User talk:Just Step Sideways/Archive 50

Archive 45

←

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Your close at ANI

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Your close at ANI was not appropriate, especially based on your off-wiki friendship with ATG. I ask you to allow discussion to continue and consider yourself involved. The discussion was less than two days old and participation was not completed. You closed two discussions involving ATG in their favor twice this week. Lightburst (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Off-wiki friendship? Um, what? Since when does posting on the same forum, and occasionally agreeing with each other, constitute sufficient evidence to merit claims of being 'involved'? If that is the standard we are going to apply, we need to ban the entire Wikipedia contributor base, since they regularly express agreement with each other regarding all sorts of things, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

It is more than that. It is on an anti-wiki group that posts personal info of wikipedia editors and skewers DYK every day in a thread called cluster fuck. You and JSS are frequent participants WO. We need a review of this involved action which served you by cutting off ongoing discussion. Lightburst (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Why not add 'burn the heretics' to Wikipedia policy and go the whole hog. Everything will then be wonderful in Wikiland, because nobody in their right mind will say otherwise... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Lightburst (talk) 00:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Hot hoot

	The spoilsport's barnowl star
	Think you know it owl  :) ——Serial Number 54129 13:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I did get a good laugh out of it. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

The recent accounts disrupting the Teahouse and Help Desk

Hey, thanks for doing your part in blocking yet another account from the same user. Any chance that an IP account creation ban can be enforced for the address or range? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm hoping a CU shows up at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/14 novembre and does exactly that. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

If nobody else gets to it first there's also Quovalos now. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

A request for your opinion

Hello, Just Step Sideways. I'm here to consult you about an unblock request, hoping that we can settle this one more amicably than the last one.

You quite rightly imposed a spamusername block on an editor known at the time as "Sagicor CorpDev", now renamed to "TWall4". The editor has posted an unblock request on their talk page, and then, impatient at the delay in getting a response, a longer appeal on UTRS. The essential points are, I think, that their username has been changed, thus dealing with the username part of the "spamusername", and they have attempted to deal with the other aspect of the block rationale by disclosing their COI and their PAID status, and undertaking to submit requests to edit by talk page posts. On the face of it, that means that they have dealt with the reasons for the block. I am less than 100% convinced, because their previous editing, now deleted, was unambiguously promotional, but since they have undertaken to work via edit requests that may not be important, as there's always the answer "no". My conclusion is that although I'm not totally convinced, I would be inclined to give them another chance, with the block button in reserve if necessary. Do you have any opinion on the matter? JBW (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

In this case I think we see things pretty much the same. A WP:ROPE unblock seems reasonable. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Shivendra Singh Chauhan

I PRODed this page and I wonder if this page is salvageable in any ways or if I made the right decision proposing it for deletion. 104.7.152.180 (talk) 04:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Not exactly sure why you came to me with this, but being co-founder of India Against Corruption seems at least kind of notable. It's possible the biography could be expanded from the references at that article. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Re: Possible Splitting Strategies

I’ve thought about the possibility of splitting the List of indoor arenas in the United States page. After some consideration, I think the arenas should be split by state. Here’s how it would look for Florida: user:Wjenkins96/sandbox. Any suggestions? Wjenkins96 (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Wjenkins96: apologies for the late rpely, been kinda busy around here. I had hoped that posting a more formal proposal would draw in some previously uninvolved commentary, but it has been two weeks and nobody but yourself has expressed an opinion. Per WP:SILENCE, I'd say that means to just proceed with whatever strategy seems best, and since you seem willing to put the work in, I have no objection to what you propose. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

No worries. For this project, not all fifty states will get their own page as some states, particularly Wyoming, only have one or two arenas. Therefore, there may be some pages such as “List of Indoor Arenas in the United States (Mountain West)” which would combine the states of Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, and Colorado. While Massachusetts certainly has enough colleges plus the Celtics to constitute their own page, many surrounding states probably do not, so a combined New England page would probably be necessary as well. Wjenkins96 (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Marcelus 1RR appeal

Hi Beebs, question about your closure of Marcelus's appeal. As this is a contentious topics restriction "a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN" is required to modify it. My reading your close is that there is isn't a consensus to maintain the restriction rather than there being a consensus to change it. Is that right? Either way I don't think there's any reason to change your close but wanted to ask the question. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I guess I'd say sometimes there is a disconnect between the wording of policy and the reality of a situation and we just have to do our best to reconcile the two. The appeal had been open for nearly two weeks and had been archived and brought back out twice, with nobody really voicing a strong opinion in favor of retaining it. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree for community-based restrictions given there's only one place (AN) to appeal them. The reason I asked is that for CTOP restrictions there is an intentionally higher bar to pass but also more places to appeal it (imposing admin, AN, AE & ARCA). As I said no reason to change the close but something to consider. I guess part of the consideration is whether there's a need to ask ArbCom to change the appeals wording so it's more about a consensus to maintain the restriction rather than a consensus to overturn. I don't really think that's necessary but YMMV. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Looking socky around my talk

Thanks for looking out. I have been unkind discussing your involvement in other places for a few years now. But then tonight in the midst of being cross with me, you demonstrated adminsitrative neutrality. The same thing happened with SFR recently - and it surprised me. The longer I am on the project the more I learn to respect the regulars and recalibrate my thinking. I think I know whose sock that was but I will likely stay mum. cheers! Lightburst (talk) 04:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Oops, I thought you did the reverts, it was another editor and admin and a blocked SPA, but anyway, carry on and enjoy your week! Lightburst (talk) 04:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Lightburst, they've also sent a notice on this very talk page, as they did with others. Not gonna lie, I don't like socks trying to throw fuel on the fire. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks like I missed this particular incident, nonetheless, I can assure you I don't give block evading trolls a free pass just because their target is someone I happen to have been in a disagreement with. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 15:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, in spite of our disagreements I know that is true. Lightburst (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2024).

Administrator changes

Graham Beards

• Deskana
• Mets501
• Staxringold

Bureaucrat changes

• Deskana
• Warofdreams

Oversight changes

Dreamy Jazz

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!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

New message from Serial Number 54129

Hello, Just Step Sideways. You have new messages at Soul of India - Cultures, Customs and Traditions's talk page.
Message added 11:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A second (expert) opinion is required, please! Perhaps slightly belated now but would have been useful at the time... Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 11:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I mean, yeah, it looks like a probable username violation, but the account made one sandbox edit two weeks ago, so probably not worth the trouble at the moment. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 15:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Autopatrolled!

Hi Just Step Sideways. I didn't want to leave a comment under the PERM request earlier as I thought the request would be declined. I just wanted to know if these came up when evaluating User:Monhiroe for Autopatrolled rights and this at Draft:Ravikumar M, where it seems the subject edited their own article after the draft was created 3 days before! Most of their recent articles have maintenance tags as well! Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I do usually check the applicant's talk page for any recent issues, but it looks like I didn't in this case as the notification of the COIN discussion is still there and that would've got my attention if I'd seen it. I'll reconsider. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I looked again at their article creations, I looked at twelve recent articles and they only tag I found was at Akkaran, where a user added an empty section and tagged it as an empty section. The COI and the copyright problems at Commons seem like real concerns, but they do not seem related to article creation, which is what autopatrolled is all about. They appear blameless in the situation at the draft article you mention, and indeed asked for it to be deleted. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I beg to differ. From my experience here, which is obviously very less compared to others, I have only seen autopatrolled rights granted to very prolific creators of clean articles who also have a strong command over the English language.

For someone who has been here since 2022 with over 80+ articles, they still cite references before the period [1], leave the talk pages empty Talk:The Akaali Talk:Kanni (2024 Tamil-language film) Talk:Pagalariyaan, limited proficiency to communicate/write in English without the help of an AI [2] [3] [4], Undisclosed COI/UPE at Nivedhithaa Sathish (Not following NPOV - She made a splash) and Srikanth Deva. I am surprised how a random editor can find a draft that was created 3 days before by Monhiroe and add content to it unless the creator is in contact with the subject, another case of undisclosed COI/PE at Draft:Ravikumar M. Wikipedia:OBSART

Acknowledging that they have worked with many cinema artists and politicians but failing to disclose the same is a big red flag. A NPR should obviously be looking over Monhiroe's contributions per the above. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Just Step Sideways, I am thinking of taking this to Wikipedia talk:Autopatrolled to request for a revoke on User:Monhiroe's autopatrolled rights. I would like to know your thoughts on this as there are serious issues(considering someone with autopatrolled) with the articles they have created.

• Monisha Blessy - This article was moved to the mainspace on 20 June, although another editor has cleaned up the mess, the article is still uncategorized after 7 days in mainspace, contains four citation errors and does not have a default sort. The education section is original research or possibly COI She started her schooling in St Thomas Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Chennai, She completed her MSC in Electronic Media at St. Thomas College of Arts and Science, Koyambedu, Chennai The inline citation does not verify any of this. The source on the education section mentions her DOB as February 3, 1996, but the infobox says 3 February 1999.
• Rail (2024 film) - Would have been tagged with {{Improve categories}} if someone had patrolled it and similar to some of their previous articles, there are no wikiproject tags as well.

Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I think you have a point here. I'll revoke it. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Chris Troutman

Just Step Sideways, as blocking admin of Chris Troutman: The block message got auto-archived off of the talk page, which I think is not correct. It might also probably be helpful to include with the block message a permanent link to the ANI discussion [5]. Not fixing myself, as I'm not 100% sure I'd do the right thing. Secondarily (though the reason I noticed), I am slightly concerned that a recent comment on the talk page may be verging on gravedancing. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks like the recent discussion has been dealt with. Probably best to just leave it alone. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Your arb filing

Re: your arb filing, I might suggest that you clarify the use of the word "errors" to "spelling errors" or similar. I suspect people will read that and think it refers to a deliberate falsification of factual content, as I initially did, rather than referring to intentional misspelling/typos. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 20:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

That's a fair point, I changed it to "small errors". Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems like a textbook WP:POINT violation, but with an interesting motivation. It is not designed to disrupt Wikipedia. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Request for arbitration declined

The request for arbitration that you filed has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. Arbitrators generally expressed the view that this incident on its own did not yet require arbitration and could have likely been resolved at AN/I with further discussion with the admin. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 16:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2024).

Administrator changes

• Elli
• HouseBlaster
• Pickersgill-Cunliffe

• Brianga
• De728631
• Georgewilliamherbert
• Hyacinth (deceased)
• ProveIt
• The Night Watch

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

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads archived

Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads, which you filed, has been archived with the following outcome:

There is a rough consensus among participating Committee members that while links to off-wiki threads are not automatically prohibited, it is the responsibility of the linking editor to ensure that doing so does not violate the harassment policy as violations may result in suppression and sanctions. It was emphasised by members that the Community should decide where the threshold of acceptability is. Further discussion on whether quoting private correspondence is a copyright violation is continued below.

For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 05:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Clarifying the BLP Deletion

Hi there,

Thanks for considering my autopatrolled request (at that specific forum). I do, however, want to make a note regarding the deletion of my BLP page. The first deletion nomination of the page came last year when the person was only a nominee, and the nominator had no issue with it being in draftspace until the point in which she became confirmed. However, when she was confirmed and the article was brought back into the mainspace, there was another nomination for deletion because like you mentioned, the sourcing was a bit scarce. I didn't object to the deletion (or partake in the debate), but I do agree that it could be better sourcing (I was originally going to update it to show confirmation status but never got around to it). That being said, does one BLP deletion really disqualify me from autopatrolled, seeing that I've had really few (if any) problems with my creations as of late? After all, I've been extra careful when doing those articles. If you won't grant me the right, that's fine (though I'm very bummed about it seeing another decline). That said, when could I apply again? After all, the new page curation feed is very backlogged and I feel like the tool will help me lighten it up at least to some extent (and given my translations, which you conceded as good, it wouldn't need to be checked). It would be a pretty big headache needing to wait another few months before I could maybe apply again for a third (!) time. In any event, please let me know what the potential next steps are. Thanks. Losipov (talk) 03:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Just for convenience, here are the nominations if you need to review them again:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jennifer_M._Adams

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jennifer_M._Adams_(2nd_nomination) Losipov (talk) 04:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

As I said over at PERM, I did come close to granting it based on the bulk of your work being totally ok. But then I read that AFD. The article was moved to draftspace as a result of the first AFD, and you moved it back to article space a month ago without improving the sourcing at all. The community has made it very clear that WP:BLP is one of our most important policies, and that such articles need to have good sourcing, or they shouldn't exist. Since the community takes this so seriously, admin actions need to reflect that concern. This obviously isn't a case of "you will never be qualified for this" but with such a recent concern with a poorly-sourced BLP I just don't see it right now. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Alright, that's fine. Maybe I'll just re-apply in a month or so for it (assuming that no problems arise in between now and then). In the meantime I'll work on bringing more stuff over. Again, thank you for consideration over at PERM, and even though it's frustrating I didn't get it now, I'll just reapply in the near future. Losipov (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi again @Just Step Sideways,

I hope all is well with you. Because it's been a month since my declined request for autopatrolled, I thought I would pop back into this thread and see if it's a alright or a bit too early for reapplying (basically, just seeking an opinion before I officially make a third request there). I've created a number of new articles, including a couple of BLPs, and would like to apply again to make the process a bit more streamlined so to speak. I haven't had any problems since then compared to the last request. Please let me know, and thank you once again for the guidance. Losipov (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

There's no real hard-and-fast rule but if I were you I'd wait another month. Keep up the good work though! Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@Just Step Sideways just a heads up: I took your advice and waited a month to re-apply. I made a new request at PERM just now. Hopefully someone approves it this time (third time *should* be a charm ;) ). Thanks again for the advice for what it's worth! Losipov (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for correcting me on the NPP tags. I think I need some handholding. Would it be okay if I reach out to you via your talk page for future guidance? Charlie (talk) 03:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@CharlieMehta: I don't know how I completely missed your message at the time, but yeah, if you have questions feel free to ask. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I am embarking on NPP training, but I will definitely seek your help once it's completed. Thank you for being so supportive. Charlie (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

D.S. Lioness TBAN

At [6] you say regarding D.S. Lioness, It seems pretty clear that there is a consensus for a topic ban, which I have implemented by blocking D.S. Lioness from the article in question. I think the way this was communicated has led to some confusion. I see you've clarified a bit on their talk page, but they are still editing Talk:Afroditi Latinopoulou. They are pretty new (Dec 2023) and I suspect they don't understand the difference between a topic ban and a page block. Would you be willing to take a moment to clearly communicate their ban restrictions? I think clear documentation is needed here since they edit Greek politics articles a lot so a TBAN within a subset of that subject area will require diligence on their part. Many thanks! VQuakr (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

You mean that i can't post in the topic talk page? I am not block there. D.S. Lioness (talk) 19:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@D.S. Lioness: that is the definition of a topic ban. VQuakr (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't Know. I will remove my comment. It is much easier, i think, to block the user from editing the banned areas. D.S. Lioness (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

This is kind of my fault as I should have been more clear in my communication with you, so I apologize for that. A topic ban means you should not be editing any content on any page that is related to Afroditi Latinopoulou. It would be the same whether I had issued the particular block or not. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

o.k.! Thanks D.S. Lioness (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Suspension of Beeblebrox

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The November announcement of the suspension of Beeblebrox is amended to remove the sentence These failures followed a previous formal warning issued to Beeblebrox in September 2021 by the Arbitration Committee concerning his conduct in off-wiki forums. and insert in its place the sentence In September 2021, within the scope of internal Committee discussions, Beeblebrox was advised that his off-wiki conduct was suboptimal.

For the Arbitration Committee, Aoidh (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Suspension of Beeblebrox

Lighthumormonger using IP?

Hello, I saw you oversaw the blocking of Lighthumormonger as a sockpuppet. I went through an affected page, SpinLaunch, and cleaned up a lot of its promotional tone, but an IP recently made an edit that I feel may be in line with their style of editing. The IP only has the one edit, so I wanted to ask before opening an SPI. Thank you. Crystalespeon (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) (Non-Brox Block Oversee-er comment) @Crystalespeon: Checkusers will not publicly link between an IP address and a registered account (even if they are a LTA, etc), and one edit is insufficient upon which to make a behavioral judgement. Cheers! ——Serial Number 54129 14:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your time! I'll be more patient in the future. Crystalespeon (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Temptation (novella) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Temptation (novella), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temptation (novella) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

August music

story · music · places

Thank you for a good comment in the arbcase request which doesn't say what it is about ;) - I will certainly not comment. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm mildly surprised it is still there, it is obviously not a committee matter. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

By now, they noticed. Back to ANI ... sigh. Sometimes the people going to the noticeboards only want to be hugged ;) - Today I have two "musicians" on the Main page, one is also the topic of my story, watch and listen, - I like today's especially because you see him at work, hear him talk about his work and the result of his work - rare! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

... and a third, like 22 July but with interview and the music to be played today --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

On 13 August, Bach's cantata was 300 years old, and the image one. The cantata is an extraordinary piece, using the chorale's text and famous melody more than others in the cycle. It's nice to have not only a recent death, but also this "birthday" on the Main page. And a rainbow in my places. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2024).

Administrator changes

Isabelle Belato

• Ian.thomson
• Modussiccandi

Interface administrator changes

Izno

CheckUser changes

Barkeep49

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

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you

Your closes were pragmatic, humane and timely. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I just saw it and it seemed to be dragging on longer than needed. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

It has been an unpleasant but inevitable end to a set of long running difficult situations. I hope the subject can find fulfilment elsewhere, in an outlet that is suited to their particular skills. There has been one failed appeal already, and I am certain there will be more. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Greetings

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, people's rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. I now realize that you had the best of intentions. The outpouring of support has brightened what was a low point in my WP career. I use this quote as a Seasonal Greeting but it fits here too. I realize that it's not on you...my typo led to the Block. My Mother taught me to be generous. I do this for her.

Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 13:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I do hope it is understood that the block was based on the idea that you wouldn't do that. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Article in sandbox page

because I'm not sure if in English Wikipedia this is forbidden - in Greek, it's forbidden - check it out. It's the user-preferred version of the article and has been there since January. Thanks! D.S. Lioness (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

And what are you asking, to delete my sandbox? It is my right to edit an article to make it better. what are you afraid of? Montigliani (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

There's no rule on the English Wikipedia against copying article content into a sandbox and working on it there, and it seems pretty clear that this is being actively edited. WP:BLP does apply everywhere though, so if there is unsourced or improperly sourced material that should be removed. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

O.K.! thanks! D.S. Lioness (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Community sanction evasion

Could you look into User_talk:Greghenderson2006#Redirects? The user's block was upgraded from main space to site wide and is now using his own talk page try to gain editorial input into article space which goes against his community sanctions. I believe it may need to be changed to "can not edit own talk page". Graywalls (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I've already been considering that due to the continuing WP:IDHT behavior. I'm going to be out and about for a bit but I'll check back in on it later. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Question about block

Hi, Just_Step_Sideways:

I've seen you blocked this user on August 2. My question about this issue is: can an user be blocked without any previous warnings? I'm answering you this because he had made some few (but useful) contributions in football articles. I don't have any personal relationship with the user, just wondering if there is a possibility to reconsider the block in case he changes his nickname.

Thanks for you reply in advance. Fma12 (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

No-warning blocks are very common for promotional username, the relevant policy section is WP:ORGNAME. It is certainly within the realm of possibility for them to be unblocked if they choose a new name and file a reasonable appeal. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I am a Contributor to Wikipedia. Does That Make Me Media?

I have been covering the upcoming trials of Nicholas Rossi (sometimes Nicholas Alahverdian) under the "Talk" section of his page. His two trials are in Utah, and the case has created (apparently) some national and international interest, and the separate Utah District Courts are now only opening up the WEBEX link to media, which is a reversal, as the other pre-trial hearings have been open to the public.

The case is unique: Two separate rape charges from 2008, but the person charged was found in Scotland, fought extradition for some two years, and continues to claim that this is a case of mistaken identity. There are numerous podcasts (Audible/BBC/Peacock) on the case to date. I get they are media.

I was given a polite, but firm answer that only those necessary, or those of the media who apply can watch the proceedings. Leaving me to ask... as I write fairly in the Talk section about the trial, am I media?

If so, I need to apply, and they decide if I get to watch.

Thank you! LearnMore2024! (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

No, this does not make you a reporter for the "media" (which in this context most assuredly means news outlets). What's more, talk pages should not be used in this manner for giving blow by blow accounts of the trial. That's not what talk pages are for.

Most importantly, you need to read and fully understand our WP:Biographies of living persons policy. This is our top policy and applies to all living people, whether they are the subject of the article or not, plus it applies to anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, user pages, draft space, as well as main article space. Wikipedia is a tertiary source not a news media outlet. This means you need to provide WP:Reliable sources that are WP:Secondary sources. You should not be using court documents per WP:BLPPRIMARY --not even on talk pages-- and everything you post should be already published in a newspaper or other such secondary source. Also, we should not be naming people who are not notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article per WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLPPRIVACY (like judges, witnesses, or other people involved in the trial) .

Much of what you posted on the talk page looks like a violation of BLP policy in one way or another and should probably be deleted. Zaereth (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, this is entirely my error, and I am thankful for the correction, as I did not intend to violate any policies or practices. For the record, I did not want to be media.

I will sign off, and please delete as needed. I want to remain a fan of Wikipedia, and don't care to be part of an ongoing problem. LearnMore2024! (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

This was not intended to scare you off, as I'm sure there are useful contribution you can make. I didn't mean to be harsh, it's just that we have to be very careful when writing about living people, because we can do serious harm to them, even unintentionally. There's a learning curve for all newcomers here, so we're pretty forgiving of mistakes, especially if a person is willing to correct them and learn from the experience. Zaereth (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Zaereth has it right, WP editors are not the media, we record here what the media has already reported. This particular case has a lot of highly unusual aspects and will doubtless continue to be reported on as it goes forward, so we should have plenty of decent sources to keep it up to date. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I understand and you were not harsh, you were firm. I had not fully understood my role, the impact to the greater good of Wikipedia, so it is appropriate that you take the necessary steps of deleting what I wrote. I don't want to be media, and I don't want to break the rules.

I'll step back, read and understand what I need to, as I should have, and please, fix/delete my entries. I can learn from my mistakes, and I thank you for your help and understanding. And thank you both for the roles in which you perform for Wikepedia! 173.63.207.124 (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

An edit you made six years ago has been amended

Hi, please see User talk:Redrose64#Wikipedia:IP editors are human too. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

(replied there) Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Ehrmahgahd I've been an admin for fifteen years...Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2024).

Administrator changes

Pppery

Interface administrator changes

Pppery

Oversighter changes

Wugapodes

CheckUser changes

• Courcelles
• GeneralNotability

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!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Replaceable non-free use File:Fuad Shukr handout.png

Thanks for uploading File:Fuad Shukr handout.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file's talk page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 09:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Could Greg page be blanked too?

I noticed an admin blanked a page of a similar user who did something similar with populating Wikipedia with family genealogy junk with junk sources. Special:Diff/1064051435. Do you think Greghenderson2006's user page qualifies for this blanking too or maybe even deletion? Graywalls (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I actually just undid the blanking of RAN's talk page because I don't see an actual legitimate reason for having blanked it. Users can have almost anything they want on their user page, blocked or not. If there was any indication that the content on Greg's userpage was part of ongoing disruption from him I would fully support it, but at the monent I don't see any reason to do so. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

One of your statements got crossposted to the user talk page of someone globally locked for unspecified sockpuppetry.[7] I found them in the history of Macdonald triad where there has been other suspicious activity recently, chiefly this standalone edit:[8]

I'm on my sock hunter arc RN... So, should I report this, and if so, where? Biohistorian15 (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure than one edit from over a month ago is going to be found compelling at WP:SPI, but if you are convinced it is a slam dunk, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Daner's Creek would be the correct venue for reporting it. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. The edit just seemed very strange to me. Especially because it was their only one. Biohistorian15 (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

indef-blocked user pages

WRT [9] - if the user is indefinitely blocked for violations of Wikipedia policies, and they're not coming back after however many years, we're distributing their user page content because of ... some sort of a memorial? A little shrine to Wikipedia abuse? :) But more seriously, if we're not even telling other users that this happened, we're not doing this history right. There isn't even a {{blocked}} template anywhere on there. --Joy (talk) 06:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

As I stated when reverting, I am not aware of any precedent or guidance that supports this action. If you can point me to where it says we do that I'll happily revert, but I'm pretty darn sure it is not standard procedure to blank user pages. If you'd like to change that feel free to propose it at the appropriate venue. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

On the other hand I have revoked his talk page access, as it has been six years of him editing the talk page without filing an appeal. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:26, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm just trying to follow some of the basic tenets of encyclopedia - it should describe things as they are. Leaving the userspace writings of an indefinitely blocked user verbatim creates the false impression in whoever sees that - that this user is still just another user, in good standing.

This is something I would see either blanked or marked.

Blanking is mentioned as remedy for inappropriate content in WP:UP - obviously to what extent this content is inappropriate is moot, and I don't mind your revert if you think it isn't.

Marking is why we have templates like {{uw-blockindef}} etc. I don't know offhand how to measure how often this is done, as the templates are not transcluded but substituted, but it is mentioned as something normal by WP:BP. --Joy (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I just noticed now that the marking exists at User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), thanks. Still a bit odd to have all that at the user page itself, but hey. --Joy (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

BTW, WP:UP#GOALS says Excessive unrelated content includes ... information ... not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. So if a user's been indef-blocked, 100KB of their user page content can hardly be considered closely related to Wikipedia's goals. --Joy (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Blocking templates are normally placed on the talk page of the user who is blocked, to inform them why they are blocked and instruct them on how to appeal, and the user is perfectly free to remove such notices as well. None of this is any sort of new policy by any means.

Nobody brought up the user page as a problem in the discussion that led to the block, and you haven't really indicated which parts of it are a problem now, it seems more like you are concerned that there is not a notice letting everyone know he is blocked. We moved away from doing that in most cases, again, quite some time ago.

There is a gadget in your preferences that will strikeout the usernames of blocked users, and also a script, User:PleaseStand/userinfo.js that shows user rights, account age, block status, and most recent edit. I find both quite helpful for quickly getting a base reading on who I'm talking to. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

The entire blob is the problem, such as it were, because the user pages are meant to have a purpose, to help us collaborate (WP:UP), and I don't quite see how an effectively immutable snapshot of a user page of an indefinitely blocked user can achieve such a purpose. But, again, whatever, not a huge deal.

Anyway, why did we move away from notices about user status in most cases quite some time ago, where is that documented?

I actually notice when someone is blocked in the user popups, so I myself don't have a problem noticing this, it's the other readers and editors who might not have that. --Joy (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

UTRS request

I don't have a particularly strong feeling either way about blanking the user page. However, I am puzzled by your removing of talk page access. I can see no reason at all for doing that. The blocking policy says "editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in cases of continued abuse of their user talk page, or when the user has engaged in serious threats, accusations, or attempts at outing that must be prevented from re-occurring"; none of that comes anywhere near to applying in this case. The reason you gave on the user talk page was "While we do allow blocked users some latitude on their own talk page, just coming by to delete things off your talk page without even attempting to get unblocked over such a long period of time just seems unproductive and frankly, unhealthy". "Just seems unproductive"? Maybe, but so what? Is it disrupting the project? Is it offensive? "Just seems ... unhealthy"? I find it difficult to see this as meaning any more than that you personally don't like it. Why should your opinions as to what is or is not healthy be imposed on an editor? Both your message on that user's talk page and your message above refer to the fact that he has not requested an unblock; well, now he has, at UTRS. Is there any good policy-compliant reason why talk page access should not be restored? JBW (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I left a detailed note on the UTRS request just now. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

And just for clarity's sake, see also the above section titled "Could Greg page be blanked too?" regarding the blanking issue. This is why it concerned me as setting a precedent. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Backlash to diversity and inclusion. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Backlash to diversity and inclusion/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 10, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Backlash to diversity and inclusion/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 12:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment about your ANI close

I'm not sure if it should have been closed at all, it doesn't seem like there was much of a conclusion to it (and yes sure, you're an admin, but it didn't read like you were advising them as an admin, but instead summarizing it - but maybe that's just me), but if you're going to close it you should at least mention that the OP was page blocked because of their hostile edit summaries? – 2804:F1...EA:6CE2 (talk) 04:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Assuming we're talking about this, that seems like a sperate issue from their .... unlikely accusations. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Hm, fine. I just had both forgotten that you were an admin (before editing my message to acknowledge you are) and read it as if it was a summarization closure - from that point of view it seemed insufficient to just give advice that the discussion (that ended days before) didn't give and not mention the boomerang block. Sorry. – 2804:F1...92:375B (talk) 05:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2024).

Administrator changes

• Asilvering
• Significa liberdade

• Good Olfactory
• Hesperian
• I JethroBT
• TommyBoy
• Woody

CheckUser changes

• Barkeep49
• Izno

• Doug Weller
• Spicy

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.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Need a help need copies of deleted articles

I need 2 pages Dalit Dastak and National Dastak.I found your name in the list of Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles hence requesting you. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done Now at User:Pharaoh of the Wizards/Dalit Dastak and User:Pharaoh of the Wizards/National Dastak. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your prompt response.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Fuad Shukr handout.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Fuad Shukr handout.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "Forced Islamization of the Samaritans"

Hello

I wrote yesterday a new article "Forced Islamization of the Samaritans", i find out today that it qas deleted completely, i don't understand why. Can you explain it to me please? Enhazaam (talk) 06:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Enhazaam: Did you check the deletion log? There are some blue links in the entry: try them. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Could you please explain the connection to the Israel-Arab conflict? Enhazaam (talk) 10:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Enhazaam:, that kind of article would take an experienced editor a lot of work just to maintain neutrality and faithful adherence to reliable sources. You may have achieved that; I can't see what you wrote. But unfortunately it does not matter because topics associated with the Israel-Arab conflict have been placed under restrictions by the arbitration committee as a result of previous disruption. The link in the log takes you to the relevant page—WP:CT/A-I (or, 'Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict'). The restriction that applied to you, unfortunately, is that only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area. You are not, so you cannot. SerialNumber54129 11:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello

I fail to see how the Samaritans have anything to do with the Israeli-Arab conflict. They are ethno-religious people who have been persecuted for centuries. I simply wrote an article about the known fact, that they were persecuted and forced into Islam following the Levant being conquered by the Arabs.

The Israeli-Arab conflict is not an issue related to this part of history. Enhazaam (talk) 12:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, neither I nor the person who nominated the article for deletion have accused you of acting with bad faith or malice. However, the defined scope of this contentious topic designation instructs users that it is to be broadly interpreted, and in light of that I think it is a reasonable position that the forced Islamization of a group of Hebrew people dwelling within the borders of historical Israel is subject to the WP:CTOP rules placed by the Arbitration Committee. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your clarification on the subject. Enhazaam (talk) 11:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello

I'm sorry to open this again. It's just I put a lot of work into the article... Will I be able to republish the article at some point? When will that be possible? I just want to be sure, so that I don't work for nothing... Thank you Just Step Sideways in advance. Enhazaam (talk) 11:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Hypothetically you can re-create it as soon as your account is extended-confirmed. However I would also note that shortly before it was deleted it was tagged for WP:NPOV issues as well. My suggestion would be that when the time comes, I could undelte it and draftify it for you so that could be worked out first. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

That would be very kind of you. Thank you! Enhazaam (talk) 14:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• For the benefit of any other confused British or Irish stumbling on this topic - it was about the Samaritans, not The Samaritans. Cabayi (talk) 11:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Soft deletion

Hello, JSS,

I see you are becoming active in closing AFDs. If a discussion just has a deletion nomination and one editor arguing for Deletion, our regular closers close these discussions as "Soft Deletions" per WP:NOQUORUM. This is due to the low participation in the discussion and this closure allows for restoration of the article at a later time should an editor wish to work on the article and improve it. This doesn't happen with a straight Deletion closure. Our biggest problem in AFDLand these days is low participation in most discussions and a Soft Deletion acknowledges that fact.

If you use XFDcloser, which I hope you do, you'll notice that you can check a box to make the deletion a Soft Delete. Please consider doing this in the future if you agree with the policy I linked to. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I've been using it when there seems to be a compelling reason to do so. It is a shame that so many AFDs seem to either attract either way too many comments or almost none at all. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and realizing the utility of XFD closer is exactly what led to me getting active in this again. It's so easy now. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you

Closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karin Van Der Laag (2nd nomination) was never going to be a walk in the park. The creating editor (autobiographer) deserved a consensus, and I believe that she now has one. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I was bored and thought "I'll close some AFDs" and of course that was the last one open for the day because nobody wanted to deal with it. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otherways

Hello, JSS,

Unfortunately, this article isn't eligible for Soft Deletion as it either was PROD'd in 2019. Soft Deletions are like PRODs, articles are only eligible for a Soft Deletion if a) they haven't been PROD'd or to AFD before and b) there are no Keep votes. It's important to review the article page history. So, I think this AFD will have to be closed as a straight Delete. I hope my earlier message wasn't confusing.

Thank you for helping out at AFDLand, we can always use a few more discussion closers! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Well dammit, I have to admit I did not check the talk page before choosing that option. That's entirely on me. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

October 2024

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Wikipediocracy-related conduct and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Sincerely, Dilettante 19:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Username comment

Just wanted to say that I agree with you after seeing your comment, I was focused on the words themselves and not the message itself. 331dot (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Cool. I figured it was something like that, and I wouldn't block for "tit" on its own either. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Minor Arbcom-thing

Hello! I sometimes watch the request/case pages etc, and I have a comment. When you add to your original statement like this [10] without signing, it introduces some mild confusion, making it look like all of it was the original statement, and that is not how the other commentators are doing it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I kinda realized that yesterday, but if I go back and sign it piece-by-piece now the timestamps will all be the same/wrong... I guess I could use indenting. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

That helped. Now it only looks like you exclude signatures just to be a pain in the ass ;-) But again, good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Turns out you also can't use the reply tool if comments are unsigned, apparently, so I shot myself in the foot a little bit there. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:24, 23 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,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Proposed decision posted regarding Yasuke

In the open Backlash to diversity and inclusion arbitration case (also called Yasuke), in which you offered a preliminary statement, the proposed findings and remedies have been posted—though you are not mentioned in any of them. If you wish, you may review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. SilverLocust 💬 00:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)