Misplaced Pages

User talk:Euryalus

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs) at 15:47, 5 January 2025 (Administrators' newsletter – January 2025: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

Revision as of 15:47, 5 January 2025 by MediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs) (Administrators' newsletter – January 2025: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Euryalus is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Misplaced Pages soon.

Archives

FYI

Similar discussion, new venue: Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy/RFC on promotional activity. El Beeblerino 20:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: thanks for posting this. Will be good to get this settled. Wouldn't apply to either of the recent examples we were discussing, as both were making promotional edits in article space. But worth establishing consensus on the overall principle. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
The Rock line guy's edits, while clearly in an area where their username implies a COI, did not seem particularly promotional in nature to me, which is why I went for discussion. El Beeblerino 22:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Well YMMV (never actually seen the source ad for this but apparently its a saying?). You warned them after their first edit, which was to a film produced by their company but was not otherwise objectionable. However several hours after your warning they made a series of further mainspace edits to remove criticism of the film. These edits were more clearly promotional than their first innocuous change for which the warning was given. I can't guarantee they saw your warning, so maybe they still believed there was no problem with promotional edits. Either way a block seemed necessary to prevent continued promotional changes and to force their attention to the talkpage request that they change their name. Hence the block. As with the Kepri Estates guy, a name change and some indication that they understand wp:COI and possibly wp:paid would be enough to secure an unblock.
And again, thanks again for reposting the RfC, and hopefully it ends up with a clear consensus on any changes to UAA policy. I've supported the idea of advice to admins not to reflexively impose no-warning blocks on accounts whose only edits are to draft or userspace (option 1), but ofc that's not where this or the Kepri Estates guy's editing occurred. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
As a mild addendum, I agree with your RfC comment that If they ignore the concern and keep editing, especially if they add more promotional content, the discussion attempt has failed and a block is justified and uncontroversial. This succinctly describes the Rockline Entertainment scenario. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).

Administrator changes

added Sennecaster
readded
removed

CheckUser changes

added
readded Worm That Turned
removed Ferret

Oversight changes

added
readded Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)