User talk:Extraordinary Writ

I will be unavailable until the end of the month. Feel free to leave any messages that can wait; for urgent matters, please ask another administrator (click here to find a recently active one) or post at a relevant noticeboard. Other administrators are welcome to revert any of my administrative actions without consulting me while I am away. I will respond to any outstanding messages once I return. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is Extraordinary Writ's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10: 30 days

By far the funniest and most clever Wikipedia page I randomly stumbled on. Kudos. The fish genuinely made me laugh out loud — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumtimz I B Learnin (talk • contribs) 07:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Genocide of indigenous peoples

I could have sworn there was a possible outcome to have a no consensus review possibly overturn a close to no consensus, but I guess there's just the option to relist - is this something you'd be willing to do? Not an area where I typically edit but I think we've gotten this wrong. SportingFlyer T·C 05:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SportingFlyer; hope you're well. The MRV (and DRV) instructions don't give me much guidance on how to use my discretion to relist, but typically it makes sense when the RM saw low participation, new information/arguments have come to light, and/or many editors !voted relist. This one was exactly the opposite of that kind of situation (a gargantuan RM that everyone agreed was ripe for closure), so there's no reason to relist unless I bring in my own opinions about whether the closer read consensus correctly, which I don't think is what that discretion is there for. I know there's been a fair amount of frustration with this outcome, but there's only so much I can do without ending up in supervote territory. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. It's just frustrating that a close which should have been no consensus sticks because the move review was actually no consensus. SportingFlyer T·C 15:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

		Project Editor Retention This editor was willing to lend a helping hand!
		Thanks for all you do to acknowledge others at the Editor of the Week Awards

Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 11:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Henry j act (20:07, 3 August 2024)

say hello can i make money editing --Henry j act (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Henry j act. Paid editing is subject to a number of rules, including a requirement to disclose the person who is paying you, and ultimately I would strongly discourage you from going down that path. You can learn more on this page. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2024

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

Administrator changes

Isabelle Belato

Interface administrator changes

Izno

CheckUser changes

Barkeep49

Technical news

Global blocks may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may locally unblock when appropriate.
Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee appointed the following administrators to the conflict of interest volunteer response team: Bilby, Extraordinary Writ

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've been appointed to WP:COIVRT

Smallbones from WP:Signpost here to ask you a probing question or 3 about COIVERT, for publication (Sunday?) probably in a short blurb in the News and notes article. Some questions (answer here, on my talk or via email, as you like) I may just select one sentence, a couple of pithy phrases, or what ever I think is most interesting: 1. What the heck is COIVERT and why did it just come into existence? 2. What do you expect to do there? 3. How can Signpost readers help, or maybe at WP:COIN instead? 4. Anything else you want to say?

As always,

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COIVRT is a new acronym, but all it really means is that more people will be allowed to review reports of paid editing emailed to [email protected], which has been around since 2019. The impetus for doing this was the recent Nihonjoe arbitration case, where many people were concerned that the system for reporting conflicts of interest was not working as it should. The new changes give paid-en-wp access to all functionaries (not just checkusers) as well as a few administrators approved by ArbCom, which will hopefully lead to shorter backlogs and a more effective response to reports.
There are many different kinds of tickets in the paid-en-wp queue, from concerns that someone has a conflict of interest to emails from non-Wikipedians who have encountered various paid editing companies. Our job is to read the report, look at the available evidence, and figure out what needs to be done, from no action to a block.
If someone seems to be editing for pay and/or with a conflict of interest, typically you can address that on-wiki through some combination of discussing with/warning the user, using the conflict of interest noticeboard, and going to WP:ANI. Anything involving someone's private personal information must not be posted on-wiki, though, so if that kind of evidence is relevant, then that's when emailing [email protected] comes into play. Forwarding to paid-en-wp any solicitations you happen to receive from paid editors is also appreciated, and it's fine to send other relevant information or evidence about paid editing too; even if we're not the right people to help, we can probably point you in the right direction.
Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of former municipal flags of the Netherlands

Hello, Extraordinary Writ,

If no one has gotten to it, can you delete this PROD'd article? I tagged it so I can't delete it. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Kadiyapatti, too! Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Explicit handled it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Nomination...

will be awarded next week. Do I really have to include the "Cheesy" remark. Can I change it too "classy" maybe or "sweet" or even "pungent"? Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 03:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HEY! How about "extraordinary"? YEA! Thats the ticket! Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 03:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clever...but in hindsight it didn't need an adjective at all. Removed. (Just to be clear, I think very highly of the work you and others have done over the years with EOTW—hopefully my inartful choice of words didn't imply otherwise.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Humor is healthy. Thanks for the kind words. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 08:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]