User talk:Guerillero/Archives/2020/May

WikiCup 2020 May newsletter

The second round of the 2020 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 75 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top ten contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 186 good articles achieved in total by contestants, and the 355 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.

Our top scorers in round 2 were:

• Epicgenius, with 2333 points from one featured article, forty-five good articles, fourteen DYKs and plenty of bonus points
• Gog the Mild, with 1784 points from three featured articles, eight good articles, a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews and lots of bonus points
• The Rambling Man, with 1262 points from two featured articles, eight good articles and a hundred good article reviews
• Harrias, with 1141 points from two featured articles, three featured lists, ten good articles, nine DYKs and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews
• Lee Vilenski with 869 points, Hog Farm with 801, Kingsif with 719, SounderBruce with 710, Dunkleosteus77 with 608 and MX with 515.

The rules for featured article reviews have been adjusted; reviews may cover three aspects of the article, content, images and sources, and contestants may receive points for each of these three types of review. Please also remember the requirement to mention the WikiCup when undertaking an FAR for which you intend to claim points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Stay Up Late

On 10 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Stay Up Late, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that John Oliver purchased the erotic furry watercolor Stay Up Late for $1,000, plus a $20,000 donation to a food bank? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Stay Up Late. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Stay Up Late), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Vanamonde (Talk) 00:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of List of Presidents of Washington College

Hello! Your submission of List of Presidents of Washington College at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

workshop talk page/Arbcom

hello, Im writing because the 'workshop' phase for Arbcom has finished, however multiple editors are continuing on its talk page, I don't feel comfortable engaging these individuals since the case in now waiting decision, what do I do? [1]they are pinging me?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa: I closed the talk page --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you reopen the page? It appears to be the only appropriate venue for identifying editing that fits Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision. Otherwise, where is the appropriate location? There was editing during the end of the evidence phase, and during the workshop phase, which I tried adding to the talk page for the proposed decision [2]. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hipal: I see that you added it to the evidence talk page, which should work. I see no reason to reopen the workshop talk page --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I found a work-around.

There should be some guidance on when to close the pages that gives plenty of time for responding to all the last minute commentary. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

You cannot stop the vitriol by closing talk pages. Eschoryii (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not your job but they all should be sanctioned. Eschoryii (talk) 10:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Eschoryii: But it is a way to enforce behavioral standards and to lower the stress of a case. There shouldn't be a never ending mudpit when there isn't anything to do at the case except continue to argue with the people you have been arguing with for months --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Accusation

Hi, just a heads up, I responded to your false accusation that I am running a sockpuppet account. While the evidence is near incontrovertible that this is not a legitimate account, it is not mine. As an administrator I hope you have the means and inclination to determine who is behind it. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, can you please let me know what's happening regarding your false accusation? How long do these accusations normally take to resolve? Are there any efforts underway to determine who is actually behind it? Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your comment

In Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Statement_by_Guerillero_2, could you clarify who you mean when you say "people who, have more than a decade of history editing in a battleground-like way"? In particular, I want to be clear whether you intended to refer to me, or not. I think this vague reference to people should be either clarified, with pings to those you mean or WP:REFACTORed and struck out/removed. Digging up ancient history is rarely helpful. Before replying, I also encourage you to check my essay at User:Piotrus/Morsels_of_wikiwisdom#Mud_sticks,_or_on_activity_of_editors with a follow up at User:Piotrus/Morsels_of_wikiwisdom#This_cannot_be_over-emphasized:_mud_sticks on this very topic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Unrelated - I suggest substituting "exposed" for "showed" in your comment on the Warsaw concentration camp, as the latter has two meanings in that context. François Robere (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Which comment do you mean (diff please, I don't recall making comments about Wcc recently, and OOC, how did you stumble upon this discussion?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I have seen Icewhiz's involvement being used as a blanket reason for why an editing restriction should be lifted by people who were on the other side of conflicts with him. That pool of people overlaps with a 13-year long history of problems in the topic area. The EEML was the oldest of the cases in the topic area that I can remember and is the most blatant example of a small group of editors pushing a POV in the topic area. It wasn't a dig at you. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification. Two rights don't make one wrong, I agree, although out of curiosity, which discussion do you mean? AFAIK only two editors from the EEML era are still active, and if you don't mean me and the other is right now half-topic banned from that TA, what is the relevance? And EEML wasn't the oldest case in this TA, but it was the culmination of a series. I'd have to dig which was the first one. Btw, remember User:Russavia? I find it worthwhile to consider who ended up indef global(!) banned, and who tried to mend their ways and is still here, despite all the mud sticking. CLEANSTART is such an appealing opinion sometimes, but it is just not always possible (even when one is not under any sanctions). And, of course, there's the "bad" way of doing this (so when I say there are only two editors from that still case around, the odds are I am likely wrong, but how to tell, eh?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK for List of presidents of Washington College

On 21 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article List of presidents of Washington College, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that paneling from the east room of the Hynson–Ringgold House (pictured), the current official residence of the president of Washington College, was sold to the Baltimore Museum of Art in 1932? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, List of presidents of Washington College), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 07:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC) 12:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Hynson–Ringgold House

On 21 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hynson–Ringgold House, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that paneling from the east room of the Hynson–Ringgold House (pictured), the current official residence of the president of Washington College, was sold to the Baltimore Museum of Art in 1932? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Hynson–Ringgold House), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 07:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC) 12:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

EE sanctions

I don't see a strong reason for this discussion to continue --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why? I made my changes by wikipedia rules, and the other users didn't, yet I was the one being punished. Why is someone allowed to delete sourced quotes, does not participate in talk pages, does not explain his edits, and somebody else is punished insted of him. How is that even possible? Where did I brake any rule? Čeha (razgovor) 17:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC) If it was denied, where is the problem of letting my comment in it? If there is a sentence, a person which was sentanced has the right to comment it. At least it is so in majority of cases.Čeha (razgovor) 17:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC) @Ceha: Your appeal has been denied. Please stay away from the topic of Eastern Europe or the Balkan Peninsula for the next 6 months and show us how you can collaborate with other Wikipedians. Please note that your sanction applies to parts of articles as well. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC) I have no intention on breaking the rules. I always respected them wheter they are bad or good. However, I think it is fair to raise my opinon on them. That's called transparancy. Čeha (razgovor) 00:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC) AE is not a court and there is no justice here on wikipedia --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Little Girl Observing Lovers on a Train

On 23 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Little Girl Observing Lovers on a Train, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the pencil sketch for Little Girl Observing Lovers on a Train is in the private collection of George Lucas? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Little Girl Observing Lovers on a Train. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Little Girl Observing Lovers on a Train), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Vanamonde (Talk) 00:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposed RfC

Guerillero, I know you didn't ping me, but I have some thoughts on the RfC. Not so much the three write-ups, which are identical except for "day before" vs. "longest previously existing" vs. "9 months" (my rule of thumb for the last eight years was what you originally wrote, "6 months", but the exact number of months is something that can be further discussed).

The problem is, when you go back in time, what counts? I know that I've rescued any number of nominations where there had been an addition that was quickly reverted (minutes to days) that was causing DYKcheck to not see that this was 5x, but ignoring this brief jump it was a clear 5x. It's not reasonable, in my opinion, to count such blips whenever they happened, and I think we should make this clear if we're going to the trouble of clarifying the rules. Or at least include it in the RfC, because if we go to a "longest previously existing" model, having one of those blips count would be a gross injustice. Of course, I'm sure people are going to argue the "bad surprise" covers this, but there's going to have to be a lot of checking of old high points to make sure that there wasn't any copyvio involved, even though the offending text may have been removed years ago.

I think we could solve the main issue of the current debacle by either disallowing expansions by nominators who deleted text from the article prior to expansion, or by requiring that their expansion is calculated from the largest number of characters in the edit immediately before each of their various deletions prior to expansion. (I'm not going to worry about socking; if someone asked another editor to do the deletion for them, we either disqualify or apply the largest to that edit.) BlueMoonset (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I am interested in everyone's take on this. I am going to think about this tonight and get back to you --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK 5x RFC

Hey there. I heard that you had been planning to write up an RFC regarding the clarification of rules regarding the 5x requirement. It just so happened that I had been writing one as well but had to leave for a sudden affair before I could save the edit, and by the time I got back I had BlueMoonset had posted about your plans. Since you had been asking for input earlier, I was wondering if it's okay with you if I could post here what I had written up and see if it could help in formulating the RfC. For your reference. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Based on the discussion on the Template:Did you know nominations/Flag of Ulster nomination, it appears that there is some disagreement regarding the interpretation of the 5x expansion for criterion for DYK (for the benefit of those who may be unaware, one of the criteria for DYK article eligibility is that the article must have accomplished a 5x prose expansion that started within seven days prior to being nominated). In particular, there is disagreement if the 5x expansion should be counted based on the revision prior to the beginning of expansion, or if should be based on the largest version that ever existed. It has happened in the past that articles that were nominated at DYK had prior larger revisions that were cut down due to various reasons, whether it be due to cleanup, unsourced statements, or copyvios. WP:DYKSG#A4 states that 5x counts from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it were up for deletion; however, it seems clear from the earlier discussion that there's disagreement on exactly what "previously existing article" means.

This RfC aims to answer the following questions:

1. What counts as the "previously existing article" for the purposes of 5x expansion: the revision immediately prior to the start of expansion, or the largest revision that ever existed even if it had been cut down and even if that revision is months or years old?
2. Should cases where the a 5x expansion occurred but the nominator was unaware of earlier larger revisions and did expansions in good faith be allowed to be nominated or approved (if they were already nominated)?
3. Does a nominator cutting down an article due to "low-quality" content, then much later returning to the article and doing a 5x expansion of the cut material count as "gaming the system?"

Triple Crown

Congratulations to Guerillero, who is awarded the Triple Crown for his outstanding contributions. Keep up the good work! Damien Linnane (talk) 11:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Damien Linnane: Thank you! --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Airmail

Hey. Long time, no chat. Hope life's been treating you well in the last <checks notes> seven years.

I'm a bit concerned about using the image for Airmail. The license is PD-USGov, which I've since changed to PD-USGov-WPA, but I have two concerns:

• The picture is of the restoration, and I'm not sure if that impacts the copyright (i.e. does the restorer have copyright over their work, which is the entire middle)?
• The source is useless and attempts to find a better one have failed (it's possibly a color adjustment someone has done to the photo here)

The image is probably fine, but is it "put on the main page" fine? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: Heya, Sven. It has been a while. I think the image is fine. A copyright for the restoration is not outside of the realm of possibility, but it would be quite the lift to prove to a jury that it passes the Feist v Rural test, especially if the restored painting closely the original. (It matches this photo of what claims to be a sketch). FWIW, I agree that someone did a bad crop of that photo. I can not find it on flickr. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Works for me. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Antisemitism in Poland: Motion (May 2020)

The following is added as a remedy to the Antisemitism in Poland arbitration case: 7) 500/30 restriction: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. This prohibition may be enforced preemptively by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP), or by other methods such as reverts, pending changes protection, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 rule are not considered edit warring.

• • Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by the methods mentioned above.
  • Standard discretionary sanctions as authorized by the Eastern Europe arbitration case remain in effect for this topic area.

Passed 6 to 0 by motion at 19:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

For the arbitration committee, Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 20:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 May newsletter

The second round of the 2022 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 115 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top seven contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 11 featured articles and the 79 good articles achieved in total by contestants.

Our top scorers in round 2 were:

1. Epicgenius, with 1264 points from 2 featured article, 4 good articles and 18 DYKs. Epicgenius was a finalist last year but has now withdrawn from the contest as he pursues a new career path.
2. AryKun, with 1172 points from two featured articles, one good article and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews.
3. Bloom6132, with 605 points from 44 in the news items and 4 DYKs.
4. Sammi Brie, with 573 points from 8 GAs and 21 DYKs.
5. Ealdgyth, with 567 points from 11 GAs and 34 good and featured article reviews.
6. Panini!, with 549 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and several other sources.
7. Lee Vilenski, with 545 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and a number of reviews.

The rules for featured and good article reviews require the review to be of sufficient length; brief quick fails and very short reviews will generally not be awarded points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)