Jump to content

User talk:AmandaNP/Archives/2018

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Administrators' newsletter – January 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017).

Administrator changes

added Muboshgu
readded Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned
removed None

Bureaucrat changes

readded Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

GrammarNazi420

I see that you've blocked the above editor as a vandalism-only account, and I just wanted to bring to your attention the various sockpuppets they created. Boomer VialBe ready to fight the horde! • Contribs 04:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, dealt with. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
  • Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

  • A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

No need to respond to ping

Hi, DQ - Primefac explained the situation for me regarding the autodelete of stale drafts and the issues involved with the 2 editors so if you haven't already, you can ignore my last ping at LP's TP. Thank you kindly. Atsme📞📧 17:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Ahh just half replied to you, but glad you got the explanation. Always helps to understand. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Alo Bastralay

Dear Ma'am, I don't want to challenge your speedy Deletion and go against you. I want you to know that Why this is included in Wikipedia. It may not be a Big Company like Google or Amazon but a small company and is a seller on Amazon and Google verified too. People is eager to discover facts about this company. That's the region I wrote a article about this Company to Wikipedia. If you think this is not a valid reason to upload this article then you may proceed and if you feel it should be there in Wikipedia, please delete the speedy deletion. The decision is completely yours. I am blessed to talk with you and will be eager for your reply Kindsouvik 15:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kindsouvik (talk • contribs)

The reason why I deleted the first version of the page was because it was written like an advertisement. While people in your local area may be eager to see the details of your company, that is primarily for a website of your own, Wikipedia does not host that. Wikipedia hosts neutral information from reliable sources. You may wish to take a look at this page to help you get started. Also, abuse of multiple accounts is prohibited, like your use of TechnifyLife (talk · contribs). -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Guidance and intervention please AfD

Could you take a look at the contributions of the following admin user:NatGertler They've been adding AfD tags on articles that pertain to actor/producer Bryan Earl Kreutz. This page has a long running talk for notability on the AFD page. This is in no way an attach on them, just a concern as it is pertaining to deletion not tags for correction. They've continued even after an editor politely asked them to further clarify references on the deletion for the aforementioned Bryan Earl Kreutz. Before this wastes the community's time and mine creating the pages or contributing to some of them I need some direction. It appears it has a predictable SNOW result that contravening MfD is unacceptable., could you consider intervening? The links for notability are from verifiable independent sources and newspaper writers and are archived on websites because they are a few years old, as such since they are not on the original newspaper website, the articles are being called Copyright violations. I have other ways of uploading the articles to prove they are not Copyright violations. I'm wondering can the references be uploaded to an inbox or the AfD articles be re-written as a project or something done here?

In addition to the Bryan Earl Kreutz page, the 2 other pages i'm referring to with Bryan Kreutz are as follows: To Inflict, The article has 2 verifiable sources that were older and retrieved last on 2013-09-08. One of the sources showed it in a notable story on the Indie Fest USA website and is no longer there because the website updated their latest films for the festival, his film was from 2013.

The next page is Up on High Ground. I'm asking if you could please restore the page or point me to someone who can as I and a number of others had contributed to it since it was created over 2 years ago and I would like to continue improving it.

Any thoughts about whether both To Inflict or Up on High Ground (TV series) could qualify for semi-protection? Additionally to be considered to be added here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or if they can be fairly assessed by other top notch admins without this NatGertler and other admin friends they bring in to make rash decisions to back them up and ultimately move to AfD? I'm asking advice as this page seems to be a possiblity? I just don't know where we should go. Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion ?

Lastly I feel this administrator has erred in closing a deletion discussion or in applying AFD tags, and I've contacted them directly and been ignored. Should I go before the Wikipedia:Deletion review, rather than Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion ? Techform (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC) TechForm (talk) 12:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

You have given me a lot to look at. I would like to get to bed at a decent hour tonight, so I will not be reviewing it all at this time, but in pieces. First, NatGertler is not an administrator.
Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan Earl Kreutz I will not override a consensus of AFD, whatever an administrator closes it out as. That said, I can try and explain what your not understanding from other editors, but please do not pile that on to my plate yet as there is still a lot for me to review.
Re: Up on High Ground (TV series) I have restored it to your userspace. I do not see extensive copyright violations. That said, I do see paraphrasing, I will warn you now that you need to use your own words when writing articles. Do not move it back to mainspace without talking to me or another administrator or it may be deleted again.
Re: To Inflict There is one reliable source that can be used for the article. There is no real news coverage I could find for it. It does mention submitting it to international film festivals, so it might just be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but the movie also came out five years ago.
Re: Semi protecting pages, you may want to read what that actually means, and the circumstances admins can do it in. This is not a case that would either stop anything others have put on the page (also see WP:OWN) nor prevent the encyclopedia from damage.
As far as any deletion discussions that have been closed, I can't even find what you are referring to. The only administrator you've contacted is me. And the only things in your deleted history are File namespace images. As far as AfD tags go, community consensus is community consensus. There is no real bad place to put an AFD tag except maybe qualified good articles and featured articles.
RSN is for help in regards to a specific source, not to find sources to keep an article. AfD is not a rash process, it takes 7 days (or with your case, it's been 2 weeks now) for an administrator to review the consensus and act on that. At the English Wikipedia we work in a collaborative manner, so all editors are afforded input into an AfD, it's not just admins that can review an article. To use deletion review, you should read what they handle there. I don't see anything that qualifies so far. [[WP:UND|Undeletion requests can be used post-AFD to get the content of the article to make it a draft, but I should warn you that you will need to pass the CSD G4 threshold for it not to be speedy deleted when you put it back into the mainspace.
I think i've answered everything at this point. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
As noted, I am not an administrator. Also, I did not put the AFD tag on Bryan Earl Kreutz, that would be reddogsix (talk · contribs); I did put a PROD on it. I did not put an AFD tag on On Higher Ground, I'm not even the editor who put the speedy deletion tag on it. Oh, and I did not put any tag on To Inflict, nor did I do any editing there. Nor have I brought any other editor nor any administrator to do anything to any of these pages. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
In the interest of accuracy, I will note that I did add one AFD tag to a Kreutz-related article... back in 2011. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
A sincere apology is being stated here to Nat Gertler from me. I have Nat to thank for learning how this Wikipedia world operates and I hit Wikipedia new-user rock-bottom by trying to argue with a BOT talk page for her to "Not Laugh" but point out.
(aka DQ) Yes, I have given you a lot to look at and I sincerely thank you too (aka DQ) on the time and knowledge. Your good reputation precedes you.
Re: Up on High Ground (TV series) Thank you for restoring it to my userspace

I took the much needed advice from the seriously helpful and gracious Nat Gertler to put the other pages like Kreutz on the back-burner cause they're not ready. So i've moved on to fixing up User:Techform/Up on High Ground (TV series). You're right. I too do not see extensive copyright violations per the speedy deletion from the person Duffbeerforme. So i've removed much of the paraphrasing and changed to my own writing in the "Casting" section, per your recommendation. Its ready for you review I won't move it back to mainspace without your green-light

To Inflict is too old and is toast. It was a shortfilm from 5 years ago and I updated it with 3 more references, but I just don't think its enough for the original editor who got it out there back in 2013 to survive. It's a shame to see it fall off though.

Regarding WP:DRVPURPOSE Thank you for talking me through some of the purposes, sources and Afd deletion processes. I have another editor to thank for helping me through many notability topics and purpose articles too on my talk page.

I'm trying to be shorter this time. Thank you for reviewing all this and the User:Techform/Up on High Ground (TV series)

Techform (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC) TechForm (talk) 24:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@DeltaQuad: HI Amanda I've moved on to fixing up User:Techform/Up on High Ground (TV series). The pictures have all been removed, so more extensive work there, but as far as the written content I've removed much of the paraphrasing and changed to my own writing in the "Casting" section, per your recommendation. Its ready for you review I won't move it back to mainspace without your green-light. Can you please review and suggest next steps for this please?

--Techform (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Techform: I've done some very basic editing, which you can review in the edit history. That said, there is still quite a lot that needs to be done with the article, and I haven't had a full chance to review it, I only did a few chunks. Here are a few things to work on:
  1. Not an advert There are still places in your article that just read as purely promotional or do not directly relate to the movie. I've removed some. The best way to combat this (and this was the primary reason for deletion) is to follow the MOS on TV Shows document which outlines a really nice structure that helps build a balanced article.
  2. Paraphrasing Part of the article was paraphrased. I've removed it and left {{redacted}} in it's place.
  3. Characters section This needs a lot of clean up. There is way too much content here that it takes over the article. Please specifically read the relevant MOS section for that.
  4. References I've had to remove dead and unreliable ones. The unreliable ones I removed right away were ones that qualify under self-published sources. Please review that article and see if any more sources can be added.
  5. Review other articles Reviewing other articles will help you get a feel for what exactly is being watched for. Some examples: An older show that has had a long time since production Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, A newer TV series Designated Survivor (TV series), and a brand new series (though it's not Wikipedia's best article by any means) 9-1-1 (TV series).
I apologize for the delay. I have had physical health issues recently, plus I'm running some version of a flu. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
@DeltaQuad: HI Amanda! I'm praying you don't have that Type B flu going around down here and all he way up in Canada. I hope you get to feeling better. I truly appreciate your edits and I've taken your advice in the top 5 things to work on with updates. Would you please look it over one more time before I move it back to the mainspace? User:Techform/Up on High Ground (TV series). My notes are added below to your suggested top 5 categories.
  1. Not an advert I've removed more of the purely promotional material that noes directly relate to the show. All the sections except 1 "reception" corresponed to the desired format after reviewing this MOS on TV Shows.
  2. Paraphrasing Thank you. I've found this and noted the correction and removed {{redacted}} this.
  3. Characters section This was indeed lengthy and I cleaned practically every character up and shortened the content.
  4. References Thank you for the removal of dead and unreliable ones. Before the latest edit I read this self-published sources. After reviewing that article, I see what you mean and I added 1 more source.
  5. Review other articles Reviewing other articles will help you get a feel for what exactly is being watched for. I sued the opening sentance examples form the "Production Section" for the older show that was one of my favs Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and referenced the others formatting on episodes.

-- User talk:Techform 23:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Appreciate the fast response, sadly I won't be able to return in kind. I work the next several days and battling whatever is going on is still taking the wind out of me. I'll try and get back as soon as I can. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
@DeltaQuad: Amanda please get better soon ... knowing this will fade and you'll win the battle of this terrible flu. I hope work goes easy on you the next several days. Return the review of my article when you're fully rested and up to it. -- User talk:Techform 23:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
@DeltaQuad: Hi there, I have an update after your carefully guided suggestions were recently completed. I also had a really good editor help me trim this article down with referencing for the article User:Techform/Up on High Ground (TV series). When you have a moment can you please review and provide next steps as an administrator? Do I need to have you move it back to mainspace for me or go through the submitting it via the Articles For Creation process for re-inclusion? --Techform (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you really want to go there?

You made a bad block and now you want to challange a tweek to policy that has been widely accepted, claiming I did something wrong? Did you want to rethink this first? Legacypac (talk) 09:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh leave it out. Not everyting's about you, and clearly (based on the WT:CSD discussion) it's not "widely" accepted. Primefac (talk) 12:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker – please do not ping on reply)
I comment on the content, not the editor, and I didn't even mention your name in my talkpage message. I don't need veiled threats left on my talkpage. And if this is really about the block, it was actually quite valid per several admins. It's just no one wanted it to stay. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Longer block for unregistered editor making same edits that resulted in original block

On February 14, you blocked 69.71.194.34 for 31 hours in response to a request I made (either at WP:ANEW or WP:RFPP; I don't recall). In a nutshell, he or she was edit warring with multiple editors and no discussion. He or she has returned to the exact same behavior. Can you please block him or her for longer? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: As you may or may not of seen, I blocked them yesterday for 2 weeks. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Hopefully this will permanently curb the behavior. Thanks so much! ElKevbo (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

the desert is a good place for introspection

... with an image for your lone oppose (more pics when you click on "the desert"). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).

Administrator changes

added Lourdes†
removed AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V
† Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

  • The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
  • Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
  • A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
  • A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news

  • CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
  • The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous

Obituaries

  • Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Precious

Nous n'oublions jamais.

Thank you for administrative tasks on many levels, including fighting sockpuppets and vandalism, for the bot after verbal abuse, for gnomish work such as adding "reflist" and reflecting changed websites, for service from 2007, for thoughtful and unconventional arbitration, not forgetting that you deal with people, - Amanda, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018).

Administrator changes

added 331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG
removed Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando

Guideline and policy news

  • Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
  • Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
  • The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
  • The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

Miscellaneous

  • A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
  • The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/287

Hello DQ! Hope you are well :) I wanted to let you know I've disabled Special:AbuseFilter/287 because it hasn't gotten any hits in quite some time. If you feel it needs to be re-enabled, of course feel free to do so. Currently we're continually hitting the condition limit, which is why I'm going around trying to find filters that are rarely hit or have become stale. Kind regards — MusikAnimal talk 19:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Email

I've sent you a quick email - TNT❤ 14:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

UAA bot subpage transclusion

If I changed the transclusion of the WP:UAA subpage from {{/Bot}} to {{Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Bot}} would it mess up DeltaQuadBot or HBC AIV helperbot5? Wanted to check with you and JamesR before making the change; I'm sure it used to be the latter, but as it stands now it breaks transclusion. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

It shouldn't affect the bots, since it's just a transclusion. I've updated the page. Good catch. Primefac (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)
Much obliged! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Chochopk • Coffee • Gryffindor • Jimp • Knowledge Seeker • Lankiveil • Peridon • Rjd0060

Guideline and policy news

  • The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
  • A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

Technical news

  • AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
  • When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
  • The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
  • There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

DQB on UAA/Bot

Hi Amanda, I hope you are well. I've just been doing some cleanup of code and noticed that quite some time ago HBC AIV helperbot5 stopped removing blocked users and managing the adminbacklog tag from UAA/Bot. It seems it was this edit back in 2014 where the bot information was removed from the page that caused it to malfunction. I've noticed that DQB has taken over this task and I'm happy to keep it that way, but can you look into adjusting DQB's code so the helperbot can manage the adminbacklog tag? Thanks in advance! — JamesR (talk) 10:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I read the code just now, and it would leave an {{adminbacklog}} if it was there but that is it. The problem is, my bot has to rebuild the page when it sends it back to MediaWiki, so the normal header information, if ever changed, has be changed on the bot too. I have reincluded the strings you have pointed out, exactly as is, except tweaking the removed block to off.
I also seem to recall an edit conflict issue. My bot would previously suddenly quit it's run after one of the helperbots would run in the middle of my run, but I don't see anything to back that up right now, so we can talk if that becomes an issue again. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 13:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
This shows the bot has put in those headers specifically. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 13:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Seven years of adminship

Wishing DeltaQuad a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

UAA

Really ? - FlightTime (open channel) 14:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely. Troilus and Criseyde is the name of a poem, it's like me creating the username Romeo&Juliet because I am a fan of Shakespeare or Bonnie and Clyde cause I have an interest in the great depression. Not going to block over zealously unless there is direct evidence of it being a shared account. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't know that, :P I was seeing two names. Thanx :) - FlightTime (open channel) 14:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
  • There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
  • It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration

  • A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Help please

Not sure what's up with this user but I think they need counsulting - FlightTime (open channel) 19:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2018).

Administrator changes

added Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor
readded Gogo Dodo
removed Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes

removed Andrevan • EVula

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus that the {{promising draft}} template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

Technical news

  • Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
  • Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon () in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
  • IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.

Miscellaneous

  • Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 June 18 closes

Hi DeltaQuad. I just noticed you closed quite a few FFD’s at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 June 18. Just in case you didn’t notice, many of these discussion were not simple “keep” or “delete” discussions, but were rather “keep” or “remove” discussions. Most of the files are non-free files with multiple uses, and the discussions were about whether all or only some of these uses were WP:NFCCP compliant. So, it might help avoid confusion if you could clarify whether your closes are for all uses being discussed or only for some. FWIW,removing the file from some articles doesn’t mean the file will be deleted, but simply saying “keep” might be interpreted by some as “keep everywhere the file is being used” and others as “keep only for some uses”. Thanks in advance. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Ya I had already closed them (late at night) when I had realized it was more complex. I still actioned and removed the links from most articles, I just did not write it down. If you think it'll clarify it, I can go write that in the closes. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you did to make the outcomes clear. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 Done [1] -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that DeltaQuad. It might've been a little better to simply add the name of the files "mentioned by Explicit" to your closes, but at least this does indicate that this is not a "keep everywhere" type of close. Perhaps updating the {{Oldffdfull}} templates you added to the each file's talk page might also help. The reason I brought this up for discussion is not to be a pain in your side and create more busy work for you. It's just that image use can be tricky and files removed per an FFD discussion are sometimes re-added by either those (1) who aren't aware of the FFD dicussion or (2) those who are but disagree with the result. So, it helps to be able to provide a link back to the FFD which shows that a consensus was estalished to remove a file and why. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Indefinite IP range block

Hello. You blocked Special:Contributions/82.132.224.0/21 indefinitely. It's an anon-only block, but the block is indefinite. May I suggest specifying an end-date? Perhaps a multi-year block? That way, if the range is reallocated and/or the problem user goes away, the block just automatically expires? --Yamla (talk) 12:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh crap...that's what I get for blocking 4 ranges at once with Special:MassBlock...I totally spaced on the expiry. I'll change the 4 ranges to a date at some point today. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 15:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Works for me. :) Have a good day! --Yamla (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@Yamla: Just so you know I finally followed up, they are done. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Another revdel needed

On Eric's World, you missed a revdel on this revision (the one where you protected the page), and the inappropriate content is still there. Can you also revdel that edit too? — MRD2014 Talk 20:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Feedback on reverts?

Hi there. I recently requested rollback permissions, but was denied due to not having spent enough days reverting.

Schistocyte (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback link

I plan on eventually resubmitting a request, but wanted to reach out to see if you (or another admin) is able to offer general feedback on my past reverts up until this point. If this is not possible, I totally understand. I just thought I'd go ahead and ask, as your feedback on WP:RFP/R is especially detailed. Also, I've been monitoring WP:CVUA, but there have been no slots open for some time. Thank you. — Schistocyte (talk) 01:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@Schistocyte: All of this may sound harsh, take it with a grain of salt. When looking for permissions, I have to look for issues, and it tends not to highlight your positive contribution. So my first concern would be that in 19 days you have amassed 375 edits, likely mostly rollback (of which are 14 days), after coming back from a 4-month holiday. Before then, you were not particularly well established as a user. Your February edits were mostly WP:SANDBOX changes, and January was reversion of vandalism, but most of it was marked as good faith edits. This shows that in January you didn't clearly know the difference between good faith and vandalism. Your talkpage also shows you are still learning about Wikipedia basics, which is great, but a concern for me. I recently gave someone with little experience a temporary run (First request, Second request) and had it backfire. So i'm a little more cautious about handing it out. A spot check of your reverts looks ok for the moment, but I didn't go in depth because of the above. So at this point I'd still be a  decline. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
@DeltaQuad: Thank you for taking the time to review my edit history. Your feedback was not harsh at all. I appreciate your honest review of my contributions as of this point. Just to clarify, I am not planning on requesting rollback again until I have more experience. Thanks — Schistocyte (talk) 19:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

George Galloway

Hello, this "protection" is not necessary, I didn't want to revert his edit. -- Tobby72 (talk) 12:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

While I appreciate the sentiment, the talkpage clearly shows that the same issues still exist. If it wasn't going to be you, it was going to be someone else. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

not here

Hi. You recently blocked SandSsandwich for not being here. I had come across the user on the talkpage of bot suggestions/requests. After watching his activity i Thought the same, him not "being here". At that time he had like 50 edits with only one in article space. I am not questioning the block, but just curious, how/why did you block him? Kindly ping while replying. —usernamekiran(talk) 02:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: So the first thing I come across is that they only had the one edit to the mainspace. People who are not here to contribute to the encyclopedia tend not to edit the mainspace. Second, their second edit was to motto of the day participants. Clearly, it's not their first time using Wikipedia. Then they proceed to give out a whole bunch of barnstars/cookies to users, including to someone who has been gone for ages (not disclosing per WP:BEANS). They also started to edit the retired template. If they are thinking about retiring at this point...like... Lastly, they did a crap load of edits to their userspace. Therefore with all this combined, they aren't here to contribute to the encyclopedia, but to screw around. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 13:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, AmandaNP/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Alex Shih (talk) 04:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

UTRS and IPv6

Hey, at User_talk:Efa#IP_subnet_blocked the editor notes that UTRS won't accept the appeal due to the editor using IPv6. Is this a known issue? SQLQuery me! 13:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind! SQLQuery me! 13:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

George Galloway pp-dispute removal

Now that the Arbitration Committee BLP issues on British politics articles has closed 5 days ago, centering on Philip Cross edits to George Galloway, could the pp-dispute/protection level on George Galloway's article you added be removed or reduced for established editors. There is at least one important backlog edit waiting to be made (see Talk:George Galloway#Significant development to Ali-Khan legal case). Thanks. Rwendland (talk) 09:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

My protection of the article was not because of the arbitration case, but because of the fact that 99% of the page's history right now is edit warring. You are able to make edit requests, which if consensus exists, an administrator can add it to the article. The protection log, which also shows the expiry of the protection, will show you I did smaller increments of time to attempt to resolve the issue. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2018).

Administrator changes

added Sro23
readded KaisaL • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

  • After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
  • Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.

Technical news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Your close at Talk:George Galloway

I find your close very strange. You say that there's no consensus bbetween #1 and Neither, and you note that people found #2 objectionable. But you also say that "so the article will stay as it is", which means ... #2 (which is the current version). That doesn't compute. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I thought these were proposed additions. I have amended things. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

ygm

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

OTRS Permission

{{Ping|DeltaQuad}} For some reason I can't use your OTRS Permission script anymore, even though in it says available to OTRS-members of the global group which I am as seen here. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Can you describe the conditions it's not working in and give me a link to your JS file? I can get it working perfectly fine. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
I did it as an importscript function in my Common.js at User:Clarkcj12/common.js. 23:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
I installed your scripts, it worked fine. I see you installed it today. Did you clear your cache? Also, this script is permanently dead, so I removed it for you. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I did try clearing my cache, and even rebooting computer, but the error I get says OTRS fail! You are not authorized for this function!. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 01:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I see in the code where you got that from. I've made a change. Can you clear your cache and try now? No guarantee it'll work. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Just tried it out and it works now. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 02:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz
renamed Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

added Amorymeltzer • Mr. Stradivarius • MusikAnimal • MSGJ • TheDJ • Xaosflux

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.

Technical news

  • Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
  • Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
  • Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

SPIs

Hi. I hope you are well.
This edit got me wondering, why SPIs arent usually filed for such users? He was clearly playing the good hand-bad hand stuff. So in the future, editors should be able to identify sych good hands. I have often seen such blocks previously, by many CUs. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I try not to issue many blocks without an SPI. I went back through my blocks and i've only made 3 blocks where I haven't left any public trace at all. These blocks make it really hard for me to identify the original block reason, so I avoid not logging them frequently. While I think your question is good and worth comment, and I have a reasonable explanation, you are a little too early for me to have this discussion publicly, as I would be shooting myself in the foot. I'd be happy to discuss this case with you by email (which obviously would contain no extra private information), but if you are looking for a more public discussion, I would ask for you to wait until we get through an unblock request with the user. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I apologise for being vague, and for giving the impression that I was asking about that particular block. I was asking about general circumstances. Also, I was not asking why you performed CU, or anything about that particular user. Sorry again :)
What I was trying to ask is, there are a few incidents like this where a case/perp should be known to other users, like which other accounts they handled; but (rarely) no more information is provided. I was looking for a general answer. I think that answer is the beans. I apologise for the confusion again :)
In a general situation, dont you think the other accounts should be disclosed after some period though? Like in "suspected/confirmed socks" tag on userpage, even if there is no SPI or behavioural evidence? In most of the cases behavioural evidence would be WP:beans. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
No worries. So if you are speaking just to good-hand bad-hand accounts, the reasons are often very specific and not similar from one case to the next. It's hard for me to talk about them in generalities because I find those blocks aren't made often at all, and I honestly can't remember the last good-hand bad-hand I blocked beyond this. I'm happy to discuss old cases if you can find some and provide some reasoning on why it may of happened, it's just hard for me to pull out of my hat. Sorry for being difficult in giving an answer. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

apologies, I didnt see you replied above, and with time I forgot about the conversation. I was just wondering, is it possible to run a CU on blocked users? I mean, technically it is possible, but is it possible policy-wise? There are huge behavioural similarities between Thanks Buddy, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kindsouvik. Or, could you please run a CU on the latest confirmed sock of Kindsouvik? —usernamekiran(talk) 00:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

So yes it is definitely possible policy wise. The problem we run into is that data expires after a certain amount of time. So everything in that SPI archive, I would have zero data available for me, even if I ran the check. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

DELETION of the block, and I'm very sorry

Hi, I am a Wikipedia user who had created an account called Retired Wrestler that I was going to give to friend who is former wrestler called Verne Seibert (he said he didn't want it), and I also created some other accounts for people to help me out with issues of mine. I did not read the rules about sockpuppeting, but I have now and am ashamed off what I have done, and will never do that again. I want to get it de-activated can you please accept my request. I wish you good help health and I am grateful for the education on this issue. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Davidgoodheart: Ok, i'm a bit confused to what is going on, but can you list all the accounts you have created please? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
@DeltaQuad: Hi, other than User:Retiredwrestler, these are the other two accounts that I created: User:Steamroll464 and User:Terryedward. I am a bit confused to the User:Terryedward account though as this person who says they have been able to use it even though it is said to be blocked. I must deal with just de-activating one account at at time. So lets just start with Retired Wrestler listed on the Nancy Benoit article user history. Also thank you so much for giving me a second chance! Davidgoodheart (talk) 00:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by giving you a second chance, I didn't promise anything, nor do I even know what you are really asking for. If you are looking for the sockpuppets to disappear out of existence except to oversighters, I'm not allowed to do that. I have rules that I have to follow when it comes to the use of that tool or I could loose it. If you mean hidden to admins only, again I have rules that I have to follow when it comes to the use of that tool. They were all blocked 11 months ago and haven't edited since, so they will remain dormant. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@DeltaQuad: What I meant is being made unveiwable to people in the viewing history page so they can no longer be seen, and yes I know that adminstators can still see them, as I am WELL informed of that so they no longer viewable as my sockpuppets to regulareeditors, what I meant by a second chance it to make to socking avialable only to administrators, as I promise I will NEVER do this again! Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Please don't edit your previous comments, as it could be used to claim I'm being rude by not addressing everything you say. Please add them as new comments.
As I said above, I have a policy to follow just as you do. The policy tells me when I can use them and when I can not use them. Why are you asking me to violate policy and get myself in trouble? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@DeltaQuad: Sorry If I came across as rude, but I found out more info since I last talked to you and I was not make you look rude by saying you weren't addressing me. I will know for next time to add them when I talk to you next. I'm sorry, but I don't really understand what the policy is as it seems very complex to me, and if I made it seem like I was trying to ask you to do that I wasn't so I apologize if it came across that way. If wish you a healthy recovery. Davidgoodheart (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
You didn't come across as rude, more just that it is hard to keep track of a discussion, and I am trying to make the point clearly that this is not something I'm allowed to do. I wish I could help you more, but I can't in this case as policy prohibits it. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Davidgoodheart: FYI, accounts can not be deleted. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@FlightTime: I know, but they can be made dormant and unviewable. Davidgoodheart (talk) 00:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
While they technically can be made unviewable, our policies prohibit such an action in this particular case. Primefac (talk) 02:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@DeltaQuad: Is there anything that I can do, such as putting speedy deletion tags on them? Davidgoodheart (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)x2(talk page stalker) @Davidgoodheart: I do not believe that there is, I'm afraid. SQLQuery me! 02:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@DeltaQuad: Hi, thank you for your help so far. I have an idea being is that can you unblock Retiredwrestler, I am going to change its name, and password and give it to someone who wants an account. Is that possible to do? Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Are they just looking for the username? Because it's against policy to give someone else your username. Everyone is able to create an account on Wikipedia. But if they just want the username you have, we can request a rename for your account, and then they can create a new account under the old name. (Do not create it for them!) -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
@DeltaQuad: Okay then, what are they next steps that we must take to make this happen? Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
So you want to rename the account and let that person create it correct? I just want to make sure I give you the right directions. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
@DeltaQuad: Yes, that is right. Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
You would want to follow the instructions here. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
@DeltaQuad: Great! As soon as I meet them, which hopefully will be tomorrow, I will have them create it. Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
@DeltaQuad: Hi, I just contacted the person and they said they will meet me tomorrow. I checked User:Retiredwrestler and it still seems to be blocked, can you please remove the block, and I will take care of the rest tomorrow, and thanks again for your help! Davidgoodheart (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
As I stated above, you need to request a username change for that account, and then if it is approved, then the account name will become open for the person to register. They are NOT permitted to simply just use the account as is. That is known as a compromised account and is blocked completely. I am not allowed to simply unblock them to use that account. Please request the username change. (Be aware I do NOT have the ability to rename the user) -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, a while ago I asked you if I could have the user page re-actived and renamed, But that process is too hard for me to understand. Here is my conversation with a Wikipedia administrator below [It was removed --DQ] who has told me how I can deal with this. Please let me do this as I have really learned my lesson about socking and deserve to make amends for what I have done wrong, and I PROMISE that I will never sock ever again! Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@K6ka: I saw you noted that the former accounts can not be registered for? Is there any way to resolve the above issue or am I just dreaming? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
@DeltaQuad: Hi, if I could please have this user page deleted please as I been have given the okay to do, if you will let me do so. Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

New Page Review Bit

Well, I don't think I hit 20 pages in the week, was actually in the middle of reviewing one when it turned off, that was a little disorienting and funny. Let me know if you want to extend it and have me review more pages, I should have a good chunk of time this upcoming week to review more articles.

Overall, I think I did a decent job, though I had a couple instances of not understanding exactly what the review tools did, which lead to a few unintentional messages. Either way, thanks for giving me the shot. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 05:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

So the articles I will count:
  1. Makariy (Maletych)
  2. Great Bear (band)
  3. 1995 Volvo Women's Open – Doubles
  4. Andrea Lawrence (professor)
  5. Teachers Union
  6. Antonio Ereditato
  7. Beri Weber
  8. List of Brahmin dynasties and states
  9. Thomas J. Clayton
  10. Canadaland
As these were the only articles created recently. The rest just ended up in the page curation system out of stupidity. Since you only hit 50% of target with that list, I'd like to see another week. After that I'll ask you apply back at NPR so my colleges can also give input. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good, I will make sure to focus on articles at the new end of the list. Figured I would work on the older ones to get them cleared, but yeah, they were there for stupid reasons. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 05:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Reapplied. Let me know if you have any questions for me. Didn't review as many as I wanted since I have been busy this week, but added a few to my list. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 21:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Accidental rollback

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I accidentally rollbacked you while rollbacking a disruptive IP. Sorry! JOEBRO64 22:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, no worries. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:35, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Clarification concerning WP:ADMINACCT

Hi there.

WP:ADMINACCT mentions, “Repeated or consistent poor judgment,” as possible criteria for sanctions. My question to you is this. To feasibly establish this type of behaviour concerning an Admin’s decisions given out at Arb/Req/Enf, would the complaint have to include several different cases? Furthermore, would all of these cases have to be summarized in a single 500 word filing?

If so, it seems there would be great difficulty if not impossibility to demonstrate this in so few words.

This is a hypothetical question, at the moment, to understand clearly how this would need to be demonstrated to avoid wasting the time of everyone, myself included. I assume that a complaint of behaviour like the one I filed will be deleted and not be on the record to establish consistent poor judgment should such a situation arise in the future. Is that true?

On a facetious note. If someone comes to my house with a dish they’ve prepared not to my liking, I still thank them. For they have certainly put effort into it which I appreciate. In this particular situation, the food may not have been to my taste but I liked the plate it was served on and admired its subtle colour.

Thanks for your time if you are able to reply. I understand it might need to wait till the present situation is completely resolved. From your talk page I see that you are not feeling well. I wish you a speedy recovery. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 04:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the well wishes. I do what I can here and there, it depends on the day.
As for ADMINACCT, yes it does state repeated or consistent poor judgement. It would definitely have to be more than 1 case. I'm not going to go into how many would be required, because it's all circumstantial. But the dispute resolution in this case was limited to a very small section on a user talkpage. I would think (don't quote me on this, i'll get someone to comment on this later who is more awake than I am) the best place to appeal an AE is at WP:ANI or WP:ARCA if you disagree with the result on it. If you get a handful of those all over turned then I would definitely have to consider it longer than I did this case.
As far as word count goes, remember that case requests is just meant to give a basic outline to decide if we need a full 4 week case over the matter. You don't have to spill all the beans there. That is what evidence is for. And you can always ask for word extensions.
As for your hypothetical question, the words you use are ambiguous, so i'll use a different set. The request will be archived in the case request page history and still be viewable to everyone. As far as it being on the record as an ArbCom matter, it would not count. You would have to reestablish that fact in future proceedings, unless somehow the current committee passes a motion of some sort, which I doubt will happen.
I'm not really sure where you are going with the dish, so I'll just pass on commenting for that. If you have any other questions, I'll try to answer them though others may help and be more useful too. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
There is further clarification here -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Joseph Kropschot.png

Hi Delta Quad,

I communicated through social media (instagram) with the image's owner and got permission from him that way. I have screen shots of the DMs we exchanged, could I email those screen shots to the email address instead of actually forwarding an email? The image owner's name is Dale Shirley, his Instagram account is 'dabombphotos'. I have DMed him again and asked if he could send his permission in an email and have not heard back. Please let me know how to proceed. I am trying to follow all the rules here, I'm just a noob at Wikipedia entries and protocol so I'm just kind of stumbling my way through it. Thanks.

John — Preceding unsigned comment added by NorCal4Life (talk • contribs) 17:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Sadly, sending screenshots of DMs will not work. Not that I believe you would do this, but people have modified screenshots before and that is why we can't except them, it has to come right from the source. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Request

Hey, DeltaQuad,

Can you delete my edits on User talk:143.231.249.130, please? I posted a joke section because of what the IP address did to the Lindsey Graham page (Redacted), but I feel embarrassed over it. Thanks. HyrulesGreatest (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not within the CSD policy or Revdel policy. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Okay, understood. Sorry for removing the section. HyrulesGreatest (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

What’s the best way forward to stop this?

Hi Amanda and @RolandR: (Another editor who has also being trying to deal with this issue)

We have an editor who has been removing reliably sourced content while using mendacious edit summaries to cover himself. He has been confronted on the talk page now by both RolandR and myself. It has been indicated to him that that the deletion of content was inappropriate as well as the edit summaries that he used. He has been asked to stop. We have pointed him to the reliable sources used from news organizations such as the Independent, Aljazeera, Deutsche Welle, and Newsweek that all confirm content of material that he has deleted. He dismisses the arguments calling the content from these news agencies "click-bait", which they most certainly are not. In a similar incident, he sought to delete/whitewash the findings given in a High Court decision which is also detailed in the same discussion. The editor refuses to listen. What’s the best way forward to stop this? I’m not interested in wasting any more of my time going after vandals/habitual sanction breakers with no results. My time is too valuable. Is there an effective way to put a stop to this? What do you suggest? Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 02:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

If your asking me to tell you what is the best way to get someone sanctioned who doesn't agree with you, your asking the wrong question. I get people's time is valuable, mine is too. Sometimes we have to put some effort in, even if at first it doesn't seem to go anywhere. This community is built on consensus, and therefore, there is no one way to get someone sanctioned.
As for a best next venue, I would suggest getting a full consensus from the options at WP:DRR. Specifically, an RFC or Dispute resolution noticeboard post may be helpful. If an editor fails to comply with consensus obtained from that, then WP:ANI would be the next best option.
I have not reviewed the content of your dispute, and I don't have an opinion of the users or the content. But as my talkpage rules state, if you talk about another editor, you need to let them know. @Icewhiz: That said please don't turn my talkpage into an extension of the article talkpage. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Caling established editors "vandals", as is done above, is a personal attack. Veritycheck should read WP:BRD, WP:V, WP:ONUS. I will note that going to an admin after newly added content, by Veritycheck, has been modified (e.g. the UK court case which was not removed) or challenged - once -would fall under WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:OWNERSHIP. I will also note that I gave Veritycheck the courtesy of a polite request to self revert when they broke 1RR - as opposed to taking it to AE.Icewhiz (talk) 05:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Amanda, the question was straight forward - How to put a stop to someone removing well sourced content. Nothing more nothing less. The rest was background. My question did not ask how to get someone sanctioned, nor was it about a content dispute. Thank you for pointing me to WP:DRR and WP:ANI. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

About NPP right

I left some comments on WP:PERM responding to the concerns for which you denied my request. I really do think I'm qualified for that right, and I just didn't leave an initial adequate request. Thank you. funplussmart (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I have seen them, just had a complete lack of time to respond due to having some extenuating circumstances happen the past few days. I'm writing this in a coffee shop as I eat before I run again. I will give a due response, but I will likely need another 24 hours to sit down and write it. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 15:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh okay. Take your time. Thank you. funplussmart (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Funplussmart: Ok, looks like we'll have the conversation here since it got archived on us.
Yes you did tag Onyx for A7 at the time. When I look through someone's contributions for NPR, I specifically look for a solid track record of both A7 and G11 CSD nominations or the equivalent declines at AFC. At the time of your nomination I only saw one nomination. Because A7 is so diverse in the number of possible applications, it's one I really need to see a track record that shows several different types (like business vs. musician, website vs. politican, that sort of thing) so I'm clear you understand A7. I was wrong specifically about article tagging. But it still doesn't alleviate my general concern about article maintenance and interactions with new users. Specifically of note, Eduardo Bayo should have been WP:BLPPRODd instead of tagged as a regular prod. It's harder to remove, and now a BLP is sitting around unsourced. (I didn't look into potential A7 concerns there) Also what I mean above by article maintenance is more along the lines of WP:SOFIXIT instead of applying tags. I know tags are easier, but I would like to see more actual cleanup too instead of letting the problem remain. And we are at a non-starter when it comes to new user interactions. Those are critical as many will come to your talkpage after you nominated their article for CSD, and it got deleted, asking why. We have one chance with new users. If we screw it up, we've lost a contributor, and that's not what NPR is about. This is why I require established track records.
So I'm still going to hold my position on declining your request for now. I hope I have better explained what is going on so you can look at areas to expand on or improve. Please reply with any questions you may have. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay fair enough. I have did some more work since I applied, but I understand that I need a more clear record before I get the right. I'll reapply after a while and see if you (or another admin) is satisfied with my work. Thank you for being a great admin. funplussmart (talk) 12:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2018).

Administrator changes

added Justlettersandnumbers • L235
removed Bgwhite • HorsePunchKid • J Greb • KillerChihuahua • Rami R • Winhunter

Interface administrator changes

added Cyberpower678 • Deryck Chan • Oshwah • Pharos • Ragesoss • Ritchie333

Oversight changes

removed Guerillero • NativeForeigner • Snowolf • Xeno

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
  • The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
  • Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, amended the procedure on functionary inactivity.
  • The community consultation for 2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments has concluded. Appointments will be made by October 11.
  • Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
  • Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving

@DeltaQuad: Hi, have a happy thanksgiving weekend and a healthy recovery. Davidgoodheart (talk) 08:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Query about OVERSIGHT

Hi Amanda, thanks again for granting rollback rights. I've read through WP:CRD to try to understand what I need to report for revision deleting, but I'd like to get a handle on the threshold of offensiveness that you think should trigger a report. I've recently come across two diffs here and here that I think might be described as grossly offensive - are they the sort of thing you think I should be reporting? I'll discuss this with User:Mz7 if you prefer, I just came to you in the first instance because you raised the point yesterday. Thanks GirthSummit (blether) 14:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I see that User:TonyBallioni has already revision deleted them, so I think that answers my question. When I come across stuff like that in future, I'll notify one of the admins on the list.GirthSummit (blether) 15:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Definitely revdel. It's also not normal practice to link these kinds of edits anywhere. Email is one way to handle it, but WP:IRC in the revdel channel is always the best and fastest. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
OK, thanks. As a newcomer to this, can I say that the documentation isn't very clear about the communication channels? WP:REVDELREQUEST says that you can request revdel by contacting an admin through their talkpage; it says that e-mail is also an option, but most of the admins on CAT:REVDEL don't have e-mail links on their userpages - does it mean Special:EmailUser/Oversight? I'll read up on how IRC works, and hopefully will be able to use that channel in future, but it might be worth clarifying the documentation (if only for the sake of newbies). GirthSummit (blether) 21:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I mean you aren't violating any policy by posting to an admins talkpage, so it's not completely wrong. But it likely could use updating. I get my emails on my phone, so I can always pass them along too if I can't do them cause i'm not at home. (I only have access to my main account on one computer for security reasons) -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I've tried IRC, but haven't been successful yet. I've registered a nickname, tried different variants, but I always get the same 'wikimedia-overflow' message. I'll talk toUser:Mz7 about it and try to get this sorted out, but in the meantime, can you tell me what's best to do when I see this stuff - should I post on an admin's talkpage, e-mail the oversight team, or leave them on mainspace and hope that a more experienced user picks them up? GirthSummit (blether) 22:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
@Girth Summit: The 'wikimedia-overflow' issue was a problem with the way the IRC channel was set up, not with anything you did. I talked to an IRC operator, who changed the mode of the channel so that it looks like the issue is resolved; anyone can join the channel now. Apologies for the inconvenience. I've also responded to a number of your revdel-related questions at User:Mz7/CVUA/Girth Summit#Questions about reporting vandalism for oversighting/revision deletion. Mz7 (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Mz7: as you know from our discussions there, I've got it working now. Thanks also for the answers - that's cleared things up for me, I'll proceed as instructed. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 23:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, AmandaNP/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. JC7V-talk 22:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi JC7V, I only use email for issues that require privacy, to protect my email address for several reasons. I'm happy for any advice/criticism/etc. to be posted here and won't be offended, but because it's a private message you sent me, I'll wait till you post it here as not to breach confidentiality. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Your deletion of Richard Ganthony

I was pinged to the PERM/NPR thread and discovered this WP:A7 from there. This seems quite surprising to me; very far from WP:CSD material. If you didn't think WP:BIO was satisfied, WP:AfD would have been the logical route. To be honest, I'm quite surprised that somebody with checkuser, oversight, arbcom, etc, would think this is a valid A7. Based on your statement of willingness to redraftify, I'm going to go ahead and do that. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@JC7V7DC5768, Alex Shih, and TonyBallioni: adding interested parties from NPR thread. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
If I understand Amanda's point correctly, her view is that the article did not assert significance, and in fact argued against the significance of the subject. It wasn't whether or not the subject was notable, but rather the question for A7 is whether or not the average reader could look at an article and from the prose say "I understand why this might be a feasible subject for a general purpose encyclopedia to cover.", which is the English translation of the A7 policy that I have always used. While if I had seen it tagged, I wouldn't have pushed the button, I also would have likely left it for another admin to review. Regardless, it's a draft now and people can work on it to make it a better article so the issue seems to be resolved. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't worried about satisfying WP:BIO when I deleted the article. As I read the letter of A7, it's perfectly within the bounds of it. And that's often how I read policy to the letter. CheckUser/Oversight/ArbCom doesn't mean we are all perfect or we know everything either. I'm always happy to redraftify things that qualify for A7 upon request so I have no objection to you doing so. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 15:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Foxnpichu

Hi DQ, Foxnpichu was not created to avoid a block. That account's name was originally HoshiNoKaabii2000. Yes, there were problems with sockpuppetry and such, but I made a deal with them to stop editing for 3 months (a modified standard offer), which they accepted. I unblocked them, and they had their account renamed to start anew. This all went down in July 2016. The current block should be lifted unless they have done something recently to violate our policies. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Since 331dot deferred, I opted to unblock Hoshi. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb: I went back and took a second look just now, I see now that TDFan was declared. It wasn't very clear from what I had read (there was only one small part mentioning it) that that sock was admitted. The SPI documentation was also not properly kept up to note this, so the way I had seen it when I was blocked is they had not admitted to the bigger sockmaster of TDFan. That being said, obviously I'm wrong, and I apologize for this mess and will apologize to the user later today. I think the SPI documentation was a bloody mess, and should have had better annotation to stop this. For example, the master should be listed as Foxnpichu, and I see nothing in the unblock agreement stopping this. I see this user wants to just forget their past or at least did in July 2016, but this whole thing could have easily been avoided with having the proper documentation done. And frequently we don't give socks the cloak of anonymity when it comes to their past issues. I mean the SPI barely mentions HoshiNoKaabii2000 as a sock either. Are you opposed to me updating the documentation to prevent stupid blocks like this? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 15:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Also just to make it clear where all this started, it was at WP:RFPERM/R. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 15:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for the link. Well, yeah, I can see where the confusion stemmed from. What I do know is that HoshiNoKaabii2000 was created in July 2013. TDFan2006 was created as a sock in November 2013, so TDFan2006 was a sock. Hoshi denied being related to TDFan2006 for a long, long time, until here on 8 March 2016. The original Hoshi SPI case is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HoshiNoKaabii2000/Archive. The TDFan SPI is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TDFan2006/Archive. I think there might have been a time where I wasn't sure who TDFan was and was trying to link up similar behavior with other socks like FanforClarl. In retrospect I'm not sure whether FanforClarl was related to Hoshi. Anyway, I don't have an objection if you were to try to bring some clarity to those SPIs. Sorry if the whole thing was confusing. It's hard to remember how it all went down, but sometimes as a rank-and-file wikignome, which I was back then, you try your best to link socks on evidence hoping that a CU will look behind the scenes and validate your suspicions. It's hard sometimes, because kids who vandalize kids' TV articles often behave similarly. Hoaxing, subtle vandalism, etc. Often, CUs bust your chops demanding way more info, but if you provide too much info it's a duck and they won't bother looking. Or often the CU data has expired, and as a result, you often get multiple SPIs on the same person. Whatever I can do to assist, please let me know. And if I did something amiss when unblocking Hoshi, or if I could have done something smarter when I unblocked him, please let me know your thoughts. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

IP block

Hi. One yer ago, we had a conversation, you granted me IPBE for the period of 1 year and stated "if after that your country is still blocking Wikipedia, we can extend it indefinitely." So, I am asking for your help again. Thanks. Sebastian James (talk) 09:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

DQbot and the end of WP:UAA/HP

I don’t know if you need to adjust anything with the bot or not, but just in case you do, the UAA holding pen has been shut down and marked historical. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Yes, I definitely will have to change things on the bot. My recommendation would be to admin protect it for now, as I really don't have the time to dumpster dive through python code in the next 7 days. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
If that’s what you think is right, consider it done. I don’t know nothin bout no bot code. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello again and getting permission for deleting user page

This is being discussed above
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@DeltaQuad: Hi, a while ago I asked you if I could have the user page re-actived and renamed, But that process is too hard for me to understand. Here is my conversation with a Wikipedia administrator below who has told me how I can deal with this. Please let me do this as I have really learned my lesson about socking and deserve to make amends for what I have done wrong, and I PROMISE that I will never sock ever again! Davidgoodheart (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC) (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

You are still not using the right phrasing! accounts cannot be deleted. However it would be possible to delete the user page. I have no objection to doing so. Go ahead and ask DeltaQuad who applied the {{sock}} tag to delete the page. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
  • A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
  • The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.

Arbitration

  • Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
  • The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day

Hey, DeltaQuad. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Kpgjhpjm 01:30, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Your question about admin socking

Re your question about admin socking to the ACE candidates: OMG, have you found out about Bishzilla? Bishonen | talk 11:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC).

This must be your evil twin monster, right? But they are suspiciously being nice. Hmm, calm before the storm of rage? ;) -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Bishzilla is affectionately thought of as a roaring Tokyo-stomping monster, but, as you have spotted, she's more like a soccer mom nowadays. Rather depressing development for a once proud admin sock! Bishonen | talk 02:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC).

Question/clarification

Hi Amanda,

happy finally admins took action, I've also made a lot of struggle. Please help me to interpret this sentence, since I failed to understand it properly yet:

"You can only revert once previously changed content is allowed for all editors (not one per editor) in the period of one month before the edit and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page."

-> the part after the "and" I understand, so simplifying:

-> "You can only revert once previously changed content is allowed for all editors (not one per editor) in the period of one month before the edit" (here I am not sure)...

- So it would mean that only 1 revert is possible for any specific content that was carried out in the past month? (meaning edits before October 27 cannot be altered, only what was done afterwards? What confuses me the expiry also you modified to February 26, 2019)...

- because of this I also do not understand properly maybe what means "for all editor"/"not one per editor".....so if the revert would be done by an editor already, why would then others revert? (I understand what Ad Orientem said about that for any bold edit only one revert is possible and after talk page and only after consensus to do anythin else - the thing for I was screaming since a month regarding the problematic editor)

Please rephrase or at least explain to me especially what the whole sentence means in spite of my concerns, I am treated as a person with quite good English, but here I failed...Thank You!(KIENGIR (talk) 00:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC))

So basically, one person adds something in the article. Then another person reverts it. It can not be reverted again, by any person, unless there is a consensus for a period of 1 month. It will expire in three months, in February 2019, instead of being over already in February 2018. Does that clarify? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I understood that
- Any bold edit may be reverted only once (shall it be any user)
- This temporary edit sanctioning will expire in February 2019
- One thing to clarify, but correct me if I interpret it wrong: "unless there is a consensus for a period of 1 month" -> anything may be reverted more than once and by more users if the content is the subject of already one month consensus (meaning not just classical consensus by discussion, but inlcuding any previous stable content = in other words, last stable version that is applied by WP:BRD or rollback in ordinary cases). Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC))
While it can be reverted if it's going against consensus, I'd rather an enforcement request be made instead of warring over it, and then we can issue a block and have it restored. To also be clear, the discussion doesn't have to be open for a month, but any revert is subject to the one month period. If any other admin sees this and can properly wordsmith this for me, you are welcome to. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank You Amanda, than let's set it like so - similary at normal case reverts applied to BRD - that by "one month consensused" cases if someone is reverted after the second restoration of former stable/consensused content then it should directly go to AE. I will follow this in case - hoping such cases won't arise of course.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC))
I'm not sure what your saying, but yes, there are loophole type things, but everyone has also been DS warned, and anyone who wants to be stupid about it, we can sanction further. That's the value of admin discretion. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I'd wanted to say normally after the second revert (after I am reverted the second time, as per a former agreement with another admin) I go to the talk page, and start a discussion (regarding a normal BRD case, when I only restored former consensus). This was I projecting to the current situation regarding the "1 month-consensus" cases, but this time not he talk page, but AE is the place. Of course, if it is seen by the revert that would be awkward or would have the same problematic intention as we experienced, taking it much soonber to AE may be more suitable. Yes sure, I am happy that finally admins really check the happenings, since the past the problematic users even put misleading references and reasonings in their edit logs thus who was not near the events or did not check clearly the talk page entirely, at first glance could not decide who is really abiding the rules. Thanks, All the best!(KIENGIR (talk) 11:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC))

One more question...

Hi Amanda,

one more question, I checked all the time happenings...while Cealicuca quantitatively commited a violation once by two reverts ([2], [3]), and after another by 4 reverts ([4], [5], [[6]], [7]) regarding the same material, Borsoka and Fakirbakir did not do such repetitive violations on same content and stopped earlier. Their few reverts affected material that did not have consensus for one month, and they did not pushed their version, just undid Cealicuca's addition and they were active on the talk page, while Calicuca continued without consensus. I really carefully checked, Borsoka after just inserted plus material and OR and who tags, but neither him or Fakirbakir did the same. By one edit of Borsoka it is not so clear, since when he made the undo his addition was just because included while Cealicuca at same time reverting him added again new materials without consensus...At the :Arbitration_enforcement_log/2018 I don't see Cealicuca listed although what he has done is really awesome, filled with personal attacks and imporper epithets not understanding whatis vandalism or not...and may be instead of "Balkins" you wanted to write "Balkans"...

I don't want to be lawyer of anyone, I am just extremely concerned, if also valuable and wikietiquette abiding editors became a victim...maybe they could stop earlier, but if we check all the material, in theory they did not necessarily made those obvious violations like Cealicuca (pushing the same without consensus, just applied restoration of less 1 month no-consensus additions, but no repeated any of their bold additions deliberately)...

If my deduction fails somewhere, please correct me....Thank you for your time and care (in case I also do not want to commit any mistake, I have to understand sharply the things. Thank You!(KIENGIR (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC))

They did stop earlier, you right, and that's why they got 24 hours instead of 48. I have to be fair as they both still violated that page restriction.
For Fakirbakir, Borska reverted, then they reverted again. This violates the sanction, it's not per editor.
For Borska, Original revert rerevert on the removal of {{cn}}.
Cealicuca is not listed at Arb Enforcement, because their block was not Arb Enforcement. DS requires that the editor receive an alert about the topic area before sanctioning, so it's just a regular block. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Got it finally! They would have the right only make more reverts on the same content, if it would be content subject to already one month consensus! Thanks!(KIENGIR (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC))

Preventive notification

Hi Amanda (this message I also sent to Vanjagenije), just for sure I indicate that I reset the map voted by the RFC, that Iovaniorgovan abused through one month recurrently and continued as well just before the admin intervention. Since it is again a complicated case with a long history, just for sure I indicate that here is the background [8] (former WP:AN3 complaint, I could gather a permament link when it became archieved), the rest of the discussion on the talk pages and the just archieved RFC discussion. His really foxy and disruptive attempts were awesome, hopefully it won't happen again, and because of the current situation in the page, I better link the evidence in advance. Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC))

Arbcom

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#2017 ArbCom and the GdB unban. Fram (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Origin of the Romanians article

Hi, I'd greatly appreciate it if you could take a look at the latest edits made unilaterally by an editor without having reached consensus on the Talk pages, as requested by admins following the recent blocks due to edit-warring. Thank you.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 10:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but here are some things you might also like to consider, when it comes to the practices of editors on that article:
  • Removing content that mentioned, for example "the offspring of an ancient colony of the Romans that used to be once in Transylvania and true Italians" (Stephan Szántó) and attributing to several sources (including this one) the following: "[...] the Vlachs were a genus Italicum ("an Italian race")" using the following sentence: "Piccolomini's version of the Vlachs' origin was repeated by many scholars—including the Italian Flavio Biondo and Pietro Ranzano, the Transylvanian Saxon Johannes Lebelius and the Hungarian Stephan Szántó—in the subsequent century.". This is misrepresenting what the sources state, practically (and this is but one example, he/she did the same with several sources) he/she removed Szanto's "the offspring of an ancient colony of the Romans that used to be once in Transylvania" and attributed to him and true Italians" with "Vlachs were a genus Italicum ("an Italian race")". Isn't this WP:SYNTH?
  • I would also like to point out another example "stealth" addition by Borsoka. Under the pretext "as per Talk page" (there was no such talk about the content he/she added) he/she misused a sourced statement, placing it out of context (meaning the source's context - Posner's context), here. He/she added a lot of new (that was never in the article, check an earlier November version and look for "semi-romance", for example) content in this edit of his, and it's a pain to actually discern between what he/she removes, what he/she modifies and what he/she adds. In any case, this reference to Diez's work (cited in Posner) is metioned here, after his/her addition. You can judge by yourself why this addition was made, especially given his/her comment. He/she, along with other editors, get a good laugh out of it. How is anyone supposed to take this seriously?
  • He went further with the another edit (which the other editor has provided above). This one was indeed debated in the talk page, here, and we were close to an understanding. Yet there were at lest 2 contention points, one about unsubstantiated claims (that the Romanian expansion had an input in the development of the theories or not) which the editor completely ignored and one about the opportunity of using in the lead paragraph linguistic studies. In any case, he/she dismissed everything with "No, I will not seek third opinion. I do not want to waste editors' time to read absurd claims as they can be read above.".
So could you tell me please, how would it be possible to even try to reach a consensus under those terms? The editor makes changes, some of them really controversial, without actually reaching a consensus (although in at least one case we were close to reaching it, the lead statement), he/she does significant changes in a way that are easily overlooked, he/she uses the pretext of "is on Talk page" to simulate that a consensus has been reached - while he/she himself ends the debates with arguments like "absurd claims..." etc. And it is not the first time, and if I revert his/her changes (and only the changes, if I waste a couple of hours to sift through everything), the editor already made it quite clear here what will happen. Is this really what this is about? Having an editor making controversial changes that incite a reaction, and then using his/her friends into helping him/her getting other editors blocked/banned? This is how consensus and collaboration is supposed to happen?Cealicuca (talk) 14:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Just for the record, the above summary misrepresents most aspects of the lengthy discussions. The only exception is the second point, but I fixed the problem. According to my experiences, both Iovaniorgovan and Cealicuca have been applying the same tactics for months when trying to push their PoVs across the article: they are writing lengthy messages, they are initiating multiple debates and they are filing false accusations. I think their time consuming tactics can hardly secure the improvement of articles. Borsoka (talk) 02:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to get into the content. As someone already pointed out maybe it's a flaw in how us admins work, but I'm only getting involved when I see the violations. If you think there are more, please take them to AE and make it clear what the issue is. That's the proper place to report them, especially when I can't be around to play admin because people can't contribute to an encyclopedia properly like normal wikipedians. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

DS wording

Hi Amanda, the wording of the DS at Origin of the Romanians seems a little confusing. I can't really figure out what the restriction actually is, but I would like to enforce it aggressively if not apply more. Can you explain what the intent currently is?  Swarm  talk  21:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm:,
I answer you because I made it clarified with the same reason with Amanda. Check above the Question/clarification & One more question... sections, there everything is clarified!(KIENGIR (talk) 23:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC))
However, since I checked all the happenings in the past months, will try to shortly "wordsmith" it again (but the best is also if you'd read the two sections above):
- Regarding any bold edit, only once it can be reverted, unless it has been a subject of an already one month consensus (= normal consensus per talk, last stable version, or any binding arbitration result or similar)
- That means if "content A" is added boldy, only one revert is possible, regardless who does it, because it is per content, not per editor. If a following revert is performed by anyone, that one already violated the DS.
- Thus, more reverts may be done only if the content is already subject of a type of 1 month consensus referred above, then DS cannot be applied
- I don't see any violation of the recent edits, as I said it seems it had it's effect...the problem is the talk page...(KIENGIR (talk) 00:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC))
@Swarm: Sorry for the delay on this, but it's effectively 1RR but not just limited to each editor. And the time period is a month, not 24hrs. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018).

Administrator changes

readded Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz
removed Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike

Interface administrator changes

removedDeryck Chan

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
  • A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
  • A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
  • A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
  • Wikipedia policy requires administrators to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Obituaries

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Your username

Is your username a reference to everyone's favorite lady captain's voyage through the galaxy? If so, how cool! cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 16:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Cymru.lass: It very much is :D -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
(I didn't see the ping until just now! Whoops.) How cool. Always fun to see some Voyager love. The last time I went out for Halloween as a kid I was B'Elanna. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

(Hope you like cats...)

Anyway, thank you for cleaning up my talk page. I was a bit shocked when I saw my talk page had been deleted, until I realised why... Also, thanks for cleaning up that vandalism from a month ago while you were at it.

Thegreatluigi (talk) 08:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Thegreatluigi: Ya I meant to drop you a message on your talkpage, but totally forgot getting distracted. But ya looks a lot better now. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Concern...

Hi Amanda,

a "new" user is harassing me with a bunch of defamations and offensive nonsense in my talk page, he went by far, but what surprised me is this [9]...you may also check out my answer [10]...I appeared in wiki in 2011, if this user "knows me since my appearence"...but his account seems fresh from this year October....my suspect is he is the sock of User:Stubes99, as I see his style and edits...God forgive me, if I am wrong...would you check it? Thanks.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC))

You would need to provide some evidence that it is him by linking previous edits from both users, and this is better dealt with at WP:SPI. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I see...well, this user - anyone who is - is stealing my precious editing time, but if he will really not stop, I will check on it though this fresh registration does not have much history...though I think more of us mostly recognize him properly, after being banned sooner or later with a new account he will deal with the same articles...(KIENGIR (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC))

User:Jytdog

Hi DeltaQuad. Since you appear to be the admin who actually blocked Jytdog, perhaps you can step in and nip some potential edit warring over Template:Blocked user in the bid at User:Jytdog. I'm not sure who is right here, but the tempate's documentation does say "While everyone can add this tag, it should typically only be placed by the blocking administrator. If the blocker doesn't think it's needed, the odds are it isn't." To me, that means really only you should be the one who adds the template. Perhaps you just forget to add it or didn't add it on purpose, but there's really no need for anyone else to be mucking around with Jytdog's user page except when absolutely necessary for a very good policy based reason, is there? -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted to Jytdog's last edit & protected. There is no need to do anything for them, nor rub it in that they are blocked. Plus these edit wars are stupid pointless and I don't want people blocked over it, or worse, an ARCA on it. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, AmandaNP. You have new messages at Crazynas's talk page.
Message added 19:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Crazynas t 19:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I purposefully have not responded. Still can't understand if your implying anyone is still a nazi, and it's hard to tell what the rest of your statement refers to. My point was made, so I decided to disengage before I had to decide if you were going far enough in for block territory. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

New sock

MBN Now Radio DWAD 1098 kHz Is there a SPI for this guy? Sario528 (talk) 12:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Bertrand101. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll keep an eye out for him. Sario528 (talk) 14:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Origin of the Romanians

Dear DeltaQuad! Let me a question. Why do you try to alienate a reliable and long-time editor Borsoka from the Wikipedia project by supporting the dubious, unscientific edits of newcomer users and suspicious sockpuppets? I'm talking about the long dispute around the article Origin of the Romanians. --Norden1990 (talk) 08:24, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Norden1990: I am enforcing the page level sanction which all editors must adhere to, not just Borsoka. I've blocked 2 other editors for it in the past too. I do not support any of the edits made (nor do I know anything about it), I merely reverted to what was the status quo because no one is allowed to rerevert the material. Sockpuppets is also a very high accusation against other editors, please back it up with evidence. Your implication that i'm showing favoritism is unfounded. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
They are not sockpuppets, maybe WP:MEAT, I don't know, so I cannot tell for sure. But I agree that you're too harsh on Borsoka. You're not showing favoritism, but that's part of the problem. Sometimes is better not to block a neutral and competent user, even if he/she broke the rules. The two troublemakers are heading for topic bans, see WP:AE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I just noticed now the events, but as always, I wish to understand what happened. Amanda, you put three diffs on Borsoka's page as evidence, but as I checked the "addition" and "readdition" diffs do not contain identical elements, thus they cannot be DS sanctioned according to our proper interpretation that we discussed/wordsmithed of, more times. Thus the by the argumentation "There is no explicit consensus to reinsert comments, and there are particular objections to it being re-added" reinsert & re-added did not happen...(I remember the first block was about two "cn" tag added repetitively, that was commited by obviously not understanding the DS wording, but this time no identical repetitive additon has been made)...Please explain then or revise the situation in scope of this (soon we will be afraid to make even one bold edit though we thought we are sure about the rules). Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC))
That's true, I could no longer predict the consequences of my edits, therefore I have refrained from editing the article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Tgeorgescu, saying i'm not showing favoritism is part of the problem goes against the founding principle of neutrality and respect for editors. I always consider not to block users, but when it comes to AE enforcement, it has always been for strict compliance because the whole reason this started was because people were unable to stop edit warring. It doesn't matter who is up for topic bans at AE, all still need to follow the rules. Are the experienced editors not supposed to set an example for the newer editors? So they are just supposed to edit war at will to get their version in? No. They need to establish consensus.
As far as what specifically caused the block, I expanded on Borsoka's talkpage. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

American politics discretionary sanctions

Hey DQ, I noticed that you have applied discretionary sanctions (1RR and Consensus-required) at the following pages:

Portal talk:Current events/2016 November 10

Portal talk:Current events/2016 November 11

Portal talk:Current events/2016 November 12

Portal talk:Current events/2016 November 13

Portal talk:Current events/2016 November 14

Portal talk:Current events/2016 November 15

Portal talk:Current events/2016 November 16

Portal talk:Current events/2016 November 9

I was wondering if you would consider removing the sanctions as no longer needed. The pages themselves have cumulatively gotten about 20 edits since 2016, and some of the talk pages have only a couple of edits indicating that the consensus required process (finding consensus on the talk page) was never even invoked on those pages. It looks like you're busy with things IRL so if you want to just give me permission I can remove the AE templates and the associated edit notices and log the removals. ~Awilley (talk) 17:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Awilley: Yes, go for it, thanks. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

EFD email

Hello, AmandaNP/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- FlightTime Phone (open channel) 01:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Replied. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Origin of the Romanians

Apologies for bothering you again on this matter, but I thought I'd ask about the page-level restriction on this article. Given the topic banning of the two main contributors to relevant edit warring that instigated the restriction, would you consider lifting and replacing it with standard 1RR? Unfortunately, I think the restriction as it is now is easy to misunderstand, and hindering further editing of the article. Standard 1RR does still seem appropriate...thanks in advance. RGloucester — ☎ 16:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@RGloucester: I took a look back, and the edit warring was done by two now topic banned editors mostly, so I will rescind the restriction. That said, and I hope you can agree, that if the article goes back to being the shit show that it was before I got involved, I will have no issue trying to institute blocks, topic bans, or further sanctions. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your swift response, and also for your work to contain this dispute. RGloucester — ☎ 16:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Amanda, I do a lot of AfD, and sometimes I just lose patience. I apology for my rudeness. E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
By the way, how does one apply for access to newspapers.com? I would like to be able to access it too.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Newspapers.com -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:56, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
thanks. btw, I just discovered your message on the page of the editor who created this series of articles. She was clearly on a crusade to RIGHT GREAT WRONGS and damn the rules. Again, I apologize for my intemperance.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
No worries, that's why I gently point towards existing policies. I understand that I can look like a pure deletionist. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Happy Holidays!
May your winter holidays be filled with joy, laughter and good health. Wishing you all the best in 2019 and beyond.

--Cameron11598 (Talk) 04:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello DeltaQuad, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,
TheSandDoctor Talk 09:59, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Merry Christmas Amanda! Here's wishing you all the best in 2019, from my family to yours! Thank you for everything you do for the project. --TheSandDoctor Talk 09:59, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Liz Read! Talk! is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15b}} to your friends' talk pages.

ygm

Email sent, if replying please ping me on-wiki or use wikimail. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 16:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: I've replied. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AmandaNP/Archives/2018&oldid=964578784"