This is an archive of past discussions with User:Seraphimblade. 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.
Frottdog, that article was deleted by the clear consensus of the community, and honestly at this point I'm starting to wonder what your intense interest in it is. It is much too soon after the AfD for circumstances to have changed, so at this time I am not going to do that. If in a year or two things have substantially changed from the circumstances that were there during the discussion, that might be a different matter. SeraphimbladeTalk to me05:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Seraphimblade. So my work is lost because one user made (in my opinion questionable) statements about the used sources and another suspected me of a COI? A clear consensus looks different to me, but maybe some of the users did not get why this particular company is important because the topics of global anti money laundering efforts are very complex topics. As already said, I am just interested in the visibility of Austrian "products" that go beyond cows, Mozart (a German) and monarchy. Unfortunately I do not have a copy of the article as I did not expect that it gets deleted, because from my checks WP:NCORP, WP:ORGIND and WP:ORGCRITE were met before publishing. I do get the point that it may be WP:TOOSOON for it to publish and it needs more depth (I compared with other wiki articles on organisations like this before and almost all had way less sources). However, yes, that´s why I would like to keep the article for myself and work on it in draftspace in the future. Why should it be a problem that I put it in my sandbox? Will this harm someone? I hope not :) --Frottdog (talk) 05:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Dear Seraphimblade.I am repeating the question because you are ignoring my arguments. I intended to ask you politely because I thought I had reasonable arguments for my request. That you take it as a battleground is just your personal decision I am honestly wondering about. However, no bad blood here from my side. Just wondering. --Frottdog (talk) 08:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.
Technical news
Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)
Dispute over whether Francis Drake was a slave trader
Hello, could you take a look at this discussion and suggest ways of moving past it? At issue is whether it is appropriate to describe Francis Drake as a slave trader. Drake's involvement in the early slave trade is not really disputed by historians, so the argument comes down to how to position that fact in the overall article. From my perspective, the arguments to remove the term amount to historical whitewashing.Ynizcw (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Ynizcw, I am not particularly familiar with the issues surrounding Drake, and do not know when I would have time to look into them enough to provide an informed opinion. If you believe more input would be beneficial to the discussion, your best bet is a request for comment. SeraphimbladeTalk to me18:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll look into that. An editor that disagrees with me also suggested an RfC, or possibly a third opinion. If possible, I'd appreciate it if you could comment on the tradeoffs in a dispute like this before I go too far down either path. You don't need to know much about Drake to offer guidance, since I suspect the basic problem occurs frequently on WP: Drake has a following of enthusiastic admirers who know a lot about him and actively contribute to his WP article, but they also tend to portray him uncritically. It can be hard to have a productive discussion about anything that they view as an unfair characterization of their hero. My guess is that an RfC would be the more productive route to resolution, as it would allow for more perspectives to be included. The third opinion option might be simpler, but it seems likely to end up being an intermediate step toward an RfC if the third opinion is drawn from the same community of Drake "experts".Ynizcw (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
A 3O wouldn't work (and probably wouldn't be provided) since there are more than two editors involved. 3O is intended to be a lightweight process for two editors who disagree to get an uninvolved third party's view quickly. An RfC runs longer, generally for about a month (unless consensus becomes absolutely clear before that), and while of course editors previously involved in discussions are welcome to add comments to it, other uninvolved editors are also randomly invited to participate by a bot. (You can see some such messages on my talk page above.) SeraphimbladeTalk to me20:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi there Seraphimblade, I wanted to follow up about the deletion of the page International Free Expression Project. I was confused about both the deletion of the article as well as the notation as self-promotionary.
I was surprised at the self-promotionary classification, since I had initially written the page as a draft article, it was published, and then I made minor edits to the page (adding the logo, fixing grammar). At that point, it was deleted. Throughout all of this, I followed the COI requirement of "disclos(ing) your COI when involved with affected articles". Why was it initially fine to publish and exist, but not after these corrections?
And as for the page being deleted, I don't understand why the entire page was deleted, rather than edits suggested or taken. The reasons given were that it did "not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies" of being notable and having already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources. I looked through these pages to confirm, and it checked all three boxes. The editor who published the article evidently agreed.
Why was the article deleted rather than independently edited? And could you please let me know how we can get a new page up that isn't considered self-promotionary? I just now learned that there is a "request edits" template, which I would like to try out when the page is re-created.
Ddramacat, firstly, you say that you are a contractor for the project, which seems to indicate that you are being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia, which includes being asked or expected to do so as a duty of employment, contracting, or internship. If so, you will need to disclose that as indicated here before we continue. SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. First off, since you are being paid to edit, please review our conflict of interest guidelines. Paid editors should not be creating or moving articles for which they are paid into mainspace. Rather, such articles should be created as a draft and reviewed by articles for creation. (I'm aware that in this case you, personally, didn't move it to mainspace, but a very new account which hasn't edited much of anything else did, so that's still clearly part of the paid campaign. It needs to actually go through AfC.) Articles must be neutral, stick to facts verified by reliable and independent sources, and not promote anyone or anything. In this case, very nearly all of the cited references were written by the organization itself. We are not interested in having "articles" that are basically brochures parroting the organization's own material. Rather, we are interested in what reliable sources which are independent of the organization have to say about it. The article starts out with marketese "mission" style stuff (dedicated to building public support for freedom of expression.), goes on to a needless puffy description of four "initiatives", and basically the entire thing reads like a brochure about the organization, not a neutral encyclopedia article sticking to factual information about it. I am quite honestly not certain that the source material present passes the notability threshold to begin with, but even if that can be met, the article must not "talk up" the organization or be an "About Us" page. SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Again, I have directed you to the instructions for use of the articles for creation process, above. Please use that process for review of a draft. I do not have time to comprehensively review that at this time. SeraphimbladeTalk to me04:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Seconded! And especially for following through by distilling down what felt like several megabytes of discussion into a clear closure rationale and decision. Narky Blert (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Small suggestion re wording of ANI close
Sorry to nitpick, but the first bullet point in your closing message says that no one involved was entirely blameless. But SQL was named as an involved party from the beginning, and during the (long) ensuing discussion I didn't see anyone (except perhaps BHG) suggest that they had behaved in any way inappropriately. Unless you really did mean to imply that SQL deserves some blame in the matter, I would humbly suggest striking or rewording this portion of the close message. Colin M (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestion, but I cannot imagine something that I am less interested in doing, to be honest, than trying to play at who exactly did what when. I don't think anyone comes out of a blowup like that looking too great, and some things could have benefited from simply being dropped altogether. So it's my hope that everyone can just have their own thoughts on that and that we can move on from it. SeraphimbladeTalk to me
I was going to create a "TY" section - but it appears that others have been dropping notes here - so - TY for closing a less than enjoyable thread. — Ched (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Question about deleted link
Hello Seraphimablade! Thanks so much for your care for and attention to the details of keeping Wikipedia awesome. And thanks for messaging me to let me know that you reverted my change.
I would love to know exactly why my edit "seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia". (To remind you: I had added an external link on the The Garden of Earthly Delights article: I linked to a YouTube video of what is, to my knowledge, the first recording of the piece of music which is notated in the right panel of the painting.) In my judgment, this link is entirely relevant to the article; as explained in the article, music is an important element of the painting. The performance to which I linked is an earnest and well-researched effort to perform the piece of music contained in the artwork. I am very interested to learn why this wouldn't be considered a relevant external link. Thanks again! Solomon Douglas (talk) 06:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Solomon Douglas, Wikipedia is not for pushing YouTube videos. Many of our articles would be drowning in external links if we linked to every YouTube video about them. With rare exception, it is not acceptable to link YouTube videos in the "external links" section. SeraphimbladeTalk to me06:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello, you put a speedy deletion notice and then promptly deleted a page I spent significant time on, Catalyte. I did my best to write the page with an encyclopedic tone. It's the largest tech company in Baltimore, so while I believe it deserves a page, I'm happy to have a discussion/make changes. Can you send me the final source, before it was deleted, so we can together discuss and make the changes that are needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banjosound (talk • contribs)
Banjosound, as the material was promotional, please first clarify if you are being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia, including being asked or expected to do so as a condition of employment or internship. If so, you will need to make the required disclosures before we proceed. SeraphimbladeTalk to me16:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
No, I am not being compensated, or as a condition for anything. Why would that be the case? I am confused as to how the material was promotional. I spent my personal time gathering sources and creating a page for a business that I came across because it does work I see as crucial to the future of the country and world. It was not my intention to have it come across as an advertisement. Let's have a discussion centered around changing the article to better fit the requirements, as opposed to deleting it entirely.
Thank you for clarifying that. So firstly, please be clear that if you write promotional material (as some examples, but by no means an exhaustive list: talented individuals who are otherwise overlooked (don't add marketese adjectives like "talented"), sought to identify the smartest and most capable individuals (same, and according to what source?), with a network of development centers located across the United States (sales brochure stuff, what is a "development center", and what is "across the United States"?). This may stem from the fact that the article consisted in large part of copy-and-paste material or extremely close paraphrase from other sources, which not only is often in a tone inappropriate for Wikipedia, but also is a copyright violation. So if you try again, ensure that you use your own words, avoid any puff-up adjectives, and write neutrally in tone. Don't copy and paste material from elsewhere, nor just change a word or two and paste it in; paraphrasing must be rewritten entirely in your own words. SeraphimbladeTalk to me16:41, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
I see. This makes sense, thank you for clarifying! I would like to try again, with this information in mind. It will no doubt improve my Wikipedia acumen. How can I access the most recent source of the page?
You cannot. I can provide you the sources that were used in the deleted article, but we can never under any circumstances restore or provide text that violates copyright. SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Rasha Kelej
Hi you added then removed protection for this article some time ago. It’s been recreated and was nominated for deletion on 20 August. However the AfD hasn’t been properly transcluded - the notice placed on the article links through to an old 2017 discussion. I’m not sure what to do about this and hope you can advise. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Ah, that makes sense. Then, you should speak to the individual who did nominate it, in this case Osps7, and let them know that the nomination message is borked. They may have failed to complete it, or may have written a nomination but borked the header. I would imagine they can clarify it better than I could. SeraphimbladeTalk to me20:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Im trying to write my first wiki article (i know i know it shouldnt be a bio of living person) and as I expected it was deleted because of it being a promotion. To be precise i expected it not to be neutral enough, i have read - hopefully - all help texts but still could not make it, im quite enthusiastic though and would like to do it the right way. I would need more specific feedback if possible on what went wrong, there were two longer parts in the article, one about an institution and one about a book (im more into the book, read it several times) was it that I included the commercial institutions website? or was it because of the language i used? im still trying to figure out more info on the person, i used to know him personally, so im kind of a fan, right now im working on an AI art project and i really couldnt believe my eyes that george has no wiki page since the book he wrote is quite helpful in my work. I already found a space where such articles can be developed without being published and deleted, sorry for not starting there, but i had to get things going somehow, this is so overwhelming first. Please help, thank you! Nosfery — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosfery (talk • contribs)
Nosfery, first, this is not in the spirit of being mean, but to start with, people will not take you seriously if you don't even take yourself seriously. Words like "I", and the first letter of a sentence, begin with a capital letter, and contractions like "I'm" contain an apostrophe. Please actually make an effort to write in correct and comprehensible English; I will not bother parsing through and responding if you leave another message like that. Since the content was promotional, please first clarify if you are being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia, including being asked or expected to do so as a duty of employment or internship. If so, you will need to make the required disclosures before we continue. SeraphimbladeTalk to me15:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for the clumsy grammar, I'm continously switching from english to hungarian keyboard layout, that's the reason for missing commas. I will try to do my best. I'm not being paid for this, my reason for choosing George as my first wiki article that I was sure of his international notability, verifiability etc. and wanted to avoid working in vain. Since this is the first time I'm doing this, it won't let me down if I'm not succeeding instantly, or if this article wasn't the best choice. So my main goal is learning - that includes you correcting my clumsy, internet-style grammar, thank you for your patience. I hope this answer will appear on the talk page, since I couldn't click on "talk to me" button and just writing this into the source code. In case you don't consider me hopeless already as a wiki contributor, please point out other mistakes I made, the choice of the person, what counts as an invalid source etc. I have other plans for articles and would like to make a better choice later. For example is it valid to write an article about my own theater company? Since it's an anarchist "company", I have little hope for official, government-supported (awards etc.) or academic verifiable info, but there are plenty of evidence of running shows, reviews (also bad ones!) - but only in hungarian. Or would that count as self-promotion of a product too? Thanks for your answer.Nosfery (talk) 10:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that. So far as George A. Tilesch in particular, Wikipedia articles must be neutral in tone, and not promote anyone or anything. In this case, the article was full of external links in the article text, which is not appropriate (if the article subject has an official website, a link to that at the bottom of the article in an "External links" section is appropriate, but not within the article body.) From there, He is a global AI expert, advisor to world leaders ("expert" and "advisor to world leaders" according to what reliable and independent source?), He is known for his cross-continental and cross-sector approach (known by whom, according to what reliable and independent source?), The authors' close connection to policy makers, government leaders and futuretech companies makes its perspective unique in its kind. (according to what reliable and independent source?), and plenty more "talking up" stuff like that. If you want to learn more about contributing to Wikipedia, you may want to try The Wikipedia Adventure to help get the basics down, and if you are interested in creating articles in particular, you will need to be familiar with our guidelines on notability. It is also good to be familiar with what makes a source reliable and independent; we are not generally interested in what people say about themselves (as in According to their website they help partners..., but rather what reliable sources with no interest in them say about them. SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, this was very helpful! Do hungarian language sources count as reliable source in english wiki? For example forbes magazine? Digging myself into it a bit more I realize youtube links and not-well-known blog reviews, local online media, linkedin stuff absolutely don't. Nosfery (talk) 09:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is open to decide when, if ever, should discord logs be eligible for removal when posted onwiki (including whether to oversight them)
A RfC on the next steps after the trial of pending changes on TFAs has resulted in a 30 day trial of automatic semi protection for TFAs.
Technical news
The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.
Arbitration
A request for comment is in progress to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. Comments and new proposals are welcome.
An editor has asked for a deletion review of MKFM. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Flip Format (talk) 16:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Magnito page
If possible, i will like you to help return Magnito page back as i was working on rewriting it to comply better, but suddenly before returning back, it was already deleted by you due to CSD template and i already contest for it not to be deleted even dropping a message in it talk page. Nigerlite (talk) 13:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Nigerlite, as the material was promotional, please first clarify if you are being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia, including being asked or expected to do so as a duty of employment or internship. If so, you will need to make the required disclosures before we proceed. SeraphimbladeTalk to me15:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
No, i was never paid to edit anything content in Wikipedia, i just feel ok to do so and this Magnito was just my desire to create the page after just watching a video of his which i got inspired by, that's why i jumped on creating the page or if not, i have never known anyone called Magnito except for X-Men character Magnito. Nigerlite (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
From X-Men it was actually Magneto, though of course this individual may spell it differently to avoid any issues there. Regardless, Wikipedia articles must be strictly neutral in tone and content, and not promote anyone or anything, including by "talking up". In this case, the article was full of puffery (top rated artist, he is well unique, hit song, became one of the most airplay from media outlets, became one of the famous, proved and believe rap can still sell in Nigeria, artiste (that's "artist", not affected stuff like "artiste")), and on and on and on like that. No talking up like that. In this instance, it seems you used as sources a lot of material such as interviews which are not independent, which may be part of the problem. Articles should be primarily based on references which are of substantial depth, reliable, and independent. If a substantial quantity of reference material like that does not exist about this individual, then they are not an appropriate subject for an article at all. If it does, try basing an article solely on factsverified by such material, and leave out all the puff adjectives and talking up. SeraphimbladeTalk to me16:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Alright, now i get it. Thanks for that add up experience, i have learned something here now. Now I've already worked on that issue. Nigerlite (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello Seraphimblade! The page Shiva Pariyar has been salted by you in October 2017. There is a draft about this subject which I intend to accept after we worked out the COI, NPOV and OR issues after a discussion on the talk page. Could you maybe unsalt it? Thanks! ~StyyxTalk?^-^06:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Styyx, you have extensively edited the draft in question. You can act as either an editor or an AfC reviewer, but never both, as this violates the general principle of involvement. Please submit the article for review by articles for creation by someone who has not extensively edited or otherwise been involved with the article. SeraphimbladeTalk to me08:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Okie, I will re-submit it. However the point still stands: the reviewer won't be able to move it to mainspace because of the salting. ~StyyxTalk?^-^08:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't like having any part in UPE drafts unless they can be accepted without improvements, but here multiple good faith editors have put their efforts. So, forgetting about the undeserved payday for whomever, I have trimmed remaining poorly sourced claims and unreliable sources. The sources that remain show that the topic is notable, so I am ready to accept the draft, if you will unsalt it. Regards! Usedtobecool☎️11:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (the person being discussed is a notable figure within their industry and achievements ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudz2000 (talk • contribs)
I noticed that, in the deletion of Shubhankar Baruah, you partially marked it as a G5. Should I take this to mean that there was a ban on the user who created the page that was effective 27 September 2020? The user seems to have created quite a bit of bios, so I wanted to confirm before I started tagging them as G5. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Mikehawk10, that's my fault, I intended to take that off again but apparently failed to. No, it wasn't that long back when I looked. The original sockpuppeteer was Nalbarian, who was blocked on 9 September (so of course any creations after that are G5 if no one else substantially edited them). SeraphimbladeTalk to me05:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Ali Bhai123, as you have been creating promotional material, please first clarify if you are being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia, including being asked or expected to do so as a duty of employment or internship. If so, you will need to make the required disclosures before we proceed. SeraphimbladeTalk to me06:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
This Article is also published in other Languages, it shouldn't be deleted, well if there are some material that is promotional, should be Edited. Ali Bhai123 (talk) 07:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
I've fixed that. And Ali Bhai123, to be perfectly clear, do not put back the promotional material in that article again, either. So far as the Muslim Institute article, it was full of promotional material. As some examples (but not by any means an exhaustive list) of what those problems were, consider MUSLIM Institute is a research institute working in Islamabad, Pakistan, dedicated to promoting unity, stability, peace, prosperity, and leadership in the Muslim world and the world at large.MUSLIM Institute has also a branch in UK, London. The Institute aims at conducting an unbiased and independent research and dialogue over issues of national and international concern. For the purpose, the Institute brings together researchers, intellectuals, and policymakers for an independent dialogue discussing emerging social, economic, political, cultural, security, and leadership challenges faced by the Muslim world. (this is all a whole bunch of marketese fluff that does not tell me one single thing about what the organization actually does, and don't use junk like "dedicated to" or "aims to", we care what they actually do), MUSLIM Institute having punch line "Mission of Unity, Stability, and Leadership in the Muslim world". (don't regurgitate marketing stuff like slogans), Sahibzada Sultan Muhammad Ali is the founding father of MUSLIM Institute. ("founder", not "founding father", don't use fluffy language, and that requires a reference), MUSLIM Institute takes a multi-disciplinary approach focused on strategic stability through strong, pragmatic, and principled social security, leadership, and defense policies that endorse concord. (once again, this is marketese crap that does not provide any factual information at all). Articles must be strictly neutral in tone and content and not promote anyone or anything, including through promotional language and "talking up", and stick to factual information verified by reliable and independent sources. SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Seraphimblade, Thanks for the Guidance on Muslim Institute Article. But can you guide me in detail Especially on (Monthly Mirrat-ul-Arifeen International) as you almost remove 90% of the Article? These are basic info about the Topic. Can you Provide any Sample which I can follow to publish more Articles? Actually, I am a beginner on Wikipedia plateform. Ali Bhai123 (talk) 11:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Well, first, Don't Capitalize Random Words. That aside, I already provided links above to our policies on neutrality, peacock terms, and reliability of sources. Those are the guidance on them; please read them. SeraphimbladeTalk to me16:28, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
The article is deleted due to advertising content. the article can be fixed so I think it wasn't deleted. The article was stub and has references which are enough for stub article. Kindly recover that article so I can fix the issue. thank You.Kalim0135 (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Kalim0135, first off, do not presume to give orders. Secondly, as you have written promotional material, please clarify if you are being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia, including being asked or expected to edit as a duty of employment. If so, you will need to make the required disclosures before we proceed. SeraphimbladeTalk to me00:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Seraphimblade Sir, I haven't ordered. With respect, I have just shared my opinion for which I apologize. I am not being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia. The subject "Hitesh C. Soni" was my mentor & he is much notable in our country that's why I just tried to publish the article about him. I am trying to learning the Wikipedia terms and policies. Thank you for help.Kalim0135 (talk) 01:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that. The article in question was quite promotional, with some examples (but by no means an exhaustive list): He was recently featured in the magazine edition of Insights Success for Most Reliable Law Firm 2021 (that cites an interview claiming that; why doesn't it cite the actual article?), He has represented and served some top clients (don't use fluff terms like "top"), As of today, Mr. Soni (refer to someone by full name upon first mention in an article and last name only thereafter, don't use "Mr."), and a laundry list of non-notable awards. That aside, now that I review some of the source material, I find that you also copied and pasted material directly from some of them, which is a copyright violation. You absolutely must not copy and paste material from sources into Wikipedia articles; article material must be based upon facts from reliable sources but written in your own words. SeraphimbladeTalk to me02:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Following an RfC, extended confirmed protection may be used preemptively on certain high-risk templates.
Following a discussion at the Village Pump, there is consensus to treat discord logs the same as IRC logs. This means that discord logs will be oversighted if posted onwiki.
A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.
Miscellaneous
Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.
Hello, I'm really sorry that I have to bring this up one month later, but would it be possible for you to look over this discussion once more? The other user involved has since disruptively rolled back an edit he had previously acceeded to. I was under the impression that our conversation had been in good faith, but I'm seriously starting to doubt that in light of what's happened.
Reodorant, that is a completely separate article. If you would like more input on that, please either make a new request at 3O, or if need be request a full RfC. It is generally not good form to try to request that specific people join the discussion when those options are available, and so I will not do so. SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Katy Krassner
Hello. Hoping you can tell me why you deleted the article since, after a suggested revision, it did not read promotional in nature. Ms. Krassner is referenced in a few places on Wikipedia AND has a weekly national radio show on Sirius Radio, so it seems like including her would be worthy. Can you provide some feedback on how I might be able to make the submission more acceptable to you? thank you in advance. Askkaty2write (talk) 05:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Askkaty2write, based upon your username, it seems rather to indicate that you are being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia about this subject, including being asked or expected to do so as a duty of employment or internship. Given that, you will need to make the required disclosures before we proceed. SeraphimbladeTalk to me06:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Seraphimblade,Appreciate the fast reply. I am neither katy nor being paid. I can understand that assumption because I do work with her and well, there's that UserName. Is there another suggestion you can make? It seems like a worthwhile entry to Wiki but if you disagree I can move on. Thank you Askkaty2write (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
I see. Well, firstly, the suggestion is not "Write a puff piece, and then try to clean it up a bit if you get caught." That said, firstly, don't use external links in article text. If the subject of the article has an official website, one link to that is okay, at the bottom of the article in a separate "External links" section. For the rest: Katy Krassner is the co-host of the radio program WHOOOSH! on SiriusXM's Volume channel. (This is sourced to Sirius, which is fine to confirm the claim, but has anyone outside her employer indicated any significance to this such that the article should lead off with it?), Krassner was born in New York and grew up in Roslyn Heights, New York on Long Island in a Jewish family. (This is actually a biographies of living persons issue. As religion and ethnicity can be sensitive subjects to many individuals, a claim regarding either of those things about a living individual absolutely must be supported by a reliable source.), She graduated from the Wheatley School before attending the University of Rhode Island, where she majored in Communication. She later received a Master's Degree from New York Institute of Technology. (this is unreferenced, so seems rather to be CV style stuff. Also, while I'm not sure why, I find that promotional articles often Capitalize Random Words, and here, "communication" and "master's degree" are inappropriately capitalized.), She was referenced in a May, 1995 New York Times piece on Duran Duran's THANK YOU album shortly thereafter. (she was briefly quoted; this is not of any significance and shouldn't really be included.) From the references there, it looks like many are not reliable and/or independent, or only mention her in passing. If those are the best available, this individual would not pass the notability guidelines and so it is not appropriate to have an article about her. If there are multiple reliable and independent sources that cover her specifically to substantial depth, use those, and stick to facts that those sources verify without any "talking up". Also, if you work with her you have a conflict of interest, and that brings two things into tension—Wikipedia articles must be strictly neutral and not promote anyone or anything, yet it would be quite difficult for any of us (certainly me included) to remain neutral about a subject we're very close to and have an interest in. For that reason, it is strongly recommended that editors with such a conflict of interest create articles as a draft and request review via articles for creation, so that someone without a COI can have a look at it and give feedback. SeraphimbladeTalk to me03:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
I actually sincerely appreciate the time and the feedback you've given. I thought it was a notable entry but you've proven to me it was/is not at this time. Thank you. Askkaty2write (talk) 01:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Aaron Mujajati
I need your guidance on the Aaron Mujajati article which was deleted this morning. As a contributor, I ensure that references were made to the article and also it was not an orphan. I agree that some reference went to tabloid news sources and discussion forums but a great deal of the content was referenced by credible newspapers in Zambia.
Dr Mujajati is a notable physician in Zambia having been the president of the association for all doctors in the country and also having being the registrar for all health personnel in the country. The references in the news articles are all independent of his work place or the person. However since I am still learning how to publish and you can help me do a better job, advise how best to get the content published without problems.
Note that Zambia is a poor country and doesn't have many content producers. Therefore notability of subjects should not heavily weigh and so be judged on how many times the person is mentioned within Wikipedia itself because content developers are not many to have done that before. The few of us who volunteer to produce content, do it to increase Zambian content on this platform.
Lastly, my user name is my middle African name and I do not promote anyone commercially. I have been working on Wikipedia content since 2005 and even met Jimmy Wales who inspired me to do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwanaapeluke (talk • contribs) 13:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
I have since noticed that you suggest not copying and pasting material directly from sources into Wikipedia, this being a copyright violation. But that the article material must be in my own words.
Mwanaapeluke, in this case, the issue is not one of lack of sourcing (the article is badly reference bombed, and I'm not looking through fifty to see if they're any good or not, though the first source in a biography of a living person being the Daily Mail is not a good sign. Do not use the Daily Mail.), but rather promotional tone, written rather like a CV. As some examples, but by no means an exhaustive list: Dr Mujajati has served on several boards both in the private and public sector (the source said he has stated that he has done that, it does not confirm that he actually has, and "Mujajati", don't use "Dr.". This is also a direct copy-paste from the source), His father Cephas Philip Mujajati, a Zimbabwean shona man, and his mother Esther Mwangana Mubita, a Zambian Lozi woman, raised him in a Christian setting. (the source, aside from being the Daily Mail, also does not confirm that any of that is of any significance), Mujajati attended... (none of that is referenced at all, let alone shown to be significant, so again CV-style stuff), Mujajati also co-wrote a paper... (that's only "sourced" to the paper itself; once again, do reliable and independent sources confirm this to be of any substantial significance?), and on and on like that. So yes, avoid copy and pasting, but also ensure you are using the best available sources, not just running up the citation count, and avoid any type of "talking up". Articles must be entirely neutral in tone and content. SeraphimbladeTalk to me17:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the guidance. I have followed you comments and I have learnt that 50 references and worse than 10. I actually thought the more the better but we keep learning.
The Zambia Daily Mail is not a tabloid newspaper. It is not like the Daily Mail of the UK. It is the largest newspaper in Zambia and a broadsheet. It is very respected. However, I have understood the part where articles quoting what the subject said do not confirm facts. I must admit I am very impressed with your speed and depth of analysing these issues.
Lastly I have understood the neutral angle needed.
What is the best way to reproduce the article with all the corrections without breaking the rules? I believe the notability of this article's subject is very high and it is worth publishing once all the issues are addressed.
Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.
The following had consensus support of participating editors:
Corrosive RfA atmosphere
The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.
Level of scrutiny
Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.
Standards needed to pass keep rising
It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.
Too few candidates
There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.
"No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins
The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:
Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere) Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.
Admin permissions and unbundling There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.
RfA should not be the only road to adminship Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.
Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.
There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
I see that you've flagged my article for speedy deletion, and I understand how it could've come across as promotional. After reading the Wikipedia guidelines in detail, I now have a better understanding of how pages are supposed to be written.
Although, I'd appreciate your guidance on how to publish this page without raising any more flags. I'm currently unable to access the article at all, hence I'm not able to see any notes to specifically pinpoint where I've gone wrong. How do you suggest I go about fixing this and get this page to be published, as I strongly believe it deserves on be on Wikipedia. I have all the references/citations for the information ready this time.
Schrute123, as you have been writing promotional material, please first clarify whether you are being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia, including being asked or expected to do so as a condition of employment. If so, you will need to make the required disclosures before we proceed. SeraphimbladeTalk to me16:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Seraphimblade Hi, Thanks for the reply. To answer your question, yes I am a part of Ameya Prabhu's organisation, NAFA Capital Advisors. Although, the reason I'm creating this article is not to promote or market him or his organisations, but to give people who wish to know, easy access to information about him and his life (which isn't currently available in a single place) because of his growing success as an author. You can check his book out- "The Rock Babas and Other Stories" Schrute123 (talk) 12:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that. That being the case, I will say up front that it's pretty clear from what you wrote that you are used to generating marketing and PR style material. That is never acceptable here, since Wikipedia articles are required to be strictly neutral in both tone and content, and material in them must be supported by reliable and independent sources, not based upon your personal knowledge nor by material the subject or their associates wrote. You are likely to find writing here a very different and potentially very frustrating experience, as it would require you to essentially "unlearn" those habits. If there is not a substantial quantity of reliable and independent reference material available about this individual, they aren't a suitable article subject at all. Even if there is, however, articles firstly should never contain external links in the article lead or body text. If the subject has an official website, one link to that site, at the bottom of the article in an "External links" section, is acceptable. Links such as to Amazon sales pages for a book absolutely are not, and must not be included anywhere. Also, language must be neutral in tone, and not use fluff adjectives like worlds largest, Thought-provoking and mystic, profound and light of touch, caustic and comic (that's pure book jacket fluff, and indeed looks to be copied directly from the book's promotional material [2]), nor include weasel words that imply something without stating it (He's written columns for multiple media outlets, namely, The Huffington Post, The Quint, Business Today etc., Ameya is involved in numerous social initiatives, some of which include: (the "etc." and "some of which include" handwave at their being additional things, rather than enumerating them and providing sources for them. List only things reliable and independent sources have confirmed as significant; an article is not a CV or an exhaustive listing of everything someone has done.) Finally, articles must be written in a formal tone, so, for example, refer to an individual by full name on first mention, and last name only thereafter, so "Prahbu", not "Ameya", and do not use cutesy abbreviations like "agri" rather than typing out "agriculture". And those are only some examples of what was inappropriate there. If you want to write here, you will need to carefully review what we expect out of articles, because that was very far from it indeed, and it will probably not read anything like you or your company would prefer it to. It is also not the purpose of Wikipedia to "get the word out" about him—Wikipedia summarizes material which has already been presented by reliable and independent sources; one should never find information here which couldn't be found elsewhere. SeraphimbladeTalk to me16:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to share this. I'm going to remake the article, carefully keeping all of your points and the other wikipedia guidelines in mind. I'd appreciate if you could take a look once it's done! Schrute123 (talk) 07:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Hi, Seraphimblade!
You have deleted my draft about Big Data Association "because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic". First of all I'd like to notice that I don't work for this company and wasn't paid for writing this article. The purpose of writing is simply informational, since this is a large organization that includes serious market players and has an impact on the formation of legislative regulation in the field of big data, and this topic is currently very relevant, considering how many precedents with leaks, sales and incorrect use of data occur around the world. Probably you could advice how this article should be corrected? Or rewritten in some other way, if you tell me exactly where you saw the advertising subtext. I'd be very grateful for your help. AzureGlow (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
AzureGlow, the issue is that the "article" was basically an "About Us" page, primarily based upon the organization's own material. An encyclopedia article should not list board members, regurgitate "mission" and "vision" type junk, or do fluffy statements of "purpose". Rather, it should focus on what reliable and independent sources confirm about it, and significant things those sources state that the organization has actually done. If there is not a substantial quantity of reliable and independent source material available about an organization, it is not an appropriate subject for an article at all. But even if there is, write the article neutrally, and stick to disinterested other parties that talk about the organization, not it talking itself up. SeraphimbladeTalk to me23:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Draft: Gocha Hawkins
Hi Seraphimblade!
My draft about Gocha Hawkins has been deleted "because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic". I would like assistance with how to rewrite it because it is not written for promotion. She is a celebrity and it is written with highlights about her career. Please let me know what changes need to be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gogohawhay (talk • contribs) 15:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Gogohawhay, I see that you have placed a conflict of interest notice regarding this subject. Is that conflict of interest that you are being paid or compensated to edit about this subject, including being asked or expected to edit Wikipedia as a duty of employment or internship? SeraphimbladeTalk to me22:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Seraphimblade!
I don't think it is a conflict of interest. I am trying to create the page/article and it was declined. I was just seeking help on how to rectify it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gogohawhay (talk • contribs) 18:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.
There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
"In this discussion, support for the proposal by the standard formulation (support/(support+oppose)) ran to approximately 71%. That is a ratio at which rough consensus behind a proposal is generally considered to be possible."
I have just done a quick count (which as a quick count will not be accurate) and came to the figures of (103/103+72) ~ 59%. What where the figures that you used? –– PBS (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.
Hi, I would like to know why this page was deleted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Leyla_Meshkova. I made sure that the tone was neutral and factual. What exactly was considered advertisement or promotion? I only included dry facts that were supported by the sources.
Alexis198, as you have been writing promotional material, please first clarify if you are being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia, including being asked or expected to edit as a condition of employment or internship. Please consider before answering that I might already know the answer to that question. SeraphimbladeTalk to me10:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
No, I am not being paid or compensated nor is it a condition for my employment or internship (I am not employed or interning for anyone) and I am not writing a promotional material either.
Thank you for clearing that up. The article contained a fair bit of promotional tone, such as Leyla was born ("Meshkova", not "Leyla", we use a formal tone, so full name of an individual on first mention and last name only thereafter), Her mom ("mother"), her dad ("father"), and on and on in an inappropriate "bio"/"get to know ya" tone. That aside, now that I look at some of the "sources" for the article, several do not even mention her, let alone cover her in depth, and some of the rest are things like interviews, works written by her, or YouTube videos, none of which are reliable and independent. Since you have no particular interest in this individual, it would probably be best to start out by writing about something or someone else, perhaps editing existing articles before attempting to find an appropriate subject for a new one. SeraphimbladeTalk to me01:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello :Seraphimblade, Thank you for your response. I read the G11 article and I see reasons why the article was deleted. I would like to apologize for the use of promotional words in the article. However, the intention is to create an encyclopedic article, not a promotional article.
Please I would like to request the draft be restored so I can create a proper encyclopedic article without promotional or biographical words.
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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.
Hi, I just questioning the reason why you deleting the page of Lion Parcel. I do not see the page is promotional only, since I created the page quite similar to Jalur Nugraha Ekakurir of which has the similar line of business. Looking for your answer comprehensively on this. Cheers NaidNdeso (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
NaidNdeso, as you have been writing promotional material, please first clarify if you are being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia, including being asked or expected to do so as a duty of employment or internship. If so, you will need to make the required disclosures before we proceed. SeraphimbladeTalk to me15:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
No, I am not being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia or as internship. FYI I am a long contributor to Indonesian Wikipedia and never being paid to do so. If the page seems full of promotional, please assist me on to make it more encyclopedic. Thanks NaidNdeso (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up. To start, don't look at other articles as templates; the one you looked at is also quite poor. That said, it did not contain some of the specific issues here, such as (note that these are examples, not an exhaustive list of the problems): with a vision to... (we don't care about their "vision"), reliable logistics services...with affordable price (do not editorialize or use puff adjectives like "reliable" or "affordable"), As mentioned by Rusdi Kirana, the CEO... (don't terribly care what they say about themselves; generally things like that should be from an independent source), Their main focus is (don't care about their "focus"), Inline with its mission... (don't care about their "mission"), a trusted public figure (once again, "trusted" is editorializing and puff), become a partner with several brand ("brand" is marketese, those are companies, not "brands"). Also, don't list off their entire management staff if no reliable and independent sources confirm the individual as particularly significant, and don't laundry list awards they've won unless reliable and independent sources confirm that their receiving the award was particularly significant. So, cut out the adjectives, cut the "Management" and "Awards" sections, and write neutrally based upon facts confirmed by reliable and independent sources. Not their "focus" or "mission" or "vision" or any of that marketing junk. SeraphimbladeTalk to me22:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your input SeraphimbladeTalk to me. Therefore, I will rewrite the page and pls do not delete yet until fix all the problem you mention above. During that time, I will closely in touch with you for this. Cheers NaidNdeso (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't have that idea at all, nor have I said that anywhere in the discussion. Throughout the discussion I have said since one the revert I made yesterday, I have been using the talk page to try and reach consensus. Amirahtalk01:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)
The already authorized standard discretionary sanctions for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), broadly construed, have been made permanent.
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
David Collier
I'm not going to dispute the decision, but on it's merits I believe it was a close call. Much of David Collier's coverage has been recent, some of it just in the past 2 months. I think it's likely that reasonable people, who voted no, would change their minds if just a couple more sources discuss him in detail. It's only a guess, but I suspect based on the trend in coverage, that might be soon.
Coretheapple (Merge) - "If deleted, the article creator should be encouraged to re-create this article if the concerns expressed here are addressed"[3]
Ravenswing (Delete) - "Make sure to draftify it now, then; a closing admin might not give time for that. And I certainly would, in your boots. All it would take would be for a couple sources to give some salient biographical details"[4]
This is completely your prerogative. I could make a new draft from a backup. But I'm going to ask you to undelete to article and it's talk page, and move them to draft, so we do not lose the history of edits and the significant discussions that happened. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
The talk page I'll give you a userspace copy of, if you like. The article, no; I will absolutely not restore a controversial BLP that was found to be undersourced anywhere. If you'd like a list of the references that were used in it, I will provide that. SeraphimbladeTalk to me22:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, during that AfD a number of editors posted links to a website that encourages and engages in doxxing of Wikipedia editors. I'd like to revdel them; do you object? Thanks. Zerotalk02:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello, sorry, I don't have experience in this. Can I move a part of my answers to various false accusations somewhere in my userspace for example in User talk:Barecode/AE or even User talk:Barecode? I feel like it's important to preserve somewhere my own defense against attacks. -- Barecode (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Barecode, if you want to maintain it in your userspace, doesn't matter a bit. Just please shorten the statement at AE to the essential points and condense it down. If you really need an extension to somewhere around 1000 words you can request it and that will usually be granted, but 5000+ words is well beyond excessive. SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, I preserved the summary and I moved the answers to other editors. I have no idea how to count the words. Is it still too long? -- 21:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Office-type software like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer have word count utilities, and there are also plenty available online if you just look up something like "word count utility". You're at 890 currently, but since you're the responding party I'll grant you an extension to 1000, so that will be fine as it is. Thanks for doing that. SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, I've added some more words to compensate for the part I removed but I counted and it seems to be 980 according to LibreOffice Writer. -- Barecode (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Ergo (blockchain platform)
I'm trying to start Ergo (blockchain platform). Apparently, there's a problem in the fact I used the information from the project FAQ. But apparently this raises copyright concerns. I've written a recent article on Ergo. I'm happy to add any of that under whatever license Wikipedia uses. There's apparently also a question of significance. It's a blockchain worth millions, and is worthy of mention as any of the other blockchains on Wikipedia. What would be the reason to not include it given so many other blockchains are on Wikipedia?
In any event, I'm not familiar with all the rules. Last time I did this, with the principle of charity, years ago, it was a much simpler process. I'd appreciate any help you could provide. srjenkins (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Srjenkins, it seems that you are in some way connected with this subject. In that case, you have at least a conflict of interest, and should read there for what you should and should not do in that instance. Directly creating an article in mainspace about the subject is firmly on the "should not" side of that; it is very difficult to remain neutral about something one has a substantial interest in. The best practice there is to create a draft and then request review by an editor without a COI via the articles for creation process. Additionally, if you are being paid or compensated for your edits, or expect to be, you must make the paid editing disclosures. The copyright status would be a concern, but even if that were released under a compatible license, the material in question is promotional, and no promotional material is permitted on Wikipedia. "Worthy of mention" isn't the standard for whether an article's subject is suitable; rather, that is whether the subject is notable, and that is determined by whether or not there is a substantial amount of reliable and independent reference material available about a given subject. If there is not, there should not be an article written about it at all. If there is, an article should be written in a strictly neutral tone sticking only to information verified by such sources, and strictly refraining from using any type of personal knowledge not published like that. As some examples here: with the main focus to provide an efficient, secure and easy (that's puff and marketese; skip adjectives like that, and we don't care about "focus" but rather what reliable sources confirm it's actually done), Ergo includes various technical and economic improvements (what sources confirm that they are "improvements", and which ones do they state are significant?), to existing blockchain solutions (with the exception of some chemical companies, companies don't provide "solutions"), and on and on like that. The article should describe what it is and what it does, as described in reliable sources, not talk about "easy" or "friendly" or whatever other puff adjectives can be crammed in. Leave that type of editorializing out and stick to verifiable facts. SeraphimbladeTalk to me23:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Seraphimblade The simple fact is this page should exist, and it doesn't. I'm happy to write a draft, stub or whatever we are calling it these days, just like I did with the principle of charity, in a neutral tone pointing to references that will satisfy an editor and meet Wikipedia's standards. I don't have any conflicts of interests beyond I like the technology, I own it, and I know enough about it to write a Wikipedia article in any style you like that would pass your editorial process. Being a Quaker, a librarian and so forth didn't seem to be a problem with my contributing to those articles. I'd imagine the fact that I own it and have an interest in it, just as I have an interest in my job, doesn't prohibit me from writing about it.
So, how do we go about getting this article unprotected so I can write a short draft, put it through Wikipedia's articles for creation process and get other people to contribute that know much more about Ergo than I do? My goal here is simply to get the Wiki process started. When other people contribute, they will surely buff out any bias that I and the editor in the creation process fail to remove.srjenkins (talk) 00:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Looks like I can use the articles for creation link, I'll do that. If it doesn't work, I'll come back and see if you can help me navigate the rules here. Appreciate the pointer. srjenkins (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Seraphimblade, I notice the Cardano (blockchain platform) wasn't established on Wikipedia until May 14, 2021. It's had a market cap of $46 billion on that day (larger than the GDP of Venezuela, I looked it up on Wikipedia) and was the third largest blockchain. This, in combination with the fact that the experienced editors in the articles of creation IRC essentially told me that there's zero chance that the article I wrote, or anything I could write, about Ergo would pass your processes. I judge processes by their results. If something isn't notable until it has a lot of bad press coverage and is larger than the economies of countries, then it's a sign they could use some improvement.
I did want to say I appreciate your editorial advice. I'm going to offer you, as a admin and representative of Wikipedia, some advice in return. If my experience on this topic is typical for new people) (or returning people), you might want to think about the Wikipedia experience from their perspective. I, for one, won't be coming back for more anytime soon. srjenkins (talk) 18:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
From a purely technical POV, the count was wrong: there were not 7 keep !votes but 8, there were not 16 delete votes but 15 (counting the "leaning to delete" opinion as delete), and only one of the two ATD !votes was mentioned (the merge opinion was mentioned, the move opinion was not), that's 10 of 25 (60%) !votes cast as delete, which is quite a significant difference when we are this close to the no consensus/delete threshold.
I think the close summary really understates the strength of the keep case, not even mentioning BD's (perhaps over)detailed source analysis, nor my comment supporting the existence of BASIC quality sources in that list, nor the fact that the article was much improved after all but a handful of the delete !votes were cast.
I don't think closing as delete is indefensible, but no consensus would have been an at least equally defensible close, and misrepresenting the discussion in this way isn't something that should stand. As a first step, could you fix your close rationale?
Worse, I think, is how BD's request to have the article draftified was refused, on the grounds I will absolutely not restore a controversial BLP that was found to be undersourced anywhere. Only one participant in the AfD argued the existence of the article was problematic on BLP grounds, without supporting detail, and to the extent that this might be a risk, I see no reason why BLP problems issues could not be handled in draftspace. As a second step, I think either you should honour BD's request to have the article draftified, as is normal practice, or you should be clear as to the nature of the BLP issues that you think justify this extraordinary refusal. — Charles Stewart(talk)22:33, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
AfD is not a vote. If I made a slight miscount, that wouldn't have changed the ultimate outcome. The question regarding draftification has already been asked and answered; please let me know if you would like the list of references from the article. The answer will not change because the question is repeated. SeraphimbladeTalk to me22:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Given BD's comprehensive source analysis in the AfD, providing the list of references is the least useful concession you could make. I see no value to this offer.
Please reconsider. As closer, you have no positive obligation to explain your closes, but you do have a negative obligation not to misrepresent the discussion. Simply striking through your close rationale would be sufficient. Also consider the matter of transparency: as it stands, in the absence of any documentation of what the supposed BLP problems with the deleted article, non-admins have no basis for understanding your extraordinary refusal to undelete to draftspace. — Charles Stewart(talk)11:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Seraphimblade: Like me, Charles Stewart was a partisan in that AfD. I don't see any reason for you to change anything about your decision. Note that Bob Drobbs is now subject to a 6-month topic ban largely on the strength of how he spammed David Collier everywhere. Zerotalk12:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I'm such an unyielding partisan that I participated in the AfD. I didn't !vote, mind, just explained why I was unhappy with either keep or delete outcomes. Nor am I appealing the close verdict, just inaccuracies in the summary.
I was unaware of BD's topic ban. I don't think draftification at this point makes sense, although if BD is still interested in tackling the draft when the ban ends, providing an explicit justification of the refusal to draftify would be appropriate. — Charles Stewart(talk)12:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular Primefac, Lee Vilenski, and Ymblanter for closing the most difficult conversations and for TonyBallioni for closing the review of one of the closes.
The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:
Revision of standard question 1 to Why are you interested in becoming an administrator? Special thanks to xaosflux for help with implementation.
A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
Removal of autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to Wugapodes and Seddon for their help with implementation.
The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:
Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.
A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months.
This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned.
01:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Reg: Saket Suman
Hi, you seem to have deleted/protected Saket Suman. I am sure this is an inadvertent oversight. I understand the page was deleted earlier but there is added relevance after six years. Do reconsider. Educationtracker (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Educationtracker, this is no "oversight". An inappropriate article has been repeatedly created at that title, so it is now create protected, and will remain so. If you believe you can create an appropriate article, create a draft and request review by articles for creation. If the draft is approved by AfC, I will then unprotect the title to allow creation. SeraphimbladeTalk to me23:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Merchandise giveaway nomination
A token of thanks
Hi Seraphimblade! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk ~~~~~
Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.
The functionaries email list (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.
Hi @Seraphimblade:, I hope you are fine on this terrible situation. I request you personally to unprotect this article which i mentioned in top because I have some evidence of her notability and has been awarded by Dcine Awards and I want to create this article without any mistake and she acted in Chhakka Panja and Summer Love which is notable film. At present I am not able to create beacuse of its protection which is given only for Administrator. I hope for your positive response. Thank you ! Fade258 (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Fade258, I do not see an approval by articles for creation there, but rather declines for it. You will need to get an approval by AfC before I will unprotect, so please work toward that. I won't unprotect the title until AfC actually approves a draft on the subject. SeraphimbladeTalk to me14:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
How we will see unregistered users
Hi!
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
Request for undeletion of Overtime (Sports Network)
Hi - saw this morning that you deleted Overtime (Sports Network). Can you please undelete and ask the community for feedback? Overtime is clearly a notable company as its been covered in just about every major American news outlet extensively. It would be more helpful if you could give feedback to what needs to be done to make it "unpromotional" as opposed to taking down the whole page. Thank you. Bankrupt305 (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Bankrupt305, as you have been writing promotional material, please first clarify if you are being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia, including being asked or expected to do so as a duty of employment or internship. If so, you will need to make the required disclosures before we continue. SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I am not being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia. I have not been asked or expected to do so as a duty of employment or internship. I also was not involved in the creation of the Overtime page. Everything I have ever added to wikipedia has been backed by sources that mostly include major outlets including The NY Times, WSJ, etc. I don't understand why this is considered promotional material. Bankrupt305 (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that. In the case of that particular article, it was basically a fluff piece that talked up the company, and included both inappropriate external links to their material and tremendously excessive detail, like team rosters of non-notable players and "brochure" style information like employee benefits. That said, if you think you can write an appropriate and neutral article about the company (not "brand", and seeing something called that is also a red flag for spam, and it was present several places there), I can provide the sources that were used in it to you. Just make sure to stay to what independent sources have to say about the company, not what it says about itself—a company will always talk itself up, so we're more interested in what those without an interest in promoting the company have to say about it. SeraphimbladeTalk to me22:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback and the time you took to respond. I understand about the inappropriate external links. I was not the creator of this article, but certainly there should be reputable sources. I politely disagree these players shouldn't be included. Overtime Elite has been a major topic in sports circles, with implications on the future of pro basketball development. That's why almost every mainstream media outlet in the US has covered it (NYT, WSJ, USA Today, Yahoo, Sports Illustrated, ESPN, etc.). Each one of these players are part of the inaugural class and each of their signings were covered in the mainstream press as well. Also, most other professional teams (or leagues) have rosters included on their Wikipedia pagers. Without having to go through the process of writing an article from scratch, is there a way for you to repost the article and I'll spend the next few days trying to provide proper sourcing and getting rid of spam words like brand? Thanks againBankrupt305 (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes that is correct. The questions I was asked are if I am being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia, including being asked or expected to do so as a duty of employment or internship. The answer to those questions are no. Thank you. Bankrupt305 (talk) 03:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Bankrupt305, I do not appreciate dishonesty. If you make any more edits regarding this subject without making a disclosure as a paid editor, you will be blocked from editing. If you are employed by the company, you are a paid editor in regards to it. SeraphimbladeTalk to me07:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I answered the exact questions you asked. When another editor asked me whether I worked there I said yes. Don’t get the accusation here. I wrote on my main page that I'm an employee of Overtime. Bankrupt305 (talk) 13:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I have re-edited the page, following proper guidelines and have declared myself as an employee on my main page. I don't know how to ask for this page to be reviewed and approved. Thank you.Bankrupt305 (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
You have a conflict of interest in the matter. Please ensure you follow each part of that policy, including refraining from creating or editing any mainspace article about the company. Instead, request that your proposed edits be reviewed by a non-COI editor. For creation of a new article, that is done by creating a draft and requesting review by articles for creation. I've moved the article to draft; if you believe it's mainspace ready, you can request the AfC review. SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Maile66, I do not appreciate being repeatedly pinged about an issue which is in no way urgent, twice of which was by you. I will take a look at this when I have time to actually evaluate the sources, which will probably be later this week. In the meantime, please do not ping me again. SeraphimbladeTalk to me03:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
In 2019 you closed a discussion at ANI that resulted in a T-ban. Last week I asked the community for a second chance, and there was a bit of discussion about it at ANI, mostly positive but with some who had genuine concerns. I was asking for a little WP:ROPE and they weren't inclined to give it. However, the conversation went stale and a bot archived the conversation before a decision was made one way or another. I hardly spend any time at all on these sorts of matters, so I don't know what the procedure is. However, since you closed the first discussion and were not involved in this one, I was hoping you might be able to help me out, either by formally closing the discussion or pointing me in the right direction. Thanks! --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 04:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I noticed this, but the problem is I can’t seem to find the article creator, I don’t know why, can you assist me in this regards? Please who was the original creator of the article? Celestina007 (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Seraphim, I find it extremely helpful in my course of negating possible dubious editing that every piece of information is very pertinent. Take this analogy, If I knew the article creator I could cross reference their edits with that of another editor I may suspect of less than practical editing and establish an “edit pattern”, “choice of topic area” “similarities in editing style” and so much more, I honestly can’t over emphasize the importance of such information, but if you deem it moot, then it’s fine by me. Furthermore and for transparency sake, I should also mention that wanting to know the first editor who created the article, asides the named reasons is born out of sheer curiosity on my part as I couldn’t find it in “what links here” which usually details the history of an article. Look Seraphim I trust your judgement, if you find sharing the information moot I am totally fine with that. Stay safe mate. Celestina007 (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Arbitration Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad.
The topics proposed for revocation are:
Senkaku islands
Waldorf education
Ancient Egyptian race controversy
Scientology
Landmark worldwide
The topics proposed for a rewording of what is covered under DS are:
India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
Armenia/Azerbaijan
Additionally any Article probation topics not already revoked are proposed for revocation.
From this, I probably should have continued there, but I decided to make a new entry (silly me), First off, this is very inappropriate of me but is that you on your UP, you are very handsome & I love your hair, okay as to why I’m here, concerting the Olatunji Ariyomo article you stated that the original creator created this article a very long time ago, you appeared to have G11’ed the article on December 2021, is it that the promotional article had been on mainspace for a very longtime before you observed it was promotional and decided to delete? I’m sorry I’m being a bore, but could you please clarify this for me? Celestina007 (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Celestina007, yes, it's me, and thank you, though that is an old photo. I suppose I should update it at some point. As to the rest, yes, it was apparently a while before it got flagged for G11. Normally on an article that old, there will be a non-spam revision somewhere in there to revert to rather than deleting, but that just wasn't true in this particular case. If your concern regards the new article at that title, that one bears no similarities to the previous one—the previous one was pure talking up and fluff. SeraphimbladeTalk to me05:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Ah that makes sense and has satisfied my inquisitive mind, I have no issues with the current one, it was created by a trusted editor O.ominirabluejack, who is renowned for creating encyclopedic articles with immense value. In your spare time you can read Reformed Ogboni Fraternity an article created by them, trust me, it’s what the read. Celestina007 (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.
Hi, Seraphimblade. I don't want to be caught offending again, nor trespassing my imposed topic ban in the Israel/Palestine area of conflict, otherwise known as the ARPBIA, until such time that I am able to submit an appeal asking to rescind my topic ban, with a reassured commitment to good editing on Wikipedia, and with full compliance to Wikipedia's policies. Meanwhile, my question to you is this: Can I still make edits on pages that do not carry the ARPBIA tag, and am careful not to mention anything politically or ideologically connected to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? For example, mentioning the names of flora that grow in Palestine? Please advise.Davidbena (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Davidbena, your topic ban is from the area of the Israel-Palestine conflict, as that is what the arbitration decision encompasses. While that is "broadly construed", it is not ridiculously so. You would not violate the topic ban by mentioning the name of a plant just because that plant can be grown in Israel or Palestine, though of course if that plant is for some reason a point of dispute or conflict between the two sides, you cannot edit regarding that.That said, it seems that you have had issues in the past discerning where that line lies, and with getting too close and ultimately crossing it. So I would advise you to tread very carefully, and to stay well clear of that line instead of trying to brush right up against it. If that happens again, you may well find the community's patience exhausted, and I do not believe that is the outcome anyone wants. It certainly is not one I want. SeraphimbladeTalk to me20:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Seraphimblade wanted to seek clarification about your comment. Can you please let me know what does an "informal warning" in Wikipedia parlance mean? (If there is a page describing it, that would be helpful too) what are its implications, consequence and in my exaggerated case why/how is it applicable? Venkat TL (talk) 11:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Pretty much, it means exactly what it sounds like. It's basically saying "Hey, this is not ideal and should change", but it's not logged anywhere (that's why it's opposed to a formal warning, which actually is recorded in the sanctions log). If you would like to further discuss the AE request, please do so at AE, not here. SeraphimbladeTalk to me17:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
The entire thread is a bunch of lies. I was just wondering which one impressed you, since you did not mention it in your comment. I think I am done with wasting my time in that thread. Venkat TL (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.
AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.
I'm afraid I don't believe you. You registered your account, made a few throwaway edits to duck around the autoconfirmed restriction, and then proceeded to write an advertisement directly in mainspace. That is, I'm afraid, about as classic a profile of a paid spammer as one gets. And no, I do not restore advertisements. SeraphimbladeTalk to me20:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
A RfC is open to discuss prohibiting draftification of articles over 90 days old.
Technical news
The deployment of the reply tool as an opt-out feature, as announced in last month's newsletter, has been delayed to 7 March. Feedback and comments are being welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project. (T296645)
Hello, I saw you closed the AfD at least three days early before it was set to be up from discussion. The article was recently relisted to gain a more thorough consensus and it had gained two “Keep” votes and one delete. The two Keep votes were from experienced editors who stated facts. Also, if you look through the entire deletion discussion, it has more real Keep votes then delete. By many experienced editors. The sock puppet thing does not determine the individuals notability. I wanted to talk to you first before I believe it should go to a deletion review. WexfordUK (talk) 03:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean "early". The AfD was filed on 3 February, and I closed it on 27 February. That is, shall we say, a good deal longer than the normal seven day time frame. And yes, some experienced editors did argue to keep, but not enough. The socking certainly did not help, and many of the "Keep" arguments were from likely socks. 05:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
For Established accounts voting “delete” you have Oaktree b, Liz, Doczilla, FelineHymnic, eggishorn which would be 5.
This is far from overwhelming. Also, the first time it was on AFD (February 3-10) it was kept by Geschichte and then reopened because Tamzin asked for it to be reopened because of sock puppet use not notability. Sock puppet does not determine notability. Can you please reconsider your close. WexfordUK (talk) 09:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello Seraphimblade. Although I was one of the editors who landed on the "keep" side of the fence, I can see your reasoning for closing it as Delete and it seems like an appropriate outcome. Along with the history of sockpuppetry, it seems unusual for WexfordUK to be a brand new account that jumps straight in to various AfDs, so there is a lot of murkiness surrounding the topic IMHO. All the best, MrsSnoozyTurtle05:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
I have to say while I think the sockpuppetry was an issue, several experienced editors voted to keep and my count is five keep votes from experienced editors six deletes, or seven including the nominator. As I pointed out in my vote, Liz vote leans on WP:OTHERSTUFF and ought to be given less weight. Doczilla's vote doesn't really give a rationale for deletion either. Thus the consensus is not "clearly to delete" as you said. Would you please reconsider your close? In the interest of transparency, Wexford wrote on my talk page about the close, but I would have considered messaging you about it anyway had they not notified me. NemesisAT (talk) 09:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
I would like to ask for reconsideration as well. Even based on your exclusion of some Keep votes (and even ignoring that some of the Delete votes were weak), the conclusion that "With what is left over from more experienced editors, the consensus is clearly to delete" seems rather hard to justify. The consensus I see is Keep or (at worst) No Consensus. Alansohn (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I listed the close in Deletion review. == Deletion review for Mario Cerrito ==
Welcome to the fifth issue of Movement Strategy and Governance News (formerly known as Universal Code of Conduct News)! This revamped newsletter distributes relevant news and events about the Movement Charter, Universal Code of Conduct, Movement Strategy Implementation grants, Board elections and other relevant MSG topics.
This Newsletter will be distributed quarterly, while more frequent Updates will also be delivered weekly or bi-weekly to subscribers. Please remember to subscribe here if you would like to receive these updates.
Call for Feedback about the Board elections - We invite you to give your feedback on the upcoming WMF Board of Trustees election. This call for feedback went live on 10th January 2022 and will be concluded on 16th February 2022. (continue reading)
Universal Code of Conduct Ratification - In 2021, the WMF asked communities about how to enforce the Universal Code of Conduct policy text. The revised draft of the enforcement guidelines should be ready for community vote in March. (continue reading)
Movement Strategy Implementation Grants - As we continue to review several interesting proposals, we encourage and welcome more proposals and ideas that target a specific initiative from the Movement Strategy recommendations. (continue reading)
The New Direction for the Newsletter - As the UCoC Newsletter transitions into MSG Newsletter, join the facilitation team in envisioning and deciding on the new directions for this newsletter. (continue reading)
Diff Blogs - Check out the most recent publications about MSG on Wikimedia Diff. (continue reading)
Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)
Welcome to the sixth issue of Movement Strategy and Governance News! This revamped newsletter distributes relevant news and events about the Movement Charter, Universal Code of Conduct, Movement Strategy Implementation grants, Board of trustees elections and other relevant MSG topics.
This Newsletter will be distributed quarterly, while the more frequent Updates will also be delivered weekly. Please remember to subscribe here if you would like to receive future issues of this newsletter.
Leadership Development - A Working Group is Forming! - The application to join the Leadership Development Working Group closed on April 10th, 2022, and up to 12 community members will be selected to participate in the working group. (continue reading)
Universal Code of Conduct Ratification Results are out! - The global decision process on the enforcement of the UCoC via SecurePoll was held from 7 to 21 March. Over 2,300 eligible voters from at least 128 different home projects submitted their opinions and comments. (continue reading)
Movement Discussions on Hubs - The Global Conversation event on Regional and Thematic Hubs was held on Saturday, March 12, and was attended by 84 diverse Wikimedians from across the movement. (continue reading)
Movement Strategy Grants Remain Open! - Since the start of the year, six proposals with a total value of about $80,000 USD have been approved. Do you have a movement strategy project idea? Reach out to us! (continue reading)
The Movement Charter Drafting Committee is All Set! - The Committee of fifteen members which was elected in October 2021, has agreed on the essential values and methods for its work, and has started to create the outline of the Movement Charter draft. (continue reading)
Introducing Movement Strategy Weekly - Contribute and Subscribe! - The MSG team have just launched the updates portal, which is connected to the various Movement Strategy pages on Meta-wiki. Subscriber to get up-to-date news about the various ongoing projects. (continue reading)
Diff Blogs - Check out the most recent publications about the UCoC on Wikimedia Diff. (continue reading)
On April 2019 I was placed under a topic ban in the ARBPIA area, as shown here, and on 18 August 2020 tried unsuccessfully to repeal my topic ban, as shown here, although given an ease of strictures whereby I was then permitted to edit pages carrying the ARBPIA tag, allowing me to edit on subjects related to pre-1948 Arab-Jewish history, geography, and even on post-1948 culturally related issues, farming, adding photographs, etc., but not to divulge on topics of the Arab-Israeli war, extra-judiciary killings, terrorism, etc. In short, I have been unable to edit in the Israel/Palestine conflict area for more than 3 years! This limited topic ban brought me into trouble on 28 January 2022, as shown here, when I was cited for violating my topic ban by writing "State of Israel" in an article describing Jerusalem (see [Draft:Outline of Jerusalem]), being a set of 740+ outlines listed at Portal:Contents/Outlines. Wikipedia outlines are a special type of list article make up one of Wikipedia's content navigation systems and which Outline makes use of a pre-set format.
During this last infraction, where I was remiss in that I did not realize the sensitivities felt by part of the community at using the words "State of Israel" when requested by the format of the same article to list the name of the government under which the city of Jerusalem lies, I beg your forgiveness. I should have known that writing such, under my limited topic ban, would elicit a response. At the time, however, I honestly did not think that I was stepping beyond the limitations of my topic ban by mentioning the name of the government over the city, as it is not the same as saying I support that government’s actions. Moreover, I did not even initiate the edit, but the format in the article called for the name of the government, and I felt obliged to fill-in the void. Now that I realize my misstep, given the limited topic ban that I was under, and how that I should have been more sensitive to this issue, I am asking for another chance to help improve this worthy encyclopedia and to renew editing in the ARBPIA area, without limitations. As everyone can see, my limited topic ban created some confusion as to where to draw the line. Altogether, I have been under the ARPBIA area topic ban for 3 years and 1 month, with only this one infraction.
Removing this topic ban completely will allow me to:
3) Upload images to Historical pages, which I have been wont to do in the past, such as Dayr Aban, Khirbat al-Tannur, Kafr 'Inan, and many others.
4) Help with showing how certain place-names have changed in this country (Israel/Palestine) because of the 1948 and 1967 wars, such as what I did in the article Hebraization of Palestinian place names
5) Engage with other editors in the ARBPIA area on matters of Wikipedia policy and of maintaining a neutral point of view (NPOV)
6) Give Wikipedia the unique experience of research conducted by an Israeli editor that has access to rare books in the Israeli public libraries, books that treat on the Arab-Israeli conflict and its past wars, government decisions taken in those wars, etc., the history of Al-Aqsa Mosque, as well as of Muslim institutions in the country, subject matters not otherwise known or readily had by editors who do not live in this country or who do not have access to its libraries
Having the opportunity to edit anew in these important fields will be commensurate with the good judgment and magnanimity of Wikipedia editors, who were kind and considerate with other editors who had made similar mistakes in the ARBPIA area, some blocked and some banned for their offences, and, yet, were permitted to return to edit in this category.
We say in Hebrew: האהבה מקלקלת את השורה = (paraphrased) "He falls into folly who loves [a thing] too heartily." I guess you can say that my love and enthusiasm for this project sometimes override my better judgment. Still, we all learn from our mistakes.
We all have a certain base of experience which lends itself to certain topics, as well as a certain background which lends itself to our perception of different things. As editors, we can neutrally convey those binary opinions to our readership, without trying to advocate a certain political or ideological cause, in accordance with Wikipedia’s policy that prohibits WP:ADVOCACY, such as by trying to sway public opinion one way or the other. And while the Arab-Israeli conflict has possessed many of our dear friends and fellow co-editors so fully of the subject, perhaps also those who level their harsh criticisms against me, I can assure you that what my opinion is on this subject can have but the least consequence upon any of the living, since I am not interested in aggravating an already bad situation, and because I truly love both peoples.
And while I am an Israeli and I share a common fate with the people of this country, this does not mean I cannot have empathy towards my fellow Arab citizen whenever he is oppressed. I hereby give my reassured commitment to good editing on Wikipedia, and with full compliance to Wikipedia's policies. Asking for another chance. We're here to serve, which I strongly want to do.Davidbena (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Davidbena, the normal minimum time frame to consider lifting a topic ban is six months. While that's not a hard limit, I really don't see any reason to deviate from it here. So, I might be willing to consider that after some time has passed, but at this point I think it's too soon. SeraphimbladeTalk to me04:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Following an RfC, a change has been made to the administrators inactivity policy. Under the new policy, if an administrator has not made at least 100 edits over a period of 5 years they may be desysopped for inactivity.
A public status system for WMF wikis has been created. It is located at https://www.wikimediastatus.net/ and is hosted separately to WMF wikis so in the case of an outage it will remain viewable.
Arbitration
Remedy 2 of the St Christopher case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to place a ban on single-purpose accounts who were disruptively editing on the article St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages from those pages.
Dear can we restore the article which was deleted earlier saying an ambiguous promotion PawanJha 02:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PawanJha91 (talk • contribs)
PawanJha91, firstly, there are a very small number of people on Earth who I would permit to refer to me as "dear", and you are not one of them. So let's knock that off real quick. Secondly, no, I do not restore advertisements. SeraphimbladeTalk to me03:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.
Not sure that this is the right place and manner to contact you.
Could you please explain why you have deleted the ASLERD page that was in place since several years and was devoted to a no-profit European association supporting the implementation of people-centered smart learning ecosystems?
In principle you could have requested to modify the article if you thought that there was something wrong with it. Moreover, at present, no one has a copy of the content that it would be important to recover.
Looking forward. Kindest regards
Edechiconza (talk) 07:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Edechiconza, firstly, I see you stated on your user talk page that you are not being compensated to edit Wikipedia. Let us say that I find that assertion more than a bit difficult to believe. That aside, I believe that the deletion log is quite clear. The article was deleted because it was promotional, and promotional activity is not permitted on Wikipedia. SeraphimbladeTalk to me09:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
You cannot believe to my assertion but this is the facts. I know that promotional activity is not allowed but the intention of the page created several years ago was not at all promotional and I think that before to delete it (in few minutes), one should point out to what in the page is considered (after several years) promotional and ask to modify it. And this is actually, what I'm asking you: to recover the page and help to amend the text in the parts that your opinion should be considered promotional. Thanks in advance. Edechiconza (talk) 07:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Advertisements are deleted, not "point out to what in the page is considered" [sic]. I do not undelete advertisements, nor "help to amend". If you want to try again from scratch, avoid anything like: External links within article text (the article contained several; none are permitted. If the subject of an article has an official website, one external link to that official site is generally permitted at the bottom of the article, in an "External links" section. None within the article text are appropriate.), "Mission/Vision" (these are inherently promotional, do not include "mission" or "vision" type junk), use comprehensible, plain language (you actually demonstrated that in your message here, with people-centered smart learning ecosystems—that's meaningless marketese buzzwords, what is that even supposed to mean?), and stick only to facts confirmed by sources which are both reliable and independent of the organization. We're not interested in their "mission" or "vision" or "intentions". Rather, what do reliable and independent sources confirm that they have actually done? If the answer is "Not much", the subject is not appropriate for an article at all. If there actually is a substantial quantity of reliable source material about this organization, an article about it should concretely, in literal language, describe what it has actually done. Not marketese junk like "smartness" or anything like that, but literal, concrete, neutral language summarizing facts verified by third-party sources, not fluff and pull quotes from what the organization says about itself. You developed this page as an unacceptable advertisement for years, and it astonishes me that no one caught you before now. Should you decide to try again, please ensure that you create your new attempt as a draft and seek review from articles for creation, as it is beyond clear that you have a conflict of interest in this matter. As I have already warned you, should you once again create an inappropriate article in mainspace, you will be blocked from editing altogether. SeraphimbladeTalk to me10:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the pieces of advice, but it is a pity that none has the possibility of having access to the text to amend it. Just a couple of issues:
- I do not understand what you mean by External links within article text. They were asked by reviewers when the page was created.
- people centered smart learning ecosystems is not meaningless marketese buzzwords (same for the definition of the concept of smartness that, actually, I think it was quite clear); in international debate there are two positions: smartness of an ecosystem can be determined by its technological backbond without any reference (and interest) to people - techno-centric vision; the other one support a human centered or people centered smartness of the ecosystems that coincides with that of the humans (see ASLERD pyramid and definition of wellbeing); the definition and promotion of a different point of view, more human/people centered, and the related actions are part of the construction of a body of culture is not just advertising (probably here we have a different point of view of what culture is);
- you are right, as adhering to a cultural vision, I can be considered to have a conflict of interest and this will be declared in a new attempt (sorry for that) ... but it should be clear that I have no monetary or any other sort of material interest in supporting the cultural vision and the actions of ASLERD Edechiconza (talk) 07:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Dear Admin Seraphimblade. Would like to request you for help to revive this page once again with keeping in mind Wikipedia Guidelines of content and copy writing as well as no promotional content. Earlier who have made they might have made mistake. We would like to reinitiate and recreate the same. Please help us in same.Brakshit23 — Preceding undated comment added 04:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Brakshit23, as this has been the focus of substantial promotional activity, please first clarify if you are being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia, including being asked or expected to do so as a duty of employment or internship. If so, you will need to make the mandatory disclosures before we proceed. SeraphimbladeTalk to me05:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Dear Seraphimblade , Thanks for the prompt attention on the asked query. Please note that, i am a sort of wiki enthusiast. I like to edit pages and fill in details as per the need. Still i am not at all an expert or admin cedar user. i am still learning. I am from same city and i just felt once that , Govind Dholakia does many things but no one appreciates at large and for that reason i want to make article on wikipedia i am student of law and studying. I have not been paid by any one so far and i don't want to get into that. I am enjoying reading on wiki pages and love to do edits and learning this. I just enjoy wikipedia and would love to edit and write articles.. simple Brakshit23 (talk) 05:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I see. Then, one is led to wonder who the "we" and "us" you referred to in your above statement are. That aside, as this is a substantial target of spamming, I won't unprotect for direct creation in mainspace. However, you are welcome to create a draft at Draft:Govind Dholokia and seek review by articles for creation. Should AfC approve your draft, I would then be happy to unprotect the mainspace title. SeraphimbladeTalk to me06:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Haha.. Dear Friend
let me clarify that too..
Me and My GF both are doing so, She help me to correct English and grammatical mistakes if any and helps me to write certain times. We both edit and contribute together that's why. Brakshit23 (talk) 07:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi, your edit sum was ambiguous. I guess I used double apostrophe mark thingies, not knowing that <em>...</em> is better per MOS:EMPHASIS. Is that what you meant? Or were you just of the opinion the words I thought best to emphasize are not worthy of emphasis in the first place? Its not a big deal, just want to understand. If you were commenting on the markup, I'll redo it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
It looked to me like needless emphasis. I think most readers will be able to notice that "legal" is distinct from "illegal" without needing to be hit over the head with it. SeraphimbladeTalk to me02:50, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
