I don't think it matters now, but I noticed that you blocked Aguyintobooks (to simply lock down his old account following a rename) with the 'block account creation' restriction enabled. Did you mean to do this? I'm just curious and figured I'd ask. Cheers -- [[User:Oshwah|<b><span style="color:#C00000">~Oshwah~</span></b>]]<sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Oshwah|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Oshwah|<span style="color:green">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 12:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it matters now, but I noticed that you blocked Aguyintobooks (to simply lock down his old account following a rename) with the 'block account creation' restriction enabled. Did you mean to do this? I'm just curious and figured I'd ask. Cheers -- [[User:Oshwah|<b><span style="color:#C00000">~Oshwah~</span></b>]]<sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Oshwah|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Oshwah|<span style="color:green">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 12:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
: Yes. Their concern was that their old account (and alternatives not currently in use) could be compromised and then used to relatively covertly create socks. [[User:Nick|Nick]] ([[User talk:Nick#top|talk]]) 13:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Revision as of 13:13, 13 November 2017
Nick is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. Please use e-mail to make contact urgently if you need to do so.
Hi, you blocked a couple accounts earlier Mancharg and Mentoap stating they are socks of TheSuix, as you subsequently blocked several others as socks of Aaron j christopher 101 for creating the same/similar content was the labelling of the first two a mistake or have we got two masters copying each other or possibly being the same person? Thanks Nthep (talk) 18:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(tps) That's peculiar enough that I had to take a look. I found these other accounts, but they're not using any obvious automation. I'm not familiar at all with wrestling topics and the multitude of sockmasters there, so I'll leave these for another admin to sort out. Yes, they're all Confirmed to one another. —DoRD (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any point in range blocking - it's not going to stop any of this behaviour, but risks inconveniencing legitimate users. Nick (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.
Technical news
When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.
JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
@Andrew Davidson: The page move was completed by Headbomb, the move left a re-direct which was tagged and which I deleted. The action was uncontroversial at the time I undertook it, but as there may now be issues with the page move and 'competing' articles, merges, titles etc, can I ask that you and Headbomb reach agreement/compromise and let me know. I'll then undertake any administrative actions required. Nick (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. We have a couple of related discussions at AfD and DYK and we hope that a consensus emerges from those. If more admin action is needed, we'll get back to you. Andrew D. (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question
In Operation Ring article, there is a part about loudspeaker which is wrongly referenced and not related to the event. It is from Thomas de Waal's book and while the event is happened, the date of it was in june and happened not in that area but in different village called Erkeç so could you please take action.--Azerifactory (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wilb2017
In connection with your block on Voiletr332, how about this one too? Of course, it could be Dr. Wilberto Cortés in person, but they both edited the Draft that I deleted. If he's paid for an article, I can't see him getting away from the lucrative theatre to edit himself... Peridon (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A recent RfC has redefined how articles on schools are evaluated at AfD. Specifically, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.
AKA Youngweezy et al. An ongoing problem - repeated socking and re-creation under varying titles. I've protected this one, the second today. The author has been added by someone to my reopening of the SPI on Collins wisdom. Peridon (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I blocked Collins wisdom over the Christmas holidays, I've blocked a couple of socks where I've come across a page (usually an edit filter tripping) since. I didn't realise it was quite as extensive as it is. I'll SALT as and when I come across further re-creations (surely inevitable). Cheers, Nick (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for encapsulating the concern I've had since I saw that thread earlier. I'm not sure it's total CIR time but some content creation would be nice to see. Nthep (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mail
Hello, Nick. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
More mail
Hello, Nick. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi. Way back in 2007 you protected the page Kola Boof due to "per BLP concerns from subject on OTRS Ticket 2007061010002768". I'm not sure what they were, but a similar page has been created as Kola Boof (author). Also pinging @Zscout370: who performed a similar edit ("per BLP concerns from subject on OTRS Ticket 2007061210000024"). Thanks. Tassedethe (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't volunteer with the OTRS system now, so will have to leave this with someone who does. I'm quite happy for the protection to be lifted as appropriate. Nick (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.
Technical news
After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.
Evidently, the abuse filter did not prevent me from creating that page. Where should I report that abuse filter is not detecting spam articles with such titles like this one?--Barber1987 (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Barber1987: I'm not 100% certain - I'd head over to Wikipedia:Edit filter and then probably take your pick from Noticeboard, Requested Filters or False Positives. Don't worry about it going in the wrong place, just say I sent you. I've also passed the issue around a few admins who work on the edit filter management routinely, hopefully they'll maybe be able to fix it. Nick (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There was no indication of why Josh Reiner meets the inclusion criteria - there are tens of thousands of people recording music and releasing videos on YouTube, there was no indication that Josh was in some way important or would meet our notability policies, which can be read here. Nick (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It probably is a little harsh, but I cannot understand why you would commit to spending your time writing an article (which I know is time consuming, even for a short article) if you haven't checked to see whether it's going to meet the requirements for Wikipedia. We do make our rules, guidelines and useful advice readily available for editors writing new articles, and we strongly encourage you to read through them. If you do read through them now, and can come back and explain why you believe Josh is notable and qualifies for an article, I'll be happy to review your evidence and if appropriate, undelete the article for you. Nick (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I thought he did qualify, there was valuable evidence and a lot of sources, but i will respect your advice and will research your wikipedia requirements a little more, it may take a few days, but i will try, thank you for your help.
MilesTreble (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Hello Nick! Mr. X referred me to address you with my question. I am completely new to Wikipedia and trying to make sense of how it works, and I didn't save a copy of the text of the page, Findo, Inc.. I was wondering if you could send me back the information I published accidentally, and if you could also provide any suggestions as to how to make it appropriate for the publishing on Wikipedia!
An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.
There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
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.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Basil Smallpeice you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Land -- The Land (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The Land: Many thanks. I've updated the lede but wanted to give it 24 hours before letting you know, because I'll probably want to make some further tweaks. I've a nagging suspicion it's a bit wordy now and needing trimmed, actually. Nick (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. You should only remove a PROD when you disagree that deletion of the article is the correct outcome for an article after it is tagged, not because the PROD nomination fails to establish why a subject is not notable. That's something of a circular argument, asking the nominator to try and prove a negative, which is why we generally expect article creators and people who oppose deletion on the grounds of notability to prove notability. PROD is a little different, but we would expect people to remove PROD tags only when they can explain why the article is notable when challenged. If you're able to explain why each article you've removed the PROD tags from is notable, you're welcome to remove the PROD tags again. Nick (talk) 12:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also do not expect you to revert me before I've even had the opportunity to reply to you, Linguist111. Nick (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually WP:PROD says that the tag can be removed for any or no reason at all. A reason is encouraged but not required. It also says that once a prod has been removed from an article it can never be readded. If you feel those articles should be deleted the next step is to take them to WP:AFD. ~ GB fan12:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Nick, where does it say that? Also, you're not supposed to reinstate PROD tags, even if someone removes them in bad faith. Instead, please bring the matter to my talk page first before you take action, and if I agree with your concerns, I will self-revert. I will review the articles from which I removed PROD tags, and I will leave the tags in place if I agree the article should be deleted; otherwise, I will remove them again, provided I can find external coverage. Thank you. Linguisttalk|contribs12:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the tag can be removed when the person removing the tag disagrees with the deletion, not the way the tag was added initially. Linguist111's removal of PROD tags on the grounds of the PROD nomination failing to establish that the subject is not notable is being disruptive to prove a point (as evidenced by the response above, which mentions 'bad faith'. I've said he's welcome to re-remove the tags if he actually believes the articles should not be deleted, not just if he has an issue with the language which was used when the tags were added. Nick (talk) 12:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement to say anything when removing a PROD. WP:CONTESTED gives strongly encouraged but not required actions when removing a PROD. Someone objected the PROD process is over. The policy is clear on this point, you can not put the PROD back when it has been removed. ~ GB fan12:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The point I'm trying to make, is that the edits by Linguist111 were not contesting the eventual deletion of the articles, or even contesting that the articles are notable, but were procedural removals concerning the nomination, and were centred around a contention that the PROD nominations didn't prove why the articles were not notable. The argument that the PROD nominations didn't explain why the articles were not notable is potentially trying to prove a negative. That's the reason I reverted the PROD removals, because I don't consider a removal on such a complex technicality is a proper, valid contention of the PROD. I would hope that Linguist111 can explain if they believe the articles shouldn't actually be deleted now, or will restore the PROD nominations if they agree deletion is correct, and I would also hope they would undertake work to determine if they should be removing PROD tags before removing then, not when challenged about their behaviour. Nick (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The way to do that is to go to their talk page and discuss it with them. The proper response is not to readd the PROD against policy twice. ~ GB fan12:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Because deletion is quite a sensitive subject, as many users can get upset when articles they have created get deleted, I believe that it should be carried out carefully. Pages that are in obvious, unambiguous violation of core policies are taken care of through CSD, but genuine, non-violating pages should not be treated this way. If an editor PRODs an article with a rationale of "NN", it goes seven days without being contested or endorsed, and an admin deletes it, the deletion log simply states "Expired PROD, concern was: NN". This would be equal to an AfD having two votes, "Delete as NN" (from the nom) and "Delete" (with no rationale, from the deleting administrator) In this case, not only has the proposer provided an invalid rationale, but the article has been deleted pretty much unilaterally, as the deleting admin has simply deleted it based on the proposer's opinion and their own (ungiven) opinion. Sure, the creator can go to WP:REFUND or simply ask, but some users, especially new ones, don't know about those processes, or may be driven away entirely. The creator may have objected to the deletion, but may not have had the opportunity to remove the tag. As I said, any type of deletion can upset content creators, but this is worse when a deletion is performed unilaterally. Linguisttalk|contribs12:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've left each of the noms a message and self-reverted on all the articles (except Scott Kluge, because the creator had explicitly objected to the deletion and would probably support the removal of the PROD). Thank you and sorry for the disruption. Linguisttalk|contribs16:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
View Deleted Content on Page
MVP
I couldn't see how to navigate and find a way to message you correctly but I wanted to grab the information and bio from here to my personal page so I can have it on my website.
An RfC proposing an off-wiki LTA database has been closed. The proposal was broadly supported, with further discussion required regarding what to do with the existing LTA database and defining access requirements. Such a tool/database formed part of the Community health initiative's successful grant proposal.
Some clarifications have been made to the community banning and unblocking policies that effectively sync them with current practice. Specifically, the community has reached a consensus that when blocking a user at WP:AN or WP:ANI, it is considered a "community sanction", and administrators cannot unblock unilaterally if the user has not successfully appealed the sanction to the community.
I have reverted your close, because I think that more discussion is needed. I understand your feelings of irritation at this, but I had independently noticed problems with Dr.S's reviewing. DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: It wasn't my close in the end, SwisterTwister refused to accept the closure I made, and GorillaWarfare took over the closure. I don't disagree that DrStrauss's reviewing requires some further discussion, but it is not necessary for that further discussion to take place at AN/I, and it most certainly is not appropriate for any such discussion to take place under a thread which was opened concerning (presently unfounded) allegations of personal attacks and incivility towards SwisterTwister from DrStrauss. I would have advised you at the time to re-close the AN/I discussion and to take your concerns to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants page where DrStrauss reviewing can be discussed in an appropriate venue, with more interested and experienced participants, separately and away from the messy AN/I thread. I notice the thread has received very little traffic since your re-opening, with all the comments (other than your own) concerning SwisterTwister's (presently unfounded) allegations of a personal attack and incivility. I would ask that you re-close the AN/I discussion and to then copy your comments concerning DrStrauss reviewing to a new section at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants before they're lost when the AN/I thread is archived. There is nothing put forward by SwisterTwister, you or any other user at AN/I which requires any form of sanction, therefore there's really nothing at all that requires administrator attention; what is needed is a less hostile venue where we can all provide DrStrauss (and indeed, SwisterTwister) with appropriate advice to improve their article reviewing skills going forward. Nick (talk) 09:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I also commented to GW. It is difficult to figure out what will actually help this situation. FWIW, I have advised ST not to take things to AN/ANI. In fact, I hve almostalways advised people not to use AN/ANI if there is any other possibility..I will in fact consider reclosing; you may be right. DGG ( talk ) 17:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1. My pleasure and 2. Yes, I'm needing to sort out the formatting at the top of my page, it's all gone horribly wrong. It's the New Year's Message which breaks the TOC placement which moves the archive box out of alignment. I'll fix it. Nick (talk) 09:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding ?fuzzy=1 to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.
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.
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Abdul Rehman Chaudhry. Since you had some involvement with the Abdul Rehman Chaudhry redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. The page is protected so I couldn't add an RFD template. Peter James (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify that "main account" means "all accounts other than the bot account" for the purpose of the Magioladitis topic ban? Otherwise, there's obvious potential to game the ban with an alternative AWB-only account (which is allowed under policy - many editors choose to segregate their semi-auto edits in that manner). ~ Rob13Talk20:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This issue wasn't specifically raised, but I would consider it to be evasion of the ban for any alternative account to use AWB other than the existing bot account. @Magioladitis:Nick (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is typical bad faith by Rob. We have to sort this out at some point becaue it led people out of Wikipedia. Makes you wonder... -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying you would do this, Magioladitis. I'm saying that our bans should be "tightly" worded to prevent anyone from evading intent without evading the wording. Wordsmithing can matter; bad wording is how most ArbCom remedies fall to pieces. I would make the same comment about any such ban, regardless of whether I support it or not and who it's against. Thanks, Nick. ~ Rob13Talk20:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The comment was referring to me directly. So, yes I get this personal. Recall, that you even proposed block for edits taht did not harm on Wikipedia and in fact improved pages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, Nick, there are two proposals at WP:AN (starting with "Request to remove") that will be affected by the ban. —DoRD (talk) 11:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've added a comment linking back to my closure at the ANI thread, so an appropriate decision can be made by the participants there on how to proceed. Nick (talk) 12:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I just would like to comment that after the ban I did not do any further edits via AWB.
Moreover, you are right that granting AWB permissions to admins was arbitrarily chosen by the AWB. It was a decision given by the fact that all admins fulfill the 300 contributions threshold.
The fact you may not know is that I am one of the three (?) accounts that have global rights to AWB. This means my username does not have to be in any list for me to make AWB edits in any Wikipedia. The reason is that I am one of the AWB developers and I test / edit with AWB in many various projects. So, any technical enforcement, if this is really needed of any ban would require some code tweaks. Ofcourse, I believet hat since I did not breach any ban I don't this would be neccessary. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nick. I was just checking the links update over at Talk:Wakefield and I spotted that you had semi-protected the article on 16 October 2013. Do you think that the persistent vandalism may have gone away by now and that the article might be unprotected? I see it's not getting very many edit requests. But I was just curious. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Issue with Deletion of Bhai Parmanand Institute of Business Studies
Recently You have deleted Bhai Parmanand Institute of Business Studies leaving over a redirect without leaving a redirect (article was approved by author despite issues with sourcing existing, reverting to allow remedial work to take place) as the reason for the deletion which doesn't makes proper sense to me because the article was there on the mainspace before it was moved to the draft by me for the improvement. As per the Wikiepdia's notability criteria WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES educational institutions especially that grants higher degree are considered notable where in the countries like India where places (villages), educational institutes, organizations hardly get any media coverage without any incident.
I didn't reported to the ANI even after your misconduct and foul language use on the IRC, in fact you have not informed the Article/draft creator about your action.
It is requested to assist the editors if they are not aware of proper guidelines instead of making them roam around the this and that. — SanskariHangout16:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sanskari: I really don't understand what you're trying to do now, based on your message, nor do I appreciate baseless accusations of misconduct and rudeness, although if I did offend you in any way, I do of course apologise, I perhaps was a little excessively annoyed at your inability to answer basic questions concerning the content and your conduct.
Firstly, the page history shows that you're the original author and I've already made you aware of the sourcing issues with the content. It's clearly inappropriate for you to be submitting content using the Articles for Creation process then approving that content yourself. If you're not the original author as your comment above suggests, then we've lost page history somewhere and we've got a copyright violation which needs to be correctly attributed (most likely a history merge would be needed).
Secondly, I moved the article back to the Draft location to give you time to fix the issues with the sourcing, rather than nominating it for deletion. You then nominated the page for it for deletion (as I advised) using the G7 tag. I've not deleted the content and will leave the deletion to be performed by an uninvolved administrator to perform.
Thirdly, the page history shows you moved the content from your own sandbox to the Article title, then you moved the content from the Article title to the Draft title, you then submitted the content through the AfC process, then you approved your own content immediately, moving it back to the Article title (after an administrator rectified the cross namespace redirect you created moving the content to the Draft namespace). I don't understand why you did that, nor do I understand your claim to have improved the article - you made no improvements between moving it to Draft and moving it back to Article namespace, and in total, the only improvement I see you making to the content, after you created it (or whatever you did, perhaps copy and paste) is to add a logo and one reference.
I would appreciate a proper explanation to these questions this time, given my repeated questions to you concerning this article were ignored when you visited us on IRC to ask for assistance. Nick (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
LoginNotify should soon be deployed to the English Wikipedia. This will notify users when there are suspicious login attempts on their account.
The new version of XTools is nearing an official release. This suite of tools includes administrator statistics, an improved edit counter, among other tools that may benefit administrators. You can report issues on Phabricator and provide general feedback at mw:Talk:XTools.
On the record. I reject your opinion but have no choice but to live with it. The cards were stacked favoring the admin, no good faith was ever shown, no willingness to provide clarity, only reduplicative and snarky remarks came from Wikipedia's side of the aisle, and your Admins did not cite one distinct example of noncompliance, they only lobbed the same redundant acronyms. This was not a debate; this was a lynching and a waste of time resources and effort. If editors or admins at Wikipedia are going to toss about rules for inclusion so freely they should also be aware of the code of conduct they are meant to uphold. I and those who know me have been disregarded, accused, and outright insulted because they attempted to convey truths. The final exchange between [only] and I was based on an outrageously allegation that I would be using Wikipedia to further a Kickstarter campaign. And though I am launching a Kickstarter campaign, I can't imagine how the two entities connect. "See me on Kickstarter and then come sponsor my product on Kickstarter?" The insinuation and the delivery in response to a civil question (one in a series of how, specifically, I might edit the page) were fantastically out of order. The remarks evidenced outright the mindset of the particular clique of editors, working on this assignment. It was DOA, and no one was gracious enough to simply state in plain speak why, instead, the very first response to our attempt to point out the edits we had made and offer up some defense to [Chrissymad]'s concerns, she flatly stated she 'would not read this wall of text.' I did not start the brawling, and in many instances, I and others spoke calmly and continued to ask for guidance. If you are in some position of authority, I urge you to consider the outright refusal of [only] and [ChrissyMad] to act in a way that is appropriate to any business. I too made hot headed remarks, but they were few and always in response to the taunts. I do not apologize for them. I never threw the first punch. Wikipedia, on the other hand, acted shamefully. I am reminded that I am not to take any of the "debate" personally. Read it again, and tell me how I could not.Dssalanitro (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dssalanitro: Wikipedia is not a business, this is a volunteer community project to write and maintain a free encyclopedia. The community decides on the notability policies and the inclusion criteria, it decides who gets to be an administrator, it decides on deletion policies. I'm sorry, but the long standing community members who are intimately familiar with our core policies on notability entered into the debate concerning the article, and stated based on their deep knowledge of project, that you did not meet the inclusion criteria. I understand you disagree with that assertion, but you have presented no credible evidence which refuted the clearly explained and rationally thought out comments endorsing deletion that other community members left. I don't understand how you can claim the cards were stacked favouring the administrators - I'm on the other side of the Atlantic and have absolutely no reason to process the deletion of your article other than accepting the consensus of the community members who participated in the discussion. Nick (talk) 10:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
3RR block explanation requested
Hi Nick. I would like an explanation of your block of User:jd22292 for breaching 3RR and edit warring. Jd22292 is a relatively new user—I know they always mean for the best, even if they have gotten in over their head occasionally—nevertheless, I was quite surprised to see that they were blocked. To further investigate, I looked at the page history in question. Jd22292 did make four reverts to Uncaged, Vol. 1, but one of those was a self-revert, which is exempt from 3RR per WP:3RRNO. Out of fairness, I must note the same with respect to the IP: Special:Contributions/174.97.205.139 only made three reverts to the page. Therefore, I don't see that either Jd22292 or the IP breached 3RR. Of course, you do have administrator discretion to issue a block only on the grounds of edit warring. But in that case, neither Jd22292 nor the IP were reported at the edit warring noticeboard, and the IP stopped reverting after being informed by Jd22292 of the three revert rule. You are well within your bounds of authority to issue a block, but given that the edits were not particularly disruptive, nor did either user breach 3RR, perhaps some leniency could be warranted? At least I would like to know why this case of edit warring merited a block. Thanks, Altamel (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jd22292 may be a relatively new user, but he's clearly familiar enough with the site to request page protection for the article, and to request protection via IRC. I wasn't able to discuss the issue with him, but his message was slightly economical with the truth, stating that "an IP editor is attempting to engage in an edit war" when in reality, he and the IP were already engaged in an edit war and had been, on and off, for a number of days. The block log should say edit warring, not 3RR, but the block notices I've left for both parties is correct, the blocks are for more general edit warring rather than specific 3RR issues.
The reason I chose to block rather than issue a warning is precisely because it's an issue which I can see has been going on for a while now. I took the decision to issue a relatively short 24 hour block to both parties, in part for preventative reasons, it was clearly sensible to prevent the users in question from engaging in further edit warring, but also, the block serves as an attempt to put an end to the longer term trend by forcing the users to consider their actions and give both parties time to consider an approach to resolve the issue when the blocks expire (or indeed, if they wish to appeal them).
I would also dispute the suggestion that this edit warring was not disruptive - it is true the content being edited formed a small part of the article, but edit warring creates edit conflicts and floods watchlists, it's not just disruptive if vast parts of a page are being edited, it's just as disruptive if one word, one letter, one punctuation mark is being edit-warred over.
Jd22292 and the IP user are free to request an unblock at any time, and I've been keeping an eye out to see if either user has filed an unblock request. I would welcome them writing up a proposal which would allow me to lift the block(s) early and allow both parties to return to editing, and if a sensible proposal comes forward overnight whilst I'm unavailable, any other administrator is more than welcome to lift the blocks. Nick (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided to lift the block of Jd22292 and the IP. 24 hour block is perhaps a little too harsh for a first edit war. I'm sure Jd22292 will discuss the changes on the talk page now and will avoid engaging in an edit war in future, choosing instead to report an unresponsive/disruptive user for administrator attention instead. Nick (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I haven't met many administrators who explain their reasoning as thoroughly as you do, and I do appreciate it. I'll be sure to chat with Jd22292 about avoiding edit wars. Altamel (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can safely let him file his complaint at ANI without kowtowing to his demands. Chances are very strong he'll get himself hoist by his own petard - he might even get blocked, which would be a shame really since we're supposed to help people like this get over their problems and become respected members of the community. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't want to see Sb2001 go to ANI. There's a significant gulf between his expectations for a thread alleging administrator abuse1 and the reality which will review his less than exemplary conduct before and particularly after the removal of the AFC reviewer right. His behaviour prior to the removal of the AFCH reviewer right wasn't entirely satisfactory, with a number of declines which were quite poor, being based on his MOS preferences rather than any material issues with the submission, and reviews which were badly worded to the point of being indecipherable (which were complained about in the live help channel, and where I get involved). His behaviour after the removal of the AFCH reviewer right has involved repeatedly disrupting and stalking your contributions, involving himself in arguments with the person who complained about his AfC reviews and creating a user page which violates the WP:POLEMIC guideline. There's also the issue of his behaviour demonstrated on the AFC participants talk page which had to be closed, which continued to demonstrate an abrasive, harsh and less than collaborative tone, such as the response to Cabayi. I've no concerns regarding my own conduct with regards to Sb2001 and in that respect, I'm happy for him to complain about me at ANI in that respect. I'm well aware that I may well incur a little criticism for removing his AFCH reviewer right so promptly, as Primefac says, perhaps giving him another 10 minutes to respond may well have been fairer, but at the same time, his initial response to the concerns I raised about the review in question were so seriously beyond what would be acceptable, waiting 10 minutes and potentially allowing more reviews to be processed wasn't a great idea either. It was a bit of a 'damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. I don't however want to be seen as encouraging Sb2001 to go to ANI, we all know it will not be a pleasant experience for him, and the trouting/bollocking/sanctions he would get will come as a really big shock. He genuinely doesn't appear to see anything wrong in his AfC reviews or more general behaviour, and genuinely thinks we've all been incredibly unfair towards him. I don't know how we can correct his viewpoint without an ANI thread though, our relatively gentle nudges in the right direction haven't remotely done the trick. 1Though even that claim is in a grey area, since AFCH isn't a formal permission, hasn't always been something only administrators can manage, and only needs administrator involvement by virtue of the page protection rather than being something only an administrator can set in the same way as the formal user permissions.
There's also the new User:Sb2001/InterestingThreads which is of course more WP:POLEMIC and another nail in his coffin. He just doesn't know where to stop. Anyway, things might change a bit when the new rule I've been fighting for comes into effect next month. Some people have been treating Wikipedia as a game for too long. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would suspect an ANI thread about one or both of us is imminent. If nothing materialises in the next couple of days, I'd ask an uninvolved administrator to delete it. I would hope Sb2001 might consider fixing the attribution issues with the page in the interim (or we could tag and/or delete it as G12 copyright violation - but that will undoubtedly exacerbate the situation). Nick (talk) 09:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was not going to reply until later. I will only note that I was keeping that list so that I could reply to Nick later today. I stated very clearly that it was for my benefit. I am sure you know that I did not want anyone else to see it. You will get a proper response from me later. For now, was following me around and going on about school acceptable Kudpung? And, you still have not told me how you came across personal information about me.–Sb2001talk page11:24, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sb2001:--With due respect to your editorial privileges and actions, I have blanked the page as a temporal measure.And please refrain from useless and equally worthless comments in the likes of:--I am sure you know that I did not want anyone else to see it.It may be prudential to inform you that nearly all the pages present on WP are visible to every person on the web.It may be also duly noted that the page was carved out after you were explicitly informed about WP:POLEMIC et al. Further reversion and examples of intentional disruptions will surely launch you to your desired destination.Thanks!Winged Blades of GodricOn leave14:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Or, alternatively, you could look at it as what it was—me creating a list of comments for convenience, which was going to disappear later today. I thought that remarkably few people would visit a sub-page of my user area. Sincere apologies if I was wrong. No need for the threats; WP:AGF: it was not intentional disruption. I will respond to all criticisms/messages later today. I am far too busy at the moment. –Sb2001talk page14:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick and Kudpung: (as an interested party) I came to a similar conclusion re. WP:POLEMIC quite independently of this discussion, of which I was unaware (thus I started this discussion for clarification). I think AN/I is probably the best place for a broader overview of their page section; it seems pretty clear cut. I was planning to discuss it with Sb2001 prior to filing as per protocol, but since this already appears to have been done at length, I suppose there's no need. Let me know your thoughts? Many thanks, — fortunavelut luna17:21, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's still a violation of the polemic guideline. I don't actually know how useful that page is in filing an ANI request, where we need diffs rather than quotations devoid of their precise context. I would suggest Sb2001 needs to tag the page for deletion and he still needs to remove the text from his userpage, it's still a polemic violation. I note, additionally, that both pages constitute copyright violations as they contain unattributed text and could be tagged by any user for G12 deletion in the case of the sub-page and for reversion and individual revision deletion for the user page proper. I would hope, to ease the ongoing difficulties Sb2001 has encountered recently, he would choose to make these requests himself. Nick (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nick. Thanks again for giving me a discretionary sanctions notice after my mistake a few weeks back. Had I not received it, I would not have been able to catch this series of edits a user made in regards to the topic. I have decided to let you know what happened for now, but in the meantime, for future reference, is there a place I can go besides WP:ANI to report this kind of disruption? Besides, I don't want to trigger any edit filters by sending this user a DS alert until I know it's safe to do so. jd22292(Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jd22292: is there a history of users making this sort of request, which might indicate sockpuppetry perhaps ? If not, I would suggest reverting the edits of a user this new would be a bit WP:BITEY. I would ask that you take the time to explain the issues at play on the page to them and make sure they're aware that this is a request which has been made previously, link them to past discussions so they can get up to speed on the issue, and generally explain why you reverted them. Nick (talk) 20:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Grenfell Tower fire photos
Hi @Nick: I am working on Grenfell Tower fire and notice you reviewed this photo from Twitter user @Natalie_Oxford
One of many good photographs by @Natalie_Oxford
She has several other good photos of Grenfell on her TL which would be useful to have available. How can we do this? What is the position regarding CC and Twitter and photo clearances - are all twitter photos automatically CC or did you need to contact @Natalie_Oxford to ask for a clearance? Can any editor upload these photos or is it limited to reviewers? Could you also provide a shortlist of sites which have CC photos, please.
Finally, I want to get a photo of Dany Cotton on her page but my understanding is that the OGL does not apply to photos, so her pictures on the LFB site are not CC - is that correct? She has a profile photo on Twitter on @LFBCommissioner - is that able to be used? Many thanks - trying to get my head around copyright but its a bit of a maze! :-)
@David Crayford: The photographs we have of Grenfell Tower on fire were specially released under a Creative Commons licence by the Twitter user @Natalie_Oxford, in response to a request from, I believe, Wikimandia on Twitter. I don't know if they DM'd Natalie or if they're one of the people requesting permission in the comments section of the various tweets. The permission was granted in this tweet and is the reason I've reviewed and confirmed the licence, which is the limit of my involvement concerning the images. I would suggest you contact Wikimandia to ask how they made contact and if they've built up a rapport with Natalie, perhaps they could ask for further images to be released under a suitable free licence. Moving on to the issue of Creative Commons images, unfortunately Twitter images by default are All Rights Reserved and cannot be uploaded without permission of some form being provided by the photographer or copyright holder (where different). The other sources of Creative Commons photographs would primarily be Flickr and a handful of other sites such as the Geograph project. The Creative Commons search engine is worth a look, and the Geograph project is here The OGL licence covers images, that's where the majority of our new MoD photography now comes from, but for an image to be released under the OGL, the Government needs to own the copyright. That's why we have issues occur with departments and agencies who don't have their own photographers; they hire a photographer and the resultant images are often restricted in how the images can be used or distributed, this may or may not be the case with LFB. It would be worthwhile asking LFB if they might be able to release some photographs under a Creative Commons licence on their Flickr account and see what their response is, or speaking to the London Mayor's office, they've previously released some material under various free licences so might be keen to see what they can do with LFB, the Met Police etc. Nick (talk) 08:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.
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.
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.
Hello! I see that you deleted a page about a former Swedish party chairman for the Sweden Democrats way back in 2007. The reason give was WP:BLP, but I do not quite understand the reasoning there since the man has a Swedish wikipedia page and is, or once was, a public figure. I would like to recreate the page. Is it possible to "un-delete" it? Diplofot07:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The page was deleted due to the nature of the content, not because Anders Klarström isn't notable or meets the criteria for inclusion. You're free to create a new article for Anders Klarström at the same location, unfortunately, because of the content which prompted the deletion of the page originally, it will not be possible to restore the original text. It would come under the present deletion criteria of "G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP" if that helps understand the reason for the deletion all those years ago. Nick (talk) 10:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.
The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.
To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.
We really appreciate your input!
Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.
Following a successful proposal to create it, a new user right called "edit filter helper" is now assignable and revocable by administrators. The right allows non-administrators to view the details of private edit filters, but not to edit them.
Following a discussion about mass-application of ECP and how the need for logging and other details of an evolving consensus may have been missed by some administrators, a rough guide to extended confirmed protection has been written. This information page describes how the extended-confirmed aspects of the protection policy are currently being applied by administrators.
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.
Hi Nick. I was NPPing and came across this sandbox User:Meister und Margarita/Memorial. I then found out the creator is blocked (I don't know any of the details, and have never heard or dealt with the editor). I was going to ask him on his talk page what he wanted to be done with it, but I found that you had locked it. Should I finish it myself and move to the mainspace, or move to draftspace or what? Thanks, L3X1(distænt write)02:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
L3X1 you'll need to double check with the blocking administrator, DeltaQuad. It's an oversight related block so you'll need to make sure it's not in some way related to this material. I would say, if DQ is happy, then I'd move the page wherever you think is most appropriate. If you're blocked for posting material needing Oversight and have been posting personal attacks, you pretty much lose any right for people to defer to you about articles you're half way through writing. Nick (talk) 07:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
Spurious
Hi Nick. I just want to explain now why my revoking of the AfC tool for DrStrauss was deliberately vague. For discretionary reasons, investigations were being discussed offline but I did not want to to elucidate at that point. This will now provide you with the background and why we need to be so careful. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A new function is now available to edit filter managers that will make it easier to look for multiple strings containing spoofed text.
Arbitration
Eligible editors will be invited to submit candidate statements for the 2017 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 12 until November 21. Voting will begin on November 27 and last until December 10.
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.
I don't think it matters now, but I noticed that you blocked Aguyintobooks (to simply lock down his old account following a rename) with the 'block account creation' restriction enabled. Did you mean to do this? I'm just curious and figured I'd ask. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)12:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Their concern was that their old account (and alternatives not currently in use) could be compromised and then used to relatively covertly create socks. Nick (talk) 13:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
Confirmed to one another. —DoRD (talk) 17:09, 14 January 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 Odd editing behavior at User talk page. -- Dane talk 00:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Administrator changes
NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Arbitration
Obituaries
Miscellaneous
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Land -- The Land (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Basil Smallpeice for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Land -- The Land (talk) 12:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
; see Talk:Basil Smallpeice for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Land -- The Land (talk) 10:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Arbitration
Obituaries
