User talk:bradv
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
Administrators' newsletter – February 2025
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2025).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversighter changes
Technical news
- Administrators can now nuke pages created by a user or IP address from the last 90 days, up from the initial 30 days. T380846
- A '
Recreated' tag will now be added to pages that were created with the same title as a page which was previously deleted and it can be used as a filter in Special:RecentChanges and Special:NewPages. T56145
Arbitration
- The arbitration case Palestine-Israel articles 5 has been closed.
Administrators' newsletter – March 2025
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2025).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversighter changes
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment is open to discuss whether AI-generated images (meaning those wholly created by generative AI, not human-created images modified with AI tools) should be banned from use in articles.
- A series of 22 mini-RFCs that double-checked consensus on some aspects and improved certain parts of the administrator elections process has been closed (see the summary of the changes).
- A request for comment is open to gain consensus on whether future administrator elections should be held.
Technical news
- A new filter has been added to the Special:Nuke tool, which allows administrators to filter for pages in a range of page sizes (in bytes). This allows, for example, deleting pages only of a certain size or below. T378488
- Non-administrators can now check which pages are able to be deleted using the Special:Nuke tool. T376378
Miscellaneous
- The 2025 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ＊ぜ, Arcticocean, Ameisenigel, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, Galahad, Nehaoua, Renvoy, Revi C., RoySmith, Teles and Zafer as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
- Following the 2025 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: 1234qwer1234qwer4, AramilFeraxa, Daniuu, KonstantinaG07, MdsShakil and XXBlackburnXx.
Hi
[edit]Hello @Bradv, I wanted to apologize again. I will continue my constructive contributions. Regards, Leotalk 00:32, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in research
[edit]Hello,
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of a group of Wikipedians to better understand their experiences! We are also looking to interview some survey respondents in more detail, and you will be eligible to receive a thank-you gift for the completion of an interview. The outcomes of this research will shape future work designed to improve on-wiki experiences.
We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this survey, which shouldn’t take more than 2-3 minutes. You may view its privacy statement here. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Kind regards, Sam Walton (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Speedy note on random previous edit
[edit]Regarding your edit here, you reverted my changes without considering the validity or accuracy of the information. You knew the information was correct, but your justification for the revert was that I was topic-banned.
I will not debate the content of the information, as my concern lies with the nature of your edit itself.
Your issue wasn’t that the information was incorrect; your issue was with me personally being topic-banned. This act constitutes a personalization and amounts to edit warring.
You used the rules to enforce the retention of incorrect information. This violates the spirit of the rules and the purpose for which they were established.
This is not how or why we work here. Your actions go against our core mission.
The rules were not created to punish users or to grant privileges to those who enforce them. They exist to regulate the encyclopedia and protect it. What you did is the exact opposite of the intent behind these rules. Your actions reflect bias by the informal, indirect interpretation of the meaning of the word bias.
To determine whether an edit is right or wrong, you should assess whether it aligns with our goals. The rules are derived directly from these goals and are meant to reflect them, making our mission easier to achieve.
I will approach this in good faith and assume you were driven by a strict, bureaucratic mindset. I hope that in the future, you will be open-minded enough to evaluate an edit based on its merits, even if it challenges your beliefs, and that you will avoid repeating this mistake.
This has been on my mind for a while, and I felt the need to express it. I hope you can take this as constructive advice and remain open-minded moving forward. ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Hey Brad. That was a great edit. Regards - Roxy the dog 14:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)