User talk:Chess

Chess uses the Wikibreak Switch template, and plans to update this notice if a wikibreak is taken.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023

Hello Chess,

Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Reminders

Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord and #wikimedia-npp ^connect on IRC.
Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

WikiCup 2023 September newsletter

The fourth round of the competition has finished, with anyone scoring less than 673 points being eliminated. It was a high scoring round with all but one of the contestants who progressed to the final having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were

Epicgenius, with 2173 points topping the scores, gained mainly from a featured article, 38 good articles and 9 DYKs. He was followed by
Sammi Brie, with 1575 points, gained mainly from a featured article, 28 good articles and 50 good article reviews. Close behind was
Thebiguglyalien, with 1535 points mainly gained from a featured article, 15 good articles, 26 good article reviews and lots of bonus points.

Between them during round 4, contestants achieved 12 featured articles, 3 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 126 good articles, 46 DYK entries, 14 ITN entries, 67 featured article candidate reviews and 147 good article reviews. Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them and within 24 hours of the end of the final. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

I will be standing down as a judge after the end of the contest. I think the Cup encourages productive editors to improve their contributions to Wikipedia and I hope that someone else will step up to take over the running of the Cup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), and Cwmhiraeth (talk)

Guild of Copy Editors 2023 Annual Report

Guild of Copy Editors 2023 Annual Report

Our 2023 Annual Report is now ready for review.

Highlights:

Introduction
Membership news, obituary and election results
Summary of Drives, Blitzes and the Requests page
Closing words

– Your Guild coordinators: Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Wracking.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Inah Canabarro Lucas on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:31, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol May 2025 Backlog drive

May 2025 Backlog Drive \| New pages patrol
On 1 May 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Pages Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration motion under consideration

An investigation you filed, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Smallangryplanet/Archive#11_April_2025, is now the subject of Arbitration Committee motions. The motions are available at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Smallangryplanet and Lf8u2.

Your comments are welcome. If you need procedural assistance, you may contact the arbitration clerks either publicly or privately via email to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. For the Arbitration Committee, CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:14, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek: I think it'd be a good idea to also notify Vice regent, who commented at that SPI casepage. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think my edit summary pinged you, but just letting you know that after your !vote, I changed the wording of "would apply" to "should be followed" to make the question a bit more clear [1]. I don't think that wording change will have much of an effect on your !vote, but just letting you know in case it does. Thanks! Some1 (talk) 05:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Impact on Move Discussion

Thank you, @Chess, for the notification of the Arbitration Committee ban of the user who initiated the move request at Talk:2025 Gaza Strip anti-Hamas protests. Is there a way to further raise the implications of the ban on the move request besides a comment that might be missed by an admin or another user who seeks to close the move discussion? Coining (talk) 11:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Coining: There's no user-tagging template that specifically covers this situation. However, normally, you're allowed to tag blocked sockpuppets with Template:Confirmed sockpuppet and strike through their comments. I would personally come up with some kind of tag that looks similar to that one explaining the situation and striking through their !votes. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kshatriya close review

I'm not sure if the arguments in the discussion favoured a "support" close. A lot of people took the sources provided by Dympies at face value, but after doing a review of them, many had quotes taken out of context and some failed WP:V. You can see the review of sources here.

The proposed wording of the RFC question was: "Though many communities claimed Kshatriya status, the Rajputs were most successful in attaining it." In your closing statement you write: That being said, the proposed wording doesn't exactly reflect that "Rajputs attained Kshatriya". But the proposed wording says exactly that: "the Rajputs were most successful in attaining [Kshatriya status]." Neutral wording would say "most successful in claiming Kshatriya status". As it stands now, it is being said in WP:WikiVoice that Rajputs are Kshatriyas, which does seem a lot like caste WP:PROMOTION and I don't think Wikipedia should be taking sides when it comes to Indian castes. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 10:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TurboSuperA+: Your source analysis is interesting but wasn't provided at the RfC, so it can't play a role in my close.

The reason why I encouraged editors to provide an alternative wording is because the main bit of consensus is to include the claim in the article. The wording is more disputed. If you feel like a more neutral wording would be one that says Rajputs were "most successful in claiming Kshatriya status" you should propose that. That's why I emphasized that the wording can be changed. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a really confusing close, Chess. Unless I am misunderstanding, you are saying that the proposed statement should be included in the article even though it is poor and should be be changed. That sets a low bar for the quality of information which we provide: surely it is better to say nothing about something than to misrepresent?

Anyways, it is done now, I guess, and I'm not a regular participant in RfCs so will bow to your experience. - Sitush (talk) 04:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: It's a confusing close because it was a confusing discussion, but your understanding is essentially correct.

There's two aspects to the close. The first is summarizing what was agreed upon. The second is trying to move the discussion forwards.
In terms of what was agreed upon, there's two subpoints.
- Is there consensus to examine Rajputs' claim to Kshatriya status in that article?
  - Yes, there is.
  - Most editors on both sides agreed that Rajputs' claim to be Kshatriya, and there's plenty of reliable sources covering that.
  - Most editors also agree that there is value to discussing this in the article, NitinMlk says: It seems okay to summarise castes in the context of Kshatriya with proper details, along with listing Rajputs as the most successful claimants. But the proposed passing mention is misleading.
  - The main argument for excluding this dispute entirely is based on a misunderstanding of WP:NPOV: i.e. that there are many contrasting views on this, so we should exclude it entirely.
- Is there consensus to describe that claim as Though many communities claimed Kshatriya status, the Rajputs were most successful in attaining it?
  - This was significantly weaker.
  - Oppose !voters brought up a lot of potential issues.
  - For instance, LukeEmily made a lot of references to possible scholarly consensus about Rajputs being a "shudra varna", or how their acceptance as Kshatriya is political.
  - Another editor argued that the caste comparison was promotional.
  - There wasn't much engagement between the sides. Oppose argued that there should be context, support argued that this didn't invalidate the sourcing of the statement.
  - I would really have liked more discussion on the specific wording since it would make the consensus easier to evaluate. I evaluated it as "support" because support gave stronger arguments with better sourcing and more people. Additionally, many oppose !voters didn't argue that the wording was invalid, just that additional context needed to be added. This is kind of borderline, though.
  - You could also argue that the first subpoint had consensus, but the second subpoint did not have consensus or even had consensus against. However, I think it's not that important because in almost all cases the next steps should still be the same (propose a new wording and gain consensus).
The second goal I'm trying to achieve with the close is to try to push editors towards something other than going to WP:AN to overturn the close, succeeding, then waiting for another close, getting the same result, and going in circles. I see this all the time and it's honestly faster to just re-argue the parts of the discussion that were borderline rather than go WP:AN to see which side of the border is correct.
- Ideally, TurboSuperA+, NitinMlk, and you would go to Talk:Kshatriya to start a new discussion on an alternative wording that addresses your concerns, instead of rehashing this one.
- At that discussion, since it's now agreed that the article should include information regarding Rajputs' claim to Kshatriya, you can focus the discussion on the best way to express that.
- You will get a much stronger consensus on one side or the other, now that your concerns are addressed in a proposal that editors from both sides can agree upon.

If this is clearer than my original explanation, I could add something to the close. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 06:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will have a ponder! I appreciate you going to the trouble of explaining. - Sitush (talk) 07:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chess, Thank you for the detailed explanation. @Sitush:, with respect, I have to say that this close was incorrect. I was very surprised. In fact, the same RFC had been previously closed with "do not support" by another editor - and nothing new had been added since then. The opposing sources were very clear that they did not support the statement. Chess mentioned that I was mentioning their shudra status (in hindu texts, persian texts as well as opinions of modern scholars). Does that not directly contradict the statement? Also, I pointed out the opinion M.N.Srinivas as well as Gupta which clearly states that there is no consensus on who is a real kshatriya. They put Marathas, Rajputs, Jats, etc in the same bucket. Recent survey was also mentioned that Rajput upper caste claim is not accepted. I am not sure if you missed that - maybe I should have given all in one place. Dalits(Pasi community) have also merged with the Rajput community as shown by Kolff. @TurboSuperA+:, I agree with you. And almost no one addressed the opposing sources which directly contradict the RFC. Sources saying that "They were not accepted as kshatriya by Brahmins as well as other Kshatriya claimants" is the same as saying they were not most successful in attaining kshatriya status. If I claim to have a PhD from Cambridge and multiple scholars point out that my credentials are fabricated and that I graduated from University of Maryland, then I cannot say that I am most successful in claiming to be a graduate of Cambridge. Just my 2 cents.LukeEmily (talk) 05:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LukeEmily Ahem, I did actually graduate from Cambridge :) Although I do enjoy Maryland Cookies.

I think that the closure was contrived but no-one was going to do otherwise. It really just leaves us in the same SNAFU situation because all Chess has confirmed with the closure is that everyone still agrees that there isn't an issue with referring to Rajputs per se, just as they did before the RfC was opened. We are no nearer to resolving the actual issue which led to the RfC, which is how to refer to them. Basically, the biggest achievement here has been to reduce the list of open RfCs by one ... but that is scarcely the "fault" (for want of a better word) of Chess. It was and remains a nightmare, as most things related to Rajputs on Wikipedia tend to be.

People are going to have to find a way to agree on a phrasing that isn't so obviously inadequate. My money is on that being yet another RfC.Groundhog Day. - Sitush (talk) 06:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: A second RfC is what I was recommending. That RfC was flawed because it only had two options and you didn't discuss the precise wording beforehand (see WP:RFCBEFORE). This is a somewhat common result.

I think a better wording could actually achieve a consensus but you will have to write a draft before starting the RfC. Ideally, draft a whole section of the article.

The most surprising thing to me is that Kshatriya has two sentences about the term post-700 CE. Despite what appears to be 1300 years of controversy about who is allowed to call themselves a "Kshatriya", the article ignores the issue. This isn't part of the close or anything, but that's a huge omission. You seem to have the sources that describe the dispute (51 references!!), you agree on what the dispute is about (can groups become or claim to be Kshatriya?), can even agree on the opposing sides (yes, no, only in certain contexts, etc), and even manage to see this as a subjective issue.

I think you should start big instead of making incremental changes, and ideally try to resolve WP:NPOV disputes by explaining multiple sides of the issue instead of removing disputed content. You might have better success that way. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There will never be agreement beyond a WP:DICDEF type of meta level article. Caste is a social, political, religious and economic battleground in the real world and varna is at the heart of caste. I've been dealing with it on Wikipedia for over 15 years, have seen cohorts of contributors come and go, and have no doubt that some who participated in the RfC will be forced to go soon.

Glorification is central to the battle, sock- and meatpuppetry is rife, as is tag-teaming etc, and ArbCom-imposed structures have only a limited effect. For most contributors over the years, this article isn't a pseudo-academic encyclopedia exercise but rather a tool for personal ends. There are times when the mission of Wikipedia has to accept defeat: we either completely ban from such articles all people with less than a truly massive amount of WP experience and all of Indian descent (impossible, and throwing the baby out with the bathwater) or we live with continuous skirmishes and a poor article. - Sitush (talk) 06:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your source analysis is interesting but wasn't provided at the RfC, so it can't play a role in my close.-Chess. Chess, the source analysis by TurboSuperA+ indicates a major issue with the sources provided. I agree that it was not supplied earlier and hence did not play a part in your close but now that it is supplied, should we not revisit if the close was correct?LukeEmily (talk) 06:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LukeEmily: Sure. I would say the best place to do that is the talk page. There are still outstanding issues with the wording. That's why I'm trying to move towards a new RfC on the wording choice instead of the close review cycle that doesn't actually go anywhere. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:24, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LukeEmily and TurboSuperA+ Although the RfC is now closed with a rather contentious result, I am not going to implement the wording as it has too many problems with it. Although Ekdalian's comment was discarded by the closer, they did raise valid points about Dympies's conduct especially with regards to caste glorification.[2] Those that have problems about Dympies's conduct throughout the RfC can discuss it on WP:AE where there is currently a complaint against him right now at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Dympies. Discussing the wording, if necessary, should be the next step if anyone wants to really add the content on Kshatriya. Koshuri ^(グ) 07:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Koshuri Sultan, here you appear to be canvassing users for ARE report against me. Such behavior doesn't go unnoticed. Ekdalian's remarks should better be ignored as they got logged warning recently for poisoning the well against other users including me.[3] And whats so wrong about this RfC? It was just another RfC meant to resolve a content dispute which saw participation from a lot of users. Dramatically enough, you had yourself supported the proposal and are now finding faults in it. Dympies (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dympies People are allowed to change their mind, often based on arguments advanced by other people. This is the second time inside a week that you have seemed to suggest otherwise (see here) and it doesn't bode well for the entire concept of consensus-building. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a battleground of "them" versus "us". Anyways, this discussion really should be at the article talk page, not here. - Sitush (talk) 05:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2025-18

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Updates for editors

Event organizers who host collaborative activities on multiple wikis, including Bengali, Japanese, and Korean Wikipedias, will have access to the CampaignEvents extension this week. Also, admins in the Wikipedia where the extension is enabled will automatically be granted the event organizer right soon. They won't have to manually grant themselves the right before they can manage events as requested by a community.
View all 19 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week.

Updates for technical contributors

The release of the next major version of Codex, the design system for Wikimedia, is scheduled for 29 April 2025. Technical editors will have access to the release by the week of 5 May 2025. This update will include a number of breaking changes and minor visual changes. Instructions on handling the breaking and visual changes are documented on this page. Pre-release testing is reported in T386298, with post-release issues tracked in T392379 and T392390.
Users of Wiki Replicas will notice that the database views of ipblocks, ipblocks_ipindex, and ipblocks_compat are now deprecated. Users can query the block and block_target new views that mirror the new tables in the production database instead. The deprecated views will be removed entirely from Wiki Replicas in June, 2025.
Detailed code updates later this week: MediaWiki

In depth

The latest quarterly Language and Internationalization Newsletter is now available. This edition includes an overview of the improved Content Translation Dashboard Tool, support for new languages, highlights from the Wiki Loves Ramadan campaign, results from the Language Onboarding Experiment, an analysis of topic diversity in articles, and information on upcoming community meetings and events.

Meetings and events

The Let's Connect Learning Clinic will take place on April 29 at 14:30 UTC. This edition will focus on "Understanding and Navigating Conflict in Wikimedia Projects". You can register now to attend.
The 2025 Wikimedia Hackathon, which brings the global technical community together to connect, brainstorm, and hack existing projects, will take place from May 2 to 4th, 2025, at Istanbul, Turkey.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 19:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2025 May newsletter

The second round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 28 April at 23:59 UTC. To reiterate what we said in the previous newsletter, we are no longer disqualifying contestants based on how many points (now known as round points) they received. Instead, the contestants with the highest round-point totals now receive tournament points at the end of each round. These tournament points are carried over between rounds, and can only be earned if a competitor is among the top 16 round-point scorers at the end of each round. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far. Everyone who competed in round 2 will advance to round 3 unless they have withdrawn or been banned.

Round 2 was quite competitive. Four contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and eight scored more than 500 points (including one who has withdrawn). The following competitors scored at least 800 points:

BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,233 round points from 24 good articles, 28 Did you know articles, and one In the news nomination, mainly about athletes and politicians
Thebiguglyalien (submissions) with 1,127 round points, almost entirely from two high-multiplier featured articles on Black Widow (Natasha Romanova) and Grace Coolidge, in addition to two GAs and two reviews
History6042 (submissions) with 1,088 round points from four featured lists about Michelin-starred restaurants, nine good articles and a good topic mostly on Olympic-related subjects, seven ITN articles, and dozens of reviews
Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1,085 round points from three FAs, one GA, and four DYKs on military history, as well as 18 reviews
Arconning (submissions) with 887 round points, mostly from four FLs, six GAs, and seven DYKs on Olympic topics, along with more than two dozen reviews

In addition, we would like to recognize Generalissima (submissions) for her efforts; she scored 801 round points but withdrew before the end of the round.

The full scores for round 2 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 13 featured articles, 20 featured lists, 4 featured-topic articles, 138 good articles, 7 good-topic articles, and more than 100 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 19 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 300 reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed in Round 3. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]