Ganesha811

Administrators' newsletter – March 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2025).

Administrator changes

• Jarry1250
• Lethe

CheckUser changes

• AmandaNP
• Drmies

Oversighter changes

AmandaNP

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.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

TFA

story · music · places

Thank you today for Anna Filosofova, about "an early Russian feminist and activist. She was part of a group of three friends and allies known as the "triumvirate", alongside Maria Trubnikova and Nadezhda Stasova. Among other things, Filosofova pushed hard for women's education and was instrumental in creating university-standard courses open to women in the Russian Empire. She outlived her colleagues and became widely acclaimed after the 1905 Russian Revolution."! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda! —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Today I could have written five stories off the main page, and chose Sofia Gubaidulina. I find the TFA also interesting, and two DYK, and a birthday OTD. How about you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Today: an opera, 100 years old OTD, on Bach's birthday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Nice selection! —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:13, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! - Today, 300 years of Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1! We sang works for (mostly) double choir by Pachelbel, Johann Christoph Bach, Kuhnau/Bach, Gounod and Rheinberger! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from CaratCurator (02:08, 11 March 2025)

Hello, I am writing about a very notable diamond "The Eye Of The Flamingo". It is a very large diamond. I would like to submit as a reference the Gemology Institute of America certification of the diamond to validate the information in the article. While I have permission to share the number with you that you can verify by accessing the GIA website, the owner does not permit the certificate or its number to be visible in the article. The reference can state "As Provided By the GIA". Is this possible? While GIA reports might initially appear to be primary sources, they function more accurately as secondary sources in this context. The Gemological Institute of America is an independent, third-party organization that serves as the gold standard for diamond grading worldwide. All established diamond grading standards were developed and are meticulously managed by GIA, ensuring objectivity and consistency. Their reports provide independent verification through objective scientific analysis, making them an industry-accepted, published, and undeniably true source of diamond grading information. Furthermore, the information presented in the article is a direct statement of the factual data contained within the GIA certificate, without any descriptive or interpretive embellishment. It's also important to note that all peer-reviewed articles worldwide that rely on diamond grading data depend on the information provided by the GIA, further solidifying its role as an authoritative and reliable source. Therefore, GIA reports should be recognized as a reliable and verifiable basis for factual diamond characteristics within Wikipedia. Let me know --CaratCurator (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Here is the GIA website https://www.gia.edu/gia-about#:~:text=Established%20in%201931%2C%20the%20Gemological,education%20in%20gems%20and%20jewelry. CaratCurator (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Do you have any connection with the GIA? WP:COI editing is allowed, but requires disclosure. If you want to get Wikipedians' opinion on the GIA as a reliable source more generally, the place to discuss it is the reliable sources noticeboard. Finally, is this particular diamond notable? Has it been covered in-depth in reliable, independent, secondary sources? —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't have any relationship to the GIA. The GIA is the largest and most respected authority in the world, it is independent to provide the official grading and values diamonds in the world. No deal of substantial diamond value takes place without their report to validate that the stone is what the seller claims it is. This stone is new to the market as these stones are often held as heirlooms away from the public eye. For example, the Argyle Pink Jubilee is just a little bigger (12 vs 11 Carats) but the Eye of The Flamingo is Internally Flawless which create a more expensive diamond. I know this is maybe not your expertise so I would like to request from you to tell me what I need to do in order satisfy Wikipedia rules even if it is a multi step process. You can also search in any AI on whether the GIA can be trusted in diamond reports aside from the link I sent in the previous response. I appreciate your assistance and willingness to clarify this situation. If this becomes an issue out of your purview please be so kind to refer me to a supervisor if it is applicable. Thank you so much CaratCurator (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

And you don't have any connection, personal or professional, with the Eye of the Flamingo? It looks like you created a draft, so go through that process - another Wikipedian will review your draft in time. Again, bear in mind that the diamond must be notable (most likely by meeting the WP:GNG) for it to have an article. FYI, there are no supervisors on Wikipedia - anyone can edit. We decide things by coming to consensus. Happy editing! —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't have any connection, this is a $101M diamond held by a sheik in Abu Dhabi.

This diamond is extremely notable as it is the biggest in circulation currently all others are closely held as this will be.

The only item in question is can I provide the GIA certificate to validate the article but make sure it is not published in the article. CaratCurator (talk) 14:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

If it is notable, there will be secondary sources covering it, such as journalists and the like. Those could be used as sources for the article. Information on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable, so a source is generally required for non-obvious information in an article. That source can be offline or paywalled, but it should be accessible if possible. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in the January 2025 GAN backlog drive

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		Your noteworthy contribution (12 points total) helped reduce the backlog by 185 articles! Here's a token of our appreciation. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 03:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from Rachelbao1103 (14:23, 12 March 2025)

Hi, where can I find the articles that I can edit? --Rachelbao1103 (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! You can edit just about any article on Wikipedia; it's open to all! What are you interested in? You can look at this page for more resources and tips. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Acacia Forgot

Hi Ganesha811,

I am curious about your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acacia Forgot earlier today. Specifically, your choice of deleting the page before recreating it as a redir. I don't see a clear consensus to delete, but even if the Delete !votes carry more P&G weight than the Keeps, the Redirect should have been an ATD, leaving the page's history intact. I don't see anything offending, copyvio or otherwise, in the history, and none of those suggesting a redir outcome called for the history to be deleted. Am I missing something? Thanks! Owen× ☎ 14:27, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

You're right - I think this was a mistake on my part. It should have just been redirection as an alternative to deletion, not delete and redirect. I will modify my close and undelete the page history shortly, unless there's a simpler way to remedy the error you can recommend. Thanks for bringing it up. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! You're a pleasure to work with. Your proposed solution is the best I can think of. Owen× ☎ 15:23, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Done. I'm new to undeletion so let me know if I made any errors in the process. I appreciate your help! —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thank you! Owen× ☎ 15:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring article history. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:10, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from Hassern Muntari (23:46, 14 March 2025)

How can I create new article --Hassern Muntari (talk) 23:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

This guide should help you out: Help:Introduction. Welcome to Wikipedia! —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from Bemi Larry (12:41, 15 March 2025)

Am new here how do I get started? Thank you. --Bemi Larry (talk) 12:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

This guide should help you out: Help:Introduction. Welcome to Wikipedia! —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from IJLARR 03 (09:39, 19 March 2025)

How to create an article? --IJLARR 03 (talk) 09:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

This guide should help you out: Help:Introduction. Welcome to Wikipedia! —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:46, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from Monu5474 (23:43, 23 March 2025)

hi, i need to change my name --Monu5474 (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Since you have no substantial history with this account, your simplest option is to just abandon it and create a new account with your chosen username. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from GD6 Mapri (11:33, 26 March 2025)

Hello ...please help me how to translate Wikipedia articles from English to siswati. Where do I start. --GD6 Mapri (talk) 11:33, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

You can use Wikipedia:Content translation tool - follow the guidelines there. Good luck! —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

RfC on Qaboos bin Said Sexuality

Hello, thank you for your RfC closure. I’m wondering if you could expand on how you found a consensus toward inclusion? Several editors (like Isaidnoway) opposing argued that RS only mentioned rumors and did not report relationships with men as fact. Thanks! Dw31415 (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Sure. I felt that those arguments were addressed by editors in favor of inclusion, and structured my close to (hopefully) make clear that we should not present relationships with men/homosexuality as a fact, but rather focus on what reliable sources do say ("widespread belief" etc) and not make any definitive statements in Wikipedia's voice. I can adjust the wording if necessary to make this crystal clear. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. I’m newer to RfC’s and I’m trying to learn how consensus is assessed. I look forward to seeing if the closure is accepted or challenged. In either case, thank you for moving things forward! Dw31415 (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Some discussions are pretty easy to close, whether because there's an overwhelming majority in favor of one view or because the policy is clear and someone started an RfC just to put something "on the record", so to speak. Even when there's an overwhelming majority, it's worth double-checking to make sure there wasn't canvassing, a lot of SPA involvement, or a bunch of folks simply ignoring policy because they don't like it. This closure was a harder one and I read it a few times before deciding where consensus lay. Sometimes, there are several relevant policies and editors debate which should take priority over the other. The key is to remember that it's not a vote, and the final consensus can be complex; even a yes/no include/exclude, like we had here, can come with caveats. If someone asked "Is there consensus to add Sultan Qaboos was gay to the article?", the answer would be "100% no, that's way beyond the consensus." —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

For an example of a difficult discussion where consensus was tough to gauge (because of competing policy priorities), check out this discussion from last year. I think Ingenuity did a great job there as closer. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Reading this with interest: could you take a look at the Erik Satie RfC, just look? I'd be interested in your evaluation of arguments, and will wait until it's closed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

... which is now --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I really don't want to wade into the 20 year battle over infoboxes, but I will say that I think this is an area where as there is no universal policy, it's simply a matter of editorial judgment and personal opinion, and therefore the count of !votes would weigh more heavily when assessing consensus. I also would discount comments that assert ownership over the article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't agree that there was a 20 years battle. There were years without "battle" (2018, 2019). When a consensus was found for Mozart (Feb 2023), I seriously hoped that would be the end of it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Erik Satie --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)