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 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.

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Ranked-choice voting in the United States on a "Politics, government, and law" 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 03:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2024 United States presidential election on a "Politics, government, and law" 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 17:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, and for taking the trouble to read through the background.

yes, it's boring to stick narrowly to source material, but that's what editing a CT on Wikipedia requires.

The page where I cited that joke, like a very large number of IP pages, is marked precisely by too many editors not sticking to the source material, but talking their way around it, in many cases, documentably, without even troubling themselves to read those sources. This is the curse of that area. Best regards Nishidani (talk) 06:37, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree, Nishidani, and I've gone on record several times that editors ignoring or misusing source material are the most serious form of disruption we face in several CTs. But responding with strong language - or other rhetoric - makes it near impossible to deal with that problem. I hope to see you around. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm extremely careful about language. Any practiced writer knows that every word that comes to mind opens up several options, each one potentially riding off in a different direction. And the art one learns consists of herding them along, thinning out the the limper or rebarbative or untamable ones, until the remainder can be corraled into a sentence that best suits the desired intended meaning. The premise of focused writing is that the mind must, in short, conduct a dialogue with itself as it oversees the surge of language, before speaking to an other.

My use of that joke was not rhetorical in the detrimental sense of that word: (Brian Vickers has a wonderful book on the abused term showing how central it was to civilized discourse traditionally). In theory, everything said can be parsed in terms of rhetoric's extensive taxinomy. A completely innocuous note can be heard/read (as often in conversation when it was an art), beyond whatever its author's intention, to yield up a tone of crassness, Schadenfreude, contempt, an ironic smirk, etc. seething between the simple form of a straightforward to-and-fro of chatting That is why we read novels: the best authors thrive deliciously on ambiguities intrinsic to language's mischievous playfulness.

Rhetoric doesn't, in this high sense, mean a kind of disingenuous verbal posturing to achieve, cynically, a contrived effect. In the disputed edit, I underlined my view by citing an academic source, so that what I said wouldn't be dismissed as some off-the-top of the head opinion (which is mostly what happens on talk pages). I added the joke as an 'illustrative' afterthought to, I thought, gentle the laborious academic source's thrust by something that would appeal to commonsense.

Jokes are deep, far too complex in their compact, unpacked laconic insights into culture and psychology, to be shrugged off (not that you were doing this in choosing the term) as 'rhetorical'. For me, rhetoric in the modern sense is a damaged good monopolized by politicians and their journalistic sutlers, used cynically to persuade others of something the speakers may not even quite believe or even think. (if thinking is appropriate to describe the thoughtless 'weaponization' of words to win an argument, or blindside one's interlocutor, or spellbind an audience).

A good many AE cases against me, and there are many, have pivoted on taking anything I write that goes beyond what Miss Manners would say to her daughter as 'intemperate', 'inflammatory', 'antisemitic' or whatever. And most did not achieve their end when the issue was laid before peers for a judgment. I admit I have been exasperated at times but that has not been the norm, quite rare in fact. At least five stick in my craw, because they arose, not from the animosity of editors, but from admins who failed to read correctly what I'd written, and rushed to a sanction. Most were overturned within a day or two when the misprision, or failure to catch the irony, was explained (often by others). I have consistently said when that happened, once the issue was cleared, that I don't fault the admins in question (save in one case). For the simple reason that, were I placed in their position, with that terrible fardel of having to read a huge amount of indifferent prose and random argufying, I would throw up my hands in despair. I admire them for that unthankful task and consider that flawed moments of judgment cannot but crop up, even with the best of wills, due to the rapid nature of wikipedia talking.

This margin is greater the greater the conflictual reality we strive to represent in 'contentious' topic areas. In that area, my concern from the beginning has been a systemic bias that saps NPOV. Precisely because we all have, or should have, after the Holocaust, antennae fine-tuned to antisemitism, a mainstream tendency has arisen which, in conflating Israel a nation-state with Jews as one coherent identity, has engendered a hypersensitivity to the one, the political reality that, properly, should be reserved rather for our regard for every single Jew. But when two peoples are in a chronic state of conflict, our sensitivities cannot be unilateral. One cannot allow oneself to indulge in hypersensivity for one side's dignity or image, while tacitly ignoring the right to a claim on our sensitivities by the other party. It violates NPOV structurally. That is why, apart from trying to ensure a fair representation for the silenced party, I nonetheless wrote a good many complex articles on aspects of Jewish culture, and have advised all editors to prove their impartiality, whatever their POVs, to write up articles that bear on both worlds, preferably unrelated to politics.

But - if TLDR hasn't kicked in - finally, the sanction, which I take to be just one more instance of a hasty ergo flawed judgment, tells me two things. One, that a further precedent has been established that, inadvertently, will ease work for the ingrained habit of hawkish editors who comb minutely my every edit, to find even more proof for more such cases at ANI/AE in the future. 8 times this year (August 23-October 24) someone, half of them socks, have managed to get the ear of admins to complain. All failed except for the 'raising the temperature 'no-smoke-without-fire syndrome effect' which, ultimately, I believe, kicked in here. Secondly, per my remarks on language and rhetoric, I realize that I am simply not cut out for contributing to wikipedia if the care I exert to get things right so often leads to misunderstandings. So I am closing shop. Yesterday, when I decided to abandon a place I love, I felt relief, and I spent an enjoyable afternoon talking with an archaeologist about Romulus and Remus, and obscure figures like Caeculus, without a thought for the responsibilities I once assumed as a daily tithing of my time, to try and do a little to lower the tone and reality of violence which afflicts our world. My very best regards then, and keep up the good work.Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My regards to you too. You will understand that I can't opine directly on a lot of what you have said, but I do acknowledge our weakness in dispute resolution of focusing on presentation over substance - that is, language over content. I will not say language isn't important, but it's not the only problem, but it's the easiest to police. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I learned that this book made it to featured article status with your help. I read parts of The Books of Earthsea: The Complete Illustrated Edition about a year or two ago, and I convinced my dad to pick it up last week and read the first story. Just wanted to leave a brief thanks I guess? It's really something special to see something like that get the recognition it deserves. Though I doubt I'd ever be able to write something that well, I'd really like to extend some gratitude to people like you who can write on broad topics like that. It really means a lot to me. Fathoms Below (talk) 13:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind of you, Fathoms Below. It was a pleasure to work on and I'm glad you enjoyed reading it. It's been my ambition to get the first trilogy entirely to FA status. Someday, perhaps. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Vanamonde. Regarding the topic ban, I didn't engage in the talk page much as I didn't have a strong opinion on either arguments, and the two reverts that followed (here and here) were only made to have the disputed content in status quo until the closure of the WP:RFC, as per WP:STATUS QUO. I admit that the last block was warranted considering my edits were against editorial and community consensus, and would be described as treating Wikipedia as a battleground. However, with the most recent edits, I truly had no intention of causing that, and I'm sorry; thus, I ask for a second and last chance, and pledge to be more careful moving forward. Thank you. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 06:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I do not find that convincing. You didn't simply revert in disputed content - you reverted in a version where verifiability was in dispute, and then reverted a failed verification tag, which is in no way covered by STATUSQUO. And you did this despite the verification issue having been discussed on the talk page, and after you were pinged to that discussion. That is not behavior compatible with editing in a contentious topic. Especially considering you have a previous block from the same page, and a lengthy list of warnings for edit-warring, I will not be lifting this TBAN. You may appeal it at AE or AN in the usual way. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The verification concerns I genuinely thought to be a matter of debate between the two sides, and not an agreed upon aspect. I messed up these two edits, but I truly and wholeheartedly give you my word to be most careful and avoid these mishaps in the future. I've been on Wikipedia for just over a year, and in that time frame I have admittedly made mistakes, but I'm learning, day by day. So, please, I ask for a last and final chance, where I will prove to you the former. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 14:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point in multiple ways, I'm afraid. I take no personal position on the verification concerns, but they had been accepted by someone making the same revert as you. You were also pinged to the talk page and specifically told you had reverted in misinformation, and subsequent to that you chose to remove a tag without participating. There's so many things wrong there that I'm not going to grant an appeal. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 2024 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round being a very tight race. Our new champion is AirshipJungleman29 (submissions), who scored 2,283 points mainly through 3 high-multiplier FAs and 3 GAs on military history topics. By a 1% margin, Airship beat out last year's champion, BeanieFan11 (submissions), who scored second with 2,264 points, mainly from an impressive 58 GAs about athletes. In third place, Generalissima (submissions) scored 1,528 points, primarily from two FAs on U.S. Librarians of Congress and 20 GAs about various historical topics. Our other finalists are: Sammi Brie (submissions) with 879 points, Hey man im josh (submissions) with 533 points, BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 432 points, Arconning (submissions) with 244 points, and AryKun (submissions) with 15 points. Congratulations to our finalists and all who participated!

The final round was very productive, and contestants had 7 FAs, 9 FLs, 94 GAs, 73 FAC reviews, and 79 GAN reviews and peer reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.

• Generalissima (submissions) wins the featured article prize for 3 FAs in round 4, and 7 FAs overall.
• Hey man im josh (submissions) wins the featured list prize for 23 FLs overall.
• MaranoFan (submissions) wins the featured topic prize for 9 articles in featured topics in round 1.
• Hey man im josh (submissions) wins the featured content reviewer prize for 110 FA/FL reviews overall.
• BeanieFan11 (submissions) wins the good article prize for 58 GAs in round 5, and 70 GAs overall.
• Fritzmann (submissions) wins the good topic prize for 6 articles in good topics in round 2.
• Sammi Brie (submissions) wins the good article reviewer prize for 45 GA reviews in round 2, and 78 GA reviews overall.
• BeanieFan11 (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 131 Did you know articles overall.
• Muboshgu (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 15 In the news articles in round 1, and 36 overall.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2025 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement!

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

• Crisco 1492

• Babajobu
• Daniel
• Elf
• Jayron32
• Thue
• Wugapodes

CheckUser changes

Maxim

Oversighter changes

Maxim

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion, the discussion-only period proposal that went for a trial to refine the requests for adminship (RfA) process has been discontinued.
• Following a request for comment, Administrator recall is adopted as a policy.

Technical news

• Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068

Arbitration

• RoySmith, Barkeep49 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2024 Arbitration Committee Elections. ThadeusOfNazereth and Dr vulpes are reserve commissioners.
• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate from 3 November 2024 until 12 November 2024 to stand in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections.
• The Arbitration Committee is seeking volunteers for roles such as clerks, access to the COI queue, checkuser, and oversight.

Miscellaneous

• An unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in November 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

---

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Hamas on a "Politics, government, and law" 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 12:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that an appeal from an arbitration enforcement action you took has been filed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Thank you. —Snowstormfigorion (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vanamonde -- Your recent response to the latest oppose seems to me (admittedly biased) to fall towards badgering. Can't we just let the process run -- the candidate seems plainly heading for election -- and just correct clear mis-statements, particularly where admin tools are necessary to do so? Writing here to minimise drama. Additionally @ScottishFinnishRadish: Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 00:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is your concern this edit? I don't think there's anything there that isn't directly addressing the substance of the oppose. I agree that it probably won't make a difference, and I believe another supporter already addressed that oppose, but I wouldn't take any action at this point. I appreciate you coming to a talk page to prevent drama. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ScottishFinnishRadish That was the edit, yes. I think it would be acceptable for a general editor but I feel nominators should hold back from making such comments. It's clear that they support the candidate, and find their content contributions adequate -- they nominated them and mentioned their content contributions in the nomination rationale. I wish it were possible just to vote/comment (either way) and have only factual inaccuracies challenged or clear attacks removed, especially in an RfA where the outcome has seemed pretty clear from the outset. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 01:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Espresso Addict I do as a rule try to contain myself - obviously, by definition, I disagree with every oppose at least in a matter of degree. I do believe factual inaccuracy should be called out though - the oppose section of an RFA is no exception to that. Stating that Voorts had insufficient experience with content creation is in my view very far removed from a reasonable judgement, not very different from the other oppose that you and I both responded to. I don't intend to pursue it any further. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's an obvious difference between audited content (eg featured articles) and creating new content (eg short articles), per discussion under neutral comment of ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ, and that the oppose comment is attempting to articulate that, and is not in any way unreasonable or inaccurate. But hey, maybe I'm just having a bad day. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference, certainly, but also considerable overlap. But in any case, I was responding largely because that !voter has a history of opposing based on a generic lack of content, and I saw what I believe was inconsistency rather than simply a matter of judgement. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy, et al and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]