User talk:ToBeFree

Please click here to add a new message!

^{To add this button to your own talk page, you can use {{User new message large}}. It can easily be modified: Colorful examples are provided on the "Template:User new message large" page.}

Please note that you are currently not logged in.

This is not a general problem – you can leave a message anyway, but your IP address might change during the discussion, and I might end up talking to a wall. Creating an account does not require an e-mail address; all you need is a password and a name. You are not required to do this, but please consider creating an account before starting long-term interactions with other users. Thank you very much in advance.

Archives
[megabytes]

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Tech News: 2024-23[edit]

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

Recent changes

It is now possible for local administrators to add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without JavaScript. Documentation is available. [1]
The message name for the definition of the tracking category of WikiHiero has changed from "MediaWiki:Wikhiero-usage-tracking-category" to "MediaWiki:Wikihiero-usage-tracking-category". [2]
One new wiki has been created: a Wikipedia in Kadazandusun (w:dtp:) [3]

Changes later this week

The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 4 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 5 June. It will be on all wikis from 6 June (calendar). [4][5]

Future changes

Next week, on wikis with the Vector 2022 skin as the default, logged-out desktop users will be able to choose between different font sizes. The default font size will also be increased for them. This is to make Wikimedia projects easier to read. Learn more.

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

MediaWiki message delivery 22:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AIV v SPI[edit]

Obvious socks are expensive. People should be encouraged to report ducks to AIV, which I have definitely been doing of late. Izno (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Izno, you had declined two sock reports at AIV, I had declined a third one, for being far from as obvious as the reporter thought. SPI's evidence requirements are valuable and unactionable AIV reports are expensive in their own way, so I personally would prefer if at least Air on White avoided making sock reports at AIV for the time being. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be more careful about reporting socks at AIV, but I'll continue as warranted. I have successfully reported duck socks of blocked vandals and LTAs in the past. Air on White (talk) 00:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Air on White, in most cases, these have probably simply been vandals, and their vandalism was reason enough to place a block. My concern is about reports for behavior that wouldn't justify a block if it wasn't sockpuppetry. Regarding these, the advice at AIV's header applies, Reports of sockpuppetry should be made at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations unless the connection between the accounts is obvious and disruption is recent and ongoing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP-hopper does not like slur details at Jeremy Finlayson[edit]

Maybe 2001:8003:47a2:d301::/64 has a point and that content is WP:UNDUE, I don't know. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 13:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's at least a good-faith concern worth a discussion. Thanks, Skywatcher68. I hope 2001:8003:47a2:d301::/64, AutisticAndrew, Bugghost, Electricmaster, Sigma440 and Wiiformii will find a consensus about this at Talk:Jeremy Finlayson. If I understand correctly, the arguments are practically "undue weight" vs. "it's properly cited content", the latter of which does not guarantee inclusion according to WP:ONUS and is thus probably comparatively weak, failing to address the actual concern. Also, two of the reverts explicitly complain about a lack of an explanation; Special:Diff/1227184059 provides one, so I assume Bugghost's concern has been resolved and AutisticAndrew wouldn't have reverted if they had seen the explanation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 2001:8003 that the section was probably too long, but overall the main gist of the content should remain - just made shorter with a couple of sources pruned.

I've opened a section on the talk page about this [6] with a suggested much condensed version of the section. BugGhost 🪲👻 01:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I have now invited the others to the section using {{Please see}}. If a consensus is found early, the protection can also be removed earlier; it is currently set to automatically expire in two weeks, pretty pessimistically. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]