Jump to content

User talk:Valereee

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Valereee (talk | contribs) at 14:18, 16 January 2021 (→Reply Tool so far: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


non-regulars answering edit requests at articles that have plenty of regulars

Copy-paste from Talk:Killing of George Floyd

EEng wrote:

  • (Idea 1) One way would be a template with parameters X and Y. When present on a talk page, it causes edit requests on that page to not appear in the patrol queue (or whatever they call it) if there have been at least X edits (non-bot edits) to the talk page within the last Y days. Something like that.
  • (Idea 2) Or maybe that should be the default all the time, no template needed.
  • (Idea 3) Or maybe either of the above, plus if the request remains unanswered after Z days, then it goes in the general queue of edit requests needing answering.
Unfortunately this will take some technical work, not sure how much though. How about you and I commit to remembering to raise this at VP.

I really like 2+3, but 1+3 might be an easier sell. An added benefit is that this represents lessening the burden on editors patrolling requested edits.

Is there any perceived benefit to noninvolved editors responding to edit requests? It's possible the regulars at an article could be owny enough that they just mark all requested changes as answered/not done. Right now they'd have to answer those requests within minutes to ensure no fresh set of eyes shows up. Changing it to at least Z days might be seen as a downside? —valereee (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the right question is Is there any perceived benefit to noninvolved editors responding to edit requests when there are editors active on the article's talk page on a daily basis? Answer: No, and in fact it's a net negative. Semi-protected articles (and semi is, I suspect, by far the most common form of protection) are that way because there're (shall we say) lots and lots of people editing, and therefore available for handling edit requests.
So on reflection, I wonder how useful this patrolling-by-drive-by-editors actually is. Unless there's some flaw in my logic above (and I stand ready to be corrected on it), I would think that the vast majority of edit requests, if patrollers would just leave them alone, would be answered within 24 to 48 by editors active on the page. EEng 21:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(orange butt icon Buttinsky) - noninvolved is defined in a few dictionaries, but not in Oxford. I checked to see how it's trending and it flatlined. confused face icon Just curious...maybe it's just me being picky but wouldn't uninvolved editors be the better choice? Atsme Talk 📧 18:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, totally —valereee (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UNEVOLVED. EEng 01:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, there are 10,000+ semiprotected articles. Orinx has 2 watchers, 1 of whom visited recent edits. —valereee (talk) 12:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And interestingly...there are ~20 current requests at semiprotected edit requests. One, at Balkans, is a month old. Eight are from today. I'm sure some patrollers come in and start with the fresh requests, figuring some of them will be easy to handle. And there doesn't seem to be any instructions for people on how to handle requests, unless it would be somewhere other than Wikipedia:Edit_requests#Responding_to_requests_and_mandatory_copyright_attribution —valereee (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Saw the comment on the article's Talk Page, and followed the discussion here) As another possible idea (independent from the ones above), might it help to write a polite essay on the problem of drive-by patrolling editors who flip edit requests to "answered" while posting useless and/or unhelpful comments that frustrate newbies? The intended audience would be the problematic drive-by editors themselves, explaining to them why they cause more problems than they solve by their behavior (including examples). Then create a WP shortcut to that essay page (perhaps "WP:EDITREQUESTFAIL" or something more catchy), and when you see a drive-by editor make a problematic edit like that, just revert them with a polite edit summary like "Reverted good faith but unhelpful comment per WP:EDITREQUESTFAIL". Doing so would 1) remove their useless post, 2) flip the "Y" back to "N" on the answer (to attract a better answer from a more knowledgeable editor), and 3) politely direct the drive-by editor to a well written page where he or she can learn why their short-sighted and problematic edit was reverted. I suspect most of the problematic editors would learn quickly and stop doing that after a single instance; only obtuse patrollers would go right back to the Talk Page in question to combatively revert your revert of their useless post. Would instituting something like this be worthwhile, and gradually educate the community over time to stop making those kinds of unhelpful posts that mess up the edit request process? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AzureCitizen, it's not a bad idea. The problem here was that the person patrolling, who was just trying to help, probably should have just recognized the situation for what it was: a requested edit that may or may not be a reasonable change to ask for, to an article currently being heavily edited and with hundreds of active watchers. I believe the correct decision is move on, as someone brand new to this article is unlikely to be able to answer almost any edit request better than someone already working here. —valereee (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EEng invited me here from the article talk because I was "missing the point". Conceptually, I have no problem if we want to optimize the edit request process site wide. However, the edit request response that spurred this was fine. While the request did not cite any sources, we don't need a response that "us regulars know everything there is to know, it's been discussed ad nauseaum, and consensus ain't changing." Perhaps there is something we missing before, there is new information, or this editor has a new angle? Or maybe they're just wrong or trolling. In any event, inviting them to establish consensus is a neutral response that encourages good-faith editors and does not feed any would-be trolls.—Bagumba (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bagumba, I guess I don't agree that the response was fine. It felt to me like someone who decided to help out at requested edits, dropped in, made their best guess as to what might be a halfway reasonable response, and moved on to the next request. It wasn't helpful to someone making their first edit. What does 'please gain consensus before suggesting this alteration' even MEAN to someone making their first edit, much less their first edit request? That is a very high-traffic article with HUNDREDS of watchers, so there are many people available who understand the article, and answering an edit request there right now probably requires some level of familiarity or willingness to become familiar with it. This isn't some West Texas high school protected because someone keeps changing the name of the principal from Patsy to Pussy and someone's making an edit request to ask we change the stated location because they just put up a new building. —valereee (talk) 11:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
... made their best guess as to what might be a halfway reasonable response ... Maybe, maybe not. I as a semi-regular on that page would likely have said something as neutral and avoided outright saying the OP was wrong or assume I was necessarily up-to-date on the latest sources. You do have a point of regulars throwing the word "consensus" around, which might not be accessible to a complete newbie, but neither is pointing them that a way to an FAQ or giving them the impression that consensus cannot change because I am all wise (well ... I am, but ...) While I'm not saying edit request patrolling can't be improved, I am saying that the response in this specific case was fine, even if the (speculated) rationale behind it might not have been.—Bagumba (talk) 12:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bagumba, believe me, I've seen regulars at a page give unfriendly and unhelpful and sometimes deliberately obtuse responses to edit requests. Let's for the sake of argument leave aside the quality of this particular response; I'm not even sure it's important. My feeling is that on a page that is currently being heavily edited and is actively watched by hundreds, an edit request response from someone who is unfamiliar with the article isn't likely to be as on point as the most-helpful response that could be given by the most-well-intentioned regular, and so when a patroller lands on a talk page at such an article, it's highly likely the best move is to move on to the next edit request. Would you be more likely to agree with that? —valereee (talk) 13:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we move away from this particular response, I'm indifferent on any process changes. Cheers. —Bagumba (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. What does move away from this particular response mean, exactly? EEng 17:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, it was in response to Valereee's ... leave aside the quality of this particular response—Bagumba (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. EEng 01:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

an edit request response from someone who is unfamiliar with the article isn't likely to be as on point as the most-helpful response that could be given by the most-well-intentioned regular, and so when a patroller lands on a talk page at such an article, it's highly likely the best move is to move on to the next edit request – Yes, though I'd put it a bit more strongly: Even a mediocre response from a regular is likely to be at least as good as any response make by someone unfamiliar with the article. I've bolded part of your post because it's pretty much what we want, though I'd add that even better than the patroller recognizing they should move on would be for the system to never take the patroller to the page at all. EEng 17:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that would be a training issue. Having the edit request just not show up at the various lists for 24 hours would likely fix the problem without instruction creep and retraining of every new patroller. There's just really very little reason for an edit request to be funneled to a random patroller before 24 hours have gone by. Any page that has an urgent change needed is likely to have multiple editors headed there or working there already. —valereee (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with everything you just said, with the exception that I don't know what it is you're saying would be a training issue. EEng 01:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, sorry, by 'training issue' I just meant that trying to get patrollers to recognize when their help isn't needed means 1. adding to the instructions and 2. getting each new patroller to actually read and internalize the instructions.
If instead requested edits simply don't show up at Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests and User:AnomieBOT/SPERTable and wherever else they transclude to for say 24 hours, we don't have that same issue. We don't have to train patrollers. —valereee (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right. That's what you said and that's what I agreed was the best thing to happen. We are in violent agreement. EEng 12:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to with the exception that I don't know what it is you're saying would be a training issue. —valereee (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you must be reading something I said backwards, but no matter. So... shall we summarize the possible changes to the process we're contemplating, and then where do we raise this? EEng 17:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would be not unheard of, and yes. I think we could raise it at Wikipedia talk:Edit requests or at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). My best guess would be Village pump policy; only 39 watchers visited last edits at the talk page for edit requests.

drafting proposal

Something like:
Patrollers of requested edits at semiprotected articles sometimes are the first to visit a request at even heavily-edited talk pages. Often some familiarity with the article and recent talk page discussion would allow for more helpful response, and on pages that are currently being heavily edited, there are usually many editors available to help. We’re suggesting that edit requests on talk pages that are currently being heavily edited simply not show up at at Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests and User:AnomieBOT/SPERTable for 24 hours, or that they're greyed out for the first 24 hours to indicate they aren't in urgent need of help from patrollers, to give regulars at high-traffic articles a chance to respond. This will lessen the burden on patrollers at edit requests and increase the likelihood new editors’ requests will be answered by someone familiar with ongoing discussions at that article.
That's terrible, but as a draft. —valereee (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EEng,I've given it a copyedit. —valereee (talk) 14:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Will be distracted for the next week or so but don't let me forget to get back to this. EEng 02:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still have this in my ping list. Right now I'm busy grinding someone into a grease spot. EEng 00:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, same —valereee (talk) 01:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you're grinding someone into a grease spot as well? That's a side of you I haven't seen before. EEng 01:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not my choice; they're pretty much forcing me to. —valereee (talk) 16:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EEng is this still on the radar? —valereee (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I was just looking guiltily at it last night. The answer is yes, but I'm still just too distracted to concentrate on it. Don't worry, I never forget a commitment. EEng 00:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC) Not that I remember, anyway.[reply]
Zero worries, there's no urgency. —valereee (talk) 01:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still on my mind. EEng 05:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The elephant never forgets. EEng 02:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I really wish I'd followed up on this before now. Every day at T:Joe Biden we've got people swooping in out of nowhere saying the same stupid thing over and over: Get consensus first, Get consensus first, Get consensus first, Get consensus first, Get consensus first, Get consensus first, like they've helped by saying that. I'm so sick of people doing mindless things that help not at all and waste others' time. EEng 04:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Silver lining: we now have another really good example of why it makes sense to propose something like this. —valereee (talk) 09:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbor-treeish break

I have another thought on how to go about this, but first I need to understand something. Where do these protected edit requests come from? What I mean is, how do IP editors stumble into the place where they're told "You can't edit this article, but if you fill in this box that will make a post to the talk page, with this little template attached"? I had imagine that it pops up when they try to edit the article, but I logged out just now and I realize that, in fact, when an IP tries to edit a protected article, there is simply no edit button for them to click. So where, exactly, do these templated posts come from?

The reason I ask is that, it seems to me, the way to fix our problem is just to make is so the edit-request template is omitted from the post. In other words, we don't need options for how the request will be handled, what we need an option to make the post just a simple post, without the request template. EEng 19:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, I think these must be people who are used to being able to edit, or people sophisticated enough to realize viewing source might let you edit. If you log out and click view source, you get an edit request button. —valereee (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, it's all coming back to me now. OK, so we need to investigate how that template pops up, and what mechanism can be inserted to modify that on an article-by-article basis, perhaps based on some magic word or template inserted on the article's talk page. EEng 20:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, I've already poured myself a glass of wine. Don't judge. But why is that better than having edit requests for articles (that have 400+ watchers who visited recent edits/have 50 edits per day) or edit requests less than 24 hours old simply not show up at the edit requests dashboard? That's probably where most of these eager beavers are coming from. —valereee (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not to butt in, but I saw "investigate how that template pops up". I'm thinking you may be referring to the set of templates that is MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext (shown when clicking "view source"). The one shown in the header after you click "submit an edit request" and are redirected to the talk page is Template:Edit extended-protected/editintro. The template popping up in the post itself is the preload: Template:Submit_an_edit_request/preload. Mobile editors can't see any of this, though, and when they click the pencil they just see "This page is protected to prevent vandalism", so how on earth they're submitting requests I don't know...
Regarding the "no consensus" replies, probably just a habit of using the userscript and giving the generic responses I think. I've been guilty of it too, but now that you mention it, I suppose it is a pretty unhelpful thing to reply with. Also worth noting Module:Protected edit request shows the banner. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PR, butt in any time. :) —valereee (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question 2

Levivich accused me of "cheery picking" here:[1], Are you going to block him for that or does that only apply to me? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not confident I'm an admin at that article any more. You'll have to ask someone else for help while I figure that out. —valereee (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, you should lift the source restriction you imposed on the article. You also didn't gather consensus for it at the AN thread.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's an open discussion on that. —valereee (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the normal rules for DS, in line with Bbb23’s close as well, are that there needs to be a “clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved editors” at AN to overturn/modify a DS sanction placed by another administrator. If there’s no consensus that generally means the status quo prevails. Strictly speaking, it’s on you to gather consensus to remove it. By my rough count, the support is 7-4 for retaining the restriction for the time being. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The SK article is not under DS and valereees rule is not a DS sanction.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:Syrian Kurdistan. Specifically: The article Syrian Kurdistan, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is currently subject to discretionary sanctions authorised by the community. The current restrictions are: [...]. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion at AN is now archived. There was no consensus for it. Can you now remove the source restriction? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting determination. 7-4 editors in support last I counted (that's about 65%, in support). Whether you call this a consensus in favour, or no consensus, is irrelevant, as either way there was no consensus to overturn the restriction. It seems to be working, too. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a vote. But if we remove the involved editors, I see 1 in support and 1 against, the rest are unclear. The source restriction failed to get support.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What?? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we accept the 1-1 count as accurate, that's still no consensus to overturn the restriction, which means the restriction stays in place, as explained up above. And anyway, what source is it that you want to include in the article that the restriction is preventing you from including? There are now more than 30 recent academic works cited in the article, what non-academic source could we possibly need? Levivich harass/hound 06:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are some well sourced historical texts and maps that needs to be restored into the article and attributed to those historical sources, to show a historical view. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The maps (specially the ones depicting a Kurdistan outside! of present-day Syria, one even depicting one in Arabic script at lake Urmiah far away from Syria, giving the impression Syria span all over to Urmiah) were simply included by a never-ending edit-war which now finally stopped thanks to the measures taken.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SD, you can unarchive and request a formal close. It may be moot if arbcom accepts a case. —valereee (talk) 12:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Tool so far

hi Valereee – I'm Peter, one of the people at the Wikimedia Foundation working on the new Reply Tool for talk pages.

When looking over recent changes to see how the Reply Tool was being used at en.wiki, I saw your username quite a bit. This led me to wonder: what do you think of the tool so far? Is it at all changing how you think about and/or use talk pages? No worries if nothing immediately comes to mind. Although, if something does strike you at some future point, we'd value you letting us know (I see you've already talked with Whatamidoing (WMF) at mediawiki.org: https://w.wiki/tZq). PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, @PPelberg (WMF)! I really like it. One of the things I wish I could do is use it to edit a reply I've made -- sometimes, one of the best things about it is that I don't have to scroll up through a very long convo, click edit, then scroll down looking for my reply so I can fix a typo. Also it would be nice to be able to see the preview without having to toggle to source -- I've multiple times had to re-edit because I put markup in, then realized the reply tool surrounds it with nowiki. :) This is all just me, though. Probably most people are more nimble/learn faster. :)
I don't think it's changing how I think about or use talk pages. I'm a fairly experienced user, though, so I guess I wouldn't have expected it to? I was using reply-link before @Levivich let me know I could use this tool instead. I like that I can toggle between VisEd and source, and I like that it doesn't automatically ping but instead gives me the option to choose who to ping. Also I understand it actually works at User talk:EEng which is pretty astonishing. —valereee (talk) 02:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Editing team is talking about a tool for quick edits. I was skeptical of this idea, but after using the Reply tool for ... um ... a lot of edits, I have changed my mind. If I didn't want to slog through a long section to find the right place to post my comment in the first place, then I still won't want to slog through it to fix a typo. I love the link feature in the visual mode, so I almost never have to edit to fix a link now.
(EEng archived several threads recently.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to share what you think of the tool so far, @Valereee. It looks like @Whatamidoing (WMF) shared details about the plans we have for editing specific comments (thank you, Sherry). If you'd like to know when there are updates about this functionality, I'd recommend watching this Phabricator ticket: T245225.
A couple responses to other things you mentioned...
Also it would be nice to be able to see the preview without having to toggle to source -- I've multiple times had to re-edit because I put markup in, then realized the reply tool surrounds it with nowiki.
Ah, is this because you are expecting the Reply Tool's visual mode to support wikitext? If so, do you have any ideas for how you might've developed that expectation?
I really like it.
The team will be glad to hear this. If any other thoughts/questions come up as you're using it, please just ping @Whatamidoing (WMF) or me. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PPelberg (WMF) Ah, is this because you are expecting the Reply Tool's visual mode to support wikitext? I assume because in VisEd, I can type {{ and it opens a box in which I can call up a template? Also maybe that I've copied source and inserted it in VisEd and it's worked. It's not that big a deal, I got used to it pretty quickly and just try to remember to toggle to source when I need to insert markup, but it would still be nice to see the preview in Visual. It's just really handy to have it right there in real time. Thanks for the Phab ticket, I'll watch it! —valereee (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to review the policy and MOS violations that were reinstated at Dudjom Jigdral Yeshe Dorje and its talk page discussion, since you are experienced and have dealt with similar RS and NPOV issues in this area. — MarkH21talk 20:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll take a look. —valereee (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Two years!

- Have a good new year! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Gerda Arendt! Here's hoping both our years will be much better than the last! :) —valereee (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Band1301

I know you blocked this user last month, so just wanted to point you out to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Band1301... I reported a user there at the start of the month, but now it's highly likely a WP:DUCK case, exact same editing style as Band1301. Magitroopa (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Magitroopa. —valereee (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This week's article for improvement (week 2, 2021)

Hello, Valereee. The article for improvement of the week is:

Lumbersexual

Please be bold and help improve it!

Previous selections: Pork chop • Fishing industry

Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions[reply]

This Month in GLAM: December 2020



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

This Month in GLAM: December 2020



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

DiscussionTools

Hi, Valereee,

The Editing team has scheduled a major update to mw:Extension:DiscussionTools (the new Reply tool) for next week's deployment train. Since you invoke the feature from a script (I do, too), you're probably going to see that update next week, before it's officially released in the mw:Beta Feature system. The new update will use a similar system for starting a ==New discussion==. As before, full-page wikitext editing will not be affected. There is more information on the project page at mw:Talk pages project/New discussion.

You don't have to do anything about this; I just didn't want you to be surprised. If you encounter problems next week, please ping me or leave a note on the talk page for the project. Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Whatamidoing (WMF) thank you, I look forward to seeing whatever changes there are! Oooh, we'll be able to start a new discussion? Cool! —valereee (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the plan. It should appear whenever you click the "New section" (or anything else that results in &action=edit&section=new in the URL). I believe that the last bit of code is on its way to QA soon, so there's still plenty of opportunity for things to go wrong/get delayed, but it should be nice whenever it gets here. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 04:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal User

@Valeree Hi, I would like to report a vandal user User: 2405:201:2:E939:A4E8:5949:7AB5:A921 who vandalized the page 2020–21 Coppa Italia at 18:49 of 14 January 2021. Have a good day Dr Salvus (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Dr SalvusDr Salvus (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr Salvus why do we think it's vandalism rather than simply a good-faith but incorrect edit? —valereee (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Valeree it is patently vandalism. Milan called him "Merda Jr" and Inter "Merda". Merda means "Shit" in Italian. It looks like pure vandalism to me. Please see the cronology. Dr Salvus (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Dr SalvusDr Salvus (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr Salvus ah, I see. Then yes, it's vandalism, although rather pointless vandalism on English wikipedia. :) It doesn't look like they're on a spree, that's the only edit they've made, so I'll just warn them at their user talk. You can also warn other users at their user talk for things like this. —valereee (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee ok, I will warn other users later. Have a good day Dr Salvus (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Dr SalvusDr Salvus (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP 20

Thank you for providing alt texts for the lead images for DYK! - Happy Wikipedia 20, - proud of a little bit on the Main page today, and 5 years ago, and 10 years ago, look: create a new style - revive - complete! I sang in the revival mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Gerda Arendt! I see that on the MP today! Cool on the revival -- I see your upcoming image hook that shows musicians socially distanced, and I'm thinking about mentioning that in the alt —valereee (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, good observation! Next on Sunday, hopefully. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As-Sajda

Hi, pinging you again about As-Sajda and related articles (previous thread here). JorgeLaArdilla is doing it again [2] [3], multiple editors pointed out problems in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#JorgeLaArdilla's_edits_on_Quran_suras those problems are still not fixed, and in the discussion no one seems to agree with the user's edits. Could you take a look again? Sorry for troubling you. HaEr48 (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HaEr48 I've posted to their talk. I'm wondering if a p-block from the article is what's needed, although based on the WP Islam discussion, perhaps what they need is to stop editing articles about Islam directly? Does it feel to you as if they're not able to be neutral around Islam articles? —valereee (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee, What is a p-block? I'm not a good judge of character to see if the they're able to be neutral. Some of their incremental edits are fine, the problem is that there is a set of articles about Islam (more specifically about Quranic chapters/suras) that they're editing in a similar pattern and those edits have similar problems. I have tried to explain the problem in that WP Islam discussion as well as in some of the articles talk pages, but sometimes it does get tiring if they don't seem to get the point and insists to restore the edits without consensus or fixing the problems mentioned. HaEr48 (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I found out about WP:PBLOCK. If such thing is possible, the problematic area where I interacted with them is the articles in this category: Category:Chapters in the Quran. I don't know if they make disruptive edits elsewhere. HaEr48 (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately we can only do like 10 pblocks at a time, I think. Which unfortunately means the next thing to try would be a topic ban for Chapters of the Quran. That may be what's necessary. —valereee (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thank you for the suggestion. What kind of evidence do people need for a topic ban proposal? Would a temporary block with a warning to not repeat the behavior be a lighter next step? HaEr48 (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Really what we need to see is that an editor can't seem to get or refuses to get neutrality in a particular area. I don't know if we're there yet, but if JLA doesn't offer an extremely compelling explanation for the repeated reversions, certainly a p-block from that article will be necessary. —valereee (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My second edit is my first piece of evidence in my defence. I believe the improvement is the removal of confusion to the reader. The removal of a second Arabic script and it honorific-style counterpart means it is easier to recognise the Arabic script in foreign texts. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Valereee&oldid=1000745390"