User talk:Nick/Archive18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on Wikimedia Commons.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.



Administrators' newsletter – January 2018[edit]

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

Administrator changes

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

Bureaucrat changes

readded Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

Arbitration

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

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox UK school[edit]

Template:Infobox UK school has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox school. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Steven (Editor) (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018[edit]

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

Administrator changes

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

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About your comment at WP:AN[edit]

I did not want to comment about this at the AN post, because it would distract away from the main discussion. With all due respect, Nick, I did not think your comment here about me was entirely fair. Were you aware the condition in which I assigned the page mover right to this editor (back in September 2017)? I don't think so. Were you aware the discussion (back in October 2017) I had with SMcCandlish about improving the scrutinizing process of page mover rights? I don't think so either. Having been the most active administrator at WP:PERM for the last 7 months, there is bound to be one or two editors who turns out to be problematic. That's why we have revocation criteria like WP:PMRR laid out, so any administrator can revoke the user right when the the situation is called for, which is what we have here.

I am always open to constructive criticism, but before you "caution" any other editor for what you assume to be carelessness, I would like to think it's perhaps the better practice to have all the facts at your disposal prior to making such comment. I hope you can understand my perspective here. Regards, Alex Shih (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can attest that the process for granting page-mover has been significantly tightened; I've been watching it closely. While several "move warriors" and anti-MoS types were granted this bit when it was new (and surprisingly haven't quite abused it, that I know of) this has not happened in quite some time, and Alex Shih is correct that PMRR anticipates that a few people will get the bit (for which the bar is not all that high) but need to have it removed later when they prove unsuited to the task and its restraints.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I consider the comment I made about your behaviour at WP:PERM to be a fair and accurate reflection of your PERM processing. If you had done a proper background check of Zawl (previously TheMagnificentist) you would most certainly have arrived at the conclusion that it was not an appropriate permission to grant to this user. Nick (talk) 08:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Account creation block[edit]

Hi Nick, sorry to bother you. I wondered if you would mind lifting the block on the IP address here (account creation from this IP address (85.115.53.202) was blocked by Nick, who gave the reason {{anonblock}} <!-- Likely a school based on behavioral evidence -->.)

Firstly, this is an IP address used by the National Archives here in the UK, we're shortly going to be hosting an editathon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/The_National_Archives/Events/Dissidents,_Suffragists_and_Freedom_Fighters) and I'd really appreciate being able to sign up new editors. I'm also a little curious whether it is really policy to block schools in a blanket way. I'm no admin so I have no idea of the scale of vandalism you are managing but that's pretty depressing. Where are the next generation of editors to come from? --Mr impossible (talk) 11:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the latest in a long line of administrators who have blocked editing from this IP address - it has been blocked pretty much continually since November 2016 with four previous (and virtually consecutive) blocks all with account creation disabled (see the block log). I note the editing event is on the 28th April, how certain are you that the IP address will be assigned to the National Archives at that time ? I've no objection to unblocking the IP address for the day of the event, but given the history of spam, vandalism, triggering edit filters and such, I won't unblock before the event. You would probably need to ask for the account creation limit to be lifted (see here but that would need to be for a very tightly defined window, given the potential risks of having unlimited account creation from such an IP). School blocks routinely disable account creation but to compensate for that, we have the Wikipedia:Request an account project, which will create accounts for those hit by anon only blocks. You may also wish to look into the Wikipedia:Account creator user right (which might not be affected by the account creation block on the IP anyway - just waiting to hear back from a developer to confirm). Nick (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for getting back to me. I was obviously rather naive about the level of misuse from that IP. It's potentially everyone using Forcepoint/Websense so on reflection I can see the volumes could be very large. Managing this in the medium term seems awkward - I would like to be able to encourage staff here to sign up for accounts both before the event and afterwards. A temporary lift of the block is useful for the event but won't help with this. If I did request account creator privileges would they be likely to be granted in your view? --Mr impossible (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not certain on the account creator v account creation block issue. I'm still trying to get a definitive answer. Nick (talk) 07:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to pursue this. --Mr impossible (talk) 11:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've been informed by Oshwah that the account creator user right won't over-ride the block on the IP, per an ongoing discussion at [1]. I can only suggest that I (or another admin) removes the account creation element of the block for the duration of the edit-a-thon. Nick (talk) 12:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. Disabling account creation on an IP or range block will disable all account creation from being allowed from behind that IP or range and by anybody - even Stewards are denied from creating accounts if they try to do so. A phab ticket has been filed in response to to subsequent issues that were found when testing the restriction with different user rights. I feel that the true resolution of this matter is to modify the IPBE flag so that it behaves by allowing the user unrestricted use of their account (within their access rights) and as if the IP or range they were behind wasn't blocked at all... but this will most likely require discussion and community comment before we even see such a modification considered. It's going to be quite some time before it's actually fixed. But, yes - to confirm Nick's response here: the only solution to this issue as of this writing is to modify the block and disable the account creation restriction from being enforced. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nick, my apologies for coming back to you about this. I'm struggling to raise a phabricator ticket because the system seems to have a typo in my email (the address phabricator has does not match what I can see in my preferences on either Mediawiki or Wikipedia). Is the account creation block something you could arrange to lift from 1-5pm BST on 28th April? (1-4 would be fine) Or would I be better off posting more generally on the #wikimedia-tech channel? --Mr impossible (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've enabled account creation from the IP as of now. I figure (a) I'll forget if I don't do it now, and (b) there's a chance you might need it or would find having it enabled beforehand to be useful. Let me know how things go, please. Nick (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're an absolute legend. Thank you very much. Will do. --Mr impossible (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018[edit]

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

Administrator changes

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

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Miscellaneous

Obituaries

  • Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio[edit]

Hi, I don't see how a bare list of all exhibitions (not selective) is copyvio, can you explain please? Atlantic306 (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read through Wikipedia:Copyright in lists. You would need to demonstrate you could generate an identical list of exhibitions using independent third party sources if you want to claim that the list is ineligible for copyright protection (which you haven't done) but given there's a claim of using the list under the provisions of fair use (twwhich is nonsense particularly given you're not crediting the initial source, though including a fair use list within an article whilst failing to make explicitly clear the list is fair use is also a problem). Nick (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, will try rewriting the list in a different presentation and details as recommended by the essay to avoid copyvio, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SPI of interest?[edit]

Hi Nick, not sure if you have any thoughts about this, but I noticed you blocked account Shapin36 as a suspected sock of Shafi674838393939. If you have any particular insight into that editor, I have an open SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shafi674838393939. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rakic_goal_celebration.jpg[edit]

Sorry, tagged it just as you were deleting it, and thus ended up with a blank but tagged page. Thanks ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2018[edit]

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

Administrator changes

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

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

Arbitration

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

Miscellaneous

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

Zann khan returns[edit]

The article you salted recently (Zaan khan) has returned under the name Zaan Khan. Is the content the same?--SamHolt6 (talk) 07:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not only this have a look at Zaan Vaz and Zaan Ali also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Manavati. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 07:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Select Survey Invite[edit]

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Your survey Link: https://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_d75hdw7lvade2lD&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018[edit]

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

Administrator changes

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

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

Obituaries

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

Request for New Page Reviewer Right[edit]

Hello Nick, on the 30th of March, 2017 you removed my New Page Reviewer user rights on en.wikipedia. Rightly so, I have to say, because I was not experienced. In the meantime I have thoroughly read WP:V and WP:RS to learn what reliable sources are, WP:N to learn which subject is notable and which is not and when to apply WP:STICKY and especially when to apply the criteria listed under WP:CCS. I carefully read WP:STUB to learn what is a stub and what is not. So I would kindly ask you to give me another chance at helping the reviewing backlog. Thank you very much in advance--Celestinesucess (talk) 10:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Celestinesucess, while I can't speak for Nick (he may just accept your request) it would probably be best to formally request the right at WP:PERM/NPR. Primefac (talk) 13:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]
Primefac, I think she is following Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers where it says "Appeals of revocation should be made in the first instance to the revoking administrator...". --Gereon K. (talk) 13:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, didn't know that was in the instructions. Primefac (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am following Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers. Thank you Gereon K.--Celestinesucess (talk) 13:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest you file a new request at WP:PERM where the request can be discussed more openly. Nick (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018[edit]

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

Administrator changes

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

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

Arbitration

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

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail![edit]

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. — Ss112 11:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carmaker1[edit]

Thanks for adding that comment to Carmaker1's user talk page and for expressing your thoughts and input. The reason I'm messaging you here is to get your input. I'm considering revoking his pending changes reviewer rights, as his recent changes call into question whether or not I believe he has full and proficient knowledge and understanding of the required policies and guidelines. Making bad approvals to pending changes and allowing them to go live for the general public to be able to read can potentially be very bad to have happen (depending on what is accepted of course). What are your thoughts on this, how do you feel, and what do you think? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Unacceptable"[edit]

You'd think they'd leave a message or something. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

Precious
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2018[edit]

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

Administrator changes

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

Bureaucrat changes

removed Andrevan • EVula

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Miscellaneous

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

Blocking Me[edit]

The OP was,

"I don't want to get into the edit war that is going on, but Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view. Having your lead claim that what you are writing your article on is false seems to me to be biased. From Wikipedia's NPOV article:

"Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed."

Leading with calling your subject seems like disparaging. This is just my opinion on the subject. It's very possible that I could be wrong, it's happened before. I hope we can work together to find a solution."

Not a single person even attempted to answer this, and instead they proceeded to bring up irrelevant points, repeat things I had already addressed, and tried to argue about my responses, instead of the OP (I was only irritated when new people came into the discussion and jumped right to the bottom instead of addressing what I originally said). To respond to a reply I made to @User:Acroterion and you, you said,

"The reliable sources are unaninmous in their assesment of "chemtrails", which is: they are not a thing. Therefore using the word false to describe the claims that they do exist is nothing but reflecting what the sources say. BTW, WP:RS trumps secondary guidelines like WP:FRINGE."

I agree with you that chemtrails are complete nonsense, that's why we should describe them in a clear and objective way (see my first reply to @[[User:Acroterion]), and then proceed to tell them the more accepted views and how we know that chemtrails are false. We could also add things like "questionable", "not well accepted", etc. before "claim" to show people that they should be skeptical of it too.

"To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea."

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view says,

"This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus."

and

"Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view to avoid misleading the reader. See fringe theories guideline and the NPOV FAQ."

So Wikipedia's article on fringe theories trumps Wikipedia's article on identifying reliable sources.

You then said,

"Quoting from the NPOV pillar In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view" (my emphasis). This is one of the cases where there is just one well recognised view. There are no reliable sources saying that chemtrails are a real thing. End of argument. -"

You're right on this, and I agree with you! Chemtrails should not be given any credibility in the article, but it shouldn't be disparaged either. Wikipedia's article on NPOV gives more clarification on what it means when it says,

"Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and miniscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it.

Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject. For instance, articles on historical views such as Flat Earth, with few or no modern proponents, may briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view to avoid misleading the reader. See fringe theories guideline and the NPOV FAQ.

Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth)."

It's pretty obvious that no reliable source confirms the flat Earth, but the article says that the flat Earth is a minority view and should state the modern position, and then go into the history of the flat Earth. So chemtrails can be considered a minority view, even if there are no reliable sources confirming its truth (not trying to say it's true). This is probably a lot longer than you expected. Sorry. Wyrm127 (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for joining the discussion and helping me out! Wyrm127 (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I accidentally confused you with User:Nick Thorne. Well that's every response addressed now anyway, and no one has addressed the OP yet. Sorry. Wyrm127 (talk) 03:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any issue at all in using the word 'false' to describe the specific topic of the 'Chemtrail conspiracy theory'. The article is specifically about the conspiracy theory. It's clearly appropriate to describe the conspiracy theory as false given the overwhelming body of evidence which exists to disprove the existence of the conspiracy theory (and of chemtrails themselves). I would suggest taking time to review discreet differences in tone between different articles on closely related topics. If we had an article on chemtrails, separate to the one on the conspiracy theory, the wording used there would be necessarily different to the wording used on the conspiracy theory itself. Nick (talk) 09:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The main problems are that neutral point of view says that you can't disparage your subject and Wikipedia:Fringe theories says that you should use qualifiers to not sound too harsh (it gives a clear example afterwards). I'm confused how "false" could fit into that category and how what the sources say can make it justifiable to describe something as "false". Thanks for helping me out! Wyrm127 (talk) 00:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, the NPOV policy states that where there is just one well-recognized point of view that is what we should use. In this case it is clear that the RS state that chemtrails are not a thing, so the claim that they do exist - the conspiracy theory - is false. - |Nick Thorne]] talk 04:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and WP:FRINGE is a guideline, not policy, unlike WP:NPOV. - Nick Thorne talk 04:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Nick Thorne Are you suggesting that that the flat earth isn't a significant claim because the references say that it isn't true, despite evidence to the contrary? This is just refusing to listen now. Wyrm127 (talk) 05:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Nick Thorne "If an editor violates the community standards described in policies and guidelines, other editors can persuade the person to adhere to acceptable norms of conduct, over time resorting to more forceful means, such as administrator and steward actions."

So guidelines are important too, even if they can have more exceptions than policies. Also, the NPOV policy page makes a reference to the fringe science guideline page to give a description of what it was just talking about (which I quoted above). Wyrm127 (talk) 05:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to conflate two separate, albeit related things. The article is not about chemtrails, it is about the conspiracy theory. Because chemtrails are not a thing, which you seem to agree, then it follows that the conspiracy theory which states that do exist is a false claim. This has already been explained to you. Who's not listening? Finally, I repeat, calling the conspiracy theory a false claim is not disparaging, it is merely decriptive. I'm not going to say any more on this, unless somebody comes up with something new to say. - Nick Thorne talk 11:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Nick Thorne "You continue to conflate two separate, albeit related things. The article is not about chemtrails, it is about the conspiracy theory. Because chemtrails are not a thing, which you seem to agree, then it follows that the conspiracy theory which states that do exist is a false claim."

So? Just because it is false doesn't mean you can't get around the several rules in place against it (see the original discussion).

"Finally, I repeat, calling the conspiracy theory a false claim is not disparaging, it is merely decriptive."

dis·par·age

dəˈsperij/

verb

verb: disparage; 3rd person present: disparages; past tense: disparaged; past participle: disparaged; gerund or present participle: disparaging

  1. regard or represent as being of little worth. {| class="wikitable" |synonyms: |belittle, denigrate, deprecate, trivialize, make light of, undervalue, underrate, play down;More |} {| class="wikitable" |antonyms: |praise, overrate, complimentary |}

Please tell me how "false" doesn't fit into this description. Wyrm127 (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I said I would not comment, yet here I am. So sue me. Wyrm127, you have left behind you a collection of dead horses a mile long. No one is buying what you're trying to sell. Time to drop it. Oh, and for crying out loud learn how to properly indent your comments, your inability or unwillingness to abide by that simple talk page convention is way beyond disrespectful. - Nick Thorne talk 02:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail[edit]

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.Clarisse Xavier (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

That was not very civil, I nearly missed the train due to that. Perhaps I shouldn't have closed it but I think most admin would have given the same result, we will see in the review. As for being an admin have already been advised to wait 3 years not that Ive expressed any interest in it. Also if you dislike NACs why don't you close more yourself? thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: I'm enthralled as to how my message made you come close to missing a train. Nick (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was a joke, your message came up just as I was leaving to catch a train and reading it meant I nearly missed it, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Draft:Jay Gold Smith[edit]

I think if you look at the history of that page in depth, you'll note that it started as a legitimate draft (Draft:Logan Grove) that was then hijacked by the banned user. I'm not sure if the original draft had any value (not sure that Logan Grove is a notable actor), but I think restoring the draft to its original state and location and allowing it to develop (or not) is a better option than speedy deletion. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was previously deleted under G13 before being the subject of a WP:REFUND request by the banned user. I've fixed the log entry so it now says it's deleted per G13, so that any undeletion requests are acted upon correctly. Nick (talk) 12:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Irving,_Texas_parking_garage_collapse[edit]

When you closed the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Irving,_Texas_parking_garage_collapse, you deleted my comments made a minute earlier. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Irving,_Texas_parking_garage_collapse&type=revision&diff=852846708&oldid=852846634&diffmode=source I'm not asking you to undo the closure, but perhaps you could restore my comments. In general, the collapse of a building anywhere that has building codes is likely to be followed by investigations and litigation which will be covered in reliable sources. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion (made several minutes before you commented at AfD) was a speedy deletion at the request of the author, so your comment isn't necessary and adding it back adds nothing further to the discussion or closure. If it was a conventional AfD, I'd agree and would have added your comment back. Nick (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2018[edit]

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

Administrator changes

added Sro23
readded KaisaL • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Do you think[edit]

Hello Nick,

do you think that I am violating my topic ban with the help of Alex Shih (and Andy Dingley)? Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Maximilian, I've only briefly looked into this matter as a (talk page stalker), but my interpretation of the thread on Shih's page is "I'm topic-banned from automobiles. Here's an article I want to edit that's totally not about about automobiles. And by the way, while I'm at it, can I add some pictures of automobiles?"
If the article isn't related to autos, then you shouldn't be needing to add images of autos. If it is related to autos, then you shouldn't be editing it. Just my thoughts on the matter. Primefac (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Johannes Maximilian Yes. The article on air-blast injection is acceptable. The asking permission to violate your topic ban by adding images absolutely is not. Nick (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to add these pics myself, I am just auggesting that someone else adds them. I am not asking for permission to violate my ban here. See WP:AGF please, thank you. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a topic ban, you don't get a free pass with WP:AGF. You shouldn't be discussing automobiles given your topic ban, suggesting that someone else adds the images is, in plain terms, attempting to recruit a proxy to circumvent your topic ban and is to be discouraged. A topic ban is by design intended to be easy for both the recipient and the administrative team to understand. You may ask for clarification, of course, and you can appeal it (subject to the appeal provisions instated together with the ban) but that should be the extent of your interaction with the topic until such times as a ban is lifted. Whether or not you should remain topic banned - AGF does come into play here - I've no opinion either way. Nick (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you are trying to tell me that I am not supposed to take photos anymore or what is your mesaage? I am not discussing automobiles, I am discussing photos. And to be precise, I am not discussing photos, I had just suggestested that someone adds my photos. I have put these photos in the corresponding articles anyways and now I have seen that there are different pics in the English articles and that there are some pics missing, which is why I have mentioned that in the first place. Will I get blocked if someone adds these photos? I hope that you know that I could hardly recruit a proxy to circumvent the topic ban by asking someone if they'd add these photos simply because of the fact that anyone could add a photo anyways and 99 % of article work should be adding text – which is something I could still not do. But fine. I will not ask anyone anymore again. Decide yourself which photos you want to add. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 21:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Maximilian You were discussing pictures of automobiles, which is in violation of your topic ban. Please don't do so again. If you were to recruit someone to proxy for you, circumventing your topic ban, there is a risk that both you and the person who made the edits would be blocked. The idea of a topic ban is to keep you away from an area where your editing behaviour has been found to be sub-optimal. A topic ban is not designed to be a hindrance which stops you from doing some of the same things, it is not designed to be something you can just find a way to easily circumvent. It is designed as a blunt instrument which stops you editing a given topic in its entirety. Nick (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Aha. So you are saying that a topic ban is supposed to keep me away from an area where my editing behaviour was sub-optimal. And "discussing" photos of the banned subject violates the ban? And anyone who adds these photos might get blocked? --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did nobody explain any of this when you were topic banned ? Nick (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot recall that (at the time I was very confused that editors without administrator rights could declare another editor banned jut like that) and when appealing the ban once, people have told me things that were contradicting each other, for instance, I have been told that adding units in any event (I am also banned from "units") would violate the ban; technically, I am adding units just by signing posts on talk pages; when pointing that out, the same people have told me that some things are "appropriate" while others are "not" regarding units, so, apparently, while being banned from "units", purposely adding "units" to my posts on talk pages does not violate the ban. The probelmatic behaviour was that I intended to use time units (SI-compatible base units) for frequency, (something which is common in scientific literature while in "layman literature" you would usually not find time units for frequency). Then I have been told that a tban is intended to ban me from edits that were "problematic" only, and photos were never a problematic thing (these photos are even QIs), but since I didn't want to get blocked again, I wanted to ask someone else to add these photos; once I was blocked for six months because I had asked another editor to stop adding original research to automobile articles. Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Postscriptum: Anyways, I am not going to ask about photos again, also, I am not going to edit any articles that are most likely covered by the ban. Do you know German by any chance? --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 00:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AFD[edit]

Hi, sorry have been offline and will be again shortly, agree I got that NowMusic one badly wrong but Primefac has closed it. The reason I relisted it was because it's a test case for obout a hundred or more articles so might need a longer discussion but that wasn't a good enough reason. Will stick to very very obvious ones in future, thanks for giving me a chance to respond, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing down AfDs started by socks[edit]

Greetings. In this exchange of views, Atlantic306 informed me that "[AfDs started by a sock and] with no delete votes [in them yet] can be closed due to the sock nomination, the others have to continue." Then, Atlantic306 gave a link to WP:SOCKSTRIKE as supporting their claim, but I found no such support whatsoever. Atlantic306 also directed me to you, because supposedly you "recently closed some [AfDs] by speedy keep started by a sockpuppet before he was discovered." So, could you please clarify? Under which specific circumstances can we speedy delete an AfD started by a sock?

Speedy Keep policy states in criterion #4 that among the reasons [for] a speedy keep decision [is the fact that] the nominator is banned, so they are not supposed to edit. In that case, the nominated page is speedily kept. However, if subsequent editors added substantive comments in good faith before the nominator's banned status was discovered, the nomination may not be speedily closed, though the nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision. I see nothing about retroactive deletions there. Thanks in advance. -The Gnome (talk) 05:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Gnome: I'm not following the retroactive deletions issue, so I might need you to elaborate further on that point.
I also don't know why I'm being asked to provide an answer - the two AfDs I closed recently were Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karen Green and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fiona Jenkins which were both less than 5 hours old. Fiona Jenkins had only been edited by the sockpuppet whilst Karen Green had one keep and some discussion involving the sock. These closures were quite different as they didn't include any 'delete' comments.
If I was interpreting the speedy deletion policy strictly by the letter, the Fiona Jenkins AfD page could have been speedily deleted, as it had ...no substantial edits by others but, and it's personal preference here, I wouldn't normally delete any AfD nomination created by a sockpuppet, unless they're particularly abusive towards the subject of the nomination. I find deleting AfDs under CSD G5 tends to create 'holes' in various places and can cause confusion if there's a second (legitimate) nomination, so closing the AfD with something like my procedural close comment which informs anybody interested that the closure is purely due to the nominator being blocked/banned and is not a reflection on the suitability of the article, its compliance with policy etc.
I'm looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunesis Pharmaceuticals as an example, and I don't see any alternative to keeping the AfD open, unfortunately, as the notification that the nominator was a sockpuppet came after the first (your) deletion !vote. If the socking had been discovered prior to your vote, I expect that Atlantic306 would have closed the AfD as a procedural keep. If I was handling the AfD, I would have re-listed the AfD for a further 7 days even if there was clear consensus and may well have pinged all those who had commented to inform them that the AfD was being re-listed because the nominator was found to be a sockpuppet.
I hope that's helpful and if not, do feel free to ask further questions. Nick (talk) 09:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the elaborate and most helpful response, Nick. In sum, I happen to fully agree with your stance, especially where you state, "If I was handling the AfD, I would have re-listed the AfD for a further 7 days even if there was clear consensus and may well have pinged all those who had commented to inform them that the AfD was being re-listed because the nominator was found to be a sockpuppet." That's the appropriate response as far as I'm concerned, since the alternative (i.e. someone like Atlantic306 closing down the AfD immediately) creates unnecessary confusion. My view in general is to minimize the adverse effects that bad faith actions, such as sockpuppetry, can cause on other editors' contributions.
The "retroactive" part concerns the time an editor is banned (for being a sock or for any other reason). It should be technically impossible for a banned editor to start an AfD. So, we always discover that an AfD was started by a banned editor after the editor has been banned. Deleting the AfD for any reason would be a retroactive move. But this is insignificant semantics, really. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Thank you for fixing the Casey Biggs webpage.

What went wrong? Suggestions for the future. Eaobiiiesq@yahoo.com

Thanks. Eaobiiiesq (talk) 14:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Block[edit]

Hello, Mr.Nick! You have blocked me indefinitely on wikimedia commons indefinitely due to that reason (Uploading unfree filesafter warnings: re-blocking - second offence, previously warned and user has continued to upload unfree material) link. I assure you that, I will not make the same mistake again. I will be more careful after that. So have I second chance for to use wikimedia commons again? Şöhrət (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Şöhrət: Please request on Commons so that a discussion may take place. Your talk page isn't disabled so you may request an unblock there. We will need you to demonstrate that you now understand what a copyright violation is and what licensing conditions are acceptable for Wikimedia Commons. Nick (talk) 08:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Iftekharahmed96[edit]

Hello. Last June, you gave a final warning to this user about his bullying habits on other user talk's pages whenever he doesn't agree with them. [2]. Judging by actions from this week, he doesn't seem to have gotten the point. [3] [4] Is there something that can be done about this? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.124.252 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lordtobi:, @70.24.124.252: is trying to find excuses to block me just because I reverted an edit he made on Visual Works. This is harassment. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do not threaten me with a block ever again[edit]

"I see you posting a message like that ever again, you'll be leaving and it'll be at the end of my block button." is a threat. Do not ever talk to me like that on a discussion that has nothing to do with you ever again. Your moderator privileges is not an opportunity for you to bully other editors. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 20:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Iftekharahmed96: It's not a threat. It's a promise and in case you're wondering, it still stands. If you hound an editor in the way you did with ShakespeareFan00 ever again, I will block you. The bad news for you is that I've just noticed an allegation concerning you bullying other editors, which I had missed previously. I will look into it and if I find you've been bullying other editors, I'm minded to block you. Nick (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There you go again, threatening me again. I'm reporting you. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Iftekharahmed96: I wasn't threatening you, I was informing you that your editing behaviour has consequences if certain grossly unacceptable issues happen to reoccur (as in the hounding of an editor per ShakespeareFan00) or if your current behaviour is not acceptable. If you want to report me, do carry on. Nick (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are intentionally using your powers of administration to try to block me with a conversation that me and @ShakespeareFan00: mutually sorted out. I personally apologised to him for my initial anger at the time. Objectively speaking, your contribution to that discussion (which mind you, never involved you to begin with) made absolutely no process to the initial grievance that I had. You cannot continue using that as your advocate to police me. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2018[edit]

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

Administrator changes

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

Interface administrator changes

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

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

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

Maybe nothing[edit]

Hi. I noticed a new editor at Wikipedia:Help_desk#I'm_a_new_user_on_English_Wikipedia_that_previously_contributed_on_other_projects. today, and thought I'd do a quick check of their edithistory. These [5][6] seemed weird to me, and I thought per your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory Maxwell you might have a notion if they are reasonable or not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very strange, I've reverted their edits to Greg's talk page and asked them to explain themselves. Nick (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flow 187 Page ???[edit]

All Sources are included why have you blocked the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroots187 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The subject sadly doesn't meet the inclusion criteria detailed on this page. You can still work on your draft at this time, considering your behaviour and tendentious editing, that your not blocked and your draft deleted entirely is something of a luxury you are privileged to enjoy right now. Nick (talk) 21:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2018[edit]

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

Administrator changes

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

Interface administrator changes

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

Oversight changes

removed Guerillero • NativeForeigner • Snowolf • Xeno

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

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

Arbitration

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

Revision-Deletion[edit]

Hi, Nick, greetings:-)

I recently came across one of your logged actions at an user-talk-page, which removed a certain edit-diff from public-view.Can you clarify the purpose(s), please? Thanks!∯WBGconverse 09:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Winged Blades of Godric, seeing as how I've just revdel'd another similar edit (which you'll now know specifics as it was yours) it is/was an LTA thing. Primefac (talk) 11:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]

About page List of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? top prize winners[edit]

Can i ask you a question? Why you deleted it a page. Can you explain that. And who said to you to remove that page? Cos i told my friend i will be responsible on this page? --Marik-modder (talk) 11:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Marik-modder: the re-creation of material previously deleted by an Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussion is not permitted. The deletion was performed under criteria G4 of our Speedy Deletion policy. Nick (talk) 21:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So when will be discussion about restoring that page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marik-modder (talk • contribs) 19:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the Article wizard to create a new version, which will be reviewed by experienced editors after submission and will not be as likely to be speedy-deleted. Primefac (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]

So last week one of version wwtbam had new winners. Where do you think i will add him? Marik-modder (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Marik-modder: You may be able to add that information to the article concerning the version of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? that had a new top prize winner, subject to the consensus that exists on those such articles. Nick (talk) 13:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2018[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

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

Arbitration

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

Reforming the {{Information}} template...and the two notifications.. concern...[edit]

At the risk of igniting a lot of concern, I was wondering if given the concerns elsewhere the wording of this template could be improved.

I'm not going to edit it myself, ( I can't as owing to it's visibility it's protected anyway.), but thought seeking an opinion from a more experienced contributor before raising the issue more widely would be beneficial.

In doing some checking, I found that {{Add-author-I}} ( which I now see as a point of potential conflict) was a notification I had written on my alternate account about 7 years ago. I don't think it meets the intended function now, as it's boiler plate, which is never going to cover every single situation.

So in a sense the edit request that would be made would be to reverse the decision taken here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Information/Archive_1#Edit_Request_4, replacing the recommendation to use an update version of {{add-desc-I}}. I would however having read the concerns elsewhere, strongly suggest a wording more along the lines of a "Why don't you try asking the uploader directly?" style below note, and not have a "canned" notification at all.

{{Add-author-I}} is typically subst, and thus could quite easily be merged into {{add-desc-I}} anyway. (i'm suprised these aren't protected by now.)

I also wanted your view as to if the following sounded less confrontational in tone for the information template:-

Description: "Do you have information on what this is? Why not leave a comment on the talk page? or help the uploader by discussing it with them."

Date: "Do you know when this media was created? Why not leave a comment on the talk page? or help the uploader by discussing it with them." ({{no-date}} also exists but needs a careful "de-toothing" to improve it's language, in terms of intention.)

Author: "Do you know who created this media, or what's shown in the picture? Why not leave a comment on the talk page? or help the uploader by discussing it with them."

They are all broadly the same but shift the 'burden' somewhat, Not every uploader is a University level archivist!

I'll post some further thoughts on some of the other templates I've created myself if you are interested, but you had expressed off wiki that you didn't have a lot of time, so it may be better if you are able to recommend someone else to ask about these things. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to TWINKLE (and batched notifcations)[edit]

Old revision of Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle - Sigh :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Nick. 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]

Chembox assistance[edit]

Howdy! An IRC user recommended that I reach out to you based on your expertise in chemistry. I'm working on building a {{Infobox}} based replacement for {{Chembox}}. I have a working proof of concept at {{Infobox chemical}} but am looking for some expert feedback. For example, some of the labels are really lengthy and verbose and I'd like to try to condense them. I'm no good with chemistry so I want to make sure I keep the important things. Anyway, if you are willing to work with me, I'd sure love the assistance! Also, if you have any other users you'd recommend I reach out to, please let me know! Thanks!!! (P.S. Happy thanksgiving if you are in the USA!) --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zackmann08: I'm usually on IRC - that may be a better venue to explain some of the fairly complex issues that will arise from the Chembox and any move to replace it with an Infobox based replacement. I'm also happy to answer any questions here that you may have, just drop a message in this section any time and I'll do what I can to help (though I'm pretty much useless). Nick (talk) 10:16, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well we've got a working template going so I'd love to hear any feedback you may have. So far I'm not seeing any issues with the replacement but would love to hear your concerns! --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPA[edit]

Please refrain from personal attacks. Thanks. Miniapolis 21:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Miniapolis: How should I raise the issue of Alex's incompetence ? Nick (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Without using the word "incompetent". Miniapolis 21:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds awfully complicated and likely to give me a headache. I'll chicken out. Nick (talk) 21:58, 28 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]

Deletion of Pooldax Co. Ltd[edit]

Hello, nick you recently delete Pooldax Co. Ltd, and even you did not give few munites to explain? Yes, article re-created but it was not a promotional anyway, and there were line refs available for every word. ربنواز (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays![edit]

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

--Cameron11598 (Talk) 04:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nick/Archive18&oldid=876291458"