentvikram/Always keep context in mind when arguing claims. Since the underlying dispute is conduct-oriented rather than content-oriented, I don't think a change in a content-oriented guideline (such as the reliable sources guideline) would have made any difference to the outcome of the dispute.

Editors have plenty of freedom in user pages – anything other than what is prohibited in Wikipedia:User pages § What may I not have in my user pages? (WP:UPNOT) is generally allowed, if it does not conflict with any other policy or guideline that applies to user space. Because of this, I don't think you have to worry about User:Vincentvikram/Always keep context in mind when arguing claims being deleted via community discussion. However, since changes to policies and guidelines need consensus for implementation, the essay in its current form is unlikely to have a direct impact on the text of any policy or guideline.

If you want to propose a change to a policy/guideline, I recommend identifying a type of situation for which there is community consensus that the current policies and guidelines would generate a suboptimal outcome, and then determining the smallest possible change that would address the issue. Although the underlying dispute did not result in the outcome that you would have preferred, the result is in line with the community consensus, which means that this particular dispute is not the kind of dispute that would motivate a change in the policies and guidelines

I understand that it can be difficult to lose an editor you have collaborated with to a topic ban, but the silver lining is that topic-banned editors who shift to participating in less controversial topic areas for several months before appealing the topic ban are able to return with more editing experience. I hope this helps. — Newslinger talk 09:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed note Newslinger. While the origin is the ANI, that specific editor is already TBAN'd and hence my request for feedback can have no relevance to them in the present. My concern is attributing motive to me via the whole origin of this "contextualization" stuff is to aid and abet POV pushing and I am sure you won't find any diffs of me POV pushing. And as you could see, I intentionally posted only the abstract text for feedback. Vikram Vincent 09:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Just to share that I am emotionally detached from any of these topics. I am however interested in historical thinking and I saw the discussion on the ANI threads from that perspective. Vikram Vincent 09:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

with a sentence like the whole origin of this "contextualization" stuff is to aid and abet POV pushing, no other editor is going to take the trouble of going into details. They will just assume that I am "aiding and abetting a POV pusher". I think this needs to be corrected. Vikram Vincent 09:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

If you believe that the comment is portraying your intent incorrectly, your best course of action is to reply to the comment with a clarification of your intent. I don't think the comment would result in any action if presented for review on a noticeboard. ​— Newslinger talk 09:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

A quick heads up

I am not sure if you already saw it but, as part of their epic flounce off of Wikipedia, User:Lilipo25 has made some statements that could be construed as accusations against you on their User Talk page. I have no idea whether you care about this but I thought I should let you know just in case you want to do anything about it. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi DanielRigal, thanks for sharing this. As I mentioned in the now-archived sockpuppet investigation, I submitted a report to the Arbitration Committee on 3 March and they are investigating it. Lilipo25 has made a number of statements that are contradicted by off-wiki evidence, although I am unable to share the evidence on-wiki due to the policy on posting of personal information. I don't think the content of Special:Diff/1009601766 warrants any immediate action, although this edit can be included in an arbitration enforcement request if one is ever filed. — Newslinger talk 20:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Second opinion on venue

Hi Newslinger. I'm hoping to get a perspective on if I am discussing a sourcing issue from the correct perspective. It relates to the discussion around this diff and this RSN discussion that you commented on.

Sorry in advance if this is rambling. The central questions (I think) are: Am I thinking about this in the right way? Should I move past bringing things back to RS?

At this point, is seems like most participants have agreed that Y!N is a reliable source. Now there is an argument "I think it isn't DUE because neither Yahoo News nor Athelea is 'prominent'...".

In my reading of DUE, this discussion of "prominence" of a single source doesn't make sense. First RS status of outlets are determined, and then prominence is determined by seeing how much something is discussed in RS.

But maybe I'm misreading things. It seems like there's something strange going on in how arguments aren't finding common language of communication, and so I'm trying to go back to policy to find the right road to go down.

Thanks for your thoughts. Jlevi (talk) 14:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jlevi, I see a discrepancy between the local consensus at Talk:PragerU § Is a Yahoo! News article including material from the Alethea Group due? and the community consensus at WP:RSN § Yahoo! News article for PragerU. Since local consensus cannot override community consensus, I recommend starting an RfC at Talk:PragerU asking the community whether the Yahoo! News piece should be included in the article, and then posting a notification about the RfC at both the reliable sources noticeboard and the neutral point of view noticeboard. An RfC is the only binding content dispute resolution method, and I believe this is the best solution to break the deadlock here. — Newslinger talk 22:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. Two small follow-ups:

• Should I wait to the conversation at RSN to expire?
• Could I draft the RfC language and run it by you? I have received some criticism regarding how I worded the RSN discussion, so I'd love a second opinion.

Jlevi (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a need to wait for the RSN discussion to be archived. If you start the RfC before the discussion is archived, you can add a notice about the RfC to the RSN discussion under a new subheading. Sure, I can help with the phrasing. ​— Newslinger talk 22:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok. First time drafting an RfC, so I am open to any feedback at all. A first options are here, ordered by level of specificity about the kind of content I am suggesting including using this source. Looking forward to any suggestions you might have. Jlevi (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Looking at User:Jlevi/RFC language, I have a few suggestions:

1. The language of the RfC statement should be more focused on the impact to the PragerU article, since the RfC will be held at Talk:PragerU. Instead of "Is this a sufficiently strong source to be used in the article?", I recommend phrasing the question more along the lines of "Should this source be incorporated into the article?" or "Should the following content be included in this article?" (with a citation of the source in the text), with preference to the latter.
2. Among the three RfC statement versions, the third one is the best since it offers specific language to be used in the article. (When an RfC asks whether a source should be used without suggesting text to be incorporated into the article, a portion of the responses will typically say that it is difficult to make a determination without seeing how the source would be used.)
3. Simple is better. Instead of offering four statements in version 3, I would offer only the most detailed one (option 4). Editors who believe that a smaller amount of text is warranted can simply say so in their response to the RfC.

​— Newslinger talk 04:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I will make sure the statement properly reflects the contents of the article, rephrase aas you suggest in point #1, and launch the RfC sometime in the next day or two. I appreciate you guidance. Jlevi (talk) 04:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

No problem. ​— Newslinger talk 04:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm... Another discussion opened on NPOVN. I don't think that's a binding venue. Is it still worth opening yet another discussion on the talk page (the suggested RfC)? Or is a little more patience in order for that? Jlevi (talk) 04:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jlevi, since some of the commenters at WP:RSN § Yahoo! News article for PragerU have mentioned due weight, I would create a new subsection in that discussion containing a notice of the new discussion at WP:NPOVN § COVID misinformation and PPP loans at PragerU. At this point, I would hold off on the RfC unless the new discussion still results in no consensus. — Newslinger talk 05:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I hope I wasn't premature in opening the NPOVN discussion, I wouldn't have done that if I had known there was an RfC in the works. Would it be best to close or move it before too many folks respond? –dlthewave ☎ 05:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Dlthewave, since the NPOVN discussion has already received several responses, it would be best to keep it open. An RfC can be held if the NPOVN discussion does not result in consensus on whether the content should be included in the article. — Newslinger talk 05:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

All is good, Dlthewave. Thanks for moving this discussion forward.

Newslinger, could a formal closure (perhaps via a wikipedia:closure request) help clarify consensus of the NPOVN discussion? Or is there a strong advantage to an RfC? Maybe so, since it sounds like an RfC is binding in a way that another venue might not be. Feel free to point me to the appropriate chunk of policy if that'd help--I might just not know where to look for this distinction. Jlevi (talk) 05:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussions and RfCs are both methods of soliciting input from the wider community. The main advantage of an RfC on the article talk page is its proximity to the article. This brings two benefits:

1. There is no ambiguity about whether the RfC is held in the correct venue, because the article talk page is always an appropriate place to discuss changes to the article.
2. An RfC on the article talk page avoids discrepancies between local consensus and community consensus, since the discussion is not taking place on a separate page.

I am not aware of any policy that directly states that RfCs are binding, which is probably for the best because there are good reasons to disregard an RfC result that has been made obsolete by new information. Among the content dispute resolution methods listed in Wikipedia:Consensus § Consensus-building, the third opinion process and the dispute resolution noticeboard are explicitly stated to be non-binding. This leaves noticeboards and RfCs, with an RfC on the relevant talk page being the most universally accepted form of consensus, as a well-formed RfC cannot be dismissed on procedural grounds. — Newslinger talk 05:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

LTA

Hello, can 174.18.110.212 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) be blocked as soon as possible? This is LTA- Nate Speed, giving serious threats. --Ashleyyoursmile! 06:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

 Blocked and revision-deleted. Thanks for reporting this! ​— Newslinger talk 06:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Newslinger. :) Ashleyyoursmile! 06:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Anytime. — Newslinger talk 06:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

"New" user edits for 2nd opinion?

Hi Newslinger, Would you please have a look at this "new" user history [2] and see what you think? Note a couple Tag: references removed, and Tag: reverted, independently. Edits at List_of_custom_Android_distributions and LineageOS especially got my attention. Other questionable edits:

Deleted F-Droid wikilink with misleading edit summary. [3] [4]

Added Aptoid to Template (?).[5]

Deleted F-Droid (and other) wikilink with misleading edit summary. [6]

Added redundant "source" link.[7]

Removed F-Droid wiki- and web-links, with misleading edit summary and Talk page edit.[8]

Removed F-Droid wikilink with misleading (and inaccurate) edit summary.[9]

Added a category to a Redirect page, and added that category to inappropriate Articles.[10][11][12]

Thanks. -- Yae4 (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Yae4, after reviewing these edits, I think there is a good chance that Brainfrogk4mon is making these changes in good faith. The main issue is that some of the edit summaries are not representative of the changes made, and I've placed a warning on their user talk page as a reminder that edit summaries need to be accurate. The bold, revert, discuss process can be used for any disputed edits, and I see that Brainfrogk4mon is participating on article talk pages.

Categorizing the SlideME redirect is defensible under the WP:LISTRCAT guideline, although the categorization of Ubuntu Touch and Snap (package manager) is not verifiable and should probably be reversed per the WP:CATV guideline. Apparently, Template:Package management systems also lists mobile app stores, and Aptoide is one of those. (F-Droid, which is also listed in the template, was forked from Aptoide.) Some of Brainfrogk4mon's content removals don't provide an explanation in the edit summary, and those can be reversed and discussed. Since many software-related articles are inadequately sourced, this is a good opportunity to introduce citations to reliable sources to support the restoration of removed content. — Newslinger talk 01:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

PCR Trial

My one month trial period for pending changes reviewer is about to expire, would you please make it permanent? — csc^-1 19:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Arccosecant, thank you for your excellent work in reviewing 151 pending changes over the past month. Your reviewer permission is now indefinite. — Newslinger talk 02:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Block evasion by User:EVC Librarians

You recently blocked EVC Librarians for "{{uw-spamublock}} <!-- Promotional username, promotional edits -->". It appears that he or she has created a new account EVC Librarian which seems to have the same problems as the first account and is making the same edits as the first account. Can you please block this new account, too? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

 Blocked. Thank you for reporting this.​ — Newslinger talk 02:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Request to instated rollback permission permanently

Hi admin, you granted me temporary rollback permission on 21 February 2021. The temporary permission has since lapsed, could you help to instated permanently permission. I have been using the temporary rollback mainly for Huggle usage and sometimes via Recent changes patrolling usage as well. Thanks you. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Paper9oll, thank you for rolling back over 500 unconstructive edits over the past month. Your rollback permission is now indefinite. Keep up the excellent work! — Newslinger talk 07:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Newslinger: Hi admin, Thanks a lot. Have a nice day and happy editing. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

No problem. You too! — Newslinger talk 08:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

PCR lapsed

Hello Sir, You granted me temporary PCR right for a trial. The right has no lapsed, I want to let you know if you could check my edits and make this right permanent. Sorry to bother you. Thankyou. Iflaq ^(talk) 12:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Iflaq, it's not a bother at all. Thank you for reviewing 54 pending changes in the past month. I've performed a spot check of the reviews, and they look fine. Your reviewer permission is now indefinite. Keep up the good work! — Newslinger talk 22:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thankyou very much 😇 Iflaq ^(talk) 04:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for volunteering! — Newslinger talk 04:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Question

Are my edits controversial? I tried to stay as neutral as possible. BlackAmerican (talk) 11:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi BlackAmerican, the messages at User talk:BlackAmerican § Controversial topic area alerts are standard notices issued to editors who demonstrate interest in controversial topic areas. In your case, the Super straight article is covered under special rules (discretionary sanctions on gender and sexuality and post-1992 American politics) mentioned near the top of Talk:Super straight. Many editors involved in controversial topic areas receive a notice about once per year for each topic area. Please be aware of the rules, but beyond that, there is no action needed on your behalf.

If you would like to opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions at {{Ds/aware}} to place an awareness banner on your user talk page. — Newslinger talk 12:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning the Ds/awareness template here on your talk page. Maybe the controversial topic alert banner could contain that information? Or even a link to that information? Surveying the list of controversial areas, I see a bunch more I ought to include. -- M.boli (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi M.boli, I do think it's a good idea to include a note about the {{Ds/aware}} opt-out option in the banner. However, since {{Ds/alert}} is under the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee, significant changes to the banner require the consent of ArbCom.

There is a general understanding that the discretionary sanctions alerting system could use improvement. ArbCom members have indicated in a recent clarification request that they intend to reform parts of the system later this year, with the alerting system being one of the parts that would be overhauled. There is a good chance that ArbCom will accept comments from the community during the reform process, and that would be a good opportunity to suggest this change to the template, assuming that the alerts are here to stay. — Newslinger talk 14:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom has opened a consultation about discretionary sanctions at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021 review/Consultation, and I've mentioned amending the {{Ds/aware}} template there. Feel free to join in the discussion.​ — Newslinger talk 07:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

2Famous2UseMyName

Would you please revoke TPA? This is a pretty clear BLP vio. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done, and I've also revision-deleted the violating text. Thanks for pointing this out. ​— Newslinger talk 08:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Quick work! I edit-conflicted with you, trying to remove the post myself. Thank you for taking care of it. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for looking at this issue. — Newslinger talk 08:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Brian Timpone for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Brian Timpone is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Timpone (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for always being kind and helping me whenever I reach out to you. Ashleyyoursmile! 16:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Ashleyyoursmile! I appreciate all of the work you do to counter vandalism and spam on Wikipedia, and I'm glad to help when I get a chance. — Newslinger talk 16:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up Matthew Berdyck's sockpuppets!

This guy was the first vandal I ever ran into that talked back, so I remember him well. I took his personal attacks as something of a badge of honor at the time, and I kind of like having them on my talk page. I still occasionally do google searches for his name on wikipedia.org, so I was surprised that I hadn't seen him pop up again, but I guess the talk and help pages aren't indexed. Anyway, I just wanted to say thank you for keeping on top of things, and for ferreting out even his old socks like Rightventracleleft, which I ran into last year. Thanks! Knuthove (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

No problem! Off-wiki harassment is a serious issue, and I try my best to insulate Wikipedia from these types of bad actors. Thank you for helping keep Wikipedia free of vandalism.

By the way, I usually have better luck finding things with the advanced search feature on Wikipedia than with Google or any other search engine. The user and draft spaces are not indexed by external search engines, and there are certain noticeboards that are also excluded from indexing, but talk pages in other namespaces are generally indexed. ​— Newslinger talk 15:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip about searches! I'll use that over google from now on. And thanks again for your work! Knuthove (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Help plz

Hello Newslinger! I think I've made an error. I uploaded this image:

to the commons for use in the super straight article. I made it in MS Paint and based it off of the flag which is being used for the movement. When I uploaded it, I said it was my work (and it is, I mean, I drew it) but I think (and I'm not sure) that means the wiki commons thinks I held the copyright to the work at some point. It's an emblem composed of simple geometric shapes and, therefore, uncopyrightable, so I think I ought to delete this version and reupload it, specifying that it is a public domain image. Is that even the right thing to do?

Unfortunately, I have no idea how to delete things from the commons, and I don't know how to tell the commons that I'm uploading a public domain image, other than by telling the commons that it's very old (which this isn't). And for all I know, I don't understand something else important. Help a noob out? Joe (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi JoePhin, the easiest way to correct the license is to edit the c:File:SuperStraightFlag.png § Licensing section and replace the {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} template with {{PD-shape}}. — Newslinger talk 14:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much Newslinger, that worked perfectly! I didn't even know you could edit commons files, I feel a complete idiot. Cheers. Joe (talk) 09:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry Newslinger, I somehow managed to delete a bunch of stuff. What was that I was saying about being an idiot? Anyway, I was just trying to fix it, but you had already fixed it. Sorry for wrecking your page. I I'm such a moron. Joe (talk) 10:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Not problem. I'm glad you were able to change the license of the image. ​— Newslinger talk 10:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@JoePhin: Actually, I think I recommended the wrong template. The image is too complex to be simple geometry, so the correct template is {{PD-simple}}. Sorry for the inconvenience. — Newslinger talk 11:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again Newslinger. No inconvenience, far from it, that's helpful too! Joe (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Request Topic Ban repeal.

Hey I got your message and one of the options to post was to do so here. Look clearly I was too head strong when I refused to revert my edit after breaking the 1rr, which I did not know about at the time and had not read, but at the end of the day that is on me. I did not like the tone of the person who filed the report and was annoyed by what I found to be dishonest tactics in on the talk page objecting to my edits. But of course I still should have reverted from the start. As I said before, it won't happen again I understand the 1rr and will follow it to the letter in the future. Thus I hope to have this topic ban repealed. I get why it happened, but I think the ban is unneeded. You guys showed that I was wrong and I am sorry for that. If not repeal at least some tweaking to make it less permanent. Thanks and have a good day. 3Kingdoms (talk) 05:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Given the above apology, maybe reduce it to a week giving 3Kingdoms time sip WP:TEA and the opportunity to edit other topic areas? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi 3Kingdoms, I am declining your appeal, because the consensus of the uninvolved reviewers of the arbitration enforcement report (Special:Permalink/1015008851 § 3Kingdoms) is that the topic ban is justified, and because – as one of the reviewers noted – you continued edit warring on the Rashida Tlaib article (in Special:Diff/1014773929) while the discussion was in progress.

Please review the policy against edit warring and the guide to dispute resolution, which outline some of the expectations for editing Wikipedia articles in controversial topic areas. The standard time frame for appealing an indefinite topic ban is a minimum of six months. Your best course of action is to edit in less controversial topic areas for at least six months before filing an appeal. Although you may file another appeal by following the instructions at WP:ACDS § Appeals by sanctioned editors at any time, an appeal is highly unlikely to be successful until you demonstrate constructive editing in other topic areas for a significant period of time. — Newslinger talk 06:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Do topic bans apply to Talk pages as well? 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

​Yes, Wikipedia:Banning policy § Topic ban (WP:TBAN) describes the scope of a topic ban and the meaning of the term broadly construed. ​— Newslinger talk 15:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay thanks for the response. I don't agree but none the less I accept. I hope to show it can be lifted. Thanks have a good day. 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for accepting the decision. Most topic areas on Wikipedia are less controversial than the Palestine-Israel topic area, so there are plenty of articles that you are able to edit. The bold, revert, discuss cycle is an effective process to resolve most content disputes, and I highly recommend it. Best of luck in the coming months.​ — Newslinger talk 06:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Protection

Can Oommen be protected? It has a huge amount of vandalism. æschyIus (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

 Already done. El_C beat me to it. Thanks for reporting this.​ — Newslinger talk 14:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Opindia update

Dear sir, this is regarding Revision as of 12:59, 14 April 2021 (edit) (undo) (thank) Newslinger (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 1017572218 by LTbharat (talk) Could you please cite a source for this? I can't find any information on Chandan Kumar being OpIndia Hindi's new editor, not even on social media. Claims about living persons require citations to reliable sources

Please refer https://hindi.opindia.com/about/ - which reads as below:

ऑपइंडिया (हिन्दी) के वर्तमान संपादक चंदन कुमार हैं जिनसे chandan@opindia.com पर सम्पर्क किया जा सकता है। उनके साथ डिप्टी-एडिटर की भूमिका में अजीत झा हैं जिनका पता ajit@opindia.com है।

I have added the page link as well as a reference.

Please also refer to https://twitter.com/UnSubtleDesi/status/1368987791296634887?s=20 which reads - jeet Bharti has today left OpIndia to start his independent venture. Team OpIndia wishes him all the best and hope his new venture becomes a success!

Please approve my edit. thanks in advance.

LTbharat (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi LTbharat, that was exactly what the article needed. I've expanded the citation and added Kumar's name to the infobox in Special:Diff/1017780793. Thanks for following up on this. — Newslinger talk 15:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello Newslinger, Thanks a ton. Please keep guiding. - (LTbharat (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC))

No problem! — Newslinger talk 15:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

About the source you used in your most recent Signpost article

I’ve added info from the Harvard source to the Ideological bias on Wikipedia article about how Wikipedia was Categorized as “Center-right”. If you want to add more info to what I’ve already added, then please go ahead. I also want to ask you if you still think the center-right description given by Harvard back in 2017 is still accurate for Wikipedia’s US political leanings today, as well as if their assessments of RealClearPolitics and the National Review are still accurate today. X-Editor (talk) 04:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi X-Editor, thanks for this. The statement in the article specifies the year 2017, so I think it should be fine. Without a new study using the same methodology, I don't know whether the descriptor still applies right now. However, it did in 2017, and can be mentioned in the article as a claim in a peer-reviewed academic publication. — Newslinger talk 05:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Newslinger: I’ve already added it to the article. If there is anything more from the study about Wikipedia that you want to add to the article, the feel free to add more. By the way, why do you think Wikipedia got the center-right rating in 2017? X-Editor (talk) 05:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

​The "center-right" valence, in the context of this study, is a measure of the political orientation of the audience on Wikipedia. The paper does not elaborate on the possible reasons for Wikipedia's center-right valence (since it focuses on the American media landscape as a whole rather than Wikipedia specifically), and I am hesitant to speculate without seeing more research on this. However, the ubiquity of Wikipedia explains why the average Wikipedia reader leans closer toward centrism than the far-left or far-right. Sorry for the lack of a better answer. — Newslinger talk 07:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Newslinger: Thanks for answering. X-Editor (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

No problem. If you ever come across more research that covers this topic, please feel free to share it. This is a subject that I'm curious about, too.​ — Newslinger talk 16:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Newslinger: Maybe I will try to research more into the subject in the future. But the issue is that most of the results would probably be full of conservative media screaming that we are far-left, rather than any actual studies or academic results. By the way, where do you personally think Wikipedia’s US political articles stand on the political spectrum? X-Editor (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but I generally prefer not to make statements about politics on Wikipedia unless they are substantiated by external sources. The op-ed was a rare opportunity for me to perform a meaningful analysis of data related to this topic, but unfortunately, this kind of data is hard to come by. It's always important to remember that the English Wikipedia is not the American Wikipedia, and that articles on US subjects are written by editors around the world using citations of both domestic and international sources. Because of this, Wikipedia's articles about the US or any other country are not necessarily going to reflect a weighted average of the views of that country's population.​ — Newslinger talk 03:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

That’s okay. Thanks for your insight! X-Editor (talk) 04:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brian Timpone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WGBH.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed — Newslinger talk 06:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Plebian-scribe (talk) 13:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I am experimenting with this site and how to edit as I am new here. Im am concerned about what I consider to be an extreme level of political bias concerning some pages to the point where it directly effects the accuracy of certain pages, especially concerning current events. I have been told this, while I have also had cited and sourced post removed from certain pages without explanation at all. Can you please elaborate more on why this is happening to my post? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plebian-scribe (talk • contribs) 13:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Plebian-scribe, please explain your edits in the arbitration enforcement noticeboard discussion at WP:AE § Plebian-scribe. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 13:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Thank you, CAPTAIN RAJU! — Newslinger talk 14:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

RSN

Why did you get rid of my WP:RSN discussion?? 74.221.72.198 (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, your discussion was removed at Special:Diff/1019099111 by Alexbrn. Please note that all open wikis (including Conservapedia) are considered generally unreliable for citation on Wikipedia, as they primarily consist of user-generated content. See the past discussions on Wikipedia (RSP entry) and Baidu Baike (RSP entry) for precedent. — Newslinger talk 14:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

If this was not trolling, then I apologize to the OP. However, editors' time should not be wasted on what is obviously a non-starter of a proposal. Alexbrn (talk) 14:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court

I see you're involved a great deal in anti-spam activities. May I ask your opinion on something? A user has gone into a number of biographical articles, and replaced infoboxes with infobox officeholder, with the office being "Member of the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States". They don't add it to the article text, and it is surely not the main thing any of the people involved is known for. I encountered this on Kermit Roosevelt III, which I have watchlisted after seeing on AfD; it's also on other articles (IIRC, perhaps 10 or so). Do you have any opinion about what (if anything) should be done? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Russ Woodroofe, I don't think this is spam, although I'm not familiar enough with biographies of politicians on Wikipedia to determine whether this Presidential Commission is significant enough to mention in these infoboxes. You may want to ask the editor who added this information, a related WikiProject such as WikiProject Politics, or on the talk page of the template (Template talk:Infobox officeholder) – all of these options will lead you to editors who are better able to answer your question. I hope this helps. — Newslinger talk 08:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Coda Media RSP

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § Coda Media

 – — Newslinger talk 04:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

"Nutrition Today" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Nutrition Today has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 7 § Nutrition Today until a consensus is reached. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

"Communication Research and Practice" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Communication Research and Practice has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 7 § Communication Research and Practice until a consensus is reached. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

"Journal of Multicultural Discourses" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Journal of Multicultural Discourses has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 7 § Journal of Multicultural Discourses until a consensus is reached. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

"Administrative Theory & Praxis" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Administrative Theory & Praxis has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 7 § Administrative Theory & Praxis until a consensus is reached. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Happy Vesak!

Happy Vesak,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy and Blessed Vesak to you and yours! User:JaMongKut (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing Newslinger a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Best wishes! CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy WikiBirthday!

𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 11:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Happy Third Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing Newslinger a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}}

Donner60 (talk) 04:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:CNET screenshot.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:CNET screenshot.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Admin Noticeboard for User:Yae4

You may know the person from GrapheneOS, CopperheadOS article. A admin notice has been filed against him which you may(or may not) like to comment on. [13] Greatder (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ZDNet home page screenshot.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:ZDNet home page screenshot.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Update: Phase II of DS reform now open for comment

You were either a participant in WP:DS2021 (the Arbitration Committee's Discretionary Sanctions reform process) or requested to be notified about future developments regarding DS reform. The Committee now presents Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/2021-22_review/Phase_II_consultation, and invites your feedback. Your patience has been appreciated. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions review: proposed decision and community review

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process. The Proposed Decision phase of the discretionary sanctions review process has now opened. A five-day public review period for the proposed decision, before arbitrators cast votes on the proposed decision, is open through November 18. Any interested editors are invited to comment on the proposed decision talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Contentious topics procedure adopted

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process.

The Arbitration Committee has concluded the 2021-22 review of the contentious topics system (formerly known as discretionary sanctions), and its final decision is viewable at the revision process page. As part of the review process, the Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The above proposals that are supported by an absolute majority of unrecused active arbitrators are hereby enacted. The drafting arbitrators (CaptainEek, L235, and Wugapodes) are directed to take the actions necessary to bring the proposals enacted by this motion into effect, including by amending the procedures at WP:AC/P and WP:AC/DS. The authority granted to the drafting arbitrators by this motion expires one month after enactment.

The Arbitration Committee thanks all those who have participated in the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process and all who have helped bring it to a successful conclusion. This motion concludes the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process.

This motion initiates a one-month implementation period for the updates to the contentious topics system. The Arbitration Committee will announce when the initial implementation of the Committee's decision has concluded and the amendments made by the drafting arbitrators in accordance with the Committee's decision take effect. Any editors interested in the implementation process are invited to assist at the implementation talk page, and editors interested in updates may subscribe to the update list.

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Contentious topics procedure adopted

File:Brave logo.svg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Brave logo.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. --Matr1x-101$_{when-replying}^{Ping-me}$ {_{user page @ commons} - ^talk - _contribs} 16:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Contentious topics procedure now in effect

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's contentious topics procedure revision process.

In December, the Arbitration Committee adopted the contentious topics procedure, which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period.

• For a detailed summary of the changes from the discretionary sanctions system, see WP:DSVSCT.
• A brief guide for administrators may be found at Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Administrator instructions.
• Updated templates may be found at Template:Contentious topics.
• Suggestions and concerns may be directed to the arbitration clerk team at WT:AC/C.

The drafting arbitrators warmly thank all those who have worked to implement the new procedure during this implementation period and beyond. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Contentious topics procedure now in effect

Pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)