User talk:Firefly/Archive 10
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Firefly. 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 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Request to recuse
Per Yngvadottir's evidence, and in line with WP:ARBPOL, you are requested to recuse from the Conflict of interest management case.
Please see also this discussion on the evidence talk page, which explains why I am posting this request. BilledMammal (talk) 05:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies for the delay in replying, I wanted to give this the thought it deserved.
- Bottom line up front, I do not believe I need to recuse in this case.
- Yngvadottir's evidence correctly states that I reverted an edit on Nihonjoe's talk page. It also states that my reply to their asking me to restore it didn't answer their question. In hindsight this is also true, and I should have been clearer. The edit was made by a sock of a WMF-banned long-term abuser (Brian K Horton). This user frequently involves themselves in internal matters, particularly around ArbCom, seemingly with the goal of stirring up drama. I have on various occasions blocked these socks and reverted their enquiries per WP:BMB (e.g. 1, 2), as I have with probably hundreds of other socks wanting to stir up trouble. I didn't think that restoring the actions of a WMF-banned user would be a wise course of action.
- What I should have said is that if Yngvadottir felt that the enquiry was nonetheless valid, they were free to take ownership of it - either ask it themself or revert it and state that they were taking it over. By instead saying "well Nihonjoe can reply if they want to" (and implicitly saying that others should not restore the comment, despite that not being my intention) it gave the impression that I was putting a finger on the scale - allowing Nihonjoe to 'avoid' replying to the enquiry by not replying to it. This was doubly unwise given the ongoing arbitration proceeding - while the action was routine, there are plenty of other Checkusers or administrators who could have performed it, and I probably should have left it to them to avoid even the appearance of a conflict and will do so in the future.
- I apologise for the lack of clarity in my response. I will gently say that Yngvadottir could have replied to my response and asked for clarity, or called me out then and there if they felt I was being unfair - but I realise that as an Arb it is on me to ensure that I give detailed responses when dealing with things in the orbit of Committee business.
- Where I disagree with Yngvadottir, El_C, and BilledMammal is that this requires my recusal. ARBPOL states that Arbitrators should recuse where there is
personal involvement in the substance of the dispute or significant personal involvement with one of the parties
. This is a high bar. I suppose the case for recusal would be that my reversion of the enquiry and decision not to reinstate it was aimed at protecting Nihonjoe from scrutiny or advocating for him - perhaps because I want to "back him up" personally, or because I have a desire to limit scrutiny of COI editing more broadly? I think both of these are easy to refute - I have no personal connection with Nihonjoe in any form (indeed I can't recall any places we have interacted at all), and I do not believe that reverting that enquiry has in any way lessened the scrutiny that he has received. Indeed the ongoing case has put the entire matter under about as high-resolution a microscope as you're likely to find on Wikipedia. - I hope this assuages your concerns. If not you can of course refer the matter to the Committee for a vote. firefly ( t · c ) 18:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- The big issue a lot of us have had and the reason why 3 arbitrator recusals have been requested and have now been referred to the whole committee (was initially attempted days ago but refused at the time due to procedural error) is the appearance of impropriety and how that reduces the community's trust in any decision that is reached. I'm not sure whether or not this is an unfair expectation but it's not one that I alone have. Noah, AATalk 19:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm honestly not sure whether I want you to recuse, Firefly. My main issue is the one you recognise above: that there's a whole group of checkusers who could have removed the query from Nihonjoe's page, even if you were the one to block the editor who posted it, and since it was germane to a case that was being requested and might or might not be accepted (both the posting and removal took place while the committee was considering the case request), I do think you as an Arb should have left it to another admin to remove it. However, since you removed it as an admin action and since you are a checkuser and an Arb, I asked you to self-revert the removal because as a non-admin, non-checkuser, and non-Arb I really should not revert such actions; I can't know the circumstances well enough to take on responsibility for reinstating the edit. Things were made worse by a gap in your editing that meant you didn't get back to me for well over a day, after which there was no time to press you about it; in fact my request for a word extension wasn't noticed and the case got closed. What's done is done, and we've now had a whole evidence phase including private evidence, but it does give the appearance of deflecting concerns. Yngvadottir (talk) 10:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Yngvadottir I understand, and as I said above I agree that it would have been best to leave it to someone else. I shall do so in any similar circumstances in the future. firefly ( t · c ) 15:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I am not sure, whether I am right here; if not, then please help me find the right addressee.
It seems that some of the fireflytools.toolforge.org/linter/_x_x_wiki bots crashed two days ago (they show "As of 2024-03-24 00:15:17" for the last update date and time). Who is able to try restarting them? --At40mha (talk) 08:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Any progress with restarting the bots? --At40mha (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- @At40mha - thanks for the report, this job had gotten stuck. I've reset it so it should refresh shortly :) firefly ( t · c ) 15:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- I see that it is working again. Thank you! --At40mha (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- @At40mha - thanks for the report, this job had gotten stuck. I've reset it so it should refresh shortly :) firefly ( t · c ) 15:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Nominations for deletion draft, bot
Hi, I wanted to ask if there is a bot that nominates old drafts for deletion? Another issue is whether it is possible to use your bot in Persian wiki (For this task)? Pereoptic Talk✉️ 16:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Pereoptic - no there's no bot that actually nominates the articles for deletion. And I don't see why not - I can post the code on the WMF GitLab for you to do with as you wish :) firefly ( t · c ) 16:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. I will create a request for this task on the Persian wiki and ping you to put your bot code there for approval. best Pereoptic Talk✉️ 16:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hi again, Please write additional details on this page. Thankful Pereoptic Talk✉️ 16:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Pereoptic - I can't run the bot on another wiki, as I don't think it wise for me to run a bot on a wiki where I don't understand the language or have any local activity. I'll post the code publicly today and you (or someone else) can use it to run the bot :) firefly ( t · c ) 15:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- OK, no problem; Whatever you want. Just one more question. Did your request on
- Bot0612 10
- allow you to nominate drafts for deletion? I did not understand the meaning of the conversations that took place on that page. If this bot code allows you to nominate drafts for deletion, is it possible to allow this code to be used as well?
- Pereoptic Talk✉️ 16:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Pereoptic - I can't run the bot on another wiki, as I don't think it wise for me to run a bot on a wiki where I don't understand the language or have any local activity. I'll post the code publicly today and you (or someone else) can use it to run the bot :) firefly ( t · c ) 15:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – April 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).
Administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC is open to convert all current and future community discretionary sanctions to (community designated) contentious topics procedure.
Technical news
- The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)
Arbitration
- An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".
Miscellaneous
- Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
Query
Hello, Firefly,
I just noticed that Shewasafairy and I'm tla were receently blocked. In the block rationale for I'm tla you allude to Shewasafairy so were they sockpuppets of each other? Was there a sockmaster or an SPI I can look at? They both participated in AFD discussions and I'm unsure whether or not their comments should be struck. Really as much information as you Checkusers can sharee can help the rest of us know how to treat their contributions. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 04:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Liz yes, treat them as socks of each other. I don't know whether there's an SPI for this case - Blablubbs do you know? firefly ( t · c ) 07:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Firefly bot
Hello, Firefly,
I sometimes notice that drafts/sandboxes come up for CSD G13 deletion and they never received a Firefly bot notice. Usually, I forget about them and so don't report them to you but tonight I saw a sandbox coming due tomorrow that is User:Andrewkathie/sandbox and they don't have any User talk page messages so Firefly Bot didn't post a notification to them. I hope you get this message before the page is deleted so you can look into this example. Thanks so much! Liz Read! Talk! 04:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Can you help with the master?
I am hoping to find the master in order to file an SPI (unless you can do a quick CU). User is I'm tla who shows blocked by you but I do not see the master. It links to another blocked user (Shewasafairy) but I cannot locate that master either. Both accounts were the only !keep votes in an AfD for Failatu Abdul-Razak in February 2024. There are now four SPA accounts (Amu'az4Z, Adamu ab, Yaw tuba, and Adansi11) who worked on and submitted Draft:Abdul-Razak Failatu. Note the attempt at changing the name to avoid detection of the previous deletion as well as similarity of usernames from the deletion discussion. Think it is worth a check but let me know if there is a master I can point to. Thanks. CNMall41 (talk) 05:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Also note that the person who uploaded the image (OJjnr) is also blocked. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- @CNMall41 took a look with CU - the accounts there don't appear to be related. Of course it could be a different group of people being paid to edit about the same person... firefly ( t · c ) 14:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. Behavior says it is likely UPE so I just tagged it as such. Thanks for looking into the SOCK aspect. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).
Guideline and policy news
- Phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship review has concluded. Several proposals have passed outright and will proceed to implementation, including creating a discussion-only period (3b) and administrator elections (13) on a trial basis. Other successful proposals, such as creating a reminder of civility norms (2), will undergo further refinement in Phase II. Proposals passed on a trial basis will be discussed in Phase II, after their trials conclude. Further details on specific proposals can be found in the full report.
Technical news
- Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531
Arbitration
- The arbitration case Conflict of interest management has been closed.
Miscellaneous
- This may be a good time to reach out to potential nominees to ask if they would consider an RfA.
- A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in May 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 15,000 articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!
- Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is open until 9 May 2024. Read the voting page on Meta-Wiki and cast your vote here!
Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C
- You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.
Dear Wikimedian,
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
On behalf of the UCoC project team,
RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins
Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:
- Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
- Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
- Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
- Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
- Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
- Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
- Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
- Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed
See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Request for wording change
Hi, is this from one of your bots? Is there any way I could convince you to change "bogus file options" to something a little less derogatory, like "file option errors" or some other wording of your choice? There's a backstory to the request but tl;dr somebody says it's ok to use "bogus" in an edit summary because it's in this report (and maybe whatever tool he is using). He's pretty wrong about that, but is not a native English speaker and apparently doesn't believe wiktionary.
Changing the software labels is a fairly trivial ask as far as I know, and it would rescue us both from a conversation that neither he nor I is enjoying. I would appreciate it if that happened. Elinruby (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have subscribed to the topic; ok to answer here Elinruby (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- "Bogus (file options)" **IS** the official Wikipedia term for unrecognized file parameters within WP:EIS file syntax. Details on the Bogus file options can be found here. Using the word "bogus" is in no way, shape, or form, any sort of commentary on you or your edits. To my knowledge, Firefly is not the originator of the term and is not in control of the term. Jonesey95 simply mentioned Firefly's report as it is a far easier to use than Wikipedia's report layout of the same information seen here, and was not saying Firefly had any control over the term. Zinnober9 (talk) 23:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Zinnober9: thank you for the answer. Where then would be the place to take this request? the ticket system? The fact that the wording is "official" doesn't make it any less insulting. The word should not appear in an edit summary. If the wording comes from the WMF, then the WMF needs to be asked to comply with its own CoC. I realize that Jonesey95 feels blindsided, and I have disengaged, but he and I previously had a run-in about "fixing" things within minutes of an error occurring. And sure, yes, there was an error. I failed to type "alt=" and did not immediately remove the original caption when I decided I liked the wording intended for the alt better than the caption. This is probably a fringe case in that the vast majority of lint errors are probably on abandoned articles. I wonder though if we could make this easier for the Joneseys of Wikipedia by not including errors that are less than x amount of time old in the report. Let's take this off firefly's page if he has nothing to do with it, as he seems to have enough to worry about already. Please make any response to either my talk page or, if it's more convenient, ping me from elsewhere. Elinruby (talk) 00:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
FireflyBot bug?
In this edit, FireflyBot warned a user that their sandbox would soon be eligible for deletion under WP:G13. This is obviously false, right? jlwoodwa (talk) 03:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – June 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2024).
Administrator changes
Bureaucrat changes
Guideline and policy news
- Phase II of the 2024 RfA review has commenced to improve and refine the proposals passed in Phase I.
Technical news
- The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351
Arbitration
- The arbitration case Venezuelan politics has been closed.
- The Committee is seeking volunteers for various roles, including access to the conflict of interest VRT queue.
Miscellaneous
- WikiProject Reliability's unsourced statements drive is happening in June 2024 to replace {{citation needed}} tags with references! Sign up here to participate!
Editor experience invitation
Hi Firefly :) I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Linter "missing end tag in heading" error column missing from firefly report
pulled from the archives of this page
At Special:LintErrors/missing-end-tag-in-heading, there is a list of Linter errors that should be listed on the table at https://fireflytools.toolforge.org/linter/enwiki. For some reason, the list is not linked from Special:LintErrors, but these are errors that need to be fixed. If it is possible to add this column to the table, that would be great. I checked this page's archives and do not see that I have already requested it; if so, my apologies, my memory is not great. See T341369 for some details. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Bumping this request. We will also need Special:LintErrors/night-mode-unaware-background-color to be added to the table as well. The WMF developers say they will be releasing the dark mode in July, and we need to do some troubleshooting before that happens. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – July 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2024).
Administrator changes
Technical news
- Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)
Miscellaneous
- The Community Wishlist is re-opening on 15 July 2024. Read more
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
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!
You've got mail!
Message added 12:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
– DreamRimmer (talk) 12:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
FireflyBot
Hello, Firefly,
Every few weeks I check on FireflyBot to see if it is posting CSD G13 notices to draft/sandbox creators and it looks like it stopped doing so on September 3rd. Could you check on it to see if there are any problems and get it up and going again? Many thanks for all of the work you and your bot do. All the best, Liz Read! Talk! 19:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Liz sincere apologies for the delay here - this is now fixed. DreamRimmer has a BRFA to take up this task as well, which I think is good - we'll coordinate so that we can share this task and have some redundancy / reduce single points of failure. firefly ( t · c ) 14:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for restarting it. I have sent you a mail. – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, Firefly,
- Yes, I just noticed that FireflyBot is back in action. Hooray! Thank you. But you are totally allowed to take a break from the project. Maybe you should share bot operator status with Dreamrimmer. I know that works well with HaleBot. Liz Read! Talk! 04:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Liz indeed, that is the plan! firefly ( t · c ) 14:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for restarting it. I have sent you a mail. – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review
Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
YGM
Hi, I have sent you an email and am waiting for your response. Thanks! – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – October 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2024).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Guideline and policy news
- Administrator elections are a proposed new process for selecting administrators, offering an alternative to requests for adminship (RfA). The first trial election will take place in October 2024, with candidate sign-up from October 8 to 14, a discussion phase from October 22 to 24, and SecurePoll voting from October 25 to 31. For questions or to help out, please visit the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections.
- Following a discussion, the speedy deletion reason "File pages without a corresponding file" has been moved from criterion G8 to F2. This does not change what can be speedily deleted.
- A request for comment is open to discuss whether there is a consensus to have an administrator recall process.
Arbitration
- The arbitration case Historical elections has been closed.
- An arbitration case regarding Backlash to diversity and inclusion has been opened.
- Editors are invited to nominate themselves to serve on the 2024 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission until 23:59 October 8, 2024 (UTC).
Miscellaneous
- If you are interested in stopping spammers, please put MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist on your watchlist, and help out when you can.
hallo Firefly, the lintertables has two new categories, but your tool dosent show them. It would be nice if you can expand the tool for special:LintErrors/duplicate-ids (high priority), the other one Special:LintErrors/night-mode-unaware-background-color is not that nessesary. Lómelinde (talk) 09:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- I oppose the addition of the Duplicate IDs category. It has too many unfixable false positives right now. It is also unclear whether the dark mode issues can or should be fixed in all cases. Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Linter. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- This might be in en:wp, but in de:wp I do think we would manage most of the doubled ID problems (only coordinate ids would be a problem). My intention for the request is to update our statistic with reliable numbers, there is one Editor who calls us for lying because we do not yet put the numbers into the statistic see here. And I do not like to be called a liar. But the numbers in the specialpages are not valid (once they show 667.171 errors [same in both categories] at other times there are actualy 233.058 duplicate ids, so wich number of errors is correct?), only fireflytool shows usable (trustable) numbers of errors. I do not know how to get reliable numbers in any other way. For darkmode i agree, this is to much and too inprecise analised. But even there we managed to reduce the errores by several million. --Lómelinde (talk) 06:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Tamping Issue
FireFly can you help me restart the Hip Hop Movement article, Thank you Street sting (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in a research
Hello,
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Kind Regards,
BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Firefly Bot
Hey, Firefly,
I run into instances where Firefly Bot hasn't notified editors at 5 months about an expiring draft but I usually forget the name of the draft. This time, I noticed that no notice was posted to the creator of User:GirlhoodStudies123/sandbox so I thought I'd bring it to your attention. It looks like you aren't active right now but I'll still post this here. I'll post if I see more examples but this might just be happening for User space drafts. Liz Read! Talk! 02:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – November 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2024).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversighter changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following a discussion, the discussion-only period proposal that went for a trial to refine the requests for adminship (RfA) process has been discontinued.
- Following a request for comment, Administrator recall is adopted as a policy.
Technical news
- Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068
Arbitration
- RoySmith, Barkeep49 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2024 Arbitration Committee Elections. ThadeusOfNazereth and Dr vulpes are reserve commissioners.
- Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate from 3 November 2024 until 12 November 2024 to stand in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections.
- The Arbitration Committee is seeking volunteers for roles such as clerks, access to the COI queue, checkuser, and oversight.
Miscellaneous
- An unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in November 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!