User talk:Extraordinary Writ/Archive 11
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Extraordinary Writ. 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. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
Thanks
|
Project Editor Retention This editor was willing to lend a helping hand! | |
| Thanks for all you do to acknowledge others at the Editor of the Week Awards |
Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 11:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Question from Henry j act (20:07, 3 August 2024)
say hello can i make money editing --Henry j act (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hello Henry j act. Paid editing is subject to a number of rules, including a requirement to disclose the person who is paying you, and ultimately I would strongly discourage you from going down that path. You can learn more on this page. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – August 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2024).
Technical news
- Global blocks may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may locally unblock when appropriate.
- Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.
Arbitration
- The Arbitration Committee appointed the following administrators to the conflict of interest volunteer response team: Bilby, Extraordinary Writ
I see you've been appointed to WP:COIVRT
Smallbones from WP:Signpost here to ask you a probing question or 3 about COIVERT, for publication (Sunday?) probably in a short blurb in the News and notes article. Some questions (answer here, on my talk or via email, as you like) I may just select one sentence, a couple of pithy phrases, or what ever I think is most interesting: 1. What the heck is COIVERT and why did it just come into existence? 2. What do you expect to do there? 3. How can Signpost readers help, or maybe at WP:COIN instead? 4. Anything else you want to say?
As always,
Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- COIVRT is a new acronym, but all it really means is that more people will be allowed to review reports of paid editing emailed to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org, which has been around since 2019. The impetus for doing this was the recent Nihonjoe arbitration case, where many people were concerned that the system for reporting conflicts of interest was not working as it should. The new changes give paid-en-wp access to all functionaries (not just checkusers) as well as a few administrators approved by ArbCom, which will hopefully lead to shorter backlogs and a more effective response to reports.
- There are many different kinds of tickets in the paid-en-wp queue, from concerns that someone has a conflict of interest to emails from non-Wikipedians who have encountered various paid editing companies. Our job is to read the report, look at the available evidence, and figure out what needs to be done, from no action to a block.
- If someone seems to be editing for pay and/or with a conflict of interest, typically you can address that on-wiki through some combination of discussing with/warning the user, using the conflict of interest noticeboard, and going to WP:ANI. Anything involving someone's private personal information must not be posted on-wiki, though, so if that kind of evidence is relevant, then that's when emailing paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org comes into play. Forwarding to paid-en-wp any solicitations you happen to receive from paid editors is also appreciated, and it's fine to send other relevant information or evidence about paid editing too; even if we're not the right people to help, we can probably point you in the right direction.
Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Extraordinary Writ,
If no one has gotten to it, can you delete this PROD'd article? I tagged it so I can't delete it. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 03:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oops! Kadiyapatti, too! Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 02:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like Explicit handled it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oops! Kadiyapatti, too! Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 02:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Your Nomination...
will be awarded next week. Do I really have to include the "Cheesy" remark. Can I change it too "classy" maybe or "sweet" or even "pungent"? Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 03:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- HEY! How about "extraordinary"? YEA! Thats the ticket! Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 03:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Clever...but in hindsight it didn't need an adjective at all. Removed. (Just to be clear, I think very highly of the work you and others have done over the years with EOTW—hopefully my inartful choice of words didn't imply otherwise.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Humor is healthy. Thanks for the kind words. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 08:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive
| New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive |  |
| |
| 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) 17:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2024).
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which
applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past
. - A request for comment is open to discuss whether Notability (species) should be adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.
Arbitration
- Following a motion, remedies 5.1 and 5.2 of World War II and the history of Jews in Poland (the topic and interaction bans on My very best wishes, respectively) were repealed.
- Remedy 3C of the German war effort case ("Cinderella157 German history topic ban") was suspended for a period of six months.
- The arbitration case Historical Elections is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.
Miscellaneous
- Editors can now enter into good article review circles, an alternative for informal quid pro quo arrangements, to have a GAN reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
- A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in September 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,900 articles and 26,200 redirects awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!
Original research in hemp-related article
@Extraordinary Writ, recently I have encountered a particular user who disputes the legality of THC-O-acetate. Their claims appear to be largely based upon original research and analysis of court opinions, some of which don't even mention the particular substance. A summary of my position can be found here and an example of their edits here. I would appreciate feedback on my observation. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Replied. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Administrator Elections: Updates & Schedule
| Administrator Elections | Updates & Schedule |  |
| |
| You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list. | |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 64
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 64, July – August 2024
- The Hindu Group joins The Wikipedia Library
- Wikimania presentation
- New user script for easily searching The Wikipedia Library
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Sigmals
Thanks for the block. Meters (talk) 06:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- And for the rev del on my talk page. Meters (talk) 06:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- No problem—sorry it took so long! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Q10
Hey! I wanted to let you know that the IP that asked question 10 at Significa liberdade's RfA previously received a 6-month block from TonyBallioni (about as close as IPs get to indefinite) for project socking. The writing style seems to indicate that it's probably still the same user. There's definitely a case for not extending the block (they've claimed since that they don't have an active logged-in account, fwiw), but I thought it was worth bringing to your attention :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. That's not a block I'd be comfortable making myself: the claim is basically that it's a functional clean start, and I don't see any obvious grounds for disbelieving that claim. But I'll certainly remove the question if someone else finds a reason to block for sockpuppetry. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Seems fair enough to me :) thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Clarification
Hi Extraordinary Writ. Thank you for talking the time to close Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Close review: X blocked in Brazil. Regarding your statement That said, there's a lot of resistance here to the idea that ITN admins should just count the votes and move on ... considering strength-of-argument and discounting poorly reasoned !votes are still things closers can and should do, at ITN as anywhere else
, can you clarify if that was a general statement about ITN or specific to the X nomination? If the latter, can you elaborate on the P&Gs that would apply to discounting the specific arguments there, and how it would have resulted in an actual posting? Thanks in advance.—Bagumba (talk) 04:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Bagumba. I meant it as a general statement; I deliberately didn't phrase it as "consensus this closure was wrong", which I don't think would have quite reflected that discussion. As for how !votes should be weighted, obviously there were various ideas (some focused on WP:ITNATA, while others just talked generically about "weak" reasoning). But the common denominator seems to be the idea that some !votes can be discounted even if they're not directly contradicted by a particular policy—perhaps "those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue", to quote a popular essay. It seems many thought this applied at least to the "it was preventable/Musk's fault" opposes, which arguably aren't about significance in the first place. But ultimately most people at AN didn't go into a lot of detail about how they would have weighed the arguments, so there's only so much I say. Hopefully this helps. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- I appreciate the explanation. It's possible I'm being overly sensitive to the wording, being the closer of the nomimation that spawned the AN thread, but would you consider tweaking your close to more clearly delineate the specific ITN nom close from general ITN frustrations and ideas for overall improvement?
- Personally, I feel that ITN closers are limited in their ability to discount !votes when the community provides little objective guidance in the rules written at WP:ITN. What's "common sense" to !voters who didn't get their way would often require a supervote for a closer to give that view more weight. Also, cries for discounting !votes invariably ignore that others on "their side" also made weak arguments, often leading to no net difference, which I believe was the the case here too. Thanks for your time. —Bagumba (talk) 08:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- I've thought about this some more and now think I might have gone a bridge too far in seeing any sort of consensus there. I've rewritten the end of the close...hopefully that addresses your concerns. (I do think the discussion shows a large chunk of the community wants to see ITN admins discount !votes more readily, but the wording I chose probably wasn't the right way of expressing that.) Thanks for approaching this thoughtfully. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, likewise, for the dialogue and your explanations. Best. —Bagumba (talk) 09:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- I've thought about this some more and now think I might have gone a bridge too far in seeing any sort of consensus there. I've rewritten the end of the close...hopefully that addresses your concerns. (I do think the discussion shows a large chunk of the community wants to see ITN admins discount !votes more readily, but the wording I chose probably wasn't the right way of expressing that.) Thanks for approaching this thoughtfully. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)