With thanks to User:RexxS: Wikipedia:Colons and asterisks. Please read and edit accordingly.

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 18:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

AfC submissions Random submission

~7 weeks

1,800 pending submissions Purge to update v t e

Archives

22 Jul 05 – 26 Sep 06 09 Oct 06 – 05 Dec 06 14 Dec 06 – 07 Nov 07 01 Dec 07 – 12 Feb 08 15 Feb 08 – 08 May 08 19 May 08 – 13 Nov 08 26 Nov 08 – 07 Sep 09 08 Sep 09 – 29 Oct 10 29 Oct 10 – 26 Sep 11 04 Oct 11 – 30 Sep 12 01 Oct 12 – 13 Oct 13 26 Oct 13 – 27 Aug 14 09 Sep 14 – 24 Dec 15 25 Dec 15 – 08 Apr 18 21 Apr 18 – 30 Jun 19 07 Jul 19 – 26 Apr 21 03 May 21 – 05 Apr 22 07 Apr 22 – 26 Dec 22 01 Jan 23 – 01 Jan 24 01 Jan 24 – current

.

34 days until I do something pointy.

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).

Administrator changes

Clovermoss

Dennis Brown

• Julia W
• Marasmusine
• PBS

CheckUser changes

• Aoidh
• HJ Mitchell
• Sdrqaz
• Spicy
• ToBeFree
• Vanamonde93
• Z1720

Maxim

• Enterprisey
• Izno
• SilkTork

Oversighter changes

• Aoidh
• Firefly
• Sdrqaz
• ToBeFree
• Z1720

Maxim

• Enterprisey
• Izno
• SilkTork

Arbitration

• Following the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Aoidh, Cabayi, Firefly, HJ Mitchell, Maxim, Sdrqaz, ToBeFree, Z1720.
• Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were enacted in June 2009.
• The arbitration case Industrial agriculture has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• The New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,000 unreviewed articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!

You are mistaken. The editors being shut out are the ones trying to fix what they consider BLP violations. My opinion is that they should be heard because there haven't been substantial discussions on the talk page, and so what they want removed, though they come with inline citations, don't come with solid prior consensus for inclusion. You can still shut them out if you so choose, but it is factually incorrect to say they are committing BLP violations. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the assessment. I'll give this another look. BusterD (talk) 05:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I recently removed several comments from Talk:Jimmy Saville and requested page protection for repeated requests that are already explained by the FAQ. I was rejected and my edits were reverted on the basis that my actions were not in line with WP:TPO. While some of the comments I originally removed were legitimate good-faith requests this restored section strikes me as not really meaningfully different from trolling or WP:FORUM. As for page protection I don’t really get why that was rejected in the first place— making repetitive edit requests that are explicitly and clearly stated to be non-actionable, even if in good faith, is disruptive because it wastes editor time and could be solved non-intrusively with simple page protection. I was wondering on whether you could give a second opinion on this situation. Dronebogus (talk) 08:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your question and I appreciate your bringing it to me. I'm wondering why you aren't having this discussion with the admin who disagreed with you, but I'm always willing to help you with feedback, Dronebogus. I know you're trying to be helpful. I suspect User:Jauerback would say something much like I will: 1) protecting talk pages is something I do rarely and when doing so, always with regret, 2) in general clerking talk page discussions is something most editors should avoid, 3) once reverted by any admin (or by any editor for that matter), it is usually a mistake to reinstall your edit without discussion especially when you are certain of the correctness of your position. For my part, if any user wants to say something which makes them look unserious on talk, I'm inclined to let other talk page readers make their own personal assessment. Sysops aren't here to enforce opinions, merely civility. The talk thread which troubled you is borderline, I agree. But if I'd been the admin responding to your request for page protection, it's likely I would have made the same moves as Jauerback. BusterD (talk) 12:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for explaining it better than I could have. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because I do care about retaining a contributor like yourself, and since you brought this issue to me, I'm going to expound about my approach, purely as constructive feedback. Dronebogus, I think you are useful contributor. You comprehend what we're trying to do here and you care about how readers might see the pedia. You have good eyes and a healthy sense of humor. Thank you. We need more editors like you. Seriously.

Let me explain from my point of view how you hurt your own cause: WP:BOLD is all about pagespace. On articlespace, it's important to allow even the newest editors to edit boldly. In pagespace new editors bring us a couple of irreplaceable values: 1) a fresh approach, not hamstrung by many years of dealing with disruption, and 2) an entirely new human being who might become a longterm editor like yourself. We want a clash of their ideas on the page, because there are lots of smart people out there who might have something unique to say. I want to hear their ideas, even if twisted and totally wrong. Reversion is cheap. Editors like you and I will come behind and cleanup any misdeeds or misinterpretations in articles. But I want new folks to edit pagespace BOLDLY.

In talkspace I also expect BOLD. I'd rather allow the user to say how they feel, what they're thinking. I almost never edit another in talkspace because rarely do such edits rise to such a level where they must be changed by another. PLUS, I want others to follow the discussion (perhaps years after) as it occurred, so the reader may follow the outcome and the process. When we choose to hat, close, or blank talk discussions, we are changing what the future reader might see. (and we're steering discussion, which is usually a bad idea) Administrators might need to see the individual edits in order to make a determination or assessment. It is easier to follow an unedited discussion as opposed to reading each diff. An edited discussion throws up many red flags for me, and I trust the discussion less when somebody has tried to clean it up. IMHO, this is why striking through is often superior to blanking, because the striker gets to decide what the reader will see unstruck.

As a sysop on English Wikipedia, I'm responsible for moving disagreement forward; that's what I am expected to do. Smart people often disagree. In pagespace, I'm counting on contributors' agency and willingness to solve most problems. I don't have to be everywhere, somebody like you will solve the problem without my help. In talkspace, BOLD has a lesser application. We don't normally edit anybody's talk contributions; we want to read about each editor's full opinion (even when foolish or disqualifying).

There's a scene in The Matrix where Cypher talks to Neo about the display, "You get used to it, I don't even see the code, All I see is blond, brunette, redhead". This is what an admin does. There are too many decisions by others going on; you can't look at it all without being overwhelmed. I have to trust all editors are all working like I am (like you are) for a positive outcome. It becomes simple to identify most bad doers quickly, because you've got eyes where I'm not looking, I trust you, and you will say something. BusterD (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at three diverse works Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the state of the Wikiproject

Hello. I'm the new Wikimedian-In-Residence for m:AfroCreatives WikiProject. We're reworking the campaign and would love to restore this Portal:African cinema/Selected picture/Layout part of the African cinema which you deleted at 16:00 on 11 July 2023. Thank you. Ceslause (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

for the correction at the User:Worm That Turnedtalk page regarding the EOTW award. You are most kind. It's good to know that I have developed from being incorrigible to being inimitable. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 06:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see nothing incompatible between them, brother Buster7. BusterD (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've been working on a draft RfA elections proposal – I opposed when this came up in 2021, but I've come to feel differently about why RfA doesn't work and how it can be fixed. I wonder if you might have any ideas on how to make it better :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the invite and I have done some reading. Will discuss. BusterD (talk) 12:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Has there been a prior discussion about victory conditions? What is a healthy number of admins? How many a year is an appropriate number to expect? Twenty a year? Eighty? Our pass/fail rate? I know we've had a bunch of prior talk. Answer this for me. What would a happy situation for the community look like? I'm talking specifically about appropriate staffing. What do we need? Somebody at the Foundation has surely been talking about this, min-maxing the numbers. The internet has changed and through our inaction we have inadvertently made adminship a big deal. Rainbow & jellybeans allowed, what would the wiki-world look like, admin-wise? BusterD (talk) 13:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have two end goals in mind, either of which would be a win. The first would be reversing the downward trend of the number of admins. The second goal, which also serves as a threshold goal for the first, would be to make an RfA envrionment that is more focused, civil, and encouraging. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure why I didn't let you know earlier but - if you're seeing a ton of heavy editing on the Antietam article - Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Battle of Antietam/1 was opened and I'm leading an effort to try to save GA status. Hog Farm _Talk 14:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was a longtime FA. You just showed why it needs help; it has 2000's-era sourcing. Made me perform a search on necrometrics.com. 90 appearances. The author Matthew White is a published author but his website is merely an aggregator of other known reliable sources. This has no place in our sourcing. I'm going to take a weed whacker to all those links in pagespace (about half) right now. BusterD (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This may take longer than I hoped. While the source may be quickly removed from some pages, it's apparently an anchor for some mass-casualty pages, with twenty or more uses in the article. I'll find something else I can utilize. Got me doing page work, though, so that's good. BusterD (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Administrator changes

• Red-tailed hawk
• Robertsky

• Ameliorate!
• Ancheta Wis
• Anthony Bradbury (deceased)
• Cobi
• Ev
• Moondyne
• Worm That Turned

Bureaucrat changes

Worm That Turned

CheckUser changes

Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes

• Enterprisey
• Izno

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news

• Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)

Arbitration

• Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
• Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2024 Steward elections will begin on 06 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 27 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
• Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
• The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in February 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with ((Unreferenced)). You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

A tag has been placed on Category:American Revolutionary War portal indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey mate, it's me! Look, I think I'm gonna made an edit war but this user still making disruptive edit behavior. I already left the talk message about this issue. Hoping to help me to resolve this issue. Thanks!! Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Pickersgill-Cunliffe review four books

Thank you for your reversion. I do think that IP, and the other(s?) they are using is going to need a block. When they were just ranting about the supposed illegitimacy of the king’s marriage, they were merely a nuisance, but they are now ramping up their disruptive activity. Thanks and regards. KJP1 (talk) 13:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Appreciate your stopping by. Doing this reading right now. I didn't understand the sudden escalation. There's unnatural chatter around this page. BusterD (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If one was in a sympathetic frame of mind, I’d say they were unwell. But they are also becoming rather disruptive. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Buster D,

I hope this message finds you well. I'm writing to request your assistance regarding theOperation Valuable page.

Recently, there have been some edits made to the page by a user who is suspected sockpuppet. These edits have significantly altered the content and may not accurately reflect the original information or consensus of the community.

Before any further action is taken, I kindly request that the previous version of the page, before the sockpuppet's edits, be restored. This will help maintain the integrity of the page until a resolution is reached regarding the disputed edits.

I understand the importance of maintaining accuracy and neutrality on Wikipedia, and I believe that restoring the previous version of the page will help uphold these principles.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please let me know if you need any further information or assistance.

Best regards, Azphalt (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Azphalt - you are extensively restoring edits from your previous sock NormalguyfromUK. You were blocked for these last year - including your efforts to move the page to a completely OR title in line with the first line you're trying to restore now. You're removing extensive additions of academic sources. You're adding completely speculative captions and badly sourced POV info in the infoboxes 2.48.50.195 (talk) 15:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, BusterD,

I am not as busy closing AFDs as I used to be (I got a little burned out) but I use to see you there, contributing a valuable and thoughtful opinion and I haven't seen you much lately in AFDland. I hope you are well and busy, doing something interesting and engaging. I just thought I'd say "Hi!". Take care, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just letting you know that I'm logging this protection of yours as a contentious-topic action. Daniel Case (talk) 04:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]