This is an archive of past discussions with User:Yoshi24517. 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.
The WikiCup is over for another year and the finalists can relax! Our Champion this year is The Rambling Man (submissions), who amassed over 5000 points in the final round, achieving 8 featured articles and almost 500 reviews. It was a very competitive round; seven of the finalists achieved over 1000 points in the round (enough to win the 2019 contest), and three scored over 3000 (enough to win the 2020 event). Our 2021 finalists and their scores were:
All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.
The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the reviewer prize, for 68 FAC reviews and 213 GAN reviews, both in round 5.
Epicgenius (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 30 did you know articles in round 3 and 105 overall.
Bloom6132 (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 71 in the news articles in round 1 and 284 overall.
Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.
If you have views on whether the rules or scoring need adjustment for next year's contest, please comment on the WikiCup talk page. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2022 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:56, 3 November 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.
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.
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk·contribs·email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk·contribs·email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Welcome to the 2022 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk·contribs·email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk·contribs·email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
136.158.58.88 You see, in your edit summary, you just said that it had no source. Looking at it, it looked like it did. Please be more descriptive in edit summaries, otherwise everybody thinks it is vandalism. Thank you. Yoshi24517 (mobile) (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
One source was dead, one was unreliable. I suggest you be more careful when undoing edits, actually take a look at the content and sources rather than just clicking undo because it's an IP edit and not bothering to check the possible BLP issues. 136.158.58.88 (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you
Thanks for letting me know about the revert you needed to do regarding meanings of the word "fag". I confess, the British public school meanings, the slang for a cigarette, and the notion of being worn out, were the first meanings I knew for the word. But I guess the item I added is covered by the notation saying users should refer to the Wiktionary.
Thanks again! UPU898 (talk) 11:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
@Dadu1212: I did not touch the article at all. Are you sure you've got the right person? The edit history for that page shows no edits of me editing it whatsoever. Yoshi24517ChatOnline06:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
@Cakeflowersgift1: Seeing as your only purpose is to advertise your website, no. Please read the rules, and know that Wikipedia is not an advertising space. Furthermore, you may be blocked if you continue doing what you are doing. Yoshi24517ChatOnline11:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Sorry!
Dear Yoshi, I'm sorry for vandalizing Benee. Is because I just wanted to make a prank to a friend. So my dearest apologies. Oaight? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.209.252.88 (talk) 19:57, 20 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.
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)
And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:
Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.
These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.
Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.
And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:
Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.
These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.
Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.
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)
The second round of the 2022 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 115 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top seven contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 11 featured articles and the 79 good articles achieved in total by contestants.
Our top scorers in round 2 were:
Epicgenius, with 1264 points from 2 featured article, 4 good articles and 18 DYKs. Epicgenius was a finalist last year but has now withdrawn from the contest as he pursues a new career path.
AryKun, with 1172 points from two featured articles, one good article and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews.
Bloom6132, with 605 points from 44 in the news items and 4 DYKs.
Sammi Brie, with 573 points from 8 GAs and 21 DYKs.
Ealdgyth, with 567 points from 11 GAs and 34 good and featured article reviews.
Panini!, with 549 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and several other sources.
Lee Vilenski, with 545 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and a number of reviews.
The rules for featured and good article reviews require the review to be of sufficient length; brief quick fails and very short reviews will generally not be awarded points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and CwmhiraethCwmhiraeth (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2020 (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.
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.
The third round of the 2022 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 180 points, which is a lower figure than last year when 294 points were needed to progress to round 4. Our top scorers in round 3 were:
BennyOnTheLoose, with 746 points, a tally built both on snooker and other sports topics, and on more general subjects.
Bloom6132, with 683 points, garnered mostly from "In the news" items and related DYKs.
Sammi Brie, with 527, from a variety of submissions related to radio and television stations.
Between them contestants achieved 5 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 51 good articles, 149 DYK entries, 68 ITN entries, and 109 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.
The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.
Would be helpful if, instead of using automated tools, you took the time to read the article in question. Shall I begin publishing the full text plots of Nazi propaganda films released prior to WWII? Nobody would find this objectionable? 184.148.36.173 (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
@Weeklyd3: Yeah, no worries, just another vandal troll, I reverted their AIV edit, and they were handled very quickly by Drmies afterwards, so everything is good now, but thanks for keeping in touch. Yoshi24517ChatOnline03:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank You
... for your diligence as Wikipedia watchdog. You didn't find my contribution to be civil? Good, because it wasn't intended to be. Now, was I being childish and spiteful? Of course. I'm about to behave badly again, so I'll take my leave. Untold Millions (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
The IP in question isn't vandalizing -- they found sources which state the length is 1106 feet, and they've opened a section on the talk page about it, where they cited several sources (and no one has bothered to respond to them). They are likely just a newcomer who doesn't know what edit warring is. That makes it a content dispute, so you are still subject to WP:3RR. Please do not revert them any more without discussing on the article's talk page. Thank you! >>> Ingenuity.talk();18:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Ingenuity Did you notify BilCat? They've been reverting it too, and I would be all for not doing it if the IP in question would use an edit summary (which as a newcomer, I get, but when you see deleted content WITHOUT an edit summary, you having to think otherwise.) They stopped now, so we have nothing to worry about. Yoshi24517ChatOnline18:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
If you look at their previous contributions, they did actually provide edit summaries (such as [1] and [2]). When you're using Huggle, please remember to assume good faith on the part of newcomers, especially when they've been attempting to communicate on the article's talk page. You don't want to scare away new users by leaving them tons of template messages (see their talk page; they were just trying to help, and they get a bunch of warnings threatening them with being blocked). Take a look at this essay to see how new users see template warnings. I didn't leave BilCat a message because they stopped reverting the IP once they posted on the talk page. >>> Ingenuity.talk();19:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
@Ingenuity: I did not see their edits to the talk page, Huggle didn't show them for some reason. Probably needs an update anyways, as 2FA doesn't work with it anyways. Appreciate you replying, and I guess apologies for the bitey response. Yoshi24517ChatOnline19:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
No I understand and I'm not trying to come here accusing or anything I just wanted to make sure the content was resolved without anyone getting blocked for continuing to revert, that's all. Have a good night. :) - Aoidh (talk) 05:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Aoidh Well I was going to discuss it some more, but then this happened. You were wrong, I thought nobody was getting blocked. :( Ruins my 8 year clean block record since my last block. I’m very mad about that, but hey, nothing you can do I guess. It’s all apart of editing WP. In the meantime, I will discuss it some more AFTER this stupid block is over. Yoshi24517 (mobile) (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
@Tamzin: I’m at work, so I have to use my mobile account, don’t worry, I’m being very careful to not edit anything besides my talk page. I can answer it here: What was the question again? Just so I have it here. Thanks! Yoshi24517 (mobile) (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Sure, the question was
could you please explain why you thought this was an appropriate situation in which to revert (at all, let alone past 3RR), and whether you think that decision is compatible with the judgment expected of a rollbacker?
I'm aware that I phrased that in a somewhat pointed way, but it's not a "gotcha"; I'd like to know your explanation. Note that I'm administratively recused here, so you don't need to worry about me cowgirl-admin pulling your rb bit if I don't like your answer. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)19:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
@Tamzin: Absolutely, I can answer that. Keep in mind I do not do content creation or any of that stuff with BLP guidelines or any of that sort, so feel free to explain that to me. Also keep in mind, I’m all new to this explain yourself for actions thing, so don’t get too disappointed. It all started when I was using Huggle, minding my business, and then I come across the article, and I saw a bunch of reverted, unexplained deletion with the words “libelious”. I saw other editors reverting it as well, so I decided to revert it as well. Then it kept getting reverted and it kept going on and on, and well you get the idea. Then I saw other users and editors trying to get rid of it as well, so I suspected meatpuppeting was going on, and of course, we usually don’t like that, so I kept reverting. Then I found out about libel and BLP guidelines, and all that stuff, and I decided to use the talk page, and it all went downhill from there and got blocked.
Now you’ve got me all really nervous now, that I’ll lose my RB bit. I don’t think it’ll go for one violation, but you never know. I just want to talk to you a bit on a personal level for a bit. Ever since I started editing WP, I wanted to become an admin. I try really hard to revert vandalism, because English is not my best subject, so that’s why I don’t do content creation, and only do copyedits, CHECKWIKI stuff, etc. If you can see why I’m really concerned about this, is because I was doing so well, and I feel this edit warring block set me back another like year or so. I don’t meed anybody to feel sorry for me, I just wanted to rant and vent a bit afterwards, I do apologize. I hope this sums it up for you. Yoshi24517 (mobile) (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, Yoshi. I've copied that over to AN/I. I'm also going to leave the following procedural notification here:
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
@Drmies: Responding to you here, because this is the only spot I can right now, and I like to keep everything for me in one place. Frankly, I kind of have an understanding of why I lost the rollback right, but I would really like somebody to explain it to me a little bit better. I also don’t understand why I lost it after only one violation. I read WP:BLP, but I still kind of don’t get it. If you could please give me some clarification on that, thanks. It’s one of the many reasons why I don’t do content creation.
Regarding losing my rollback right, I’m tempted to not ask for it back. I guess reverting vandalism isn’t right for me, because trying to be helpful ends up leading to this. Thankfully, I have other areas I can work on, like CHECKWIKI, but that’s just how this whole situation feels to me. If I feel like I want to revert vandalism again in the future, then I’ll consider it. But until then, I’m done with reverting vandalism.
You are welcome to ask for it back, as I said. I assume you have done lots of good things with it. Yes, only one violation--but I did not go looking for others. Thing is, this was a very serious one, and I am still a bit puzzled that you did not see what was so problematic about the edit. I explained this in the ANI thread as well--what we have here is an accusation of plagiarism by a person, based on that person's own website/twitter account. That's one-sided, it's not independently sourced, it's highly negative--in short, it is just about everything that the BLP warns us about. And you reinstated that no fewer than six times. Did you ever check to see what was in the edit? Did you look at the sources, and verify them? Because that is what it takes, and WP:ROLLBACK requires you to do that.
Rollback is a great tool for fighting vandalism, but it only works to the encyclopedia's benefit if you first check whether something is vandalism or not. BTW I don't mind unblocking you if Cullen328 agrees, since the edit war is over, but I also need you to realize that you can't just revert six times without checking, and I think that you should do a better job explaining in those edit summaries what is actually going on. 3RR exemptions are well-defined, and thus everything over the third revert certainly needs a clear explanation. As for rollback--well, I hope you'll look at the policy again, and at the guidelines. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
@Drmies: Thank you for taking the time to reply, and your explanation does make a lot of sense to me, so I thank you for that. Regarding the block: I hadn’t thought about that, but I guess it doesn’t hurt to try, so I guess we can see if he is open to it. Regarding rollback, you have actually made me feel empowered to overcome my obstacles and try to get it back. However, I plan on waiting a bit before asking for it again, I feel like I would need to cool off for a bit before going back to it. There are other things I can do besides dealing with vandalism. But again, I appreciate you replying, and thank you for taking the time to reply. Your explanation makes a lot of sense, if I run into this situation again, I will make sure to double check. I will also go read up on WP:BLP, whatever the libel policy page is, and WP:ROLLBACK again, because I definitely need to. Apologies for any spelling errors, typing on mobile is very hard. Yoshi24517 (mobile) (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Finally home again and back on my main account. Just a random thought, somebody who watches my page, could you remove the rollback userbox from my userpage? Thanks! Yoshi24517ChatOnline22:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
That being said, I'm just going to shovel an unblock request down below, but I'm going to personally put it on hold myself, because as you said, C328 needs to take a look at it. Yoshi24517ChatOnline23:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
See comments above in the section above this section. Drmies has said he is open to an unblock if Cullen328 agrees. Yoshi24517 Chat Online 23:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Drmies, you have done a good job explaining things to Yoshi24517, and given the recent conversations, I have no objection to an unblock. Yoshi24517, rollback is a powerful tool that I have had for a very long time, but I very rarely use it myself. It is a blunt tool and I think that it is best to take the extra steps required for normal reverting, including adding an informative edit summary that shows that you are thinking things through before reverting. I only use rollback on glaringly obvious and disgusting vandalism that should not be on the encyclopedia for one extra second. That's my personal take, for what it's worth. Cullen328 (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
@Cullen328: Thank you for your response. I finally figured out how to make Huggle let me use a custom edit summary (the wonders of looking through the options page), so I will be using that a lot more often, especially if I have to go over 3RR on a page for any reason, if it is not obvious. Obviously, I won't be using Huggle until I get my rollback bit back, when I decide to reapply for it (though keep in mind I will reference this conversation when reapplying.), and I did read through WP:BLP and WP:ROLLBACK again, just to make sure I am up to date on what the policy is again. Thank you for your time Cullen. Yoshi24517ChatOnline00:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Yoshi24517, you should never exceed 3RR unless it is super obvious to every experienced editor. There are many alternatives (like WP:AIV or WP:ANI) to exceeding 3RR, and I do not think I have ever exceeded 3RR in 13 years of editing. Cullen328 (talk) 01:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
@Cullen328: Thank you for the reply, that's not quite what I meant to say, sorry about that. What I meant to say, is that in the unlikely event, though I'm going to be super careful if I see something like this again. Thank you. Yoshi24517ChatOnline02:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.
Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)
Arbitration
The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.
Miscellaneous
You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.
A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.
Technical news
The impact report on the effects of disabling IP editing on the Persian (Farsi) Wikipedia has been released.
The WMF is looking into making a Private Incident Reporting System (PIRS) system to improve the reporting of harmful incidents through easier and safer reporting. You can leave comments on the talk page by answering the questions provided. Users who have faced harmful situations are also invited to join a PIRS interview to share the experience. To sign up please emailMadalina Ana.
Arbitration
An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.
Miscellaneous
The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
The fourth round of the WikiCup has now finished. 383 points were required to reach the final, and the new round has got off to a flying start with all finalists already scoring. In round 4, Bloom6132 with 939 points was the highest points-scorer, with a combination of DYKs and In the news items, followed by BennyOnTheLoose, Sammi Brie and Lee Vilenski. The points of all contestants are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.
At this stage, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For the remaining competitors, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and importantly, before the deadline on October 31st!
If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. The judges are Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Following an RfC, consensus has been found that, in the context of politics and science, the reliability of FoxNews.com is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use.
The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.
Arbitration
Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case will be rescinded 1 November following a motion.
An RfC is open to discuss having open requests for adminship automatically placed on hold after the seven-day period has elapsed, pending closure or other action by a bureaucrat.
Tech tip: Wikimarkup in a block summary is parsed in the notice that the blockee sees. You can use templates with custom options to specify situations like {{rangeblock|create=yes}} or {{uw-ublock|contains profanity}}.
.svg){kind=small}
