User talk:Willbb234

Removal of mainspace ban, 1RR editing restriction

Hello,

I have just closed the AN appeal, raised through Ritchie, from your appeal. Please (re)-read both the close and, in particular, the full text of Courcelles' proposal at the bottom.

Specifically, I'd like to relay the warning about being very careful should they make reverts relying on those exceptions. You can appeal the WP:1RR at AN in six months time.

I'll also add my own, purely personal, warning about staying cool should an issue arise, especially in anything that might be construed as a personal attack. While the siteblock was removed by Ritchie as several admins agreed it shouldn't be implemented, that was heavily because it was issued 2 months later - a comparable act risks not merely the article-space block being readded but a full siteban.

With the firm bits all done, however, I wish you the best of luck editing - please do ask if you have any questions whether about the editing restriction or editing more generally. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you didn't unblock Willbb234. I assume, given the wording of the appeal, that you meant to do this and is simply an oversight, so I've unblocked. If I've screwed up - again - I'm sure I'll know about it ;-) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 14:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023

Hello Willbb234,

New Page Review queue April to June 2023

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.

New pages patrol needs your help!

New pages awaiting review as of June 30th, 2023.

Hello Willbb234,

The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.

Reminders:

There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indentation in talk page discussions

Hi Will. I'd like to suggest that you take a look or refresher at WP:THREAD. There's a couple of edits now ([1], [2]) where I've had to repair the indentation level and placement of your replies. If you find this difficult, you may wish to use the new reply tool, which will automatically indent your replies based on the specific message you're replying to. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sideswipe9th: Okay, thank you. Willbb234 20:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removing GA status without review

@Willbb234: I'm pinging you since you hopefully (for your sake) didn't read the message the first time. If you did and ignored it, what the fuck. You cannot, ever, go around removing the GA symbol from articles (which you've done here and here), and try (but fail) to change the talkpage template (in the process breaking it, which you've done here and here) simply because, seemingly, you disagree that the article should be a GA. If you are confused about this article initially not being listed but being a GA, a second review took place and it passed. You have been a GANR participant for years and either know full well that this second review pass means the article is a GA and would need a community reassessment to be demoted, or should be going nowhere near the GAN process anymore - because it is evident that you will take matters into your own hands and make arbitrary judgments rather than follow process and criteria, or don't actually understand the process and criteria. Either way, stay away; you try to pull this shit again, you will be reported for vandalism. Your behaviour has already been reported at GAN. Kingsif (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging @Ritchie333: since you just unblocked this guy and the behaviour is either malicious (my initial assumption, unfortunately, based on his experience) or dangerously incompetent. Specifically, he broke WP:1RR at two locations (see edits linked above). Kingsif (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]