User talk:Yamla/Archive 46
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Yamla. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 40 | ← | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 |
UTRS
Can you have a look at UTRS appeal #95613? It looks to me like an innocent victim of a proxy block that you placed, but obviously without magic CU ability I don't know for sure. JBW (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- They are definitely operating from a proxy, one with quite a lot of users. The specific problematic user operating from that range tends to add unsourced content around American football, so this is clearly not the same user. You are free to grant IPBE if you wish, as I've definitively cleared that user. I'd much rather they stopped using the proxy, though. Let me know if you need more info! --Yamla (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll get back to her. JBW (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – November 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2024).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversighter changes
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!
Question regarding paid editors
Hey Yamla. I was curious about a comment you left during an exchange with a user requesting an unblock. They said that they were a company owner and not an employee. You said that makes them a paid editor. I always interpreted the policy as: if a person is receiving (or expecting) compensation as part of their job, then they're a paid editor. But if they have an ownership stake in the company/organization, then they fall outside the definition of employee. Are we now interpreting it so that owners are paid editors too, because they are drawing an income from their business? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is a good question. It's how I interpret it, but I'm not meaning to state here that this is how the community interprets it. I think we are both clear there's a conflict of interest, correct? I wonder if we should take this question to WP:VPP? I'm happy to do so, what do you think? --Yamla (talk) 14:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oh yes, it's most definitely a conflict of interest if they intend to edit technology topics. I know other admins have refused to unblock these types of editors unless they promise to initially edit about topics unrelated to their COI. I'd be interested to hear the response from VPP about the interpretation of the paid policy regarding business owners vs employees. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Okay! I'll post there and let's see what the experts say. --Yamla (talk) 15:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#WP:PAID_if_owner_of_company. --Yamla (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks - I see it's spawned a spirited discussion! Honestly, it doesn't matter to me what the community decides... I would just like some clarity on what the paid editing policy covers. Then we can all be consistent with what we communicate out to users. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've been following along. In the end, whichever way the consensus goes, I think the combination of WP:PAID and WP:COI means the end result (though not the communication) ends up the same. Good discussion! --Yamla (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks - I see it's spawned a spirited discussion! Honestly, it doesn't matter to me what the community decides... I would just like some clarity on what the paid editing policy covers. Then we can all be consistent with what we communicate out to users. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oh yes, it's most definitely a conflict of interest if they intend to edit technology topics. I know other admins have refused to unblock these types of editors unless they promise to initially edit about topics unrelated to their COI. I'd be interested to hear the response from VPP about the interpretation of the paid policy regarding business owners vs employees. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Saarabout
Hi there. I've just seen that you've declined Saarabout's unblock request. Upon reviewing the evidence further, they do seem to have a case that they weren't engaging in vandalism. The content they added does indeed seem to have been copy-pasted from the source website. That's likely a copyright violation and their attitude seems unserious, but I'm tempted to give them another chance. What do you think? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- I have no objections, but I don't think they'd be a constructive editor. A lot of the information they were posting was outright incorrect. Smallest quark, cesium atom being the largest atom, etc. Possibly their best chance of success would be to suggest edits rather than edit any article directly. I want to be clear, though, that's not me trying to impose a requirement. I have no objections at all if you (the blocking admin) decide to lift the block with no restrictions at all. --Yamla (talk) 20:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll lift the block and keep an eye on their edits and will act if they don't prove to be constructive. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 6 November 2024
- From the editors: Editing Wikipedia should not be a crime
- In the media: An old scrimmage, politics and purported libel
- Special report: Wikipedia editors face litigation, censorship
- Traffic report: Twisted tricks or tempting treats?