User talk:L235

The Signpost: 22 March 2025

• From the editor: Hanami

• Opinion: Talking about governments editing Wikipedia

• News and notes: Deeper look at takedowns targeting Wikipedia

• In the media: The good, the bad, and the unusual

• Recent research: Explaining the disappointing history of Flagged Revisions; and what's the impact of ChatGPT on Wikipedia so far?

• Traffic report: All the world's a stage, we are merely players...

• Gallery: WikiPortraits rule!

• Essay: Unusual biographical images

• Obituary: Rest in peace

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:05, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2025 Issue 5

Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on 10 March. Please help translate.

---

Upcoming and current events and conversations
Let's Talk continues

• Wikimania 2025: Program submission is still open until March 31. Apply now to speak at Wikimania 2025.
• Research Fund: The 2025 Wikimedia Research Fund is launching, inviting proposals from researchers aiming to advance free knowledge through Wikimedia projects. Submit your proposal before April 16.
• Central Notice Training: Learn more about updates to the Central Notice Guidelines by joining a Central Notice Requester training on March 26 at 14:00 UTC.

Annual Goals Progress on Infrastructure
See also newsletters: Wikimedia Apps · Growth · Research · Web · Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia · Tech News · Language and Internationalization · other newsletters on MediaWiki.org

• Design System: Learn more about Wikimedia’s Codex design system and how to use it while designing for Wikimedia projects.
• Tech News: The improved Content Translation tool dashboard is now available in 10 Wikipedias and will be available for all Wikipedias soon; on Wikimedia Commons, a new system to select the appropriate file categories has been introduced. More updates from tech news week 11 and 12.
• P&T Annual Planning: The Product & Technology department publishes its plans early in the annual planning process, which is on Meta-Wiki and open for feedback. These objectives and key results are not a list of projects, but instead, a set of directions for problems to solve and impacts to achieve over the course of the year. We look forward to engaging with the community on this plan.

Annual Goals Progress on Knowledge Equity
See also a list of all movement events: on Meta-Wiki

• Resource Support Pilot: The pilot project on English Wikipedia to fund small resource requests (like books) to support editors in improving content has moved to the next phases of the discussion.
• Wikisource Conference: Some highlights from the Wikisource Conference 2025 in Bali.
• ESEAP Hub: Future plans for the ESEAP Hub one-year pilot project.

Annual Goals Progress on Safety & Integrity
See also blogs: Global Advocacy blog · Global Advocacy Newsletter · Policy blog

• Litigation review: Read key points of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal work last year to protect free and open knowledge broadly, and the Wikimedia volunteers and projects in particular.

Board and Board committee updates
See Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard · Affiliations Committee Newsletter

• Affiliations Committee: Announcement of the 2025 Affiliations Committee Appointments.
• Wikimedia MKD: Recognition of Wikimedia MKD User Group.
• Wikimedia Community User Group Burundi: Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Burundi.

Other Movement curated newsletters & news
See also: Diff blog · Goings-on · Planet Wikimedia · Signpost (en) · Kurier (de) · Actualités du Wiktionnaire (fr) · Regards sur l’actualité de la Wikimedia (fr) · Wikimag (fr) · Education · GLAM · The Wikipedia Library · Milestones · Wikidata · Central and Eastern Europe · other newsletters

Subscribe or unsubscribe · Help translate

For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcacwikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!

MediaWiki message delivery 17:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Inappropriate unblock

What is the meaning of this? I very clearly did not give my approval on this unblock. The fact that you specifically requested my input makes this all the more baffling. Why did you ask for my input just to entirely disregard my direct input? I am very not okay with this. Sergecross73 msg me 18:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Hey Serge. I considered and appreciated your input alongside the response of the blocked user, as provided in the unblock review process. My concluding comment, as well as the conditional unblock condition, were intended to focus on (and make sure the user understands) the concerns you raised after I pinged you, and to ensure that if any inappropriate edit arises, the user will be disallowed from editing the article with a minimal amount of fuss – without even requiring admin action. In the end though, the block appeal process is for review by uninvolved administrators. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:15, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

But you're supposed to consult with the blocking admin. What you did was not "consulting". You flat out ignored me and acted against my wishes. You didn't even attempt to engage me in discussion. This is not in fact how the unblock system is meant to function. Read the last paragraph of the very section you just linked to - unblocking admin are to take actions that shouldn't lead to WP:WW. How do you reconcile that with what you did? Concerns were not addressed. Discussions went unresolved. Multiple other editors also rejected the unblock on the same concerns I had. Yet you decide to unilaterally ignore all of that? Deeply disappointed by your judgement call here. I'm really shocked, I believed we've engaged in the past, and I had seen you as a reasonable editor. But this was not handled well at all. Sergecross73 msg me 19:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I apologize. Clearly I misread how strong your objection was. That's on me. For what it's worth, though, I took your input quite seriously, and it's also on me that I didn't make that more clear in the thread.

If you really want to, you have my permission to reinstate the block and reopen the appeal. Removing this partial block doesn't in fact matter that much to me. I will say, this degree of response is somewhat surprising. I reduced a one-page partial block to a restriction that if anyone objects to the user's editing, the user must stop. It seemed to me to be a fairly minor action.

Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Or, I am also glad to self-report this to AN for community input if you prefer. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:49, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any need for AN if you're willing to undo your action and reopen the discussions on it.

My frustration, beyond what I outlined above, is that I don't believe that anything has changed with this editor. There was a lot of warnings and attempted guidance before I resorted to a block. A lot of refusal to use sources, a lot of WP:IDHT excuses, etc, lead us to the block. And when I asked them to demonstrate how they've added sources to other articles recently, they couldn't provide any, and appeared to be unwilling to make any new edits to prove this either. To me, it doesn't look like they're willing to edit in accordance to using sources. They're attitude appears to be that they don't need to be able to use sources to make minor adjustments, but their interest doesn't appear to be grammar or copywriting, so it's just going to become an issue again if they don't address it. Sergecross73 msg me 20:06, 30 March 2025 (UTC)