This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.
Formal Complaiint
I am now going to lodge a formal complaint about your abusive and aggressive attitude towards me Nick Moyes. Please advise of who this complaint should be addressed to. Thanks very much. Anton Cleary; Solo guitarist/street performer. Anton Cleary (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hello Anton Cleary. I'm sorry to hear you're unhappy in some way with my responses to your question at the Teahouse. As 'hosts' we are here as volunteers to help, advise and steer new editors - many often quite misguided in their aspirations or expectations for creating articles. You know, just as in real life, it's always best to try to discuss matters with the other person first, and then, if not satisfied, the place to complain about the behaviour of any editor - including me - would be WP:ANI. It's important to understand the process beforehand, but if consensus were to find I am at fault in some way, I'd then be only too willing to offer an apology to any injured party. Until then, you might wish to read WP:BOOMERANG, too. I'm sorry you believe I've been "abusive and aggressive" towards you. I'm really not sure why you think that of me. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and I really appreciate your clarification since I am here solely on volunteer basis considering I have love writing and I believe this platform will help me sharpen my skills. I look forward to more edits and hope some day I will have 50,000 edits too. Thank you. Bibihans (talk)Bibihans — Preceding undated comment added 12:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bibihans: You're most welcome. If you look at the thread immediately above this one you can see the typical issue we get of promotional editors demanding that their favourite subject (themselves!) is covered here, and then getting blocked as a result of their aggressive approach to achieving that goal. Best wishes for all your future contributions, and warm regards from the UK. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.
Arbitration
The community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.
I hope you are well and hopefully still remember me from last year (when we were still able to meet people!) - I took part in an Edithaton at the University of Warwick that you co-organised. Back then, we also had a chat about my research project which is concerned with the offline meetups of Wikipedians. My project has progressed well and I will soon be starting the final year of my PhD. As my final year starts, my funding unfortunately ends. To allow me to continue focusing on my project, I applied to a Wikimedia Project Grant and I successfully progressed to the second round! My project still lacks a bit of community support, so if you endorsed it at the bottom of the proposal page, this would be greatly appreaciated: Proposal. Of course, any other feedback is also welcome!
Hi, it's Clovermoss. Remember me? I haven't been around the past year because I've had a lot of obligations/real life-stressors that made it difficult to log on to Wikipedia. I don't think I'll be as active as I used to be for awhile, but I do hope to edit every so often. If you don't mind me asking, how have you been? Clovermoss(talk)00:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Clovermoss It's lovely to hear from you. I was just off to bed (as it's nearly 2am here.) I was thinking about you recently as have heard a bit about the difficult Covid situation in Canada which sounded worrying, and had noticed you'd stopped editing last spring. I guessed it was more likely to be 'cos of academic matters, but it's great to hear from you. I've been very busy since January with another house renovation project, just coming to completion, and have had a few annoying health issues over the last year or so, but am dealing with them. One daughter is finishing her degree soon; the other now looking forward to starting at a university next September that she still hasn't had a chance to visit and look around because of the pandemic restrictions. If you want to drop me an email to speak off wiki, do feel free. I might not reply immediately though. I hope your real life issues haven't been too awful, and that college/uni has worked out ok for you. Is it first year you're now in - I can't quite remember offhand? Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this was my first year as a university student. As for the pandemic in Canada, it's not doing that great right now. Here in Ontario we're in another stay-at-home lockdown. At least the vaccine is becoming more available. I should be able to get it soon-ish. :) Clovermoss(talk)14:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Anearlier issue of Tech News said that the citoidAPI would handle dates with a month but no days in a new way. This has been reverted for now. There needs to be more discussion of how it affects different wikis first. [6]
Changes later this week
MediaWiki:Pageimages-blacklist will be renamed MediaWiki:Pageimages-denylist. The list can be copied to the new name. It will happen on 19 May for some wikis and 20 May for some wikis. Most wikis don't use it. It lists images that should never be used as thumbnails for articles. [7]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 18 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 19 May. It will be on all wikis from 20 May (calendar).
Welcome to the eighteenth newsletter from the Growth team!
The Growth team's objective is to work on software changes that help retain new contributors in mid-size Wikimedia projects.
Structured tasks
A screenshot of "add a link" feature in development in beta.
"Add a link" is now being tested in production and is nearing release on our four pilot wikis (Arabic, Czech, Vietnamese, and Bengali Wikipedias). We'll be doing final tests this week and next week, and then plan to deploy to the four wikis either during May 24 week, or May 31 week. After two weeks, we will analyze the initial data to identify any problems or trends. We expect that this feature will engage new kinds of newcomers in easy and successful edits. If things are going well after four weeks, we'll progressively deploy it to the wikis with Growth features.
We are currently working on a Mentor dashboard. This special page aims to help mentors be more proactive and be more successful at their role. The first iteration will include a table that shows an overview of the mentors current mentees, a module with their own settings, and a module that will allow them to store their best replies to their mentees questions.
Community configuration editing form under development
We are working on project to allow communities to manage the configuration of the Growth features on their own. In the past, communities have needed to work directly with the Growth team to set up and alter the features. We plan to put this capability in the hands of administrators, through an easy-to-use form, so that the features can be easily tailored to fit the needs of each community. While we developed it initially for Growth features, we think this approach could have uses in other features as well. We'll be trying this on our pilot wikis in the coming weeks, and then we'll bring it to all Growth wikis soon after. We hope you check out the project page and add any of your thoughts to the talk page.
Scaling
Growth features are now available on 35 wikis. Here is the list of the most recent ones: Romanian Wikipedia, Danish Wikipedia, Thai Wikipedia, Indonesian Wikipedia, Croatian Wikipedia, Albanian Wikipedia, Esperanto Wikipedia, Hindi Wikipedia, Norwegian Bokmål Wikipedia, Japanese Wikipedia, Telugu Wikipedia, Spanish Wikipedia, Simple English Wikipedia, Malay Wikipedia, Tamil Wikipedia, Greek Wikipedia, Catalan Wikipedia.
A new group of Wikipedias has been defined for the deployment of Growth features. Please contact us if you have questions about the deployment process, or if your community likes to get the features in advance.
Good morning. In a rather mild sanction you have blocked this user for one week, thank you.
It appears to me that he is now attempting to steer clear of that measure by using an IP. Since 15 May this IP has done some 250 edits, all dealing with the above users usual subjects airports, airlines and destinations. The style and wording of these edits are practically identical to those used by HeeheeYogen8.
I don't know the precise regulations of en:WP concerning people avoiding blockings by using an IP. In my home WP (de:WP) actions like that usually lead to very drastic measures, up to unlimited bans.
@Uli Elch: Thanks. They do indeed look extremely similar. The only difference is that one has used mobile view (hence the tagging of Heehee's edits), whilst the other has chosen desktop view. I can reproduce the same minor difference simply by switching from desktop view on my mobile phone to mobile view on my mobile phone.
@Uli Elch: Following advice at WP:SPI, I have blocked the IP for 2 weeks, and extended Heehee's block to 6 months. I'm not happy to have to do this, but it's necessary if they're not going to communicate and simply continue to try to edit. Please let me know if you see other IPs suddenly editing in the same way. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your rapid reaction and your adequate actions. Personally, I do not feel exceptionally sorry, because from my experience it is a rather rare case that someone is ignoring the rules stubbornly to such an extent. Regards --Uli Elch (talk) 12:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, Uli Elch. I've just blocked a second IP address (User:70.54.66.250 as a suspected sockpuppet of HeeheeYogen8. Perhaps you'd keep an eye out on relevant articles and let me know of any similar suspicious editing patterns that you might spot from IP addresses or other new accounts? Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good afternoon. The contributions of this IP fits the usual pattern almost perfectly. Thank you for your action. I will "keep an eye" on things like that and inform you in case I should spot something comparable. --Uli Elch (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How do you do?
Hello Nick,
This is Interstellarity. How are you doing? I haven't talked to you in so long. I have been moderately active on Wikipedia, although I have been heavily focused on my life outside Wikipedia. How are you doing during the pandemic now that the world is getting vaccinated? Do you still have to wear masks in your area? I would like to know what you have been up to in 2021. Interstellarity (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Nick. I noticed that you haven't responded to my message since I posted it 11 days ago. I'm assuming you have been busy in real life for the past few months as stated on your user page. I hope you're doing well and that everything in your life is going smoothly. Please let me know if you need anything from me. Interstellarity (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HiInterstellarity Nice to hear from you but, yes, very busy in real life. Have just finished renovating another house for the last 5 months, and now have a new tenant installed. Have also been abseiling off my local cathedral recently to get our peregrine falcon chicks banded. And am happily double-vaccinated and have managed to avoid the plague, thus far, though have lost one or two acquaintances along the way. Yes, we wear masks in shops etc, which I still find somewhat unnerving until I see everyone else doing the same! Foreign travel very difficult - as is finding somewhere to stay in the UK now, too. One kid about to finish university, and another about to start later in the year so it's all change. I seem to evolved from singing the childrens' song "Head, Shoulders, Knees and Toes", and now use it more as an Aide-mémoire for things to mention when I next hobble along to see my doctor! Such is life. Trusting you're well? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm doing excellent in life :-). The mask mandate in my area has been lifted although I keep a mask handy if needed. I'm also fully vaccinated. I managed to avoid the virus and no one from my life has passed. I'm going to be busy with school in the summer and fall while managing to put some fun in my life. I'm hoping that foreign travel will get better now that people are getting vaccinated. It is difficult, but it will get better sooner or later. I'm happy with my life and hope you and your kids (2 kids, I'm assuming?) are doing well and I'm sure better times are ahead. Thanks so much for your message above. Interstellarity (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
The Wikimedia movement has been using IRC on a network called Freenode. There have been changes around who is in control of the network. The Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts have decided to move to the new Libera Chat network instead. This is not a formal decision for the movement to move all channels but most Wikimedia IRC channels will probably leave Freenode. There is a migration guide and ongoing Wikimedia discussions about this.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 25 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 26 May. It will be on all wikis from 27 May (calendar).
I am fairly new to Wikipedia and I would like to get some help to learn the ends and outs of basic editing procedures as well as performing maintenance tasks such as vandalism patrolling, recent changes, etc. I wonder if you could help work with me and guide me along so that I can become a more knowledgeable and effective contributor to Wikipedia.
Hello, Shadowbreath15789, and welcome to Wikipedia. I'm very pleased to hear that you want to learn more about Wikipedia and have enquired about Adoption. To be frank with you, adoption better suits those who have already been around a bit and can demonstrate a reasonable commitment to the Project. I would have expected them to have explored various areas of the encyclopaedia, but then want to understand more of the finer details. It's quite a commitment, you see, and experience has shown that many brand new users don't stick around for that long. That probably doesn't apply to you, of course, but for anyone seeking quick answers as a beginner here the best place is to post a question at the Teahouse. You'll get a very quick answer in most cases. In addition I am extremely busy in real life right now and already offered to take on someone last January, but haven't yet had the time to support them - so am feeling rather guilty on that score. With just a dozen edits to your name, simply keep on making small contributions where you can. Try the interactive guide at The Wikipedia Adventure, or read HELP:Getting Started. There are various suggestions for useful tasks anyone can perform at either WP:Things to do, or at WP:Task Center. For vandalism patrolling, check out Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TheWikiWizard-May 2021
Hello, Nick Moyes! Here is the May 2021 issue of TheWikiWizard.
The English Wikipedia, has just passed 6,300,000 articles!
Tip of the Month
This tip is one of the many ways to combat spam on Wikipedia:
On Wikipedia, articles either meet the General Notability Guideline or not. When you come across a new article, it is extremely important to determine if it is a real article, or just a spam article. Start with a search on Google, for reliable sources, if you get none in return, then look at the article for non-NPOV content, also scan the references section in the article to see what sources it uses, and check the 'other languages' section and Wikidata to see if it is on other Wikipedias. If other Wikipedias have the same content and/or a CSD or AfD tag (WP:AFD) it is likely spam or not notable, so you can then nominate it for deletion to get input, remember that CSD criterion does not always apply to these articles depending on the content/contex. Also remember to check for copyright violations via earwig's
Memorials
SlimVirgin has sadly passed away this month, you can read more about SlimVirgin's passing here
Moroboshi also sadly passed away earlier this month.
Our condolences go out to the editors and their families, thank you for your work on Wikimedia projects.
Humour
This section was made by CanadianOtaku, please note it contains some emojis, so you might just see a box if your browser doesn't support them. -つがるTalk to つがる:)🍁
I just wanted to express my gratitude to you for your having jumped into that issue I was having with that other editor. Was trying to give them the benefit of the doubt at first, but then it seemed that they were attempting to pique me needlessly. Very glad for your considered response. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 08:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CurryTime7-24: You're welcome. I could see that you were checking on a number of somewhat dubious edits, and I felt the need to do exactly the same thing. I don't regard that as hounding, but hopefully they will return with a better attitude. Do let me know should problems continue. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.
Hello Feldmarschall Rommel Here are some notes and an example to guide you on adding a book source as an inline citation:
Cite Book template window, awaiting data entry in Wikipedia's 'Source Editor'. (click image to enlarge)Cite Book template - autofilled from a Google books url. (click image to enlarge)Cite Book template - showing all available extra fields. Note the Preview at bottom of the window. (click image to enlarge)
The key point to be aware of is that inline citations are inserted into an article, immediately after each factual statement they support. But cleverly, the software then displays just a small citation number within the article (like this[1]), but then displays the full citation against that number at the bottom of the page, in the 'References' section. You do not need to edit the References section at all - the work is done for you.
Every editor will inevitably be using one of our two editing tools (either "Source Editor" or "Visual Editor") to add text. Both of these editing options have an obvious Tools menu at the top of the page, albeit in slightly different positions.
When editing a page, just look for the button labelled "Cite".
Then position your cursor in the article at the end of the factual statement that you want to add a new reference to. Now, simply click the "Cite" button to reveal a box (a simple template) into which you can enter all the author, title, date, publisher, url details, etc., of your reference.
These two editing tools vary slightly in how they operate. In Source Editor (which you will have used for editing the Teahouse page) you first have to click "Cite" and then select a further Template button on the left hand side of the editing toolbar. This lets you select the best template into which you paste your reference details, according to whether you're citing a journal, a book, a newspaper or a website. There's also a Preview button to let you see what your details will look like before you decide to click the "'Insert" button to add your reference into the page.
If you want to avoid having to manually enter all the reference fields in the 'Cite template' window, look for the tiny button beside some fields (e.g. URL, ISBN), which is a good way to quickly fill out some of the fields. This means that you can paste in a value (like a URL copied from your browser) in the field, click the button, and it will attempt to look up and fill in some of the fields for you (there may also be a few seconds delay in working these out). It often misses out date fields, and sometimes gets author name confused, but it still saves time. But you will need to check every field matches the source. For online sources, though not paper books, don't forget to add the 'Access date' which is usually today's date, when you last checked the availability of the reference.
Click Preview to see the result before you click 'Insert to add the reference as an inline citation.
Alternatively, in the Visual Editor, if you click the "Cite" button, it starts by offering to let you paste in a url or ISBN number to a reference source, and then attempts to automatically look up the reference details for you. It's also not perfect, so manually checking and tweaking to get the best reference is advisable. Being aware that you can add reference details from within either editing tool is something that's not really made terribly obvious in the Help page, referred to above.
Although the detail of your reference is inserted right after the factual statement added to your article, be aware that the full reference text appears automatically at the bottom of the page in a sub-section marked "References". All that appears "inline" within the article is a small number in square brackets at the end of the relevant sentence. This corresponds with the number that appears in the References section. So please don't try to add your references into that section .. it won't work like that!
Re-using a REFERENCE; adding page numbers
To reuse a reference you first neged to give the reference a name (called a 'refname'), then on subsequent uses you 'call it up' by that name, without having to re-enter all the details again. See WP:REFNAME for a full explanation. You can then use the {{rp}} template to add specific page numbers immediately afterwards, like this: First fact found on page 29 of a book.[1]: 29 Second fact found on page 114 from the same book.[1]: 114 Third fact found on page 117 from the same book.[1]: 117 And so on... It appears in the references section as just one entry, with superscript letters indicating each use.
You'll find it easier to allocate a 'refname' to your citation if you use our WP:Source Editor for that task as the Cite template has a very visible refname field for you to pop in a memorable name. You might also wish to read our simple tutorial on adding references via the 'Cite' button. See this official guidance pageorthis alternative one that I produced. Hope this helps.
References
^ abcWillmot, A.; Moyes, N. (2015). The Flora of Derbyshire. Pisces Publications. ISBN978-1-874357-65-0.
@Morus kot: Good question, but a bad idea to try to move it. As a non-free omage it would almost certainly be deleted from Commons, whereas it should be ok on just this wiki. I'm no expert on Commons image licencing, but have made the same mistake myself, and then lost the ability to use the image entirely. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Curious Case of Kiaraakitty
Hey Nick, take a look at this if you will. I find it exceedingly curious that this editor's only contributions have been to Shane Jordan (writer) and Kiaraakitty. My hunch is they just made a bunch of random (honestly pointless) edits to Shane Jordan just to get their edit count high enuf to edit the now protected Kiaraakitty article. Whoever the troll is (I sure hope it's not an army of trolls), their game seems to have become more sophisticated. Unlike yesterday's blatant vandalism, I'm now unsure of how to proceed. But my hunch is that this user isn't here for good too. I mean, it's just obvious to me if you look at their contribs what they're here for. Very curious... If it isn't the subject herself trying to delete the info, I wonder how hardcore of a fan one must be to try all ways and means to do so. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Shane Jordan edits just leave me scratching my head... Why? But I'm nonetheless convinced that she's just here with one true motive, that is to continue remove supposed "BLP violations" from the page. Anyway it's probably not worth my time much longer if it's going to be deleted, but simply curious... Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingoflettuce: To be frank, I do have to warn you that you really are now straying into 'getting a block' territory, I'm afraid. I don't think you're seeing past your own work and how others view the content you've added. The editor did appear to give a half-reasonable edit summary for removing content and you gave none back, bar a revert and an accusation of trolling. Even in good faith you have transgressed 3RR if it wasn't obvious vandalism. That is not the way to behave - so always base all your comments and actions on policy, and communicate with the other users, explaining all your concerns to what you perceive as a bad faith editor, and seek an explanation from them, perhaps taking the discussion on sources to the article talk page to ensure openness. This edit does not reflect well on your ability to stand behind policy and to deal collaboratively with awkward users. I do agree their edits are curious - especially for a newcomer to understand about our noticeboards, but it does happen, and some of the tittle-tattle in those sources I would probably think about removing, myself. You also have to remember that AFD itself draws in all sorts of editors, so my strong advice to you is never (ever) revert content removal in such a perfunctory way again, and especially as this particular article looks likely to meet a 'delete' consensus. There are far better hills to die on than this one. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's just so curious, it can't be a coincidence - it just so happened that a bunch of red-link new users came to engage in all-out vandalism yesterday, got blocked, and then the very next day a supposed newbie comes along, whose sole intention is to make the exact same edits as the previous day's users?? That's why I sort of trigger-happily reverted their edits coz to my mind it was obvious they were 99% likely the same person!!! It was only when they brought it to ANI that I did a second take, but I'm still sceptical about their being a genuine editor. My work has virtually never gotten such intense vandalism so this is a scenario I haven't dealt with before. Thank you for your fair advice - I'll be more mindful in future, but let's hope things stay peaceful for a while... Kingoflettuce (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingoflettuce: Quite possibly, but I've decided I am going to remove the fraud allegation section myself. I've spent some time looking at the sources and don't feel they are sufficiently strong enough to justify the section remaining. Even if the sources are reliable, they're mostly hearsay and unsubstantiated allegations, and our WP:BLP policy requires us to have robust sourcing. This one just alleges it is the subject; this one just repeats other social media comments and there are no charges or prosecutions mentioned. A video from anyone denying allegations would not be unreasonable under the circumstances, but that doesn't substantiate the allegations as being true as far as I'm concerned. We need stronger sources than these, I'm afraid. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No argument there, I now agree with you. (Even if I didn't, there's no way I'm reverting your removal! :P) I still think the subject herself is notable enough to have an article, but that's another story. Truth be told, I might just have gotten a little bit carried away/emotionally invested in this - it'd be my first ever deleted article! :( And I've created quite a few. Kingoflettuce (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingoflettuce: I remember the first (and possibly only AFD) of an article I created (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Hunt Painter) and it really does get one's back up - it feels like a personal slight or insult when content is deleted. But it's so important that you to stand back and react on policy and on evidence - definitely not on emotion. And always assume the other editor is acting in good faith (especially when they leave edit summaries). Only when it's clear that the new individual is acting badly is it then reasonable to revert obvious vandalism without an edit summary. So I'm guessing this is probably a good lesson learned for you, and perhaps I can ask you to regard this as a friendly (non-templated) warning to be a lot more careful not to get into potential edit-warring situations in your future editing. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like it's friendlier in Derbyshire than Cambridge Bay, but fair is fair—should have seen that coming. Thought I'd never get blocked in my Wiki-Lifetime😅 Lesson learnt... Kingoflettuce (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And now that the edit-warring issue has been resolved, I think we ought to do something about the flagrant sock-puppetry. I've lost count of the number of new accounts whose few edits have exclusively been to Kiaraakitty. I don't think I've encountered such a phenomenon before. It's rather amusing if not concerning, if I may say. Kingoflettuce (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this was a normal user, but looking at their contribs makes me scratch my head once again. [10] Emilio = Elisabetta = ??? What are the odds that so many new users are particularly interested in Kiaraakitty? It's like they are sleeper agents or something 😂Kingoflettuce (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingoflettuce: I tend to suspect that myself too, though (as I said earlier) AFD does draw people out of the woodwork. You could post a report at WP:SPI, and definitely add them to your watchlist (which I've also done for a month). I see you and Elisabetta both got blocked from the article for a week - something I'm not surprised to see happen, so just chalk that down to experience and reflect on the advice in our earlier chats. I'm not going to reinstate the deleted edits - the article looks doomed for deletion anyway, and I don't strongly disagree with the deleting rationale. And I've also spent way too long on this one (sorry to say it) seemingly pointless article to exert any more effort into it. Cheers. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Logged-in users on the mobile web can choose to use the advanced mobile mode. They now see categories in a similar way as users on desktop do. This means that some gadgets that have just been for desktop users could work for users of the mobile site too. If your wiki has such gadgets you could decide to turn them on for the mobile site too. Some gadgets probably need to be fixed to look good on mobile. [11]
German Wikipedia, English Wikivoyage and 29 smaller wikis will be read-only for a few minutes on 22 June. This is planned between 5:00 and 5:30 UTC. [13]
All wikis will be read-only for a few minutes in the week of 28 June. More information will be published in Tech News later. It will also be posted on individual wikis in the coming weeks. [14][15]
When newcomers had the Reply tool and tried to post on a talk page, they were more successful at posting a comment. (Source)
Earlier this year, the Editing team ran a large study of the Reply Tool. The main goal was to find out whether the Reply Tool helped newer editors communicate on wiki. The second goal was to see whether the comments that newer editors made using the tool needed to be reverted more frequently than comments newer editors made with the existing wikitext page editor.
The key results were:
Newer editors who had automatic ("default on") access to the Reply tool were more likely to post a comment on a talk page.
The comments that newer editors made with the Reply Tool were also less likely to be reverted than the comments that newer editors made with page editing.
These results give the Editing team confidence that the tool is helpful.
Looking ahead
The team is planning to make the Reply tool available to everyone as an opt-out preference in the coming months. This has already happened at the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedias.
Please note that this is an autobiography. I thought we didn't allow people to write articles about themselves? Also, when trying to place the template on the Draft talk page according to the documentation, it kicks back an error message: "Peer review is disabled for draft articles. These articles should be improved directly, and discussion should occur on the talk page or with reviewers at articles for creation." ♟♙ (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIGNATURE says "A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username", but it doesn't say it's required. In any case, clicking on my signature takes you to my talk page, allowing you to see my account name if you need it. Again, I just want to point out that you (I'm sure unintentionally) steered this editor in the wrong direction regarding peer review, and their attempts to obtain a peer review have gone awry (as seen from their edit history). I attempted to do it for them correctly to be helpful, and received the error message I noted above. So now I'm wondering how are they to receive feedback on their autobiography? Fixing their peer review error is, unfortunately, beyond my skill level. ♟♙ (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you would kindly take the time to check their (and my) contributions, you will see that I had nothing whatsoever to do with any edit of theirs pertaining to peer review. That happened before you CSD-ed the article, and before I got involved. The easy way to help an editor is to drop by their talk page and given them a few pointers. I removed your CSD G11 tag because it was placed in error, in my view. Feel free to read WP:G11 to appreciate that 'unambiguous' is the key issue with CSD. I don't believe it was 'unambiguous', so your proper route should have been WP:AFD. I draftified the page to give them time to work on meeting WP:NBIOorWP:NARTIST, simple as that.
I don't care if you choose to push our policies/guidelines on a silly username. Sometimes one can simply be too clever for one's own good. It'd be great if you addressed it, especially if you plan to engage with new editors. I'm not telling you to do so - just advising it. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi !!! So im trying to decipher all the advice reciphed, I am a student making a wikipedia page for one of my old professors and i thought it would be easier to use her username. Is that why her page got deleted? there are other wikipedia pages for other artists up and I was hoping to just do something like that. Is it still autobiogrpahical if I'm writing it for someone else? [[User:Sheilahrestack] sheilahrestack]] (talk) 07:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sheilahrestack: The page did not get deleted, it's at Draft:Sheilah ReStack. I simply moved it and deleted all the promotional gobbledgook from it. As you've admitted not not being that person, I urge you to abandon your account, forget the password and never use it again, and simply create a completely new account that does not mislead people. You can continue working on the draf t with that new account, but it would be a biography, not an autobiography, of course. You should still declare your Conflict of Interest on your userpage, and recognise that this is an encyclopaedia, not a place to write mildly sycophantic art-twaddle about people. Just stick to what reliable, independent sources have said, though do so in your own words, and definitely using Plain English to help establish Notability. . Sometimes less is more, too. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Uli Elch Thanks. I've reviewed their edits and tend to agree with you. I have blocked all edits on thei IP's /64 range for a much longer period than normal (3 months) and reset HeeheeYogen8's block to 6 months from today. I suspect they'll be pretty upset, yet most other admins would probably simply have indeffed them immediately. That will happen next time this occurs, unless they make an unblock request and undertake to edit according to the conditions I explained they would need to meet in future. Thanks for contacting me, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
The otrs-member group name is now vrt-permissions. This could affect abuse filters. [16]
Problems
You will be able to read but not edit German Wikipedia, English Wikivoyage and 29 smaller wikis for a few minutes on 22 June. This is planned between 5:00 and 5:30 UTC. [17]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 22 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 23 June. It will be on all wikis from 24 June (calendar).
Hello Nick Moyes, just a quick question about the ban you made on the account User:Karenberrios. She was banned under the guise of promotional username, but that appears to possible be a woman named Karen Berrios (again, possibly). Per WP:ORGNAME, I'm not sure how her username violated the any guidelines. She also made no edits that included any promotional content. Not being inquisitive, not asking for a rationalization, but it looks like she was honestly trying to improve WP. Maybe I'm wrong, dunno. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 00:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HiPerpetuityGrat. It's absolutely ok to query the rationale for an admin action to block another user. In this instance it wasn't the visible edits that were the issue, but the edits caught by our abuse filters see here. If you click 'details' for each one, you'll appreciate the self-promoting edits they were attempting. I hope this explanation helps justify my actions. Thanks for asking. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks for the explanation! Don't know a lot that goes into the ban process and honestly had no idea that this tool exists haha. Thank you for being positive and straightforward with me :) --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 12:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PerpetuityGrat: no problem at all. Being interested in how and why things work (and being willing to question and/or challenge decisions) is all part of the community approach and perhaps an early sign that one day you might yourself want to look more 'under the hood' and help out with some of the administrative work that keeps this place running as smoothly as possible. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think there’s an edit war
Hi Nick, I'm very glad to see you're an administrator. I need the help of one. I stumbled across a situation on an article, You Signed Up For This, where a user appears to be engaging in an edit war. They are repeatedly moving a page. I tried filing a report at the noticeboard, but I found the instructions to be very complicated-- too complicated to follow. What do you think should be done? Helen (let’s talk) 22:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HelenDegenerate: I was just off to bed when I stopped to check your notification (I really wish I hadn't!). There seem to have been a couple of admins already involved with this one, but we cannot accept either disruptive edit-warring across two separate pages or having two articles with extraordinarily similar content. The first article date takes priority in my view (irrespective of how it is titled), and the subsequent one should be a redirect created to it. Unless I've grossly messed it up, the closed consensus is already for retention of the spelling with a lower case 'for'. Having reverted one of them to its redirect form and given a short block and explanatory note to Novaredant, I saw that two IPs were continuing the edit warring, so I felt it appropriate to not only block them for a week, but to extend the original 24 hour block to a week for block evasion. I also felt it necessary to make my first 'admin-only' protect of the redirect to stop this silliness.
I think you made the right decision to raise it with an admin, rather than to get sucked into an edit war yourself - t though you very nearly missed me, so WP:ANI might have been a good place to get this one dealt with - was that the page you struggled with? Anyway, two hours later and I'm now off to bed as I'm in UTC+1 here! Nick Moyes (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing this, Nick. I had no idea this even happened until just now. I was one of the editors who originally moved the page to where it is, and participated in the discussion on the talk page. I didn't think this editor would start edit warring, trying to restore the article at the title with the upper-case "F", blank the original article and try to get it deleted, and now potentially evading their block with IPs from Indonesia because of a disappointment at the consensus not going their way. They've gone off the deep end over this. Ss11201:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) HelenDegenerate, easiest way to report at the edit warring noticeboard is to use Twinkle. While on the editor's talk page, click the Twinkle menu and select ARV. In the report type dropdown, select Edit warring, then just fill in the fields. (Took me awhile to discover that capability in Twinkle.) Schazjmd(talk)17:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good tip Schazjmd. Using Twinkle makes things so much simpler. I don't think I've ever needed to report anyone at that noticeboard, so those instructions are unfamiliar to me too. @HelenDegenerate: it's never easy to report anyone in 'the heat of the moment' if you first have to wade through lots of unfamiliar instructions. Should you ever want to learn new skills and practice warning/templating/reporting people in different ways, feel free to get in touch. Providing I'm forewarned and am free, I'd be happy to be used as a guinea pig user for you to to practice warning or reporting. I've seen you developing your interests in the administrative side of Wikipedia and if (as a relatively new admin myself) I can help you further your skills, I'd be only too happy to do so. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Wikisources have a new OCR tool. If you don't want to see the "extract text" button on Wikisource you can add .ext-wikisource-ExtractTextWidget { display: none; } to your common.css page. [19]
Problems
You will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia wikis for a few minutes on 29 June. This is planned at 14:00 UTC. [20][21]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 29 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 30 June. It will be on all wikis from 1 July (calendar).
Future changes
Threshold for stub link formatting, thumbnail size and auto-number headings can be set in preferences. They are expensive to maintain and few editors use them. The developers are planning to remove them. Removing them will make pages load faster. You can read more and give feedback.
A toolbar will be added to the Reply tool's wikitext source mode. This will make it easier to link to pages and to ping other users. [22][23]
Hello, Nick Moyes! Here is the June 2021 issue of TheWikiWizard.
Wikipedia News
The IRC channels used for Wikipedia have changed, you can read more on it here. While TWW was aware of this in the last issue, we decided to wait and publish this in this issue, when the issue is not as new any more, and more information has been developed.
There was quick interruption in editing on Wikipedia, that was to test server switching should an emergency happen, more details can be found here.
Hello, Nick Moyes! Here is the June 2021 issue of TheWikiWizard.
Wikipedia News
The IRC channels used for Wikipedia have changed, you can read more on it here. While TWW was aware of this in the last issue, we decided to wait and publish this in this issue, when the issue is not as new any more, and more information has been developed.
There was quick interruption in editing on Wikipedia, that was to test server switching should an emergency happen, more details can be found here.
Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
AnRfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.
Technical news
IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.
Arbitration
The community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.
Hi Nick, I saw your feedback from the Teahosue and am currently in the process of applying it. I moved the Prevalence section near the top and removed the list of ways to torture a domestic worker. It is really starting to look like an article. You also said to move some of the content from Domestic worker to this article. I noticed there was a large section about high-profile maid abuse cases. Should I include a section summarising those cases? Thanks, Helen (let’s talk) 20:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HelenDegenerate: Yes, it was already looking pretty good, and getting rid of the instructional list would be good! I confess to not looking in great detail at the Domestic worker article, but felt there were too many examples from one country there. I presume your article is intended not to relate specifically to one country, but I thought you could delete and move some of that detail into your article and use a {{Main article}} template to link across to a country subsection (assuming all the high profile cases were from one country). When I first started looking at your draft, I thought to myself "why that title?" before appreciating it really is 'a thing' in certain parts of the world. I also wondered if there are any examples of men experiencing such abuse, which could be used to show that the term isn't necessarily gender-specific? Sorry if my reply is a bit waffly- but I'm sure you'll do good job with it. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So far, I haven't come across any examples of violence against male domestic workers, which is why I titled the article 'maid abuse'. I'm certainly thinking about making a section for notable cases. Would it be okay if I copied the cases from the Domestic worker article into my sandbox, then removed the content from the article? Or is that a copyright infringement? Helen (let’s talk) 21:15, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Being bold, yes, that would be OK. Make sure you give credit to editors if you copy from other articles (then ensure you WP:MOVE your sandbox, rather than just copy/paste the article contents so that you retain the edit histories and credits to other authors. (I'm not suggesting you credit individual authors; just link to the article you took content from).There's good advice at WP:COPYWITHIN and at WP:SPLITTING. Being somewhat 'less bold' you could raise your intentions on the talk page at Domestic worker, linking to your sandbox as you rightly did at the Teahouse, and seeing if anyone objects to your proposal, or offers alternative ideas for you. The choice is yours. Good luck. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have published Maid abuse to article space, having felt it was ready. As for copying from other articles, I gave credit to the authors by using the phrease "copied content from Domestic worker; see that page's history for attribution". Helen (let’s talk) 01:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Tech News
The next issue of Tech News will be sent out on 19 July.
Recent changes
AutoWikiBrowser is a tool to make repetitive tasks easier. It now uses JSON. Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage has moved to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPageJSON and Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Config. Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage/Version has moved to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage/VersionJSON. The tool will eventually be configured on the wiki so that you don't have to wait until the new version to add templates or regular expression fixes. [24]
Problems
InternetArchiveBot helps saving online sources on some wikis. It adds them to Wayback Machine and links to them there. This is so they don't disappear if the page that was linked to is removed. It currently has a problem with linking to the wrong date when it moves pages from archive.istoweb.archive.org. [25]
Changes later this week
The tool to find, add and remove templates will be updated. This is to make it easier to find and use the right templates. It will come to the first wikis on 7 July. It will come to more wikis later this year. [26][27]
There is no new MediaWiki version this week.
Future changes
Some Wikimedia wikis use Flagged Revisions or pending changes. It hides edits from new and unregistered accounts for readers until they have been patrolled. The auto review action in Flagged Revisions will no longer be logged. All old logs of auto-review will be removed. This is because it creates a lot of logs that are not very useful. [28]
Hello, Nick. Could I persuade you to look at/forcefully warn/block 75.130.178.42? They've been edit-warring at Kid Ink, insistently adding an unsourced genre R&B (while simultaneously removing {{flatlist}} usages from the infobox), rarely with ES, never explained. Their battle with User:BinksternetatJeezy is apparently more heated, judging from the edit summaries. Thanks, — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits)18:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Binksternet; @JohnFromPinckney Thanks, guys. I'm a really bad choice of admin to ask to intervene about warring over music genres and such like. However, I'm not prepared to see that sort of abuse in edit summaries from anyone. So they've got a few days block from me for now. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Theologian81sp again
Hi Nick, thanks for blocking the Theologian81sp IP sock the other day. He is on a dynamic IP, apparently, and seems unable to understand the concept of block evasion – you blocked 78.14.139.25 two days ago, yesterday he returned as 84.223.68.239 and I posted another message for him on User talk:84.223.68.239, trying to be crystal clear about what "being blocked" actually means. Despite acknowledging that message and making a half-hearted attempt to get Theologian81sp unblocked, he returned today with another IP, 78.14.138.87. It is (at least) the 10th IP address he has used since being blocked on 11 July! (I have a list of the ones I've found and there are three different ranges: 78.14.13x.x, 94.38.23x.x, and 84.223.6x.x.) It's hard to know just what he thinks is going on, actually; he signs all his talk page posts so he is not trying to hide his activities or pretend to be someone else, but why did he acknowledge the message "you may not edit Wikipedia articles or post to talk pages" and proceed to ignore it?! Some of his edits look ok, while others are not, but that's not really the point. Would range blocks help, do you think?
@Bonadea I must confess to still not fully understanding how to make IPv4 rangeblocks without making collateral damage. IPv6 are easier to apply. I’m afraid I’m in bed now, so this might need raising at ANI tomorrow. Sorry I cannot help right now. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question
Hi, sorry, I didn't catch your np-reply before the entry was removed from UAA. The user's name is: "International Law Case Updater" and their edits so far are exclusively to law-related articles, such as legal cases and judges. I believe one definite concern would be that some users are likely to believe they represent an entity or organization that gives their edits more weight and/or authenticity then that of an ordinary editor (ie: the rest of us), making it less likely they would challenge, or even check, any questionable edits. I don't think we should be required to review all their edits thus far, and then police them going forward to alleviate that concern. I think encouraging them to select a different user name, one that would also make it easier for editors to engage with them in talk page discussions, would be a reasonable means of addressing these concerns, no? (imho) - wolf01:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator changes
Enchanter • Carlossuarez46
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Arbitration
Anearlier issue of Tech News said that the citoid API would handle dates with a month but no days in a new way. This has been reverted for now. There needs to be more discussion of how it affects different wikis first. [6]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 18 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 19 May. It will be on all wikis from 20 May (calendar).
This user account is currently locked across all Wikimedia projects.
Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless
button beside some fields (e.g. URL, ISBN), which is a good way to quickly fill out some of the fields. This means that you can paste in a value (like a URL copied from your browser) in the field, click the 
Helen (let’s talk) 20:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
![[8]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Parachute_Regiment_Belfast.jpg){kind=link}
