User talk:Yamla/Archive 46
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Yamla. 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 40 | ← | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 |
UTRS
Can you have a look at UTRS appeal #95613? It looks to me like an innocent victim of a proxy block that you placed, but obviously without magic CU ability I don't know for sure. JBW (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- They are definitely operating from a proxy, one with quite a lot of users. The specific problematic user operating from that range tends to add unsourced content around American football, so this is clearly not the same user. You are free to grant IPBE if you wish, as I've definitively cleared that user. I'd much rather they stopped using the proxy, though. Let me know if you need more info! --Yamla (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll get back to her. JBW (talk) 20:13, 31 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!
Question regarding paid editors
Hey Yamla. I was curious about a comment you left during an exchange with a user requesting an unblock. They said that they were a company owner and not an employee. You said that makes them a paid editor. I always interpreted the policy as: if a person is receiving (or expecting) compensation as part of their job, then they're a paid editor. But if they have an ownership stake in the company/organization, then they fall outside the definition of employee. Are we now interpreting it so that owners are paid editors too, because they are drawing an income from their business? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is a good question. It's how I interpret it, but I'm not meaning to state here that this is how the community interprets it. I think we are both clear there's a conflict of interest, correct? I wonder if we should take this question to WP:VPP? I'm happy to do so, what do you think? --Yamla (talk) 14:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oh yes, it's most definitely a conflict of interest if they intend to edit technology topics. I know other admins have refused to unblock these types of editors unless they promise to initially edit about topics unrelated to their COI. I'd be interested to hear the response from VPP about the interpretation of the paid policy regarding business owners vs employees. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Okay! I'll post there and let's see what the experts say. --Yamla (talk) 15:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#WP:PAID_if_owner_of_company. --Yamla (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks - I see it's spawned a spirited discussion! Honestly, it doesn't matter to me what the community decides... I would just like some clarity on what the paid editing policy covers. Then we can all be consistent with what we communicate out to users. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've been following along. In the end, whichever way the consensus goes, I think the combination of WP:PAID and WP:COI means the end result (though not the communication) ends up the same. Good discussion! --Yamla (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks - I see it's spawned a spirited discussion! Honestly, it doesn't matter to me what the community decides... I would just like some clarity on what the paid editing policy covers. Then we can all be consistent with what we communicate out to users. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oh yes, it's most definitely a conflict of interest if they intend to edit technology topics. I know other admins have refused to unblock these types of editors unless they promise to initially edit about topics unrelated to their COI. I'd be interested to hear the response from VPP about the interpretation of the paid policy regarding business owners vs employees. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Saarabout
Hi there. I've just seen that you've declined Saarabout's unblock request. Upon reviewing the evidence further, they do seem to have a case that they weren't engaging in vandalism. The content they added does indeed seem to have been copy-pasted from the source website. That's likely a copyright violation and their attitude seems unserious, but I'm tempted to give them another chance. What do you think? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- I have no objections, but I don't think they'd be a constructive editor. A lot of the information they were posting was outright incorrect. Smallest quark, cesium atom being the largest atom, etc. Possibly their best chance of success would be to suggest edits rather than edit any article directly. I want to be clear, though, that's not me trying to impose a requirement. I have no objections at all if you (the blocking admin) decide to lift the block with no restrictions at all. --Yamla (talk) 20:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll lift the block and keep an eye on their edits and will act if they don't prove to be constructive. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 6 November 2024
- From the editors: Editing Wikipedia should not be a crime
- In the media: An old scrimmage, politics and purported libel
- Special report: Wikipedia editors face litigation, censorship
- Traffic report: Twisted tricks or tempting treats?
Speaking up
Hi Yamla, apologies for bothering you again. I want to ask you to take a review at the unblock of my account on Wikimedia Commons, I was blocked by Taivo for 1 month again due to copyright reasons. I have explained everything in my Commons user talk page at the very last bottom when you scroll down to the unblock review. Please review it and unblock me. Because I have pledged to not further upload copyright violations. Here's the link to this. https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KhantWiki#/editor/41 KhantWiki (talk) 14:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- I can not do so. I have no admin rights on Wikimedia commons. --Yamla (talk) 15:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the information. No problem. KhantWiki (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Appealing Topic Ban on Article Creation
Hi Yamla, last year I was unbanned from Wikipedia after 4 years away and I was given the condition of an indefinite ban on article creation that was appealable after no less than six months of constructive edits. I believe that since I have returned I have made constructive edits throughout the MMA community and was hoping I could lift my ban on article creation as I believe I would be a valued asset to Wikipedia. I promise to ensure that the Fighters articles that I make meet the required notability for MMA here at Wikipedia. When you unbanned me, I was told to come appeal to you directly on your talk page if I wanted to lift my topic ban on article creation. And I believe I'm ready now. Many thanks, Ricky. Rickyc123 (talk) 03:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- I will reply on your talk page. --Yamla (talk) 11:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Ban appeal
Is there any way to remove the ban tag on 23prootie. Based on the ANI discussion on Theparties, the ban may be lifted? I just want it removed because I might be blocked again as a sockpuppet of 23prootie. Theparties is my main account now but it is still tagged as a sockpuppet. Is there any way to make the unban official? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theparties (talk • contribs)
- Your ban has been lifted. I'll go remove it from that page. --Yamla (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Woy Woy railway station
I see you semi-protected Woy Woy railway station for block evasion. Now it seems possible that evasion has extended to the talk page. Looking at the flurry of activity on Talk:Woy Woy railway station since 8 November 2024 you can see a new user and three unique IP addresses all making edit requests. A one-off would be ok, but four edit requests looks like a taunt from one user. I am hesitant to semi-protect the talk page as it would shut down the only method new users have to make suggestions. On the other hand, semi-protection may be appropriate. Hence I am asking you for a second opinion. Commander Keane (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry
Please see this (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Dreamy_Jazz#User:Dwinug), and act accordingly should you see fit.
Attentively RevampedEditor (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Done. --Yamla (talk) 12:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research
Hello,
I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.
Take the survey here.
Kind Regards,