Jump to content

User talk:Scott Burley/Archive 3

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

This may be of interest to you

[edit]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Qwertyuiopasdfgqat, as you have recently warned the alleged sockmaster. DuncanHill (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by User:24.205.186.99

[edit]

Hello, why am I receiving threats of being blocked? I did not personally perform those edits. 24.205.186.99 (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be editing from a shared IP address. You can avoid getting messages intended for other users by creating an account or logging in. -- Scott (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Scott Burley. 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)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2018

[edit]

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

Administrator changes

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

Interface administrator changes

removedDeryck Chan

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

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

Obituaries

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


Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day Quality Title Tagged with…
4 Quality: High, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: GA Alexey Komissarov (talk) Add sources
117 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Sikar (Lok Sabha constituency) (talk) Add sources
41 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: C Costa Magica (talk) Add sources
929 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Nordstrom (talk) Add sources
6 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: C Kudan, Rajasthan (talk) Add sources
169 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: GA IAMX (talk) Add sources
12 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Italian ship San Giusto (talk) Cleanup
5,006 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Alibaba Group (talk) Cleanup
123,165 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: FA George H. W. Bush (talk) Cleanup
38 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Ocean Victory (yacht) (talk) Expand
452 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Avaya (talk) Expand
17 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Sun-class cruise ship (talk) Expand
270 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: B Anandpal Singh (talk) Unencyclopaedic
3,432 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B Salesforce.com (talk) Unencyclopaedic
2,923 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Mozambique (talk) Unencyclopaedic
14 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: C Potrero Point (talk) Merge
1,366 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Samajwadi Party (talk) Merge
389 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: C National University (California) (talk) Merge
469 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Alannah Myles (talk) Wikify
11 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: C MS Sapphire (talk) Wikify
129 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Cuisine of California (talk) Wikify
6 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start King Servers (talk) Orphan
6 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Proekt-technika (talk) Orphan
2 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Philip Protheroe (talk) Orphan
5 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Stub New Hampshire State Library (talk) Stub
71 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: C Costa Diadema (talk) Stub
5 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub New South Wales Z29 class locomotive (talk) Stub
1,050 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Loren Gray (talk) Stub
20 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start AnnaLee Saxenian (talk) Stub
82 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Sis Ram Ola (talk) Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 06:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skanderbeg

[edit]

Thank you for protecting the article. The article was vandalized many times but no admin was acting. Much appreciated. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

removing block notices

[edit]

Unless something has changed, on English Wikipedia editors are allowed to remove active block notices [1]. Per WP:BLANKING they are not allowed to remove unblock requests while the block is active, but there is no mention of not removing block notices.. Meters (talk) 07:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for heads up, could have sworn that was one of the exceptions to the blanking policy. -- Scott (talk) 07:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Easy mistake to make: It is on some Wikis, but not English.. Personally, I wish it were an exception here. Meters (talk) 09:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FYI the block of this editor does not seem to have had a positive effect (see 1). --Wolbo (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

80.111.40.28

[edit]

I'm leaving this message just to let know that this IP's block 80.111.40.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has expired and the first thing they did was to rapidly revert other editors that changed their edits, as well as regard other's warnings of disruptive editing. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Deaths in 2019

[edit]

Hi, I saw that you protected the Deaths in 2019 page, but only for 24 hours. As the Deaths in YYYY pages are subject to a lot of vandalism; I would suggest that you re-protect the page again, with expiry on 30 June 2020, by then the page should be considerably less interesting for the vandals. Thanks and happy new year. --Marbe166 (talk) 12:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019

[edit]

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) 21:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

[edit]

Hi Scott, could you please change your signature? I had a ping yesterday from someone who thought they were replying to you. Many thanks.  — Scott • talk 01:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

[edit]

Hello SB. I wanted to let you know that LoudHouseMovie Fanatic2020305 (talk · contribs) has returned to the same pattern of adding unsourced content for which they have been blocked previously. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 12:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moonballs is back to disrupting

[edit]

You were handling user Moonballs when you blocked him in December (for the exact same disruptions) at World number 1 ranked male tennis players... and you also blocked him in December and again in January for 2 weeks for personal attacks. Well he's at it again (disruptive editing, not personal attacks) at the same page. Four or five of us are trying to keep up with his edits but I thought I'd let you take a look. I'd ask for page protection but I think it is only this same editor that is causing the problems. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019

[edit]

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

Administrator changes

added Enterprisey • JJMC89
readded BorgQueen
removed Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes

removedEnterprisey

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)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019

[edit]

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) 21:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

[edit]
Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!
Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Administrators' newsletter – April 2019

[edit]

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) 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of British monarchy records

[edit]

Hi, Scott Burley. I am puzzled by your interpretation of consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British monarchy records. Out of 14 comments there, 7 are in favor of deleting the article, 5 are in favor of keeping the article, and 2 are in favor of merging it. One of the 5 in favor of keeping it is a significant contributor who admitted in the discussion that the article is based on original research, that he or she intended to continue doing original research on Wikipedia, and who got indefinitely blocked for that. While those favoring deletion pointed out the severe WP:OR issues and lack of coverage in reliable sources, those who wanted it kept merely said that "some trivia is useful and interesting." How did you interpret that as no consensus (effectively a decision to keep the article as it is)? Surtsicna (talk) 10:14, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna: I admit I might have been overly cautious against my own inclination toward deleting the article. That said, I don't see a particularly strong consensus for deletion, so I stand by the assessment. -- Scott Burley (talk) 04:58, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unsigned post thingys

[edit]

FYI: Recently on User talk:Shesaplumper you signed an unsigned post. I am not sure what template you used but the signature ended up not having a time-date stamp. I always use {{subst:unsigned|user name or IP|date}} - this template (when filled-out) properly formats the missing signature and also adds a time-stamp. Assuming an archiving bot might be instituted on the user's talkpage at some point, posts that don't have a time-date stamp will be ignored and left behind on the talkpage by the bots. Shearonink (talk) 07:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for List of British monarchy records

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of British monarchy records. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Surtsicna (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pixel Gun 3D

[edit]

Hello! Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pixel Gun 3D: Battle Royale, shouldn't Pixel Gun 3D be deleted as well? They are about the same topic, and there is consensus that the game as is, is not notable. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, done. -- Scott Burley (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirshenbaum

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kirshenbaum. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Nardog (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have discussed the matter with you before opening the deletion review per WP:DRVPURPOSE, as pointed out by Djm-leighpark. Could you explain why you closed it as keep? Do you think the GNG requirement has been demonstrated? Nardog (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You know, on closer inspection I don't. The three sources given by Scope_creep might be sigcov for ASCII-based phonetic scripts, of which it seems Kirshenbaum is only one type. For Kirshenbaum in particular, the first two sources are only passing mentions, the third is marginal.
That said, the lack of any other discussion (other than the +1 to Scope_creep's comment) after two re-lists means there isn't a consensus to delete. I've changed the close to no consensus with no prejudice to renomination. -- Scott Burley (talk) 00:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Scott Burley ... please look carefully at my +1 and implications thereof. I am saying this in a rush. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Djm-leighpark:. Djm-leighpark, Do you fancy reopening in? It was open for almost three weeks which is a long time for Afd, more than enough for a consensus I thought, but if you think it was rushed, go ahead. I will still vote for keep. scope_creepTalk 06:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It took me about 15 minutes to find those ref's but there is more, code repositories. When you search for ASCII-IPA that is its physical encoding name, you will find more a lot more. scope_creepTalk 07:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've just got up and I've got some RL things to do today. And peoples are screwing up on procedure and then hounding me for an immediate responses rather than WP:TROUTing themselves. This will now be brought back to AfD at some point because the hounds smell the blood. From memory the normal situation after a no-consensus is for an AfD not to be re-raised immediately however given the closing admin has not advised the nom. of at after breaking procedure already an immediate re-nom seems likely. An alternative to to re-list from from the DRV due to breach of procedure by the closer .... I would like time to think on it. I also need time to review a mistake think I may have made to a contribution to that article and whether it has relevance. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Antone Pagán (actor)

[edit]

Looks like Antone Pagán (actor) was recreated by another user right after you closed it. It should be salted (and it looks like a SPA) Wgolf (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC) Well thanks, I did start Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Irobertson54, which you can close! Wgolf (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Longer block for an unregistered account still adding unsourced information

[edit]

A few days ago, you blocked User:112.198.46.226 for 31 hours after he or she had received several warnings about adding unsourced information to articles. The block has expired and he or she is back to making the same edits. A new, longer block seems warranted. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John_Zachary_Danao

[edit]

Pass the salt, please. EEng 11:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AFD closing of Merrimack Valley Conference

[edit]

I'm curious about your reasoning to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merrimack Valley Conference as no consensus. Please review the essay Wikipedia:Unopposed AFD discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Paulmcdonald: (cc: Praxidicae) It's not eligible for soft deletion. The article was PRODed in 2013, then recreated. -- Scott Burley (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's eligible for a semi-soft delete because it went through AFD with no opposition, was restored without reason. Please reconsider. Praxidicae (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please reconsider given the many discussions about your AFD closes here on your talk page. Praxidicae (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Praxidicae: I'm not sure what a semi-soft delete is. Per WP:NOQUORUM, an AfD with no discussion should be treated as an expired PROD. PROD is a one time deal, and this article has already been through it once. NPASR is explicitly suggested as an alternative in this case. If I'm wrong about this, please point out where. -- Scott Burley (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article did go through WP:PROD where it was deleted under the rationale "Fails WP:N and WP:NSPORT as a semi-pro team, only source is the team's own website, potential COI issues, no reliable coverage in the news media and no real assertion of notability." If the original PROD was contested, I believe that the no consensus closing might make more sense. In this case, no one has ever taken a KEEP position in any discussion or action. I believe those arguments are still effective as it sits now... if you presume that is correct (and I'm open to discussion but there was none), then the position taken that "PROD is a one time deal" would allow articles deleted by PROD for violating policy (such as COI, COPYVIO, BLP, etc.) to be re-created on a technicality. I don't believe that's in the spirit of the encyclopedia. If you like, I would suggest following the policy Ignore all rules because deletion is the right thing to do.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Paulmcdonald: Recreating a PRODed article contests the PROD. PROD is meant as a convenience for uncontroversial deletions, and an article that gets recreated after deletion is controversial by definition. Since this article doesn't meet any WP:CSD, it needs some minimal amount of consensus-building discussion to occur before it can be deleted. That didn't happen after 3+ weeks on AfD, and at some point things need to move on. If you still want to have that discussion, you are welcome to renominate at any time. -- Scott Burley (talk) 03:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree. Removing the PROD tag on the article does contest the prod, but that isn't what happened. I could easily see that approaching the admin that deleted the article via PROD and ask to restore the article would also contest the PROD, but that didn't happen either. What did happen was an editor re-created the deleted article without reason and that is not "contesting" the prod.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

[edit]

Hi, please reconsider your no consensus closure here. That was clearly a soft delete since no one made any argument otherwise. Praxidicae (talk) 22:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AFD for John Zachary Danao

[edit]

Hi Admin, i am requesting to kindly please delete the AFD conversation " Article for deletion " as per subject's requested for his security reasons / concerns. Hoping for a positive response.

AfD close as no-consensus for Karikku

[edit]

Hi Scott Burley, I am troubled and confused that you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karikku as no consensus. Numerous people were explicitly concerned about the notability of the topic and had concerns about the sourcing offered in the article. In addition, no other specific sources were offered or analyzed during the discussion; and the AfD was up for several weeks - so there was ample opportunity for someone to do so. There were five "votes", one for keep, four for delete (including the nomination). While AfD isn't a "vote", I would say those numbers show strong support for deletion, especially given the specific policy-based arguments offered in those "votes". Would you please reconsider your close? Thank you. Waggie (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Waggie: Two other admins relisted with requests for more assessment of both existing and potential sources, and that didn't happen. -- Scott Burley (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the prompt reply. I wasn't arguing that relisting admins requested more assessment, but fulfilling those requests aren't a requirement for consensus to be established. In fact, no where in any of the AfD documentation can I find something that states any assessment of the sources is required for a consensus to be reached - simply that each participant explain their position. Four editors reviewed the sources and felt that enough of them did not meet criteria for in-depth coverage for the article to pass WP:GNG (and stated so, quite explicitly), one editor dissented - that is quite clearly a consensus to delete. However, if you're not willing to reconsider your close that's your prerogative. I'll go ahead and take it to DRV. I'm sorry that we couldn't have a more productive discussion here. Thank you for your time. Waggie (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Waggie: Of course, thanks for bringing it up. To be clear, my concern was that Rsrikanth05's dissent mentioned finding a number of potential sources that weren't listed in the article, and that wasn't addressed in the subsequent discussion. There does seem to be a consensus on the existing sources. -- Scott Burley (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Karikku

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Karikku. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Waggie (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 special circular

[edit]
Icon of a white exclamation mark within a black triangle
 Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

[edit]

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019

[edit]

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)[reply]

Great Learning Deletion

[edit]

Hello Scott,

I wanted to ask for help. Could you please help me improve the article and bring them back as they don't have enough online coverage. They try to make this place better but refuse to make a remark online. Can you please help me here, as they deserve to be out there and known. They have also received awards for their programmes to establish their credibility.

Please help me out.

Kind Regards! PicasaPicaso (talk) 04:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PicasaPicaso: I wish I could help, but they just don't seem to meet to standards for inclusion. As you said here, they aren't extensively covered by the media. Significant coverage by independent, reliable sources is the standard that a subject needs to meet to be included on Wikipedia. If they get more coverage so that they meet WP:ORGCRIT, you are welcome to try creating the article again. (In general, it's best to wait at least six months after deletion before recreating an article, but you can make a draft before then.) -- Scott Burley (talk) 07:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Scott,

Thank you for helping me out. I will wait for some media extensive media coverage and make a draft. I have a few friends who are actually studying there, probably I could ask them to persuade Great Learning into getting some media coverage. Can I make a redraft after getting that done and can I reach out to you then?

Kind Regards! PicasaPicaso (talk) 07:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of Princeton Area Community Foundation

[edit]

hi Scott Burley,

I see you speedily deleted the page for the Princeton Area Community Foundation because it was "not clear" why it was worthy of a wikipedia page. I unfortunately did not see your notice until it was too late to contest it. The Princeton Area Community Foundation is a community foundation that notably contributes to the public good. The work of the PACF is reported about in multiple news outlets. (see citations) Perhaps I did not clearly explain it's note-worthiness well enough in the wiki article, my apologies. Could you email me the code and give a chance to clarify it or revive it as a draft?

Please read this article if you are still unclear why community foundations are important and newsworthy. It is from the NYtimes and quotes a former president of the PACF: https://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/30/nyregion/foundations-help-without-fanfare.html

There are lots of community foundations that have articles on wikipedia.

Another question: Why speedily delete vs a non-speedily delete?

Thank you for your time--Mrgarden 2342 (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrgarden 2342: I've restored the article at Draft:Princeton Area Community Foundation. You may continue to work on it there.
Speedy deletion is a streamlined process for deleting articles that are very unlikely to survive a full discussion at articles for deletion. Articles can only be speedy deleted if they meet specific criteria. In this case, the article was tagged for speedy deletion because it doesn't indicate the significance of the organization. The article text and the cited references both say that the foundation exists, but not much else.
In order to be included on Wikipedia, subjects need to be not just significant, but notable. That means there needs to be significant coverage by multiple independent, reliable sources. In this case, the cited references seem to be mostly trivial coverage by local news, which is not sufficient to meet the guideline. -- Scott Burley (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

English

[edit]

Please remove protection from the page Jawani Phir Nahi Ani (film series) Mohid munir (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

27.106.25.20

[edit]

user:27.106.25.20 vandalized after their final warning. CLCStudent (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2606:A000:1011:8809:3DA7:AD21:5B06:6D43

[edit]

user:2606:A000:1011:8809:3DA7:AD21:5B06:6D43 is evading a block. She originally got blocked on user:2606:a000:1011:8809:20c5:d5a9:ddde:a041. CLCStudent (talk) 19:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CLCStudent, those IP addresses are allocated in blocks of /64s, so to successfully block them, 2606:a000:1011:8809::/64 is the correct target. —DoRD (talk)​ 20:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an admin. CLCStudent (talk) 20:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm aware, I was just providing information that you may find useful in the future. The range is now blocked. —DoRD (talk)​ 20:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Timothy006

[edit]

Hello, Scott. Please see the note that I left at User talk:Timothy006#April 2019. The userpage should never have been moved to draft space; rather, it should have been reported to us for suppression per WP:CHILDPROTECT. Thankfully, another user sent it in and I was able to take care of it. You also moved the user's talk page to draft space, but I have moved that back where it belongs. Best —DoRD (talk)​ 19:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DoRD: Thanks for catching this, I had overlooked the identifying info. For the record, it was originally a draft that another user had moved to userspace so they could tag it as U5, and I was attempting to undo that. -- Scott Burley (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2601:40C:8201:1D0B:61:C86D:685:17CD

[edit]

user: 2601:40C:8201:1D0B:61:C86D:685:17CD is triggering filters trying to vandalize. CLCStudent (talk) 20:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now so is user:Mica13812. CLCStudent (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Social Mission For Human Rights Foundation

[edit]

You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019

[edit]

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

Administrator changes

removed Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

removed 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) 09:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS Request #25585: 107.77.173.4

[edit]

Hi, thank you for helping out at UTRS. With registered users it is normal to encourage them to appeal on their talk page. However, IPs are very rarely unblocked. The first step is to use 'Find block' and if, as is commonly the case, the block is Anon only/Account creation disabled then you would use that reply template. HTH. Just Chilling (talk) 12:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JPNA

[edit]

Hi admin! The page Jawani Phir Nahi Ani (film series) was recreated by User:Ahmed_mohid (sock of blocked User:Sabeeh_butt) following same violations. Kindly check again, thanks! :) M. Billoo 13:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Getting feedback

[edit]

Hi Scott, I wanted to get your feedback because I saw your edits on John from Idegon's page. I made this edit here. John reverted me here. Then, more than 24 hours later, I made a different edit with different meaning and context, and John reverted me again. Even though I thought that my two edits were well-sourced, and I didn't know where the policy is that John was referring to when he wrote, "A person's political bent is not generally included in the lede unless they are a politician", following his second revert, I was going to open a discussion in talk. Subsequently, however, John placed a warning on my talk stating that I've made "unconstructive edits" and they appear to be "disruptive". I found that odd in that I never once reverted him, I made two different good faith edits, and now I have a warning on my page. Please, what is your take in order to help me learn? Thank you. UberVegan🌾 23:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As an update, John from Idegon just reverted six of my edits. My edits corrected edits that were not supported by sources and other solid edits. It seems at this point that he is harassing me. Can he simply revert every single edit made on the Moore page without reason? UberVegan🌾 02:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@UberVegan: I have undone the reversion of six of your edits, as the reversion was clearly detrimental to the article. I would encourage everyone involved to discuss disagreements about article content -- one at a time and separately -- on the article talk page, which is at Talk:Michael Moore. MPS1992 (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MPS1992: Thank you very much! You've restored my faith in editing Wikipedia. UberVegan🌾 20:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John from Idegon WP:OWN

[edit]

I believe that John from Idegon is continuing disruptive editing, WP:OWN, and possibly WP:HARASS. And, if there's no policy WP:REVERTINITIS, there should be.

He reverted me here #1 for a reason not backed by policy. (He still has not responded on the Michael Moore talk page.) I did not revert him, but I made a different edit with different meaning, and he reverted me again #2 for the same reason. I did not revert him.

I then made six different and solid edits in the article's body: #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8.

John reverted all of my edits, including one that highlighted a dead link, stating: "Poor sources, POV."

MPS1992 reverted John's revert of all of my edits, stating: "not an improvement." (I was informed that John's counted only as one revert, but it blanked six of my edits, which seemed disruptive.)

Subsequently, I made an edit that has stood without revert. Then, I made two edits #9 and #10 that merged/bundled the sources on the two edits, trying to make the page look better, and John reverted both edits, stating: "Reverted 2 edits by UberVegan: Cite kill it all you want, you still need to establish a consensus prior to re-adding anything on this. we will be going back to ANEW if you change this again prior to a consensus being achieved."

He then had the audacity to place a disruptive editing warning on my talk page. I asked him what exactly was "re-added"? He responded: "You added back the contested content in the lede. That stays out until a consensus is reached on the article's talk page." [emphasis mine]

He was 100% wrong. How was bundling/merging sources re-adding back content in the lead? My edit clearly did not "re-add" anything that was in the lead, anything that had been reverted, anything contentious, or anything that needed to first be discussed in talk. There is BOLD, and John is obviously continuing his pattern of ownership of the page, and harassing me and my enjoyment of editing. UberVegan🌾 07:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing you need to learn is to discuss things. Your bitching everywhere about my actions but have made 0 substantive attempts at discussion. Restating what you wrote originally and saying you see no reason it shouldn't be in the article is NOT discussing. I'm more than happy, I'm actually anxious to hear your arguments as to why it is so important to label Michael Moore as "left wing". You can provide references until the cows come home that label Moore "left wing". For every one you provide I can provide one of equal or better quality that doesn't. Anyone who has ever seen one of his movies, or even read about them, can likely form their own opinion of his politics. I pretty much think he's out on the left end of the political spectrum too. But my opinion, and yours, are irrelevant. There isn't any agreement from reliable sources that Moore is "left wing". The term "left wing" itself is an imprecise description and even worse, is time dependent. What was left wing in 1960 isn't now nor will what is left wing now going to be considered left wing in 2040. We are writing this with at least some sense of permanence. UberVegan, you are quite new here. I think it would be wise if you stayed away from biographies, especially political ones, until you've gotten more experience here. As little as you may wish to accept it, logical argument is at the heart of Wikipedia decision making. Scott has no authority over me, or you. There aren't "bosses" you can run to if you feel you are being picked on (you're not, BTW). Administrators are just regular editors like you and I. They have been entrusted with some extra buttons to enforce the community's consensus, but excerpt in certain specific circumstances, do not act unilaterally. If you have a complaint about me, make it at WP:ANI. You will be expected to cite specific policies you think I've violated and provide evidence in the form of WP:DIFFs to illustrate your point. And beware the WP:BOOMERANG. That's what gave Scott the power to block me last week. You are accusing me of harassment, but your WP:FORUMSHOPPING is much closer to harassment than anything I've done. John from Idegon (talk) 08:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you discussing content here when you haven't even discussed it on the talk page here? (You know, the place where I "made 0 substantive attempts at discussion". Rather than debating content, why don't you respond why you 1) reverted all 6 edits, and 2) why you reverted two bundle/merge source edits then disingenuously wrote on my talk page that those edits "added back the contested content in the lede"? UberVegan🌾 09:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019

[edit]

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

Administrator changes

removed 28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam1 • Flyguy649 • Fram2 • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe
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) 21:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Review

[edit]

Deletion review for Martin Concepcion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Martin Concepcion. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Paisarepa (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019

[edit]

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) 19:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Scott_Burley/Archive_3&oldid=1259559055"