User talk:SlimVirgin/April 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

Administrator changes Cabayi • Lee Vilenski Boing! said Zebedee Jonny-mt • MarkGallagher • PeaceNT Money emoji → Moneytrees Bureaucrat changes SilkTork • WereSpielChequers

CheckUser changes NativeForeigner Oversight changes Someguy1221 Daniel Case

Guideline and policy news

• There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

• There is a plan for new requirements for user signatures. You can give feedback.

Arbitration

• Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.

Miscellaneous

• The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.

Soooo, look at what I just stumbled upon: Cossack riots. 2018 mew article, eh? Reference cleanup? This has zero inline citations. Sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, thanks for the invitation, but I think I'll give that one a miss. :) SarahSV ^(talk) 05:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, for this case, either it's my imagination, or I can't find policy text I need, or the text I seek has gone missing. Where do I find policy text about developing consensus for the use of reliable sources re NPOV and WEIGHT? I don't find it on the NPOV page. That is, we don't automatically preference one source over another; we work towards determining WEIGHT and NPOV via the usual consensus process-- as opposed to eliminating certain sources or preferencing others. I need to address the idea that ONE source can be used to the exclusion of others as a misinterpretation of MEDRS. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, the closest is probably WP:DUE: "Neutrality requires that each article ... fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." To establish weight, multiple sources have to be considered. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This guy or gal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/204.128.192.31

I haven't checked them all, but some are suspicious. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited in February. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I ran out of time to evidence the POV by choices of sources, but I mentioned you in my evidence at:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence#Five_areas_of_fait_accompli
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence#CFCF_closes_discussions_he_is_involved_in,_alters_posts_of_others_and_uses_excess_markup_on_talk_to_control_the_narrative

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]