This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Leapfrog appeal turned out to be too difficult to expand to ~1500 words, going to need more research time I think. But I did finish off Koh Tao murders -- any ideas for a good hook here? There's a couple of interesting things about it but I'm not sure which one makes for an attractive hook. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I think it has broad coverage from sources cited. I haven’t looked too closely for local Thailand sources, though there are a couple in there, which had some extra details like times. The murder section seems short but I think that’s because I decided to focus the info into/around the investigation section. Perhaps more can be added to the background (about the island and its tourism industry, and more about historic Thai police corruption which was mentioned in sources a fair bit), but research wise I think the rest is mostly there (not comprehensive, but maybe broad?). Structural changes on how to present the facts could be necessary, though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I'll probably have to split some of the sentences up, too, I think. eg Their bodies were discovered, 20 metres apart, on Sairee Beach a few hours later, around 4-5am, by a mute Burmese beach cleaner. requires 4 sources to verify (aspects like 20 metres apart, 4-5am, mute Burmese beach cleaner, are spread across the sources). Similar with quite a few sentences that require 3-4 sources to verify, which seems a bit iffy? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader I wouldn't let the fact the best sentence I can come up with requires 4 sources to support cause me to recast into multiple sentences just so it doesn't appear to have too many sources. You can always open a section in talk or leave a hidden comment to explain, or you can insert the sources into the sentence at the assertions they support.
That said, I think that sentence probably could be recast; there's a lot going on. You could remove the 20 metres apart and incorporate that into the next sentence, which is short and also involves relative location. Their bodies were discovered on Sairee Beach a few hours later, between 4 and 5 am, by a mute Burmese beach cleaner. The bodies were lying 20 metres apart and about 30 metres from their hotel. —valereee (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader, I think you could do any of those or all! The reviewer or promoter may suggest others if they don't like those, but I think you could use all three. Koh Tao and death sentences are redirects, you'll have to pipe them (no redirects allowed in DYK hooks).
FWIW, I generally only include additional links if I feel I must -- each additional link seems to drain how many people go to the bolded article, and for me the whole point of DYK is to get more people there to improve it. The only link I'd use would be Vajiralongkorn, as we typically do not include unlinked names in a DYK hook. If the reviewer/promoter/other workers at DYK think backpacker needs a link, they'll add it. I don't think anyone reading enwiki is unclear on what a death sentence is, and the place names don't need to be linked as the first para of the article body removes any possible confusion. —valereee (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 20
News and updates associated with user scripts from the past month (January 2021).
Hello everyone and welcome to the 20th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter:
User:Ahecht/Scripts/pageswap - version 1.4 fixes reading destination from form field if destination is not in article namespace, and fixes self redirects.
Wikipedia:XFDcloser - version 4 brings a new user interface for dialogs, some preferences for customising XFDcloser, major behind-the-scenes coding changes, and resolves various issues raised on the talkpage. Also, since version 3.16.6 non-admin soft delete closure have been allowed at TfD.
Open tasks
As a reminder, the legacy javascript globals (like accessing wgPageName without first assigning it a value or using mw.config.get('wgPageName') instead) are deprecated. If your user scripts make use of the globals, please update them to use mw.config instead. Some global interface editors or local interface administrators may edit your user script to make these changes if you don't. See phab:T72470 for more.
Miscellaneous
For people interested in creating user scripts or gadgets using TypeScript, a types-mediawiki package (GitHub, NPM) is now available that provides type definitions for the MediaWiki JS interface and the API.
AGitHub organization has been created for hosting codebases of gadgets. Users who maintain gadgets using GitHub may choose to move their repos to this organization, to ensure continued maintenance by others even if the original maintainer becomes inactive.
As always, if anyone else would like to contribute, including nominating a featured script, help is appreciated. Stay safe, and happy new year! --DannyS712 (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I see you gave temporary full protection to this new article. I think the edit warring will start up again in 3 days when the protection expires. There are editors who think the lab leak theory is real and others who believe it is a conspiracy theory and this debate has been going on strong nearly a year now. With COVID-19 sanctions available, I think this page might benefit from a larger discussion because semi- and extended protection will not stop the fighting surrounding this subject. LizRead!Talk!03:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
@Liz, lol, actually when I just looked at it again this morning I realized I'd misread the situation as worse than it was -- I thought the edit warring had continued until just an hour or so before I looked in, when it had actually been like a half-day! I was thinking I'd possibly been kind of an idiot. Not that I don't think you're right, though -- there is actually a discussion at ANI now, and if someone doesn't help out at that article the edit warring will likely begin as soon as that discussion closes. I had thought two days might be enough to let someone catch up with what's going on and find a solution, but it may be that it'll need to be protected for longer to force discussion.
I'm not sure I want to get into it myself. I've started to despair of our colleagues who have been pulled into the extremist media. Were we having this problem this badly last election cycle? Like pizzagate -- I see it has 7 archives, and I'm sure there were nutty IPs coming in all the time to argue it was true, they'd seen the videos of HC whipping naked children or whatever, but were experienced editors going off the deep end too? At any rate, watching multiple experienced and previously perfectly sane conservative editors get topic-banned over this kind of stuff has been depressing.
I keep wanting to believe we're all going to get back to normal here on WP once we all get vaccinated and can get back to normal, and then I remember how many Americans are apparently refusing the vaccine, which means we'll be limping along with our hospitals at full capacity until we hopefully at some point achieve herd immunity despite those folks. Hm...I'm not usually so melancholy in the morning. I wonder if the hubs accidentally made decaff? :D —valereee (talk) 13:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, considering how much you have helped out in some very contentious areas on the project, I think you might give COVID-19 misinformation a pass! As for making mistakes, this morning, I deleted a page because an IP editor had changed a redirect and I deleted a page without double-checking so you're allowed to make mistakes! Luckily there was an editor who noticed and brought it to my attention. And my comment here wasn't meant to be a correction as much as a question wondering what should happen next. I think this needs to involve admins who have already been working in this subject area and know the topic and the main editors who focus on it.
As for the state of the project, it seems like there is always something in dispute here though you look at some battles in Wikipedia's early days, they seem pretty minor in comparison. I'm not sure when the world will go back to a semi-normal state...as for me, I've been working from home so long, I think I'll need to replace my couch soon! I'm in NW U.S. and while we have had virus surges like the rest of the country, we haven't suffered as much as other areas like Florida, Arizona and California. And right now, people are more focused on the weather than the coronavirus. Take care, LizRead!Talk!21:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
You've had to take on a lot of criticism in the last weeks, but as to me, you have guided us fair (sometimes maybe even a bit too fair) and well through the turbulences. Way to go. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello Valereee, love is the language of hearts and is the feeling that joins two souls and brings two hearts together in a bond. Taking love to the level of Wikipedia, spread the WikiLove by wishing each other Happy Valentine's Day, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm love on the eve, Happy editing, NASCARfan0548↗19:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Yesterday, I'd been thinking of how I might try to explain things to Billybostickson, but I couldn't work out the best approach and decided to leave it for now. I'm glad I did, because I think your explanations are just about perfect (and deserving of more than a mere click on the "thank" link ;-). There's definitely a lot of newcomer misunderstanding and frustration there, and I hope he does listen to you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your efforts to help, something I didn't have any patience for after the constant pings, accusations on productive editors, self-victimization and usenet-style posts... —PaleoNeonate – 02:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
"I am too busy helping prepare a report for an intelligence agency at the moment to pursue this dispute, and yes, the report is about lab leaks" hmm could this be a type of veiled legal threat? Claiming to report to some alleged authority to pursue a Wikipedia campaign... —PaleoNeonate – 13:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
@PaleoNeonate, meh, seems a stretch. I took it more just as them hinting that they're someone important in the intelligence field and generally listened to by those in authority? —valereee (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Maybe. On second thought I realized that it's probably only soapboxing for conspiracy theorists to believe they have privileged access to suppressed leak evidence... Anyway, thanks again, —PaleoNeonate – 13:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Firestar464
I just want to let you know that Firestar464 absolutely killed it during his first RCP attempt since December. I checked his contributions and noticed only two minor mistakes. I'm feeling optimistic. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Ah—I just saw the context of the edit itself, and this does appear to be the case. I'm not taking any action since I don't want to edit conflict and muddle things up even more. :) Perryprog (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
@Bison X, I think you fixed this for me? Thank you so much for noticing and fixing. @Perryprog, thank you for bringing this to my attention. OMG, I'm so embarrassed! I must have edited an earlier version or something! What an idiot. I should never try to fix anything. The chances I'll break it worse are too high. —valereee (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
You reverted a change I made to the Karen article, where I moved
a description of an SNL skit from the "Origin" section to the "Criticism"
section. I don't really disagree with you, but I do think that the use
of the SNL skit is very problematic and it might be smart to delete it.
Before getting into that - which I don't much care about anyway - on reading some of the comments
on this page, I'm impressed with your work with wikipedia.
Here's the problem with the Karen article: The SNL skit has nothing to do with Karens as defined by the article.
I'm a dedicated SNL fan, and I saw and laughed at this skit, but I didn't "get" anything
as a result, except that food prepared by white women tends to be bland.
The first sentence of the article explains that Karen
"is a pejorative term for women seeming to be entitled
or demanding beyond the scope of what is normal."
Bringing bad food to a barbecue is not an entitled thing
and is arguably quite normal. So citing this skit actually
contradicts the basic point of the article.
I thought about just removing the description of this skit,
but then it seemed like maybe
it belonged more under the "criticism" section.
Thinking about it a little more deeply,
there's a problem with using social media memes --
they are not actually very well defined. Why would
having a particular haircut signal that a woman
will act entitled? I was a somewhere between appalled and amused
when I realized that my minister, a dedicated racial justice activist,
has exactly that bob haircut. I also think memes tend to change
more rapidly than anyone can follow. Look at all the stuff that got
done with the Bernie meme.
A better approach to this Karen article might be to say that "Karen" is a pejorative
term applied to white women, and it has a number of meanings, ranging
from the entitled one, to clueless (like the woman at the barbecue),
to the one member of a group that no one likes (see the Dane Cook sketch,
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEO_28VrJLQ).
On the whole, I think this is a pretty bad article, and I do like to try to improve
wikipedia when I have time, but I'm afraid that I think that this isn't worth the time
I'm putting in to it :-)
Hey, @Ngriffeth, it wasn't the use of it on SNL -- it was that the use of it on SNL was described in RS by expert(s?) as important/meaningful, as when the rest of the country/white people started to get it. It's not just a "In Popular Culture" thing but an explanation of when it started to be seen outside of Black twitter as meaning something important in how white American sees racism.
valereee, what Gpinkerton did right now at SK and Arab Belt was a straight violation of theyre topic ban. Not only did you not block Gp. They're edit remains in place. This is in itself a reward for violating a topic ban and a reward for bad behavior.
No idea! Probly be in a ditch somewhere! :) Look, SD. We've had our differences, and I understand you pretty much disagree with everything I've ever done. That's fine. I seriously don't care whether you like me or not, agree with me or not, and I have zero opinion on you other than you've been a bit disruptive at SK. I assume that otherwise you're a perfectly delightful colleague. If you can't get to that same place, that's on you. —valereee (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Protecting Syrian Kurdistan
Hi Valereee, thank you for protecting the Syrian Kurdistan article, but as you can see GPinkerton is launching an eleventh hour wild POV crusade to push as much content as they can before they are gone. They also did thisatArab Belt. I think to be fair, their wild POV-pushing edits (also so blatantly violating their current tban) should be reverted before any page is protected. I think they are trying to pull others into engaging in an edit-war with them. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
@عمرو بن كلثوم here's the thing about protecting: we don't protect a version. We don't care about the content. No admin cares about content: once we care about content, we become editors, not admins. Admins protect from edit-warring, which means about half the time, the "wrong" version is protected. —valereee (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Maybe the whacker will succeed in breaking the account of someone who is a troll anyway and is about to be indeffed. If so, the real account holder will really have a hard time trying to explain that it wasn't their pet octopus. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
The web notification of the whacking brings up a MediaWiki page. The history of that page shows, interestingly, that that MediaWiki page was vandalized twice in the past day, and the vandal has been blocked cross-wiki. Maybe they are the troublemaker. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I've been getting these too (and I never otherwise get them). If I remember correctly in one of the last time this was brought up at VPT, the people who were affected thought it was due to posting at ARC. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm up to 81 failed login attempts. What I think that I will suggest is that they should lock the IP address for a period of time after a certain number of failed logins. When I was testing US government software, I recall that three consecutive failed logins resulted in the IP address being locked for a period of time. I don't plan to change my password. It is working, and if I were to change it, I wouldn't be able to use it again, and would start entering it anyway due to remembering it, and so on. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't know what the number is for me (where do you see that?) but I do know my alert history is now non-existent amongst the failed login notices. It's not really a security issue, but it is a huge annoyance. The software should be blocking/putting on cooldown IPs that do this. Course, that can be evaded using proxies, but no point burning good proxies or bots for annoying someone's alerts list. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
The succeeds one ("Login from an unfamiliar device") is, I think, separate from failed logins notifications. I've kept the unfamiliar device enabled, but not the failed logins. I don't really care about failed login attempts. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I see the number in my bell icon. Right now it just says "multiple" but sometimes it gives me a number. I think from my reading it may be that if it's been fewer than X since the last time you logged in, it will just say multiple. If it's more than that, it'll give you the number? —valereee (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Seeing the ArbCom Case on Kurds is getting closed
Seeing the ArbCom Case on Kurds and Kurdistan is getting closed, I following might approach you sometimes with issues I have in the topic area. But only if I was really not able to solve it through other means. I've also seen that there exists the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, where I probably will add requests as well. But you are bit familiar with the issues we have in the topic area and you know how I and the ArbCom feel about how you lead us through the SK dispute. That said, I actually really don't want to bother anyone with disputes and wish them a pleasant Wikipedia experience.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding Kurds and Kurdistan has now closed. You have been mentioned in a finding, but you were not mentioned in any remedies. The finding you are mentioned in is:
Valereee imposed a source restriction at Syrian Kurdistan[2], which was within reasonable administrative discretion under a general sanctions authorization.
Hello, Valereee! I am planning to expand the article over the next week or so, but as you are by a long way the main contributor so far I feel I should check that you are OK with this. The article is good as it stands, but I think it is possible to make it still better. Glad of any thoughts you may have on this. Best wishes, Tim riley talk12:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Splendid! I'm glad to have your approval. I'll ping you when I've done and perhaps you'll review my changes. Meanwhile, stay well! Tim riley talk17:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello again! I have done my best chez Brazier, and will be glad of any comments or suggestions you have, if you have time and inclination to look in. (The references need a bit of tidying to reconcile my customary Stone-age citation style with your more modern one, but I'll do that in the next few days.) Best wishes, Tim riley talk19:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@Tim riley I actually had in my to-do list to get this to GA. Would you be interested in nominating it? I'd be happy to help with that process, although there may be the fact there are likely French sources out there that would be good to include. Ping @Kudpung who IIRC might have offered at some time in the past to help check that. —valereee (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I avoid GAN and FAC these days, but if we have the luck to be joined by Kudpung, one of the WP editors I most particularly respect, I could be prodded into rethinking. Tim riley talk21:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
FWIW, I have eaten in La Mère Brazier a couple of times during my 13 years in the region, which is what led me to make a small edit to the article. Since being desysoped by a witch hunt I avoid being pro-active on en'Wiki as much as possible these days with the exception of the occasional comment on a RfC or correcting blatant nonsense on the fly when reading Wikipedia. That said, I'd be happy to make an exception and assist, particularly if Tim were able to be around. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Dear me! Not one but two refuseniks emerging into view! Well, heigh ho, this one is willing to put the article up for GA, but I'd be very grateful to Kudpung and Valereee for their most ruthless combing over the article before that. For the record, I am puce with envy that Kudpung has eaten at La Mère B. but I have Lyon on my list for when the pandemic is over and we can all travel again. Tim riley talk 22:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC) Tim riley talk22:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
@Tim riley, the article looks fabulous! Moi aussi re:Lyon. I've been there once, but it was only overnight. I'd like to spend a few months there, just eating and cooking. —valereee (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I've done a lot of 'fairly' minor copy edits and added a section on publications. Nevertheless, I may have missed some, the MoS is not my strong point. I hope I haven't overwritten any of Tim's edits. This work was particularly difficult because there is more source material in the body than actual body text. The usual way to do this in cases like these is to give every inline reference a name, and have a separate section at the bottom for the sources themselves. Please ping me when the GAN starts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Excellent! I'll tidy the references over the next few days and then put the article up for GA. (There can be a long wait, sometimes, for a reviewer to volunteer. but fingers crossed.) I think perhaps we might copy the exchanges above to the article talk page, but what think you both? Tim riley talk12:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
No objections Tim. BTW (you'll know more about this), as far as I remember the only requirement is for the chosen referencing system to be consistent throughout the article.I don't envy yur task ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Can you take a look at the recent edits at Lorestan Province by user Rizorius?[3] It's a good example of why Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan was a needed process. The local Kurdish name of the province is being removed despite a large population of the province being Kurdish. The editor is making a false equivalence comparing having the local Kurdish name in the article with having the German name at Paris. Conversely, an unverifiable and ridiculous survey that contradicts the info in the 'demographics'-section is being added. --Semsûrî (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey, @Semsûrî! I don't know anything about the subject, but I do see neither of you has opened a talk page section. In fact there's been nothing opened on the talk since like 2017. I'd suggest opening a talk section to discuss and pinging them to it. If they keep reverting, we can full-protect to prevent edit warring and encourage discussion. —valereee (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I opened a section at the talk-page now, however from my experience there's little incentive to answer from their part, when their edits are the current version of the article. --Semsûrî (talk) 10:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I just noticed here. as I said, that Kurdish name was not the Kurdish language of that area, as you might know Kurdish is not a single language, and hence, it is not the local name and he insists on adding the name in an alien language. he also removes the whole content about the Lur people, the largest ethnic group of the province and I don't know why. RIZORIUSTALK11:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Valeree, can you take a look at the disruption here?[4] One IP editor keeps removing referenced information and the alphabetization in the intro. Thanks. --Semsûrî (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
@Semsûrî, that may not be a sock. It's a dynamic IP, and these edits seem to be unrelated to the sockmaster's interests, which appear to be centered on a television show. —valereee (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Demon Lord of Karanda
Hey, Val. I overlooked part of your comment, and since I feel I've probably spammed WT:ACN to excess at this point, I'll just answer here. The short of it is that Demon Lord of Karandais available in Hebrew. I've just haven't been lucky enough to find it yet.El_C01:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
BTW, I've had actual dreams (more than one) where I'm holding a copy in my hands. Happy dream; sad awake. But, alas, to manifest! El_C01:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
You've had dreams where you've held the Hebrew translation in your hands? Okay, we need to track this thing down. Someone must be able to find a copy! —valereee (talk) 01:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Wouldn't that be amazing! Though, in fairness, I've had lots of dreams about lots of books, truth be told. I used to have dreams that I was holding a copy of Unfinished Tales in Hebrew, too (seriously, I am not making this shit up!), having only the English one. Then later on, I did find a Hebrew copy. Happy days.El_C01:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Excuse the intrusion both, but El_C, butting in here as a fellow fantasy fan, friends have mentioned opus.co.il to me in the past for Hebrew translations of fantasy works, and they seem to have it in stock. Anyways, I can never decide whether King of the Murgos or Sorceress of Darshiva is my favourite... (Noting that I do not speak or read one iota of Hebrew myself, so that could be a site for Ladies of Negotiable Affection for all I know...). --Jack Frost (talk) 10:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
OMG!Opus does international shipping now? That's news to me. Yay! I think I'm in! Also, I find it amusing that out of the 200ish fantasy books that they list for sale on their page, I already have like half of em. I'm such a nerd! Anyway, thanks, Jack Frost! This is awesome. While they do note COVID-related disruption of service, that won't last forever. Comeon, Kenneth Copeland, you just need to try harder! Or failing that... vaccinate the country...? Bah, which ever comes first. Happy days (soon).El_C14:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Today, we have a DYK about Wilhelm Knabe, who stood up for future with the striking school children when he was in his 90s, - a model, - see here. Yesterday, I made sure on a hike that the flowers are actually blooming ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
I think I might have discovered a problem with Firestar464. In RCP, he admitted to using the contribution quality predictor rather than the intent predictor. I tried doing that when I started RCP last summer, and I found that my work was boring and filled with false positives. I told him to change the settings in the hopes that it can help him assess people's intentions better. I hope this works. Scorpions13256 (talk) 05:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Arequest for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
Arequest for comment is in progress to remove F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a, which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
Arequest for comment asks if sysops may place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
Bymotion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
Arbitration
Miscellaneous
Open tasks
Pending requests
El_C 01:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
El_C 01:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
El_C 14:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Administrator changes
TJMSmith
Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
