Let the games begin! The 2024 WikiCup is off to a strong start. With copyright enforcement, AI training and freedom of expression, it's another typical week in the wiki-sphere!
On16 January 2024,Did you know was updated with a fact from the articleGoing Infinite, which you recently nominated. The fact was... thatMichael Lewis, author ofGoing Infinite, compared a rival author to the subject of both their books, convicted fraudsterSam Bankman-Fried? You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page(here's how,Going Infinite), and the hook may be added tothe statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on theDid you know talk page.
My request to edit the article to use the word "massacre" is valid, legitimate and doesn't breach any EC restrictions.Please clarify yourself on what restriction specificaly has been breached, and how.Thewildshoe (talk)22:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to agree with you on the substance, as you may have noticed. However, you need to use the "Edit Request" form. I hate to be bureaucratic, but that is how things are on these pages. There is an edit request directly below the discussion I hatted. I can try to find the form if you don't have access to it. Then you can pretty much replicate what you said in the post that I hatted, though I would suggest that you boil it down a bit. Remember that an Edit Request has to be specific. In other words, you need to specify where in the article the word "massacre" should appear, etc.Coretheapple (talk)23:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New editors relying on the old alert may innocently fall afoul of the new restriction and might even be sanctioned for doing so. Perhaps there is some mechanized way of alerting them of the new rule. Also if the alert is out of date I imagine it would need to be fixed.
I think it would be helpful for talk pages of affected articles to state what new editors can and cannot do on those talk pages. Oddly, the current language doesn't say so.Coretheapple (talk)15:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Coretheapple. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You canremove this notice at any time by removing the{{You've got mail}} or{{ygm}} template.
Much effort was spent drafting a movement charter about becoming "essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge". How much is spent maintaining it?
Plus, new updates on the privacy and research ethics whitepaper and the graphs outage situation, and an Iranian former steward is globally banned from Wikimedia projects
Outcomes of the event including newly published videos and photos, the archived conference website and program, and some attendee reflections on its significance.
Hello, Coretheapple. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You canremove this notice at any time by removing the{{You've got mail}} or{{ygm}} template.
Also, can you take a look atAlvin J. Reines when you have time? I recently discovered his idea of polydoxy while working on theJames A. Lindsay article. Apparently, there's a Christian theologian named David W. Congdon who points to polydoxy as a potential solution to the crisis in American Christianity. Did Reines come up with polydoxy or did he just incorporate it into his own concept of reform Judaism?Viriditas (talk)21:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FoundPolydoxy: Theology of Multiplicity and Relation (2010).[1] Once again, academia is 50 years behind Alan Watts. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. It's hard to take any of these people seriously. Watts was talking about this in the 1960s.Viriditas (talk)00:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a Christian theologian! Just thought it was odd tracing the concept of polydoxy from 1987 to 2010, when Alan Watts and numerous others had been talking about this for years only to be ignored by academia. Now, it's suddenly acceptable, decades later, to talk about the same ideas. I've seen this thing play out over and over again.Viriditas (talk)19:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Advocacy organizations, a journalist, mycophobes, conservatives, leftists, photographers, and a disinformation task force imagine themselves in Wikipedia.
Natalia Tymkiv, Chair of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, on the Charter vote results, the resolution, meeting minutes, and proposed next steps.
Your feedback is requested atTalk:Fred Trump andTalk:Imane Khelif on "Biographies" request for comments. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list ofFeedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time byremoving your name.
Hello! Voting in the2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
OK, that's your privilege, but just FYI typically people are brought into Arbitration cases due to specific claims of misconduct, not as a kind ofparticipation trophy because they took positions in various discussions, in my case largely quite a while ago.Coretheapple (talk)21:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you are onthe update list forPalestine-Israel articles 5. The drafters note that the scope of the case was somewhat unclear, and clarify that the scope isThe interaction of named parties in theWP:PIA topic area and examination of theWP:AE process that led totworeferrals toWP:ARCA. Because this was unclear, two changes are being made:
First,the Committee will accept submissions for new parties for the next three days, until23:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC). Anyone who wishes to suggest a party to the case may do so by creating a new section onthe evidence talk page, providing a reason withWP:DIFFS as to why the user should be added, and notifying the user. After the three-day period ends, no further submission of parties will be considered except in exceptional circumstances. Because the Committee only hears disputes that have failed to be resolved by the usual means, proposed parties should have been recently taken to AE/AN/ANI, and either not sanctioned, or incompletely sanctioned. If a proposed party has not been taken to AE/AN/ANI, evidence is needed as to why such an attempt would have been ineffective.
What the VLOP – findings of an outside auditor for "responsibilization" of Wikipedia. Plus, new EU Commissioners for tech policy, WLE 2024 winners, and a few other bits of news from the Wikipedia world.
Public Domain Day 2025, Women in Red hits 20% biography milestone, Spanish Wikipedia reaches two million articles, and other news from the Wikimedia world.
All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article.
AndreJustAndre, BilledMammal, Iskandar323, Levivich, Makeandtoss, Nableezy, Nishidani, and Selfstudier are indefinitely topic banned from the Palestine-Israel conflict, broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Zero0000 is warned for their behavior in the Palestine-Israel topic area, which falls short of the conduct expected of an administrator.
Should the Arbitration Committee receive a complaint atWP:ARCA about AndreJustAndre, within 12 months of the conclusion of this case, AndreJustAndre may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion.
Any AE report is limited to a max of two parties: the party being reported, and the filer. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.
The community is encouraged to run aRequest for Comment aimed at better addressing or preventing POV forks, after appropriate workshopping.
The Committee recognizes that working at AE can be a thankless and demanding task, especially in the busy PIA topic area. We thus extend our appreciation to the many administrators who have volunteered their time to help out at AE.
Editors are reminded that outside actors have a vested interest in this topic area, and might engage in behaviors such as doxxing in an attempt to influence content and editors. Thedigital security resources page contains information that may help.
Within this topic area, thebalanced editing restriction is added as one of the sanctions that may be imposed by an individual administrator or rough consensus of admins at AE.
Details of the balanced editing restriction
In a given 30-day period, a user under this restriction is limited to making no more than one-third of their edits in the Article, Talk, Draft, and Draft talk namespaces to pages that are subject to the extended-confirmed restriction under Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic procedures.
This will be determined by an edit filter that tracks edits to pages in these namespaces that are extended confirmed protected, or are talk pages of such pages, and are tagged with templates to be designated by the arbitration clerks. Admins are encouraged to apply these templates when protecting a page, and the clerks may use scripts or bots to add these templates to pages where the protection has been correctlylogged, and may make any necessary changes in the technical implementation of this remedy in the future.
Making an edit in excess of this restriction, as determined at the time the edit is made, should be treated as if it were a topic ban violation. Admins should note that a restricted user effectively cannot violate the terms of this and above clauses until at least 30 days after the sanction has been imposed.
They are topic banned from the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, in all namespaces other than these four (except for their own userspace and user talkspace).
This sanction is not subject to the normal standards of evidence for disruptive editing; it simply requires a finding that it would be a net positive for the project were the user to lower their activity in the topic area, particularly where an editor has repeatedly engaged in conflict but is not being intentionally or egregiously disruptive.
Any admin finding a user in violation of this restriction may, at their discretion, impose other contentious topic sanctions.
If asockpuppet investigations clerk or member of the CheckUser team feels that third-party input is not helpful at an investigation, they are encouraged to use theirexisting authority to ask users to stop posting to that investigation or to SPI as a whole. In addition to clerks and members of the CheckUser team, patrolling administratorsmay remove or collapse contributions that impede the efficient resolution of investigations without warning.
The WMF executive team delivers a new update; plus, the latest EU policy report, good-bye to the German Wikipedia's Café, and other news from the Wikimedia world.
Wikimedians and newbies celebrate 24 years of Wikipedia in the Brooklyn Central Library. Special guests Stephen Harrison and Clay Shirky joined in conversation.
From patrolling new edits to uploading photos or joining a campaign, you can count on the Wikimedia platform to be up and running — in your language, anywhere in the world. That is, except for a couple of minutes during the equinoctes.
That's true, but it was functionally equivalent with a topic header of "April 2025." I think badgering is a more serious issue with that editor. I don't believe this is a BLP matter.Coretheapple (talk)19:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being honest I agree with you but past experience tells me I'm not likely to persuade them to stop bludgeoning the conversation but I might at least persuade them to stop putting words into the mouth of BLP protected people. Which might slow the bludgeoning a bit. Regardless I've said my bit to them and am hoping not to have to deal with them much more over this issue.Simonm223 (talk)19:14, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
