User talk:Amisom/Archive%%1

Latest comment: 3 years ago by Yamla in topic December 2020

January 2012

  Welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia invites everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, but one or more redirects you created, such as with Granita (restaurant), have been considered disruptive and/or malicious, and have been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Calabe1992 22:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Postcodes in the United Kingdom

When you reverted the citation that I added to support the text you removed from Postcodes in the United Kingdom#Special postcodes, your edit summary stated: "cite DOES NOT SAY that postcodess are desined to be about constituion".

The relevant article text stated: "Britain's constitutional hierarchy is unofficially reflected in the ordering of the following three postcodes:"

Being "reflected" in the postcodes is not the same as the postcodes being "designed" for them – readers can choose to believe that it is a coincidence if they wish, though I think it a ridiculously unlikely coincidence (0AA, 1AA and 2AA are three out of at least 4,000 potential postcodes in the SW1 postcode district).

But either way, the article text informs readers while leaving them to draw their own conclusions as to the intention. Even if it were a coincidence, the symmetry is still a fact, and in many ways these are the three most notable addresses in the UK. So, why delete notable factual information?

Richardguk (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

This page WIKIPEDIA:Synthesis says what you are doing is not aloud. The cite has to say what you say..
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amisom (talkcontribs) 17:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback and for the useful guidance link. I agree that it would be wrong to link facts together tendentiously, though the connection does not seem to me a matter of opinion or reasonable dispute. But given your concern, I agree that a reference drawing attention to the hierarchy would be helpful. How about replacing the Cabinet Manual ref with the following {{Cite news}} reference to make the connection explicitly?
  • "Summerley, Victoria (24 May 2006). "Town Life". The Independent. London. Retrieved 15 February 2012."
i.e. "...one could argue that there is some evidence of forelock-tugging in the allocation of some postcodes. Buckingham Palace, for example, is SW1A 1AA while 10 Downing Street is merely SW1A 2AA. (The House of Commons, though, is SW1 0AA – perhaps because it's full of zeros.)"
Richardguk (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
THat article in the independent looks like its synthesiss too. Guesswork "one could argue that there is some evidence..." and its jokey "perhaps because it's full of zeros" and it doesnt mention a hirarchy of constituiton.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amisom (talkcontribs) 19:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
WP:SYNTHESIS prohibits synthesis by wiki editors, not the reporting of synthesis by reliable sources! In other words, we are here to summarise objectively what experts and influential sources do and think, so long as we don't distort that into what we ourselves think. We are not here merely to list facts without any context. So you are overstating your original point. After all, when theoretical physicists make educated guesses about how the universe works, we record it, and rightly so.
I agree with you that the Independent article is archly written in places, but that does not necessarily invalidate the observations it makes. Indeed, since it is drawing attention to a trite correlation, it's unsurprising that the author felt no need to argue her case in depth.
Incidentally, you deleted the above disputed content three times without discussing the matter beyond your edit summaries (which, as you've seen, confused me as to the exact grounds for your deletion). I strongly encourage you to raise issues on user or article talk pages if good-faith editors do not accept your changes the first time: WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. It's easier to make your case and re-establish consensus if you demonstrate your reasonableness than through persistence alone! And, even on your own assertions, you had no grounds for deleting the postcodes themselves (as distinct from the disputed interpretation of their significance), still less for doing so three times.
Richardguk (talk) 01:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

June 2012

  Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Proprietor, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. WaggersTALK 11:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

IT WAS NOT VANDALISM!

August 2012

  Hello, I'm Barryob. I noticed that you recently made an edit to Nicola Sturgeon that seemed to be a test. Your test worked! If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to do so. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Please read http://www.snp.org/people/nicola-sturgeon before you change it to Deputy again Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 04:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

  Hello, I'm Barryob. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions to Nicola Sturgeon because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 20:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

ECHR

Sorry. I accidentally reverted this edit you made to the European Convention on Human Rights. I appear to have thought you added the text you actually deleted. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 01:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017

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

 

  Administrator changes

  KaranacsBerean HunterGoldenRingDlohcierekim
  GdrTyreniusJYolkowskiLonghairMaster Thief GarrettAaron BrennemanLaser brainJzGDragons flight

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Miscellaneous

  • Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Re:Joker

One source is usually enough for a small sentence, but in the case of your original edit, it was seemed to be an unreliable source. That's the point. Now, I am 100% open to being wrong about that source being unreliable in the context of this article, but in the second case, you added 8 sources for 1 sentence. I left two in, one from Money and one from The Times of Israel, which is over-citing. We don't need more than 2 references for 1 sentence. Sorry for any misunderstanding. Soulbust (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Middle schools and notability

We typically just redirect middle schools to their local school board or municipality. If you do this, you can also add the template {{r from school}} so people know why you did it. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

NDMVP College of Engineering A7 removed

Hi, I have removed the A7 tag you placed on this article because it is an educational institution, and they are not eligible under that criteria for speedy deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, I would suggest taking it to WP:AFD. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Replacing curly quotes

I'm not sure if replacing one or two curly quotes is worth a whole edit, but that is up to you. However, if you are going to replace right curly quotes, you should replace left curly quotes too (e.g. this diff). At the same time, there is a shedload of other glyphs that get used instead of apostrophes that you might want to look for. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: your use of an apostrophe was incorrect. The symbol that you replaced is here denoting minutes of arc, for which the correct symbol is not an apostrophe but a prime. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
@Redrose64: My apologies if I misunderstood how those symbols work, but I am familiar with minutes and understood that the curlyness of the ' mark was imamterial? See eg [1] which just uses a plain ' not a curly ’ Amisom (talk) 15:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
That's fine for Google Maps; they're using the apostrophe because it's easily typeable - one keystroke is sufficient on many keyboards, some require a shift as well: but it's never more complicated than that. But the help page for an interactive website is not a universal authority. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017

 

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

  Administrator changes

  Doug BellDennis BrownClpo13ONUnicorn
  ThaddeusBYandmanBjarki SOldakQuillShyamJondelWorm That Turned

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017

 

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

  Administrator changes

  Happyme22Dragons flight
  Zad68

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Miscellaneous

  • A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
  • A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
  • Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

A stronger word of caution

Having reviewed your contributions I have removed your rollback rights, and I am close to blocking you for not being here to build the encyclopaedia due to your disruptive behaviour. You remove sourced material from articles based on your personal opinion rather than editorial guidelines, you edit war, and you are abrasive in discussions with others. While we have a policy of allowing everyone a chance at editing Wikipedia, not everyone has the appropriate mind set or skills, and so we do block users who, even though they may be well intentioned, are causing more harm than good.

I am leaving this account unblocked for now to give you a chance to prove you can be an asset to the project. What we would like to see is you adding useful sourced content to articles. For the time being, you are banned from reverting any editor, and banned from removing content from any article. After a period of usefully adding material to articles you will be allowed to remove inappropriate content after first raising the issue on the article talkpage and waiting at least 7 days for a response. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Amison, if an admin says you are banned from reverting, and then you make edits with both the words 'banned' and 'revert' in the edit-summary, do you not think there's a slight anomaly somewhere? I think this needs clarifying, don't you? Cheers, — fortunavelut luna 16:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Amisom violating 0RR restriction. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

 
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing. If you wish to edit here, you'll need to convince me or another admin that you are here to build the encyclopedia rather than here to argue with people. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Amisom (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

My grounds are: * SilkTork's message on my talkpage purporting to "ban" me from reverting other editors was not binding because there is no policy giving administrators the power to impose unilateral bans. WP:0RR is very clear that such bans can only be imposed "by ArbCom, under administrator enforcement [of ArbCom decisions] or by the community". If he had no authority to ban me I cannot have violated the ban. ** Even if I am wrong as to the above, it was unfair to impose a ban without giving me a chacne to give my view. ** Even if I am wrong as to the above, the 'revert' I made after the 'ban' was imposed [2] was nevertheless a good one, because (1) the editor I was reverting was reverting an edit I made prior to the 'ban' on the grounds that I had been banned from making it, which was incorrect; and (b) I was removing irrelevant material from the encyclopedia. * I make dozens of constructive edits every month (examples: irrelevant info serious BLP issue NPOV correction of content housekeeping correcting content adding content housekeeping citationing addition of content ) and there is no rule saying that deleting material which should not appear in articles is wrong. We have content policies for a reason. So an indefinite block is plainly disproportionate. * The removal of rollback was unfair as I have never abused rollback – indeed, I have never even used it once! -- Amisom (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I'm unblocking you mostly because the original restriction placed on you was egregiously invalid and appears to have directly led to the circumstances of your block. Having said that, take under advisement the fact that you're currently under heavy scrutiny. If you fail to discuss your edits, follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle, or otherwise keep your edits constructive, you will be blocked again, and that one may not be lifted. Please read WP:DE carefully and avoid fitting that description. ~ Rob13Talk 20:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I share the same concerns as Amisom. Administrators cannot apply sanctions like this toward users unless it's placed by the community, or if it's in response to disruption made directly to articles under discretionary sanctions (and even if... there are bans and sanctions that community cannot apply; only ArmCom can). I'd like to ping SilkTork and ask him to explain the exact rationale that be believes justifies this ban, as well as makes it valid per Wikipedia policy. As of right now, I don't believe that it was. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
As Amisom is unblocked the issue is moot, however if you would still wish to have an explanation of why I gave him a chance before blocking him, then please drop a note on my talkpage. The main issue here is my use of the word ban, and I agree that was inappropriate and careless. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I will leave the decision to someone else, but based on the discussion, there have been multiple attempts since March by number of different editors trying to engage you with problems in your editing on your talk page, and you have responded with open hostility. Your response to other editors in this recent discussion is borderline disruptive. I would suggest a closer look at etiquette guideline before appealing again. By the way, I had to fix the unblock template because you didn't follow the instruction. Alex ShihTalk 19:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help @BU Rob13:. Amisom (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

A friendly word of caution

Here you are accusing others of behaviour that is just not true. Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and avoid commenting on other people or their rationale, or by deliberately mis-writing someone's username ("sagacious matey"). It is also imprudent to accuse other people's good faith work as OWNership. It is something that could lead to being blocked. – SchroCat (talk) 11:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Here's where I think your problem is. Your modus operandi seems to be to go round articles and remove content you don't like, even if it's properly sourced, with curt edit summaries like "irrelevant". This tends to upset other editors as you're not only removing someone's hard work but doing it in a manner that suggests disrespect. In future, you might want to think about going straight to the talk page first to air your concerns. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Rollback granted

 

Hi Amisom. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Swarm 04:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I have removed rollback rights due to contentious behaviour and history of edit warring. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

That discretionary sanctions alert

Placing the alert does not mean that you have done anything wrong. However, now that it has been placed on your page it's assumed that you have read and understood it. All you have to do is follow our WP:BLP policy carefully and our expectations described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Guidance for editors. Doug Weller talk 12:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for taking the time to write. I (just about] gathered that from having read through it several times. My concern was more (1) that Jydog had given it to me for no good reaosn - even if it doesn't mean I did something wrong I wouldn't just go splashing it on arbitrary users' talkpages, that would be inappropriate: and (B) it said, "biographical articles, a topic which you have edited..." which wasn't at that time true, I hadn't editedt hat topic. But thank you for talking :) Amisom (talk) 12:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
And while I'm here, before the alertyou participated in the AfD for Shneur Odze, edited Clive Mantle and Steve Punt and perhaps others and that this DS also covers anyplace that a living person is discussed. Doug Weller talk 10:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Inline citations - this should make it easy for you to make them in the future

See the relevant videos: Wikipedia:Meetup/UMassAmherst/Intro to Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 10:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017

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

 

  Administrator changes

  AnarchyteGeneralizationsAreBadCullen328 (first RfA to reach WP:300)
  CpromptRockpocketRambo's RevengeAnimumTexasAndroidChuck SMITHMikeLynchCrazytalesAd Orientem

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2017

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

 

  Administrator changes

  NakonScott
  SverdrupThespianElockidJames086FfirehorseCelestianpowerBoing! said Zebedee

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
  • Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
  • In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

  Arbitration

  • Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2017

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

 

  Administrator changes

  Boing! said ZebedeeAnsh666Ad Orientem
  TonywaltonAmiDanielSilenceBanyanTreeMagioladitisVanamonde93Mr.Z-manJdavidbJakecRam-ManYelyosKurt Shaped Box

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  • Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
  • A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2017

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

 

  Administrator changes

  LonghairMegalibrarygirlTonyBallioniVanamonde93
  Allen3Eluchil404Arthur RubinBencherlite

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  Obituaries

  • The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2017

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

 

  Administrator changes

  Joe Roe
  JzG
  EricorbitPercevalThinggTristanbVioletriga

  Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

  • Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Amisom. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

AN/I Survey

Hello Anisom! Thanks for signing up to to take the AN/I survey. As you don't have email enabled, I am unable to send you the survey link. You can enable email in your preferences, or email me at pearley wikimedia.org and I can send it on to the address you use. Regards, Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@PEarley (WMF): Oh I'v eenabled email thanks Amisom (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Great! Thanks, survey sent. Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2017

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018

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

 

  Administrator changes

  Muboshgu
  AnetodeLaser brainWorm That Turned
  None

  Bureaucrat changes

  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)

The Signpost: 16 January 2018

Speedy deletion declined: Busters on the Planet

Hello Amisom, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Busters on the Planet, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 cannot be applied to videos; also, since the makers of the video are notable, significance is indicated anyway. If you are interested in learning more about how speedy deletion works, I have compiled a list of helpful pages at User:SoWhy/SDA. You can of course also contact me if you have questions. Thank you. SoWhy 14:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018

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

 

  Administrator changes

  None
  BlurpeaceDana boomerDeltabeignetDenelson83GrandioseSalvidrim!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)

The Signpost: 5 February 2018

The Signpost: 20 February 2018

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018

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

 

  Administrator changes

  Lourdes
  AngelOfSadnessBhadaniChris 73CorenFridayMidomMike 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)

Discussion at Talk:Vayikra (disambiguation)#Requested move 12 March 2018

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Vayikra (disambiguation)#Requested move 12 March 2018. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Signpost issue 4 – 29 March 2018

Administrators' newsletter – April 2018

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

 

  Administrator changes

  331dotCordless LarryClueBot NG
  Gogo DodoPb30SebastiankesselSeicerSoLando

  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)

The Signpost: 26 April 2018

Your question

I have replied to you in detail at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Finding_a_tikkun_soferim --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018

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

 

  Administrator changes

  None
  ChochopkCoffeeGryffindorJimpKnowledge SeekerLankiveilPeridonRjd0060

  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)

The Signpost: 24 May 2018

The Signpost: 24 May 2018

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018

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

 

  Administrator changes

  None
  Al Ameer sonAliveFreeHappyCenariumLupoMichaelBillington

  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)

The Signpost: 29 June 2018

Administrators' newsletter – July 2018

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

 

  Administrator changes

  PbsouthwoodTheSandDoctor
  Gogo Dodo
  AndrevanDougEVulaKaisaLTony FoxWilyD

  Bureaucrat changes

  AndrevanEVula

  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)

The Signpost: 31 July 2018

Administrators' newsletter – August 2018

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

 

  Administrator changes

  Sro23
  KaisaLYmblanter

  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)

The Signpost: 30 August 2018

Administrators' newsletter – September 2018

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

 

  Administrator changes

  None
  AsterionCrisco 1492KFKudpungLizRandykittySpartaz
  Optimist on the runVoice of Clam

  Interface administrator changes

  AmorymeltzerMr. StradivariusMusikAnimalMSGJTheDJXaosflux

  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) 23:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 October 2018

Administrators' newsletter – October 2018

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

 

  Administrator changes

  JustlettersandnumbersL235
  BgwhiteHorsePunchKidJ GrebKillerChihuahuaRami RWinhunter

  Interface administrator changes

  Cyberpower678Deryck ChanOshwahPharosRagesossRitchie333

  Oversight changes

  Guerillero NativeForeigner SnowolfXeno

  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) 20:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Plot sections

Recently there was a complaint about you at WP:AN3 regarding the amount of detail in a plot section. The article in question was The Partner, a novel by John Grisham. Can you point to any articles about novels whose plot sections you think are appropriate in length and coverage? If the old plot section at The Partner were fixed up according to your personal standards, would it be about the same length, a lot shorter, or just a few sentences? So your blanking is just because you don't have time to do the rewriting but in principle you think it should be fixed up right? Excuse the vagueness of the questions. A month of full protection doesn't seem to me like the best choice of admin action since the problem may continue anyway. So a negotiated solution would be a better outcome. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for the message. My concern was not at all about the length of the plot section but about its tone and style and content (I explained my reasons more fully on the article talkpage, where the other editor involved sniped and moaned and didn't really engage. Amisom (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Since you've already explained your thinking on the talk page, that may be enough. But as a concession to those less-informed about these things, would you be willing to point to any other article where you think it was done right? For example, any novel in Category:Novels by John Grisham? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I dont think I quite understand what you're asking for. You ant an example of an article with a plot section that doesn't use an unencyhclopedic chatty style? Amisom (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and is of the right length for the size of the article. A plot section that is good enough so that you yourself don't see obvious flaws in it. EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Once again, I'm nto concerned about the length. it's a red herring.
I don't really see why you need an example - you're an admin so surely familiar with what is an encyclopedic style and what isn't - but from a brief skim the plot summaries on The Chamber and The Confession look reasonable Amisom (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. So the only remaining dispute is about who has to do the updating. Unfortunately I see no obvious way out of that one, because you and Thewolfchild aren't likely to volunteer. Maybe I should ask some recent editor of the article if they want to help. EdJohnston (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Remembering, of course, WP:TIND. Amisom (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but if protection is removed, some of us would expect that you and Thewolfchild would continue to revert about the 'blanking' issue. A possibility is to restrict both you and Thewolfchild from making any edits of the plot for one month, except through prior talk page agreement. That would probably result in you having to do some plot improvement, if you were not willing to abstain totally. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 October 2018

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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Amisom. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Amisom. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2018

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

 

  Administrator changes

  Al Ameer sonRandykittySpartaz
  BosonDaniel J. LeivickEfeEsanchez7587Fred BauderGarzoMartijn HoekstraOrangemike

  Interface administrator changes

 Deryck 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)

The Signpost: 1 December 2018

The Signpost: 24 December 2018

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019

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

  Guideline and policy news

  1. G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
  2. R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
  3. G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.

  Technical news

  • Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
  1. At least 8 characters in length
  2. Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
  3. Different from their username
User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.
  • Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
  • {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

  • Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
  • Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Translation request

Hello, Ami! I'm replying to your request here as I don't see an option for "Email this user" on your User page; hope you don't mind. Do I understand correctly: you're researching for the purpose of writing here in Wikipedia? Before I see the material you need translated (from Modern Hebrew; I'm not qualified in Biblical), it's essential we cover the following:

  • provide me the name of its author and where/by whom it was published, to vet these as authentic and responsible sources of information;
  • if you use content based on this material in WP, you agree to cite the source for verifiability;
  • and if two or more lines of the translation are included, you will cite my User name in a footnote as the translator.

I'll watch for your reply. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 12:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

You also requested my help. I too could help you with translation from Modern Hebrew, with the same conditions that Deborah specifies. RolandR (talk) 14:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2019

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).

 

  Administrator changes

  EnterpriseyJJMC89
  BorgQueen
  Harro5Jenks24GraftR. Baley

  Interface administrator changes

 Enterprisey

  Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
  • Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

  Technical news

  • A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

  Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

User talk pages

RE: this, I was wondering whether you're aware of the user talk page policy. With very few exceptions, users can remove just about anything from their talk page; the action being taken as proof that they're aware of it. Best regards, 79.40.62.31 (talk) 12:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I didn’t stop him removing anything or complain about his removing anything. I just left a reply. Problem? Amisom (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
No, no problem; at a first look it appeared that you've readded a previous message, while you added a new one. I failed to double check, so my apologies. 79.40.62.31 (talk) 12:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2019

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

  Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
    • paid-en-wp wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • checkuser-en-wp wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 March 2019

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

  • Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
  • As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2019

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

  Arbitration

  • In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
  • Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2019

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).

 

  Administrator changes

  AndonicConsumed CrustaceanEnigmamanEuryalusEWS23HereToHelpNv8200paPeripitusStringTheory11Vejvančický

  CheckUser changes

  Ivanvector

  Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
  • An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
  • An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

  Technical news

  • The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
  • Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).

 

  Administrator changes

  28bytesAd OrientemAnsh666BeeblebroxBoing! said ZebedeeBU Rob13Dennis BrownDeorDoRDFloquenbeam1Flyguy649Fram2GadfiumGB fanJonathunderKusmaLectonarMoinkMSGJNickOd MishehuRamaSpartazSyrthissTheDJWJBscribe
1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

  Guideline and policy news

  • In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

  Technical news

  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The June 2019 Signpost is out!

The Signpost: 31 July 2019

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).

  Guideline and policy news

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

  • Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
  • The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

    Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2019

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

 

  Administrator changes

  BradvChetsfordIzno
  FloquenbeamLectonar
  DESiegelJake WartenbergRjanagTopbanana

  CheckUser changes

  CallaneccLFaraoneThere'sNoTime

  Oversight changes

  CallaneccFoxHJ MitchellLFaraoneThere'sNoTime

  Technical news

  • Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
  • The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2019

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

  Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

  Technical news

  • As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

  • The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2019

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

  Guideline and policy news

  • A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

  Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

 Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2019

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).

 

  Administrator changes

  EvergreenFirToBeFree
  AkhilleusAthaenaraJohn VandenbergMelchoirMichaelQSchmidtNeilNYoungamerican😂

  CheckUser changes

  Beeblebrox
  Deskana

  Interface administrator changes

  Evad37

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2019

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).

  Guideline and policy news

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 January 2020

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

  Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
  • The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

  Technical news

  • Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
  • When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [3]

  Arbitration

  • Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

  Miscellaneous



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 March 2020

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

  Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
  • A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

  Technical news

  • Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

  Miscellaneous



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2020

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

  Guideline and policy news

  • There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

  • The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2020

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

 

  Administrator changes

  GnangarraKaisershatnerMalcolmxl5

  CheckUser changes

  Callanecc

  Oversight changes

  HJ Mitchell

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2020

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).

 

  Administrator changes

  CaptainEekCreffettCwmhiraeth
  Anna FrodesiakBuckshot06RonhjonesSQL

  CheckUser changes

  SQL

  Guideline and policy news

  Arbitration

  • A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 June 2020

Administrators' newsletter – July 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).

 

  Administrator changes

  Red Phoenix
  EuryalusSQL
  JujutacularMonty845RettetastMadchester

  Oversight changes

  GB fan
  KeeganOpabinia regalisPremeditated Chaos

  Guideline and policy news


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 August 2020

999 (emergency telephone number)

Your recent edits that removed sourced information at 999 (emergency telephone number) was, in my view , unhelpful. Each of the sources that you removed explicitly included the reference to the use of 999. Please check much more carefully in future. In general, with information that is very likely to be correct and has been added in good-faith and which may only need a source finding for it, it would be much better to tag it as requiring a source rather than deleting the entry. Deletion in such cases is counter productive and, in this case at least, could have been harmful.  Velella  Velella Talk   12:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I checked perfectly carefully thanks Good use of sarcasm though. The sources mentioned 999 but did not say that their particular service could be reached through this number. If anything, it’s dangerous to list inaccurate information in these articles. Don’t list this stuff again without a source please. Amisom (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
There was no sarcasm, simply concern. Mentioning the number as a way of contacting the service is a pretty good indicator that 999 is the number to use.  Velella  Velella Talk   18:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2020

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).

 

  Administrator changes

  Eddie891
  AngelaJcw69Just ChillingPhilg88Viajero

  CheckUser changes

  SQL

  Guideline and policy news

  Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2020

The Signpost: 27 September 2020

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).

 

  Administrator changes

  AjpolinoLuK3
  Jackmcbarn
  Ad OrientemHarejLidLomnMentoz86Oliver PereiraXJaM
  There'sNoTimeTheresNoTime

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2020

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

 Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2020

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).

 

  Administrator changes

  AndrwscAnetodeGoldenRingJzGLinguistAtLargeNehrams2020

  Interface administrator changes

  Izno

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jeanette Magel

 

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Jeanette Magel, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. 67.84.231.44 (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Amisom: Before editing further, I'd advise you to elaborate on this. Several editors agree that this is a hoax and no one was able to produce any sources. Can you please explain your creation? Praxidicae (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Having looked into that page quite thoroughly, she does not appear to exist, which means you made a hoax. Your other contributions will be scrutinized for hoaxes. You can save me the trouble by telling me if you have made any others. Should you opt to not tell me, and I find more hoaxes, you will likely end up blocked. If I have misread the situation, and Magel really did exist, please provide a source that proves me wrong. However, she was clearly not in the Gazette, nor in the other sources linked, and a rather in-depth Googling turned up nothing. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 23:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
@CaptainEek, Praxidicae, and Amisom:, fwiw, after seeing this at Help desk I searched databases for about 45mins for an obit (or any record) that might hold clues for further searches but found nothing at all.   // Timothy :: talk  13:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Amisom, please explain why page 78 of A Historical Introduction to the Law of Obligations does not mention anything related to Magel, despite the article (mirror copy) formerly citing it as a reference. – Teratix 10:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
It's strange indeed that the editor in question, while ignoring their talk page, is engaging with other editors in an RFC about an obscure DAB page--Quisqualis (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

 
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for creating hoax articles and not providing an explanation.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  GeneralNotability (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Amisom (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I’m not sure what User:GeneralNotability wants to hear by way of “explanation”. I created one hoax article - not articles plural as he has stated - almost two years ago. I shouldn’t have done but I’m not sure what’s necessary as “explanation”. I’m a productive and positive editor that aside and an indefinite block seems disproportion. Amisom (talk) 02:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Per below. I find it difficult to believe that you branched into creating hoaxes after this warning. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'd like to register my opposition to unblocking a user who knowingly let a hoax article sit for two years while "editing productively" and ignored concerns about it for equally as long. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 02:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Amisom, indefinitely is less than eternally. See WP:Standard offer, as that is 6 months and a good demonstration of your understanding of the mistake.--Quisqualis (talk) 05:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  • This vandal does not seem to understand the situation or what a productive and positive editor actually is. This isn't something that was "done" and over, it is something that is still ongoing by virtue of this hoax information making it into at least 11 other sites. Putting the word explanation in quotes in the unblock request (twice) shows an arrogant disregard for this ongoing situation. At a minimum they should clean up the mess which they created with this hoax before being considered foran unblock (I will still oppose any unblock).   // Timothy :: talk  06:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
    @TimothyBlue: Can I ask what steps you would suggest in terms of cleaning up? Amisom (talk) 09:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @NinjaRobotPirate: I note that the block explanation says, "unblock at your discretion once they've satisfactorily answered User:CaptainEek's question about whether they've made other hoaxes". To be fair to myself I have answered that ('No') and it's unclear what more is necessary. Requiring me to take [at least] six months out beause of something I did once nearly two years ago feels punitive and that's not what the blocking system is there for. Amisom (talk) 09:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Amisom, My suggestion for you cleaning up your mess is simple: Go to every single site where this information is present, explain the situation and have the material deleted. This is an entirely reasonable beginning, but I highly doubt you will even start to do this. An unblock shouldn't even be mentioned before this is completely done.
You did not do this two years ago: this is an ongoing situation. This block is not punitive, it is preventative: Your continuing dismissive attitude towards this situation is reason to assume you do not understand the situation and I believe you will do this again given the opportunity. When you ignored posts about this ongoing situation until you were blocked, it showed you had no intention of answering for your actions, short of being blocked. I do not believe you regret your actions, I believe you regret being caught (your claim on other editors to AGF about your actions is completely gone). On top of all this you haven't even mentioned the needless work you created for others. The above replies show your sole concern is about how this impacts you, not other editors, not WP.
When you created a hoax and allowed it to continue, you mocked every editor that works hard to improve WP.   // Timothy :: talk  10:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
You do know that the mirror sites are run by robots right? They're not manually compiled. They don't accept contacts from members of the public. Amisom (talk) 10:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
How you correct the situation you created is your problem, not others. Spend the time you used to spend on WP figuring out a solution.   // Timothy :: talk  11:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Asking me to do something impossible doesn’t seem constructive. Amisom (talk) 11:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
You have zero credibility on determining what is constructive, and I disagree it is impossible, start with WHOIS lookup for domain contact information.   // Timothy :: talk  17:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
It's not really a question of credibility. What you're asking is self-evidently impossible (and I can't help wondering if that's why you're demanding it as a precondition to being unblocked). Amisom (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Final reply: A quick WHOIS search will show it is not impossible.   // Timothy :: talk  18:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Really? Do tell me where on this Whois page [4] it lists contact details for this particular mirror site? 🙄 Amisom (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
TimothyBlue, knock it off. I have never seen an administrator care about mirror sites in unblock requests. What those sites do or do not do with our information is not our problem, and expecting a blocked editor to take offwiki action like this is basically unacceptable as an unblock condition, both from a practical perspective and a "things that we can reasonably ask someone to do" perspective. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
rather sad GeneralNotability that you appear to be taking the side of a hoax article creator against a longstanding excellent contributor to the project who is now apparently leaving, what happened to your WP:AGF and WP:Civility). Theroadislong (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Timothy’s suggestion (while doubtless made in goood faith) was unrealistic and far from sensible. I’m not sure why you think we should overlook this fact just beveusse he’s a long-standing excellent contributor and threatening to leave: those things don’t somehow magically make his proposal sensible. Amisom (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Theroadislong, I am on nobody's "side". TimothyBlue made unreasonable and harassing demands of a blocked editor and I asked them to stop. No more, no less. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
The requests may or may not be unreasonable, but calling them harassing, with all the baggage that word carries, is too strong. Amisom: you say that TimothyBlue's suggestion was "doubtless made in good faith", but earlier you also all but claimed he deliberately suggested impossible conditions so you would never be unblocked. I'm not sure what gives. – Teratix 23:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @GeneralNotability: Since I have answered the question you specified in your block message, where do you think I should go from here? Amisom (talk) 22:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Creating a hoax article is one thing. Sitting on the article for two years without informing anyone is another – and without intervention I don't see any reason this situation would have changed. Wilfully ignoring multiple editors' concerns posted on their talk page – to the point where they needed to be blocked before they started taking them seriously – is just the icing on the cake, and spending as much time comparing themselves to Sisyphus as reflecting on their own conduct in unblock discussions is the cherry on top. I don't see any evidence these behaviours will change if Amisom is unblocked. If they are ever unblocked, at a bare minimum they should be indefinitely required to submit their articles through AfC. – Teratix 23:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

 
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for creating hoax articles and not providing an explanation.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  GeneralNotability (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Amisom (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I’m not sure what User:GeneralNotability wants to hear by way of “explanation”. I created one hoax article - not articles plural as he has stated - almost two years ago. I shouldn’t have done but I’m not sure what’s necessary as “explanation”. I’m a productive and positive editor that aside and an indefinite block seems disproportion. Amisom (talk) 02:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Per below. I find it difficult to believe that you branched into creating hoaxes after this warning. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'd like to register my opposition to unblocking a user who knowingly let a hoax article sit for two years while "editing productively" and ignored concerns about it for equally as long. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 02:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Amisom, indefinitely is less than eternally. See WP:Standard offer, as that is 6 months and a good demonstration of your understanding of the mistake.--Quisqualis (talk) 05:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  • This vandal does not seem to understand the situation or what a productive and positive editor actually is. This isn't something that was "done" and over, it is something that is still ongoing by virtue of this hoax information making it into at least 11 other sites. Putting the word explanation in quotes in the unblock request (twice) shows an arrogant disregard for this ongoing situation. At a minimum they should clean up the mess which they created with this hoax before being considered foran unblock (I will still oppose any unblock).   // Timothy :: talk  06:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
    @TimothyBlue: Can I ask what steps you would suggest in terms of cleaning up? Amisom (talk) 09:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @NinjaRobotPirate: I note that the block explanation says, "unblock at your discretion once they've satisfactorily answered User:CaptainEek's question about whether they've made other hoaxes". To be fair to myself I have answered that ('No') and it's unclear what more is necessary. Requiring me to take [at least] six months out beause of something I did once nearly two years ago feels punitive and that's not what the blocking system is there for. Amisom (talk) 09:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Amisom, My suggestion for you cleaning up your mess is simple: Go to every single site where this information is present, explain the situation and have the material deleted. This is an entirely reasonable beginning, but I highly doubt you will even start to do this. An unblock shouldn't even be mentioned before this is completely done.
You did not do this two years ago: this is an ongoing situation. This block is not punitive, it is preventative: Your continuing dismissive attitude towards this situation is reason to assume you do not understand the situation and I believe you will do this again given the opportunity. When you ignored posts about this ongoing situation until you were blocked, it showed you had no intention of answering for your actions, short of being blocked. I do not believe you regret your actions, I believe you regret being caught (your claim on other editors to AGF about your actions is completely gone). On top of all this you haven't even mentioned the needless work you created for others. The above replies show your sole concern is about how this impacts you, not other editors, not WP.
When you created a hoax and allowed it to continue, you mocked every editor that works hard to improve WP.   // Timothy :: talk  10:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
You do know that the mirror sites are run by robots right? They're not manually compiled. They don't accept contacts from members of the public. Amisom (talk) 10:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
How you correct the situation you created is your problem, not others. Spend the time you used to spend on WP figuring out a solution.   // Timothy :: talk  11:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Asking me to do something impossible doesn’t seem constructive. Amisom (talk) 11:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
You have zero credibility on determining what is constructive, and I disagree it is impossible, start with WHOIS lookup for domain contact information.   // Timothy :: talk  17:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
It's not really a question of credibility. What you're asking is self-evidently impossible (and I can't help wondering if that's why you're demanding it as a precondition to being unblocked). Amisom (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Final reply: A quick WHOIS search will show it is not impossible.   // Timothy :: talk  18:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Really? Do tell me where on this Whois page [5] it lists contact details for this particular mirror site? 🙄 Amisom (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
TimothyBlue, knock it off. I have never seen an administrator care about mirror sites in unblock requests. What those sites do or do not do with our information is not our problem, and expecting a blocked editor to take offwiki action like this is basically unacceptable as an unblock condition, both from a practical perspective and a "things that we can reasonably ask someone to do" perspective. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
rather sad GeneralNotability that you appear to be taking the side of a hoax article creator against a longstanding excellent contributor to the project who is now apparently leaving, what happened to your WP:AGF and WP:Civility). Theroadislong (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Timothy’s suggestion (while doubtless made in goood faith) was unrealistic and far from sensible. I’m not sure why you think we should overlook this fact just beveusse he’s a long-standing excellent contributor and threatening to leave: those things don’t somehow magically make his proposal sensible. Amisom (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Theroadislong, I am on nobody's "side". TimothyBlue made unreasonable and harassing demands of a blocked editor and I asked them to stop. No more, no less. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
The requests may or may not be unreasonable, but calling them harassing, with all the baggage that word carries, is too strong. Amisom: you say that TimothyBlue's suggestion was "doubtless made in good faith", but earlier you also all but claimed he deliberately suggested impossible conditions so you would never be unblocked. I'm not sure what gives. – Teratix 23:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @GeneralNotability: Since I have answered the question you specified in your block message, where do you think I should go from here? Amisom (talk) 22:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Creating a hoax article is one thing. Sitting on the article for two years without informing anyone is another – and without intervention I don't see any reason this situation would have changed. Wilfully ignoring multiple editors' concerns posted on their talk page – to the point where they needed to be blocked before they started taking them seriously – is just the icing on the cake, and spending as much time comparing themselves to Sisyphus as reflecting on their own conduct in unblock discussions is the cherry on top. I don't see any evidence these behaviours will change if Amisom is unblocked. If they are ever unblocked, at a bare minimum they should be indefinitely required to submit their articles through AfC. – Teratix 23:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
    That condition is fine. Amisom (talk) 09:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

 
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for creating hoax articles and not providing an explanation.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  GeneralNotability (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Amisom (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I’m not sure what User:GeneralNotability wants to hear by way of “explanation”. I created one hoax article - not articles plural as he has stated - almost two years ago. I shouldn’t have done but I’m not sure what’s necessary as “explanation”. I’m a productive and positive editor that aside and an indefinite block seems disproportion. Amisom (talk) 02:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Per below. I find it difficult to believe that you branched into creating hoaxes after this warning. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'd like to register my opposition to unblocking a user who knowingly let a hoax article sit for two years while "editing productively" and ignored concerns about it for equally as long. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 02:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Amisom, indefinitely is less than eternally. See WP:Standard offer, as that is 6 months and a good demonstration of your understanding of the mistake.--Quisqualis (talk) 05:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  • This vandal does not seem to understand the situation or what a productive and positive editor actually is. This isn't something that was "done" and over, it is something that is still ongoing by virtue of this hoax information making it into at least 11 other sites. Putting the word explanation in quotes in the unblock request (twice) shows an arrogant disregard for this ongoing situation. At a minimum they should clean up the mess which they created with this hoax before being considered foran unblock (I will still oppose any unblock).   // Timothy :: talk  06:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
    @TimothyBlue: Can I ask what steps you would suggest in terms of cleaning up? Amisom (talk) 09:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @NinjaRobotPirate: I note that the block explanation says, "unblock at your discretion once they've satisfactorily answered User:CaptainEek's question about whether they've made other hoaxes". To be fair to myself I have answered that ('No') and it's unclear what more is necessary. Requiring me to take [at least] six months out beause of something I did once nearly two years ago feels punitive and that's not what the blocking system is there for. Amisom (talk) 09:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Amisom, My suggestion for you cleaning up your mess is simple: Go to every single site where this information is present, explain the situation and have the material deleted. This is an entirely reasonable beginning, but I highly doubt you will even start to do this. An unblock shouldn't even be mentioned before this is completely done.
You did not do this two years ago: this is an ongoing situation. This block is not punitive, it is preventative: Your continuing dismissive attitude towards this situation is reason to assume you do not understand the situation and I believe you will do this again given the opportunity. When you ignored posts about this ongoing situation until you were blocked, it showed you had no intention of answering for your actions, short of being blocked. I do not believe you regret your actions, I believe you regret being caught (your claim on other editors to AGF about your actions is completely gone). On top of all this you haven't even mentioned the needless work you created for others. The above replies show your sole concern is about how this impacts you, not other editors, not WP.
When you created a hoax and allowed it to continue, you mocked every editor that works hard to improve WP.   // Timothy :: talk  10:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
You do know that the mirror sites are run by robots right? They're not manually compiled. They don't accept contacts from members of the public. Amisom (talk) 10:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
How you correct the situation you created is your problem, not others. Spend the time you used to spend on WP figuring out a solution.   // Timothy :: talk  11:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Asking me to do something impossible doesn’t seem constructive. Amisom (talk) 11:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
You have zero credibility on determining what is constructive, and I disagree it is impossible, start with WHOIS lookup for domain contact information.   // Timothy :: talk  17:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
It's not really a question of credibility. What you're asking is self-evidently impossible (and I can't help wondering if that's why you're demanding it as a precondition to being unblocked). Amisom (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Final reply: A quick WHOIS search will show it is not impossible.   // Timothy :: talk  18:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Really? Do tell me where on this Whois page [6] it lists contact details for this particular mirror site? 🙄 Amisom (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
TimothyBlue, knock it off. I have never seen an administrator care about mirror sites in unblock requests. What those sites do or do not do with our information is not our problem, and expecting a blocked editor to take offwiki action like this is basically unacceptable as an unblock condition, both from a practical perspective and a "things that we can reasonably ask someone to do" perspective. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
rather sad GeneralNotability that you appear to be taking the side of a hoax article creator against a longstanding excellent contributor to the project who is now apparently leaving, what happened to your WP:AGF and WP:Civility). Theroadislong (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Timothy’s suggestion (while doubtless made in goood faith) was unrealistic and far from sensible. I’m not sure why you think we should overlook this fact just beveusse he’s a long-standing excellent contributor and threatening to leave: those things don’t somehow magically make his proposal sensible. Amisom (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Theroadislong, I am on nobody's "side". TimothyBlue made unreasonable and harassing demands of a blocked editor and I asked them to stop. No more, no less. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
The requests may or may not be unreasonable, but calling them harassing, with all the baggage that word carries, is too strong. Amisom: you say that TimothyBlue's suggestion was "doubtless made in good faith", but earlier you also all but claimed he deliberately suggested impossible conditions so you would never be unblocked. I'm not sure what gives. – Teratix 23:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @GeneralNotability: Since I have answered the question you specified in your block message, where do you think I should go from here? Amisom (talk) 22:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
    @GeneralNotability: ? Amisom (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
    I would rather a different admin review the unblock. Please file a new unblock request. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Creating a hoax article is one thing. Sitting on the article for two years without informing anyone is another – and without intervention I don't see any reason this situation would have changed. Wilfully ignoring multiple editors' concerns posted on their talk page – to the point where they needed to be blocked before they started taking them seriously – is just the icing on the cake, and spending as much time comparing themselves to Sisyphus as reflecting on their own conduct in unblock discussions is the cherry on top. I don't see any evidence these behaviours will change if Amisom is unblocked. If they are ever unblocked, at a bare minimum they should be indefinitely required to submit their articles through AfC. – Teratix 23:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
    That condition is fine. Amisom (talk) 09:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Amisom (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

The blocking admin said I shouldn't be unblocked until I answered a specified question. I have answered it. The blocking admin has thus advised me to file a new unblock request.

Decline reason:

We only consider unblock requests on user talk pages. Yamla (talk) 13:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.