User talk:Avishai11

Hi! Avishai11 (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help! - click this button if you need any help first, it's great, and has lots of links!

Archives (Index)

2023/October 2024/January 2024/February 2024/March 2024/April 2024/May 2024/June 2024/July 2024/August 2024/September 2024/October 2024/November

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

 Requesting immediate archiving...

MediaWiki message delivery 20:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes#Requirements to accept an edit, when to accept an edit
  

Dr vulpes (Talk) 05:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 00:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the barnstar. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Iljhgtn you are very welcome - you totally deserve it!!! Avishai - @Avishai11 Avishai11 (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask how you noticed? Iljhgtn (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Iljhgtn I saw your profile on the Teahouse, and I clicked on it, and I clicked on Contributions! Great work! @Avishai11 Avishai11 (talk) 03:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit the policy directly; take any proposed changes to the talk page. I will be removing your new shortcuts; they are not needed, and can be confusing. Risker (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[NOTE: Sorry for the super long message!]

Hi @Risker,

It's a pleasure meeting you. I hope you are doing great! I hope not to come off as rude, but did you actually read my edits? All of them were not policy changes. Check the history. The only other way you could mean "do not edit the policy directly" would be saying that I can't/shouldn't edit the policy, no matter what (even minor edits), without approval. That's not Wikipedia policy (which you should be very familiar with, sitting on the Arb Committee). There are so many other policies that statement would violate if so. For starters, a classic WP:OWNERSHIP, discouraging Wikipedia:BOLD, and not doing WP:GF. Plus, if we weren't allowed to make minor edits to policies, it would have a super high protection level. It doesn't; it has autoconfirmed.

For "take any proposed changes to the talk page", we all know (and it literally says it when you edit the page): minor edits or non-policy changes (which I did) do NOT require consensus or "approval". Do you disagree?

On "I will be removing your new shortcuts": this is a helpful edit that you decided, unilaterally, scrolling through Wikipedia, decided to revert, not thinking about for probably more than 2 minutes, decided to do, but it was very rude. I added helpful shortcuts! And there is room in the box. We have so many strange or "confusing" shortcuts, like Wikipedia:CHAR/A, that's very confusing. We have H:SPCHAR (which goes to WP:SEARCH). There was no reason for your removals.

About "they are not needed": respectfully, that's actually not for you to decide. Sorry, but it isn't. Please actually cite ANY applicable policy. ANY. None, right?

Regarding "and can be confusing": Do you call WP:CHE for WP:CHECKUSER CONFUSING? How is that confusing? Most editors would probably agree: it's not. If you need help understanding why it isn't confusing: the first 3 letters of CheckUser are: CHE. Hence WP:CHE. And you call WP:CHK NOT CONFUSING? What? WP:CHK is very confusing, much more than WP:CHE.

Also, "shortcut not needed" is not a valid reason for deletion (as I would have expected you to know) per WP:SPEEDY. Your deletion was against all of Wikipedia's deletion policies. Let's go through CSD codes as well as the general and redirects deletion codes:

"G1. Patent nonsense

This applies to pages consisting entirely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history. It does not cover poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, implausible theories, vandalism, hoaxes, fictional material, coherent non-English material, or poorly translated material. In short, if it is understandable, G1 does not apply. It also does not apply to pages in the user namespace." There's no way this could be seen as that. The text was completely coherent and understandable.

"G2. Test pages

This applies to pages created to test editing or other Wikipedia functions. It applies to subpages of the Wikipedia Sandbox created as tests, but does not apply to the Sandbox itself, pages in the user namespace, or valid but unused or duplicate templates." These redirects were definitely NOT "tests".

"G3. Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes

Further information: Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes

This applies to pages that are blatant and obvious misinformation, blatant hoaxes (including files intended to misinform), and redirects created by cleanup from page-move vandalism. Articles about notable hoaxes are acceptable if it is clear that they are describing a hoax." Not possible.

"G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion

This applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, and pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies. It excludes pages in userspace and draftspace where the content was converted to a draft for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy). This criterion also does not cover content undeleted via a deletion review, or that was only deleted via proposed deletion (including deletion discussions closed as "soft delete") or speedy deletion." Not possible.

"G5. Creations by banned or blocked users, or in violation of general sanctions

This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, as well as pages created in violation of general sanctions, and that have no substantial edits by others not subject to the ban or sanctions." I wasn't blocked or banned, was I?

"G6. Technical deletions

This is for uncontroversial maintenance, including:

• Deleting redirects or other pages which prevent page moves. Administrators should be aware of the proper procedures where a redirect or page holding up a page move has a non-trivial page history. An administrator who deletes a page that is blocking a move should ensure that the move is completed after deleting it." [Note: There was more criteria, but that would be much longer.] There was NO WAY this counts as "uncontroversial". No one would agree with that assessment.

"G7. Author requests deletion

If requested in good faith and provided that the only substantial content of the page was added by its author. For redirects created as a result of a page move, the mover must also have been the only substantive contributor to the pages before the move. If the sole author blanks a page other than a userspace page, a category page, or any type of talk page, this can be taken as a deletion request. If an author requests deletion of a page currently undergoing a deletion discussion, the closing admin may interpret that request as agreement with the deletion rationale." Question: Did I request deletion? Answer: No, I didn't.

"G8. Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page

Examples include, but are not limited to:

• Talk pages with no corresponding subject page
• Subpages with no parent page
• TimedText pages without a corresponding file (or when the file has been moved to Commons)
• Redirects to target pages that never existed or were deleted
• Editnotices of non-existent or unsalted deleted pages" Does WP:CHECKUSER still exist? Please, tell me.

"G9. Office actions

Main page: Wikipedia:Office actions

In exceptional circumstances, the Wikimedia Foundation office reserves the right to speedy-delete a page. Deletions of this type must not be reversed without permission from the Foundation." Are you a WMF staff member? I don't believe so.

"G10. Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose

Examples of "attack pages" may include: libel, legal threats, material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person, or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced. These pages should be speedily deleted when there is no neutral version in the page history to revert to. Both the page title and page content may be taken into account in assessing an attack. Articles about living people deleted under this criterion should not be restored or recreated by any editor until the biographical article standards are met. Other pages violating the Biographies of living persons policy might be eligible for deletion under the conditions stipulated at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Summary deletion, creation prevention, and courtesy blanking, although in most cases a deletion discussion should be initiated instead.

Redirects from plausible search terms are not eligible under this criterion. For example, a term used on the target page to refer to its subject is often a plausible redirect – see Wikipedia:RNEUTRAL." Definitely not an attack page, or an intimidation page. Also, see the very last sentence. Perfect for this situation, isn't it?

"G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion

Main page: Wikipedia:Spam

This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles, rather than advertisements. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. Note: Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. However, "promotion" does not necessarily mean commercial promotion: anything can be promoted, including a person, a non-commercial organization, a point of view, etc." Please answer: was the redirect advertising something? Or promoting something? NO.

"G12. Unambiguous copyright infringement

Main page:

Wikipedia:Copyright violations

This applies to text pages that contain copyrighted material with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a compatible free license, where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving. Only if the history is unsalvageably corrupted should it be deleted in its entirety; earlier versions without infringement should be retained. For equivocal cases that do not meet speedy deletion criteria (such as where there is a dubious assertion of permission, where free-content edits overlie the infringement, or where there is only partial infringement or close paraphrasing), the article or the appropriate section should be blanked with {{subst:Copyvio|url=insert URL here}}, and the page should be listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Please consult Wikipedia:Copyright violations for other instructions." Not applicable!

"G13. Abandoned drafts and Articles for creation submissions

Further information: Wikipedia:Articles for creation

This applies to any pages that have not been edited by a human in six months found in:

1. Draft namespace,
2. Userspace with an {{AFC submission}} template
3. Userspace with no content except the article wizard placeholder text." Was it in the draftspace?

"G14. Unnecessary disambiguation pages

This applies to the following disambiguation pages and redirects:

• Disambiguation pages that have titles ending in "(disambiguation)" but disambiguate only one extant Wikipedia page.
• Regardless of title, disambiguation pages that disambiguate zero extant Wikipedia pages.
• A redirect that ends in "(disambiguation)" but does not redirect to a disambiguation page or a page that performs a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists)." Not a disambiguation.

SO, I've proved that there was absolutely no policy allowing the SPEEDY deletion of those redirects.

Now, I'm going to prove that there was no reason for deletion even under the non-CSD criteria:

1. "The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia." Not applicable.
2. "The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted." Nope.
3. "The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is legitimately discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 and G3 may apply.) See also § Neutrality of redirects." Were the redirects offensive to you? Or to anyone?
4. "The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)" NO.
5. "The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting "Apple" to "Orange". (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)" I'm pretty sure "CHE" to "CHECKUSER" makes perfect sense.
6. "It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, were an exception to this rule until they became their own namespace in 2024." Were the redirects pointing to the article space?
7. "If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8. You should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first and that it has not become broken through vandalism." I don't remember the direct being broken, do you?
8. "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. (Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.)" Not a synonym. Or in another language. Or an impossible typo!
9. "If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then the title needs to be freed up to make way for the move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion, or alternatively (with the suppressredirect user right; available to page movers and admins), perform a round-robin move. If not, take the article to Requested moves." Not applicable.
10. "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject." Could it have been?

Now, we've determined you had no right to delete the redirects, remove them from the list of shortcuts, and to use the edit summary(s) so improperly.

I sincerely hope we can find a solution together before something else happens. I really don't want to get anyone else involved in this. I actually don't, that wasn't a threat, I swear. But I will if this isn't solved soon, we may need to see a third-party(s). I look forward to your reading your response soon. I hope you have a great rest of your day!

Warm regards,

Avishai

@Avishai11

Avishai11 (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure you mean well, Avishai11. The bottom line is that you are not in a position to understand the policies you are trying to edit. That is okay, you simply haven't been here long enough to know that the CheckUser policy has been carefully crafted over almost 20 years to read the way that it is. The policy doesn't really apply to you, except in that you could request that a checkuser look at a suspected sockpuppet that you've come across. Over that nearly 20 years of the policy's existence, many editors who are not checkusers or do not have sufficient experience have tried to "improve" it, only to be promptly reverted because their seemingly minor changes have definitely impacted the content and effect of the policy. This is actually common to a lot of other policies, as well. It is perfectly reasonable to suggest even minor modifications to a policy on the talk page of the policy. What some people consider minor edits turn out to be massively changing to the meaning of a policy. It is expected by the community that only very experienced editors who work with a particular policy regularly will make even minor changes, and often even experienced editors will discuss minor changes on the talk page of the policy. An editor with 600 live edits is not the best person to be editing policy.

The shortcuts and redirects you are suggesting on various pages are not particularly plausible, and in some cases are quite problematic due to historical reasons of which you are not aware. Deleting the redirect pages is housekeeping (G6); the shortcuts aren't appropriate for use in the places to which you have redirected, so the redirect pages are no longer needed and could potentially prevent someone else from using that redirect for something more plausible.

I suggest you spend the next year editing content and applying the existing policies before you start trying to reword policies to your preferred form. Try to get your percentage of edits to content higher than your percentage of edits to any other namespace; the way to understand Wikipedia is to edit its content. Perhaps you might want to subscribe to SuggestBot to get ideas on articles you can edit. Risker (talk) 22:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker: Thank you for your faith in me. That might not sound right, sorry - I genuinely am thankful that you aren't a mean person! Thanks! I am also so sorry for making you read all of that. However, I still have many issues with your message. "The bottom line is that you are not in a position to understand the policies you are trying to edit." First of all, I fully understand the CheckUser policy and most other Wikipedia policies (that aren't extremely technical, such as specifically the steps to delete pages or how to build and publish bots, nor do I need to) don't try to gaslight me (respectfully). Secondly, I wasn't editing the policy's CONTENT. However, if I'm missing the point, I'm sorry. I've been here, learning, for over 4 1/2 years. There's still things for me to learn; everyone can learn new things. I did know that the CheckUser policy was created in 2005, around 19 years ago. I could say that off of the top of my head. You are correct in that the CheckUser policy does NOT currently apply to me (except that I could request a CheckUser to investigate a suspected sockpuppet). Also, if you look at what the CheckUser policy looked like in 2005, or even 2008, or 2011, or even in 2020 (there were still HUGE changes from 2020). I consider myself a semi-experienced editor (not as much as you, of course!), and I used to be (until around 20 hours ago) a mentor in Wikipedia's Mentorship Program. I was qualified then, and I promptly (except when I had a family issue and needed to take a 2 week break this summer) answered all of their questions, and helped them. Some of my (former) mentors even have 400, 500, and even 700 edits! Even more than me! They have created many new articles with my help. Do you think I should be a mentor? Back to the main point, as of right now, my main issues aren't with your reverts of the shortcuts, my problem is with your deletion of the shortcuts. I actually was writing a message to answer a question at the Help Desk when I got the notice that it was deleted from my watchlist. I USE it, and I think it would be helpful for some people, at least. So, I was wondering if you could "revive" the shortcuts. I also just want to say that I really, truly appreciate you taking the time to explain your side to me. Also, I am unaware of your "historical reasons". What does that even mean? From what I saw, nothing was created on those pages. If I'm wrong, please explain. Plus, if someone DID want to create something with that redirect, they would be welcome to do so. I would like to use the redirects for something useful, too. And how exactly aren't they appropriate? Please, explain. Now onto your last paragraph. I have spent many years editing and learning. 4 1/2 years, to be exact. You've definitely had a LOT more experience than me, but I have a strong amount (not enough to do an RFA, but I don't want that right now, I know I need to learn more myself). Also, I actually enjoy working "behind the scenes" as well as on the "front-end". It just so happens I prefer helping other people edit. That's ok; many admins and editors prefer this as well. I like keeping Wikipedia "tidy and organized". I look forward to your reply. @Avishai11 Avishai11 (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker: Just checking in, did you read this? Best, @Avishai11 Avishai11 (talk) 01:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw it, Avishai11. I am kind of at a loss that someone who had 42 edits over 4 months in 2020-21, then two years without a single edit, then 564 edits this year (which included a two month break) really wants to claim 4-1/2 years' experience editing. I just don't know what to say to that at all. What I do know is that when I look at Pinhoe railway station, you deliberately ignored the hatnote that says "use dd/mm/yy dates", which is the usual standard for articles involving British topics, and completely changed the dating protocol to "mm/dd/yy" which is the usual standard for American topics. It would be nice if you returned that to the correct format. Incidentally, "station master" is the normal usage; "stationmaster" is a secondary way of spelling things. In looking through your contributions, I can see that you have tried your hand at a lot of things: categorization, article deficiency tagging, some PRODs, and of course a few other things, with mixed feedback or results. It's normal that it takes a while for an editor to find their niche. But you're doing a lot of what we could call "maintenance work" without doing much content improvement. No, I don't expect you to be writing fully-fledged articles; I admire your restraint in that. But I'd expect to see you doing some of the tasks that are recommended by the Growth Team as good tasks for low-experience editors. I think you would be familiar with them, as you had previously volunteered as a Growth Team mentor. The irony is that I still do several of those very tasks even now, almost 20 years after I created my account. It is a good way to keep in touch with the real purpose of Wikipedia, which is its content. I really urge you to try out some of those tasks, because it will get you better rooted into what we really do here. (At less than 700 edits, you are a low experience editor, no matter when you created your account. It's not a slight. The majority of Wikipedia accounts have fewer than 100 edits, often spread out over a decade or more.)

I won't be reviving the shortcuts; it's very bad when every user feels empowered to add their own favourite ways of getting to a page, because then we'd have hundreds, if not thousands, of shortcuts to every Wikipedia-space page. Instead, make your case for the shortcut on the talk page of the page to which you want to attach it. This is a place where others in the community can also chime in, and a consensus can be reached. Lots of people have a subpage in their userspace with links to pages they find useful, or alternately they just keep them on their userpage.

I know it may sound a bit rich that I'm urging you to work on content when I've done so little in recent times. I was, however, "seconded" to a global committee for 2.5 years, and have only come "home" to English Wikipedia in the last couple of months. My first priority was taking care of a very large backlog in the checkuser/administrator area. I'm just now really starting to sink my teeth back into content. I'm starting the way that I often recommend to new editors: just keep hitting "random article", reading each one, and making minor improvements if needed. Eventually, we stumble into an article that needs more serious work, whether copy-editing or improving references or rewriting entirely. I encourage you to keep working on the encyclopedia. Risker (talk) 04:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:!!! requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Bbb23 (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed you from the list of mentors. You are insufficiently experienced to be a mentor, and you do not meet the criteria.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:BUTTON requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Bbb23 (talk) 22:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're making things worse for yourself. I just deleted the MfD you created. If you wish to contest the speedy deletion, nominating it for deletion and then opposing your own nomination is disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:HEBU requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 01:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 22:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 22:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2024).

Administrator changes

• Ahecht
• DoubleGrazing
• Dr vulpes
• FOARP
• Peaceray
• Queen of Hearts
• Rsjaffe
• SD0001
• SilverLocust
• Sohom Datta
• ThadeusOfNazereth
• Voorts

• Ajpolino
• Fathoms Below
• Pppery
• Tamzin
• Worm That Turned

• Aervanath
• Christopher Sundita
• Dank
• Dennis Brown
• Dragons flight
• Fastily
• Graham87
• JaGa
• Kbh3rd
• Marine 69-71
• Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington
• Yamamoto Ichiro

Interface administrator changes

• SD0001
• Sohom Datta

Pppery

CheckUser changes

• Spicy
• TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RFC, the policy on restoration of adminship has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity.
• Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, T5, has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.

Technical news

• Technical volunteers can now register for the 2025 Wikimedia Hackathon, which will take place in Istanbul, Turkey. Application for travel and accommodation scholarships is open from November 12 to December 10, 2024.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Yasuke (formerly titled Backlash to diversity and inclusion) has been closed.
• An arbitration case titled Palestine-Israel articles 5 has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 14 December.

---

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 22:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 22:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is an automated reminder as part of Global reminder bot to let you know that your permission "reviewer" (Pending changes reviewers) will expire on 00:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC). For most rights, you will need to renew at WP:PERM, unless you have been told otherwise when your right was approved. To opt out of user right expiry notifications, add yourself to m:Global reminder bot/Exclusion. Leaderbot (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2025 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor, we hope the WikiCup will give you a chance to improve 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 ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page.

For the 2025 WikiCup, we've implemented several changes to the scoring system. The highest-ranking contestants will now receive tournament points at the end of each round, and final rankings are decided by the number of tournament points each contestant has. If you're busy and can't sign up in January, don't worry: Signups are now open throughout the year. To make things fairer for latecomers, the lowest-scoring contestants will no longer be eliminated at the end of each round.

The first round will end on 26 February. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), Epicgenius (talk · contribs · email), Frostly (talk · contribs · email), Guerillero (talk · contribs · email) and Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs · 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RFC, Wikipedia:Notability (species) was adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.
• A request for comment is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.

Technical news

• The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

Arbitration

• Following the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: CaptainEek, Daniel, Elli, KrakatoaKatie, Liz, Primefac, ScottishFinnishRadish, Theleekycauldron, Worm That Turned.

Miscellaneous

• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!

---

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 01:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 01:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 22:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]