User talk:Liz/Archive 22

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time, and that you have not been inactive from administrative tasks for a five year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. Further, following a community discussion in March of 2018, Administrators suspended for inactivity who have not had any logged administrative activity for five years will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — JJMC89 bot 00:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

The third round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• Courcelles, a first time contestant, with 1756 points, a tally built largely on 27 GAs related to the Olympics
• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three GAs on natural history and astronomy topics
• SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with a variety of submissions related to transport in the state of Washington

Contestants managed 7 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 120 good articles, 1 good topic, 124 DYK entries, 15 ITN entries, and 132 good article reviews. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 458 GA reviews, in comparison to 244 good articles submitted for review and promoted. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process; several submissions, particularly in abstruse or technical areas, have needed additional work to make them completely verifiable.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk), Vanamonde (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor

Gogo Dodo

Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes

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.

---

Thursday July 12, 5-8pm: Wiki Loves Pride Edit-a-thon @ Jefferson Market Library

Wikimedia NYC invites you to attend a Wiki Loves Pride Edit-a-thon on Thursday, July 12th at Jefferson Market Library! Wiki Loves Pride is a global campaign to expand and improve LGBT-related content across all Wikimedia projects, in all languages. We are holding this year's event in July in order to support folx who want to contribute a photograph they took at one of NYC's many Pride events or edit an article about something they learned this June. Not sure what to contribute? No problem! We will have a list of articles that need your help. Thursday July 12 Wiki Loves Pride Edit-a-thon (RSVP on-wiki or at Eventbrite). 5:00pm - 8:00 pm at Jefferson Market Library, 425 6th Ave --Megs (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC) P.S. You are also invited to the "picnic anyone can edit", the Great American Wiknic NYC @ Prospect Park, Sunday, July 29!

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

I have manually archived everything from May 2016 to October 2017. Your talk page was literally the largest on all of Wikipedia (not including subpages)! I've also unsubscribed you from the Wikidata weekly updates and the NYC invite list. I hope this is okay... I just don't want the talk page to grow to be too large with messages that aren't being read. More over, I hope to see you active again! :) Hope all is well. Warm regards — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines; "Large talk pages become difficult to read, strain the limits of older browsers, and load slowly over slow internet connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." - this talk page is 611.1 KB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time, and that you have not been inactive from administrative tasks for a five year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. Further, following a community discussion in March of 2018, administrators suspended for inactivity who have not had any logged administrative activity for five years will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — JJMC89 bot 00:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• This is a shame. I hope everything's OK Liz. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 08:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time, and that you have not been inactive from administrative tasks for a five year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. Further, following a community discussion in March of 2018, administrators suspended for inactivity who have not had any logged administrative activity for five years will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Very sad to hear this, Liz. I hope all is well, and you are always welcome here – but certainly no pressure! Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

Sro23

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

• The WMF Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input on the second set of wireframes for the Special:Block redesign that will introduce partial blocks. The new functionality will allow you to block a user from editing a specific set of pages, pages in a category, a namespace, and for specific actions such as moving pages and uploading files.

---

Guild of Copy Editors August 2018 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the August 2018 GOCE newsletter. Thanks to everyone who participated in the Guild's June election; your new and returning coordinators are listed below. The next election will occur in December 2018; all Wikipedia editors in good standing may take part. Our June blitz focused on Requests and articles tagged for copy edit in October 2017. Of the eleven people who signed up, eight editors recorded a total of 28 copy edits, including 3 articles of more than 10,000 words. Complete results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Thanks to everyone who participated in the July drive. Of the seventeen people who signed up, thirteen editors completed 194 copy edits, successfully removing all articles tagged in the last three months of 2017. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are here. The August blitz will run for one week, from 19 to 25 August. Sign up now! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Tdslk. >>> Sign up for the August blitz! <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

This month: WikiProject X: The resumption

Work has resumed on WikiProject X and CollaborationKit, backed by a successfully funded Project Grant. For more information on the current status and planned work, please see this month's issue of the newsletter!

-— Isarra ༆ 22:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The fourth round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The eight users who made it to the final round had to score a minimum of 422 points to qualify, with the top score in the round being 4869 points. The leaders in round 4 were:

• Courcelles scored a magnificent 4869 points, with 92 good articles on Olympics-related themes. Courcelles' bonus points alone exceeded the total score of any of the other contestants!
• Kees08 was second with 1155 points, including a high-scoring featured article for Neil Armstrong, two good topics and some Olympics-related good articles.
• Cas Liber, with 1066 points, was in third place this round, with two featured articles and a good article, all on natural history topics.
• Other contestants who qualified for the final round were Nova Crystallis, Iazyges, SounderBruce, Kosack and Ceranthor.

During round four, 6 featured articles and 164 good articles were promoted by WikiCup contestants, 13 articles were included in good topics and 143 good article reviews were performed. There were also 10 "in the news" contributions on the main page and 53 "did you knows". Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best editor win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

None

Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz

Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

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.

---

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

Administrator changes

Justlettersandnumbers • L235

Bgwhite • HorsePunchKid • J Greb • KillerChihuahua • Rami R • Winhunter

Interface administrator changes

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

Oversight changes

Guerillero • NativeForeigner • Snowolf • Xeno

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the process for appointing interface administrators has been established. Currently only existing admins can request these rights, while a new RfC has begun on whether it should be available to non-admins.
• There is an open request for comment on Meta regarding the creation a new user group for global edit filter management.

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.

---

Does this mean you are back??? -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm easing into it, dipping a toe in the water. I've just spent a couple days reading up on current disputes over the past year and have been on a "where are they now?" kick, looking for editors I use to interact with...some are here, some have left. I'm pretty rusty so I'll come back slowly. Thanks for noticing I'm back, Ad Orientem! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Hooray! -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Liz!!! Good to see you around!!!! :D How has life been? Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, L235! Well, life has definitely had lots of downs and a few ups over the past year. Lots of off-line changes that kept me occupied. Just lurking right now but I'll start being more active in the next week. Congratulations again on your successful RfA, I know how stressful that week can be! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Lovely to see your name on my watchlist again! Take it easy. Btw, is it spring where you live? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey, Gerda! I hope you are well. No, it is early autumn here in Northwest U.S. although we are having a spate of warm days which are likely the last gasp of summer. Trying to enjoy the outdoors before the rains hit! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:13, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Same weather here, pictured on my talk ;) - You are free to use that image on top here, too, and perhaps remove the notice that this user may have left Wikipedia. - I am well, thanks for asking, - we just sang Brahms, also pictured on my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Good idea! I'll get on that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:40, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Very glad to see you back GAB^gab 01:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, GAB! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

It's been very interesting this past week, catching up on what's been going on on Wikipedia over the past year. Longtime admins gone and sometimes even blocked, other admins/CUs retiring suddenly and disappearing, other editors who've been great contributors who have been sanctioned as sockpuppeteers, not to mention policy amendments or changes and recent ANI and ARBCOM cases (although there seem to be fewer than there used to be, thank God). I don't see how an ex-admin who came back after 5+ years could ever get up to speed on the changes.

I've just spent the past 7 days reading, reading, reading and I feel just about ready to dive back in. Maybe when you log in every day you think nothing ever changes here, day to day, but you come back after a year and wow!, the landscape seems very different. It makes me very grateful for the editors/admins who continue to plug away despite all of the distractions. You're doing great work and maybe you never hear that but I just had a hour-long discussion with a person about how Wikipedia works and they were just astounded at the contributions made by unpaid volunteers. It's easy to focus on what doesn't go right here but to the hundreds of millions of people who check in with Wikipedia to answer their questions, they take for granted that what is here in the articles is the god honest truth. In an era where anything that contradicts ones world's view is called "fake news", millions of people still come to Wikipedia every day to read what they believe is accurate information on every subject under the sun. You done good, folks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Liz! I have my daily routine in the morning, looking at who was awesome 10 years ago (which was before I even signed on), and precious on this day, and then am prepared by general thankfulness for things that sometimes are not so great. I am also grateful for less arbitration need. We seem to grow up a bit ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back, Liz, good to have you with us again. Hopefully the changes you're seeing are all positive ones... Yunshui ^雲_水 09:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Any dull day on the noticeboards is a good day, Yunshui! As for editors/admins who have left, it's sad and I hope they have found other activities that have absorbed their new found free time like careers, family and friends.

As someone who drifted away from Wikipedia because life got complicated, I hope that their departures had nothing to do with health issues, financial predicaments or other stressful situations. And I hope they, too, come back once their interest returns or they discover they really do want to log back into their accounts to make that one edit that is bugging them! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 18:19, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll get back to work today. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back! So nice to see you around again.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC))

Hey, Littleolive oil! I'm a little rusty but I'm getting back into the swing of things. There's been a lot to catch up on. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Goodness gracious, I'm so happy to see your return, Liz! Now, I should confess that I unsubscribed you from the Wikidata weekly summary during your break, as your talk page grew to be one of the largest pages on the wiki. Please re-subscribe if you so wish. That being said, it would seem you still could use to do a little archiving? Just a kind recommendation :) Again, welcome back! :D — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey, MusikAnimal! I will resubscribe. You're absolutely right, I need to archive some content here. I just haven't gotten around to responding to messages but I can take care of that today. Thanks for the welcome and I hope you are doing well. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

And thank you, Liz! So good to see you back!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  21:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Anyone know what's happened to Jack?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  14:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't. See my talk. One of the saddest things here, ever. He certainly was my greatest helper, also ever. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Jack was certainly my Module Magnificque. He has equals here, such as you and Liz, but none better.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  17:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, in my case, Paine, it was a bunch of things that led me to stop editing. I was diagnosed with cancer and went through treatment, I moved cross-county, one of my parents died plus some other stuff happened that made online activities seem less important...or, for other folks, it can be positive changes, a new relationship, a new child or a new job, there are lots of demands on time that can pull someone away from editing. You can always drop someone an email message although honestly, I didn't check my email once I stopped visiting Wikipedia. But it can't hurt! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing, Liz! - "Jack" wanted to go, so behaved to be banned, which sure enough happened. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Didn't know that about Jack – no response from him yet. Liz, your situation makes my issues pale by comparison. You are so in my heart!  Paine  

Welcome back!

I originally posted this to your talk page at 00:54, 28 November 2017; you were one of the first of over 700 users I contacted regarding signature issues. I wrote ...

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors. Your signature is also causing Tidy bug affecting font tags wrapping links.

You are encouraged to change

<font face="Papyrus" size="3" color="#800080">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</font></sup> → Liz ^{Read! Talk!}

to

<span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: medium; color: #800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</span></sup> → Liz ^{Read! Talk!}

... and as you noticed, my proposed signature exceeds the 255-character limit. At that time, I also wasn't aware of the provisions of WP:SIGAPP, which says to avoid markup that enlarges text. Complying with WP:SIGAPP makes it easy to fit within the character limit. Please change your signature to:

<span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> → Liz ^{Read! Talk!}

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Anomalocaris! The font looks smaller but it's no big deal. You can cross me off your list! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for updating your signature! —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is Courcelles (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 147 GAs, 111 GARs, 9 DYKs, 4 FLs and 1 ITN. Our finalists were as follows:

1. Courcelles (submissions)
2. Kosack (submissions)
3. Kees08 (submissions)
4. SounderBruce (submissions)
5. Cas Liber (submissions)
6. Nova Crystallis (submissions)
7. Iazyges (submissions)
8. Ceranthor (submissions)

All those who reached the final win awards, and awards will also be going to the following participants:

• Cas Liber (submissions) wins the FA prize, for three featured articles in round 2.
• Courcelles (submissions) wins the GA prize, for 92 good articles in round 3.
• Kosack (submissions) wins the FL prize, for five featured lists overall.
• Cartoon network freak (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 30 articles in good topics overall.
• Usernameunique (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 24 did you know articles in round 3.
• Zanhe (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 17 in the news articles overall.
• Aoba47 (submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 43 good article reviews in round 1.

Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2019 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email) and Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email).

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

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment determined that non-administrators will not be able to request interface admin access.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the Mediation Committee should be closed and marked as historical.
• A village pump discussion has been ongoing about whether the proposed deletion policy (PROD) should be clarified or amended.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether pending changes protection should be applied automatically to today's featured article (TFA) in order to mitigate a recent trend of severe image vandalism.

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-enwikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.

---

Could you please hide the edits made by user:87.254.70.43. Thank you. CLCStudent (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done, CLCStudent. Thanks for alerting me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for being kind enough to invite me to the discussion of the proposed deletion of Template:Founders_of_Kappa_Alpha_Psi. The pages that I created that were using this template were deleted without anyone informing me. I would have been able to provide extra context and nuance had I been asked. This may or may not have changed the overall decision, but I think it would have been, at the least, the courteous thing to do. Thank you for exercising that courtesy. WDavis1911 (talk) 06:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, WDavis1911, I'd like to take credit for being a considerate editor but it is actually the functionality of Twinkle that can be set up (or is automatically set up in my case) to alert the creator of a page when it has been nominated for a deletion discussion, been PRODed or tagged for speedy deletion. I'm guessing that the editor who tagged your articles was doing so manually and omitted the step of notifying you which is unfortunate.

If the articles were PRODed or tagged for speedy deletion and you wish the article restored, you can request it at Requests for undeletion. If the articles were deleted after a deletion discussion at AfD, you can go to Deletion review for guidance. But as a long-time editor, you probably know this already so forgive me if I'm repeating something you are familiar with. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that you're making a return to Wikipedia and just wanted to message you and welcome you back to the project. I hope life is going well and that we'll be able to catch up with one another soon. Good to see you back, Liz! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the greeting, Oshwah. Yes, after an absence of about a year, I returned to editing last month. I have a bit more time than I did last year so I hope I can have more of a presence here. I hope you are well & thriving! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Things overall are going okay for me... I can't complain. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I am glad to see you back as an administrator. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 14:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Barbara, it's nice to be back. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Liz

We're working to measure the value of Wikipedia in economic terms. We want to ask you some questions about how you value being able to edit Wikipedia.

Our survey should take about 10-15 minutes of your time. We hope that you will enjoy it and find the questions interesting. All answers will be kept strictly confidential and will be anonymized before the aggregate results are published. Regretfully, we can only accept responses from people who live in the US due to restrictions in our grant-based funding.

As a reward for your participation, we will randomly pick 1 out of every 5 participants and give them $25 worth of goods of their choice from the Wikipedia store (e.g. Wikipedia themed t-shirts). Note that we can only reward you if you are based in the US.

Click here to access the survey: https://mit.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_eXJcEhLKioNHuJv

Thanks

Avi

Researcher, MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy --Avi gan (talk) 02:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Avi gan,

I have a masters in sociology so I'm interested in your project. I gather you are at MIT. Are you affiliated with the Media Lab? Who is the grant agency? Is there a link to a project website? I'd only check it out after I completed the survey.

Your answers won't influence my participation or my responses, I just have a professional interest in what you are working on since I've studied internet communities. Thanks for any information you can offer. Good luck with your project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Liz, thanks for interest in our project! I am not at the media lab, I am a PhD student at the MIT Sloan School and I am affiliated with the MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy who gave me a grant for my research, including this project. The project details are on the meta-wiki page here. Once the data is collected, I will update the meta-wiki page with the results. Happy to chat if you have any questions. --Avi gan (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I TSD nominated Template:User from Czechia, Template:User interest Czechia, Template:User citizen Czechia a few days ago due to the repeated recreation and irrelevance of the templates and going against the numerous discussions on Talk:Czech Republic and WP:COMMONNAME, and you were the one who responded to them. I am messaging you as I noticed that Template:User in Czechia and Template:User Czechia are also still in use and are similarly not needed and against the afforementioned policy. Template:User in Czechia, has a similar issue as the deleted templates, in that the same user repeatedly recreates it. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 06:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, R9tgokunks. I'll look into it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

You know, R9tgokunks, you turned the pages into redirects and I think that is the right response. If the templates get restored, they'll either need to be deleted or turned into redirects again. But I think they are fine the way they are right now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz

Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike

Interface administrator changes

Deryck Chan

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

• Administrators and bureaucrats can no longer unblock themselves unless they placed the block initially. This change has been implemented globally. See also this ongoing village pump discussion (permalink).
• To complement the aforementioned change, blocked administrators will soon have the ability to block the administrator that placed their block to mitigate the possibility of a compromised administrator account blocking all other active administrators.
• Since deployment of Partial blocks on Test Wikipedia, several bugs were identified. Most of them are now fixed. Administrators are encouraged to test the new deployment and report new bugs on Phabricator or leave feedback on the Project's talk page. You can request administrator access on the Test Wiki here.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 3 December 2018. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

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

• Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (Raymond Arritt) passed away on 14 November 2018. Boris joined Wikipedia as Raymond arritt on 8 May 2006 and was an administrator from 30 July 2007 to 2 June 2008.

---

Guild of Copy Editors December 2018 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the December 2018 GOCE newsletter. Here is what's been happening since the August edition. Thanks to everyone who participated in the August blitz (results), which focused on Requests and the oldest backlog month. Of the twenty editors who signed up, eleven editors recorded 37 copy edits. For the September drive (results), of the twenty-three people who signed up, nineteen editors completed 294 copy edits. Our October blitz (results) focused on Requests, geography, and food and drink articles. Of the fourteen people who signed up, eleven recorded a total of 57 copy edits. For the November drive (results), twenty-two people signed up, and eighteen editors recorded 273 copy edits. This helped to bring the backlog to a six-month low of 825 articles. The December blitz will run for one week, from 16 to 22 December. Sign up now! Elections: Nominations for the Guild's coordinators for the first half of 2019 will be open from 1 to 15 December. Voting will then take place and the election will close on 31 December at 23:59 UTC. Positions for Guild coordinators, who perform the important behind-the-scenes tasks that keep our project running smoothly, are open to all Wikipedians in good standing. We welcome self-nominations, so please consider nominating yourself if you've ever thought about helping out; it's your Guild and it doesn't run itself! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators; Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Tdslk. >>> Sign up for the December blitz! <<< >>> Participate in the Coordinator elections! <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:900A:1711:D700:79FB:9632:9230:EC45 (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I thought I was a member of that category, due to having the User:UBX/penology interest on my userpage? MW131tester (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

MW131tester, I have restored that category since you will be using it but your user page doesn't automatically appear in it. There was an error when I restored the category and then another admin immediately deleted it again and so I recreated it. This might be why your page doesn't appear in it but I will look into it further tonight when I have more time. We have to get your user page to appear in the category or it will just be labeled an empty category again and deleted in 7 days. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. MediaWiki can be a bit quirky sometimes with regard to that; purging the userpage or making a null edit to the userpage might help, so I can try that. MW131tester (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks like that user page edit worked! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your help! MW131tester (talk) 03:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Just letting you know I added a source to and de-prodded Samuel Suba. Take to AfD if you feel the article is not notable... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

No, that's great, Eddie891. I'm glad you found a relevant source. Thanks for letting me know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

I was just hoping I could get a more detailed explanation of the deletion of the Mark Lindquist article that was recently speedied, with specific reference to how my talk page brief defence was incorrect - I've only nominated one attack page, so I don't get much experience with them. I also only very recently started watching the article/talk page and hadn't actually edited the article itself so hopefully I'm fairly neutral towards it (as I'm aware there were biased IPs and SPAs (nothwithstanding the SPA-CSD)). [Please Ping] Nosebagbear (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Nosebagbear, I thought that the article was a hit job, entirely negative and political, which is not allowed on Wikipedia in a biography of a living person. But, in hindsight, I've decided this shouldn't just be my decision and the editor who tagged the article for speedy deletion. So, I'm going to restore the article and send it to AfD so there can be a more general discussion about the state of the article and what condition it can possibly be restored to. That sound good? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good - hopefully some HEY work may be done while there as well Nosebagbear (talk) 08:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.

Happy Holidays. ―Buster7 ☎ 23:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, we can always hope for peace on Wikipedia! Thanks for the beautiful message, Buster7...peace to you, too. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Liz: I have edited {{User MU}} ,Can I remove deletion tag for this. -Afingba Mangang (talk) 13:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Afingba Mangang,

I have Withdrawn the request for deletion and we just need an uninvolved editor/admin to close the request as "Keep". Please do not remove the deletion tag yourself. The page will not be deleted.

Nice work on editing the userbox! I'm glad it turned out to be one that you can use. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I noticed you've done some work on Action Deafness. Just to let you know, I've nominated it for deletion. You can see the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/December 2018#Action Deafness. CircleGirl (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I removed the PROD so this is the next step that should be taken if you think the article should be deleted. Thanks for letting me know, CircleGirl. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

As I don't often work with proxies, I didn't know what a good substitute block length was, so I abdicated my responsibility by leaving a "help me" note at WP:AN instead :-) The IP's apparently now no longer a proxy, so it's simply been unblocked. Nyttend (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't work with proxies either, Nyttend, and on that database report, there is an entire list of IPs that have received long blocks. Thought I'd ask about a couple of the longer ones. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Why did you remove the copyvio tag? you didn't leave an edit summary or a message on my talk page. Did I make a mistake? ^{[Username Needed]} 19:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Username,

There wasn't a copy violation tag on that talk page, there was a CSD G8 tag which is for Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page (see diff). I've been told not to delete talk pages on redirect pages so I removed the CSD tag and left the talk page alone. I thought the tag was placed in error.

And I'm not sure how the talk page could be a copyright violation since it had no content on it except a note about a previous deletion discussion for the redirect page. Did you mistag the article or did you tag the wrong page? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• I thought you were supposed to delete redirect talk pages ^{[Username Needed]} 14:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I deleted the talk page of a redirect that had been deleted and was told to let it be because it contained past discussions on it. So, that is the guide I'm abiding by now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I mentioned you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Lindquist attempting to correct your concerns and valid reasoning for deleting an attack page that was reverted before I could even finish. I undid the revert with a note to the editor, changed my !vote, and provided rationale and policy for my actions. This is something I usually do not do but enough is enough. I am alerting you because I feel the policy does not need consensus (according to the page) and that adding material back to the article should conform to policies and guidelines. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Otr500. I'll look into the discussion which I have not been monitoring. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Remember how you closed the admin noticeboard with a warning to thewolfchild and told him to be more civil on at 22:54 15 December 2018? Well, less than five hours after that civility reminder, he did it again. (on 16 December at 04:42) He does not have a history of responding well to civility reminders. And it appears he took the warning as "a bunch of nonsense". Can you be a bit more clear with him? Numerous civility warnings have meant nothing to him.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I'll look into it today. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

PlanespotterA320, could you point me to behavior that you find disruptive? Because I'm not seeing anything in the talk page messages I've checked that is concerning. Just as a reminder, editors are permitted to remove messages from their talk page and to ask individual editors not to come and post messages on them unless they are required to do so.

For what it's worth, I think you'd be happier and more productive on Wikipedia if you don't set yourself up to monitor another editor's work. If serious problems emerge, which can not be reconciled by discussion, bring them to ANI. But otherwise, keeping tabs on editors that one doesn't get along with can lead to aggravation for you and for your own editing to come under scrutiny. Try to let things go and get back to doing great work on the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

(bottom of the page)quote "PsA320; Look, I don't even read your posts anymore, including this looonng one you wrote just above, and especially after all that nonsense you posted at ANI. (btw - you can only pull that so many times before it bites you in the ***, so watch it)..." look at the timestamp. And if you notice, he uses that page as a platform to ramble on and on against me, not even trying to stay in scope.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that comment out. I think wolf's animosity is towards you, specifically. He deletes your comments on his talk page, he asks you not to post there again, he wants you to stop pinging him. I think you need to keep your distance.

This is not a punishment, it's advice to not seek him out or talk to him. To be honest, most editors will have negative feelings towards an editor who has brought them to ANI for evaluation and you shouldn't expect him to be friendly towards you for the near future.

And I'll post a note to his talk page, too. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Wow. I just came here because of your post Liz, and look what I find... ANI pt II. Yes, I asked PsA320 to stop pinging me, but that didn't stop them from continuing to "misuse a warhero's talk page as a soapbox to whine" about my "need to study the Soviet medals system" (which, quite frankly, I don't give a rat's ass about anymore at this point) or non-existent issues, such as how said awards are listed... something I haven't commented on in months.

  I've now had to take that article off my watchlist because of the persistent attacks there. Posts that have nothing to do with the content of that article and everything to do with a serious case of preachy must-have-the-last-word-ism by someone who has clearly failed to consider their own behavioural issues or what this continued vendetta is costing this project. Then I come here only to find more of the same, along with the claim that I referred to your close of the ANI as "a bunch of nonsense" which is obviously a blatant lie.

  Liz, not only am I willing to move on to other things, but I have already done so. And not only am I willing to ignore PsA320, but I'd be happy to do so (I had already clearly stated last October that I was no longer interested in discussing anything further with her). Perhaps if the obvious boomerang had been handed out at ANI, this still wouldn't be dragging on. I've suggested they DTS and move on, but maybe if it now came from an admin, they will actually, finally, do just that. - wolf 00:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

"I don't give a rat's ***" is the type of incivility everybody is concerned about.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

No, just you. You need to remember that Wikipedia is not censored and learn to distinguish between what is, and isn't, "incivility". - wolf 01:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, Thewolfchild and PlanespotterA320, we can come to an agreement that you two want to have nothing to do with each other. Now you just have to put that into practice. Don't scan each other's contributions page. Don't try to get each other into trouble. Don't ping each other. I think this distance is something you can both agree to.

You really don't want to go back to ANI for an interaction ban. Once one of those is imposed, the parties can try to game the system and provoke each other to cross the line and get blocked. Let's instead treat everyone as an adult and realize that this is a huge, 5 million+ article project and there is room here for both of you to find a place to edit and do some great work. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Liz, but I've already put that into practice. Something needs to be done about this "girl who cries 'wolf'" routine. - wolf 01:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure you two can handle it if you try and you already have made an effort, wolf. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Hopefully this will be the end of it. - wolf 03:20, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not/Wikipedia is not censored is about the article mainspace, not rudeness and hostility talkpages. And it appears he does not a serious effort into putting civility into practice. It's not just the curse words but the attitude that is incivil. He says one one side of the coin he will claim to ignore me, and then when I dare defend myself after he posts an essay bashing me he acts like I am attacking him (a rather commons theme - writing on a page we are both watchlisting where he pings another editor with an ad-hominem rant against me). I am not asking that he be permanently blocked; but when people are asked by ANI to be civil and then they ignore that order 5 hours later, there needs to be reienforcement of rules. (sanctions of some kind, not a permanent block, but something like probation or a timeout; perhaps topic-based or limited to the article mainspace, requiring that he archive his comments and replies to other users for admin review or something) on wolf, and mandatory apoligies to all the other editors he has treated uncivily (I am not demanding an apology though). It is rediculous that an editor who recevied a warning to be civil from ANI (and not without reason - see what he says in here and here) violated the policy less than 5 hours later. I do not want to have to ping wolf, but if he choses to falsely rant against me claiming I know nothing about Wikipedia policies or ignore a non-existant consensus on something I will stick up for myself.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are notified of pings, and you haven't answered my question. SemiHypercube 21:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Re this comment I agree that starting an ANI over a single incidence of personal attacks by an established editor would be dumb, and I do not plan an ANI report without more wrongdoing. However, I am disturbed by JzG's reactions to me, and not sure how to deal with it should his problematic behavior continue. Me and JzG have had several disputes on vaccine-related articles, I am ok with content disputes, while JzG has made some accusatory comments and used his opinions as arguments at times, we have been able to resolve most of the content disputes without conduct issues, and I would never want someone sanctioned for a good-faith content dispute.

However, in a recent dispute JzG added the unsourced claim that Lucija Tomljenovic (a researcher who has authored bad studies trying to link aluminum vaccine adjuvants and autism) is an anti-vaccine activist[1], this page is on my wachlist, so I saw and removed the unsourced claim, citing BLP[2]. JzG then restored the claim[3], but saying "anti-vaccinationist" instead of "anti-vaccine activist", this time, JzG includes a "source", but the "source" he uses is about Wakefield and MMR (there is no aluminum or other adjuvant in MMR), and never mentions Tomljenovic, and the edit summery casts aspersions suggesting that I am an antivaxer. JzG quickly adds another source[4], this source does talk about a vaccine-critical paper Tomljenovic co-authored getting retracted, but it is OR to call her an anti-vaccinationist based solely on the fact that she co-authored one paper saying that aluminum adjuvants give mice autism.

I raised the issue of using edit summaries to cast aspersions on JzG's talk, leading to this discussion[5], in which JzG tries to convince me to accept his OR and accuses me of "Defending the indefensible" and trying to "defend antivax cranks". However, he never tries to restore the OR based edit (which I had removed here[6] while the talk was ongoing). We subsequently engaged in (less bizarre) content disputes here[7], and I was hoping we could continue to get along acceptably.

The other day I made a poorly worded comment on an ANI case over the size of nazi images[8] JzG, who was not involved in the nazi image issue previously, misinterprets my comment as a defense of nazis[9] and when criticized for this by another editor, JzG makes this absurd comment[10] I redact the personal attacks[11], which JzG restores, claiming his attacks on me are "statments of fact"[12]. JzG tells me that his comments were valid admin observations about my behavior[13][14] and thinks this should be "blindingly obvious". I think if anything should be blindingly obvious, it's that being an admin doesn't give JzG the right to follow a user (me) who he has just been in disputes with to completely unrelated discussions and basically call me a bad editor and suggest that my edits are bad faith.

I don't want any extra drama, and I am hoping that JzG will just not make these assumptions of bad faith in the future, but his attitude is not encouraging and I am unsure of the best course of action if he continues. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I've thought about your message all day, Tornado chaser, wondering what I could say that would help with your complicated situation. I have no easy answers.

I thought this might be an isolated incident or collision between the two of you but I've read through a number of article and user talk pages and see that over the course of the past month, you two have had a number of run-ins which JzG has made unnecessarily personal. So, unless something drastic happens and you both collaborate on an article and come to a truce, I can see this animosity happening again in the future and it's best to have a strategy about how to deal with it so you don't react spontaneously in anger. This seems especially true because you seem to edit articles in the same topic area. Often, getting along just means working in different areas of the encyclopedia but it looks like you two will have to learn to co-exist.

An unacceptable but practical solution is just to develop a very thick skin. Unless you are once again called a Nazi sympathizer (which is a clear personal attack), I'd try to focus on the work and on policy rather than interpersonal strife. I don't know anyone on Wikipedia who hasn't had a conflict with another editor and most of us have been called some awful names. I was told that my presence on Wikipedia was "clear evidence of everything that is wrong with Wikipedia. I wasn't a terrible editor, I was a "terrible person". My RfA was one of the most painful experiences in my life, it was brutal. If every editor who made a rude comment was blocked, we would have no one to edit the encyclopedia except for a few bots. "Casting aspersions" is a horrible practice but, unfortunately, it happens here every day. It's unacceptable to accept that aspersions happen because they shouldn't but they do especially because this is an internet project and people get careless and frustrated online and say things they'd never say in person. Civility is a core principle of Wikipedia but it's notoriously fuzzy to discern what is and isn't civil online.

Some strategies to have in these kinds of disputes is to involve more editors in the discussion. In situations where it is Editor X vs. Editor Y (over and over and over again), it often leads to ANI and editor blocks and IBans. But if you can keep the focus on the article and ask for input from others (but not canvass), it can sometimes defuse tensions. Also, I've noticed in disputes that reliable sources rule the day...I've seen editors win arguments over admins and their supporters by having strong evidence to support their position. It looks like you are already doing this and also your continued focus on policies and guidelines and less on personalities will help you win over other editors, most of whom do not condone snide remarks on talk pages.

I advised against going to ANI because I've seen well-intentioned editors go there with problems and end up being burned because some folks on noticeboards can respond emotionally and sarcastically to sincere requests for help. Unless there is a CLEAR violation of policy (not a judgment call, not a decision in a gray area), there is rarely a penalty against an admin. That's just an observation from once being a regular at ANI and being an ARBCOM clerk. It's not right, it's not fair but it seems to be the way things work out.

But I sense that you are not just going to get over this so if you do choose at some point to bring a problem to AN or ANI have all of your ducks in a row, like in this message to me where you clearly presented me with evidence of abusive treatment. Since JzG has asked you to stay off his talk page, do not post there unless it is obligatory and never edit another editor's comments...if the words are insulting, other editors need to see them which they can't if they are redacted. Believe me, no editor thinks you are a Nazi sympathizer and those comments were called out by other editors.

I wish there was a magic pill we could all take that would eliminate editor disputes but there isn't. To quote Michelle Obama, "When they go low, we go high". Try not to let this dispute make you bitter or lash out. If there is another Nazi-like comment, let me know and I'll post to JzG's page but, frankly, I have limited influence because he doesn't think much of me either! I also wouldn't be offended if you consulted another admin who had been around here longer than I and has more experience dealing with ornery admins. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, you seem to have taken the time to understand the issue fairly well. I agree with your comments about developing a "think skin" and I am not easily offended by comments on wikipedia, if I was going to be offended by being called a nazi sympathizer I would just not edit anything to do with nazis. The occasional nazi accusation doesn't concern me much, it's more the antivax accusations I am worried about, JzG has a good reputation for fighting pseudoscience and in a past ANI case (that I was not involved in) another longtime editor (may have been an admin) basically said that anyone who doesn't like JzG is a pseudoscience proponent, so I am concerned that I could become thought of as "that antivaxer JzG is always talking about" and have more people start assuming bad faith, possibly leading to unwarranted sanctions against me.

The thing that I find most disturbing about this is that an admin would think it "blindingly obvious" that adminship gives them the right to follow an editor they have just been in a dispute with to an unrelated discussion to cast aspersions based on (a misrepresentation of) the original dispute. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

You placed an indefinite vandalism-only account block template on this user's talkpage, yet you only blocked them for 31 hours. Which block duration did you mean to set? Thanks. 2601:1C0:4401:24A0:A996:495F:5003:B72F (talk) 04:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Wow, I hit all of the right buttons, I don't know what happened. I'll check it out and fix it. Thanks for letting me know about the mistake. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Liz. The problem with this is that it is a hard redirect to an article, not a {{category redirect}} to another category. If you can identify a proper target for it, great (I couldn't); but if no such target exists then it shoild be deleted. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

R'n'B, well, there is a Category:Salanque Méditerranée Pia XIII coaches that redirects to Category:Baroudeurs de Pia XIII coaches and Category:Salanque Méditerranée Pia XIII players which redirects to Category:Baroudeurs de Pia XIII players. But there is no Category:Baroudeurs de Pia XIII to redirect Category:Salanque Méditerranée Pia XIII to. So, I'll just tag it for speedy deletion. Thanks for filling me in. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

FYI, I've brought them to ANI again because they've continued the same sort of thing.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

It looks, Jasper, like Kenanga has been blocked again for a week. Let's hope that if he returns, he won't vandalize articles again. Thanks for letting me know about the continuing problem and taking it back to ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello Liz. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Eugène Dieudonné, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: membership in Bonnot Gang indicates significance and should be redirected there in case of missing notability per WP:ATD-R. Thank you. SoWhy 09:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my mistake, SoWhy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:30, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

No worries, that's why we have someone check again. If you speak some French, you might want to check the fr-wiki article for stuff to use. Regards SoWhy 16:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Liz. Would you look again at Glenn Mena, which you speedied. The new version, other than the name, and the first sentence, is not the same as the previous version. The new version is very different, and contains a range of reliable sources which were not there in the original version. My view of it is that it does not quality for G4 as it is a different version, and contains reliable sources to indicate the subject's notability, enough to survive a new AfD. SilkTork (talk) 16:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, SilkTork. I looked at a previous version of this article and they seem similar except that the newer version has more substantial content and has more (but similar) sourcing. It can be challenging for a Westerner to evaluate the reliability of some foreign periodicals and I can see I should have investigated more. I just examined the previous deletion discussion.

I'll also note that apparently, the article creator Kareemarh came to my talk page to protest the deletion tag but his comments were deleted before I saw them as he was blocked as a sock. After reviewing his statement to me, which echoes your argument and explains the collaboration that went into the new version, I've restored the last version of the article.

I appreciate you coming to me with your argument instead of simply restoring it yourself. We should all try to learn from our errors in judgment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I like your response. ;-) I make loads of mistakes. And I learn something new most days! Keep well. SilkTork (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

This month: A general update.

The current status of the project is as follows:

• Progress of the project has been generally delayed since September due to development issues (more bitrot than expected, some of the code just being genuinely confusing, etc) and personal injury (I suffered a concussion in October and was out of commission for almost two months as a result).
• I currently expect to be putting out a proper call for CollaborationKit pilots in January/February, with estimated deployment in February/March if things don't go horribly wrong (they will, though, don't worry). As a part of that, I will properly update the page and send out announcement and reach out to all projects already signed up as pilots for WikiProject X in general, at which point those (still) interested can volunteer specifically to test the CollaborationKit extension.
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Pilots was originally created for the first WikiProject X prototype, and given this is where the project has since gone, it's only logical to continue to use it. While I haven't yet updated the page to properly reflect this:
  • If you want to add your project to this page now, feel free. Just bear in mind that more information what to actually expect will be added later/included in the announcement, because by then I will have a much better idea myself.
• Until then, you can find me in my corner working on making the CollaborationKit code do what we want and not just what we told it, per the workboard.

Until next time,

-— Isarra ༆ 22:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I really don't understand why BrownHairedGirl insists on creating categories like Category:2019 Albanian television seasons when the articles that she adds to them clearly do not meet the category inclusion criteria the she herself added. If it was any other editor it would be considered disruptive at best. Al it does is to create work for other editors. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:23, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't what to say. I spend a lot of time deleting categories and about half of the empty categories I end up deleting are her creations. I know she frequents "Wanted Categories" and creates categories that are just red links on articles. So, my guess is that someone is assigning "2019 Albanian television seasons" to articles and she sees it as a wanted category and creates it. Then another editor removes the category from the article (because it isn't applicable), the category becomes empty and it ends up being deleted. Then recreated, then deleted again. It's become a pattern with those 2019 categories. One I saw has been deleted and recreated 5 times (by different people).

You can always post a note to her talk page, AussieLegend, but my perspective is that she's been working with categories for over a decade, probably has her routine down pat and she knows policy backwards and forwards. If you can present an argument policy-wise to get your point across, you might get a positive response. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

AussieLegend, have you seen the discussion on Category talk:2019 television seasons? It might answer some of your questions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I've tried posting to her talk page last year and I thought everything was cleared up. I even linked to a discussion that we'd had at the TV project about these cats, which I've been trying to sort out since 2015, and she agreed to delete the category that she'd just created because of the conensus. I have seen that discussion in which you and I both participated. It doesn't seem to have achieved anything. I really don't understand her logic. The category inclusion criteria is "programs that have" (past tense) aired an episode in a particular year. She knows that because she adds the criteria. The correct, and simplest action is to remove the program (there's usually only one) from the category but she creates the category. When we had that recent discussion she went to the trouble of creating a category and adding an article to it just so she could justify keeping Category:2019 television seasons. That seems a little WP:POINTy to me. Another editor removed the program from the cat so it was all pointless. I keep a list of cats that I monitor here and it's a lot easier if the season cats are all red. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:12, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

AussieLegend, a big part of success in editing at Wikipedia is getting along with people who do things differently than you do or differently from what you think is the correct way. On the plus side though, is that it is only 9 days until 2019 and then you won't have to think about this again until November. Happy holidays! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I realise that, it's just frustrating. As for November, try April. People start while the current season is still airing. Happy holidays to you too. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:10, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Liz, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 06:11, 25 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thanks for your helpfulness, and well-intentioned intervention. Hey, I made a rhyme! Huggums537 (talk) 22:55, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you, Huggums537! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

	Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
	Hi Liz, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy and Prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your help and thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia,    –Davey2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 00:30, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• If Crimbo has been and gone for you then I hope you and yours had a wonderful day :), Thanks, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 00:30, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

	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) 01:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Shearonink, I love your holiday card! Have a wonderful 2019! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thank you so much, EurovisionNim. Happy New Year to you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Newjerseyliz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Hmm never seen this template before, but in my opinion its abusive and a personal attack and its should be discontinued.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was funny, Keithbob, and placed it on my Talk Page myself. The "epiphets" are so ludicrous and silly, I can't believe anyone would take them personally. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, I thought it was placed here by someone else. Glad you find it fun. Peace! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The second round of the 2019 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to scored 32 points to advance into round 3. Our top four scorers in round 2 all scored over 400 points and were:

• Cas Liber (1210), our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three DYKs. He also made good use of the bonus points available, more than doubling his score by choosing appropriate articles to work on.
• Kosack (750), last year's runner up, with an FA, a GA, two FLs, and five DYKs.
• Adam Cuerden (480), a WikiCup veteran, with 16 featured pictures, mostly restorations.
• Zwerg Nase (461), a seasoned competitor, with a FA, a GA and an ITN item.

Other notable performances were put in by Barkeep49 with six GAs, Ceranthor, Lee Vilenski, and Canada Hky, each with seven GARs, and MPJ-DK with a seven item GT.

So far contestants have achieved nine featured articles between them and a splendid 80 good articles. Commendably, 227 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2019 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. The judges are pleased with the thorough GARs that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment concluded that creating pages in the portal namespace should be restricted to autoconfirmed users.
• Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Technical news

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

Arbitration

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

Miscellaneous

• A request for comment is currently open to amend the community sanctions procedure to exclude non XfD or CSD deletions.
• A proposal to remove pre-2009 indefinite IP blocks is currently open for discussion.

---

I NEVER write messages to myself on my own talk page but I just saw https://xtools.wmflabs.org/adminstats on the Admin Report and it's an interesting resource if any talk page stalkers don't check User:JamesR/Adminstats to look at admin stats. Psst! The admins you see the most on Wikipedia are not exactly the most active admins by stats counter. People get a niche area and work in it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:59, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear Liz,

to start with kindly let me highlight that I'm a newbee at Wikipedia. While highly appreciating the good content, I'm still getting accustomed to the article requirements (whereas I am also closely studying the official guidelines).

You deleted my draft page on the German shipping company "Peter Döhle Schiffahrts-KG" with the reason „G8:Redirect to a deleted or nonexistent page“ which I frankly speaking don’t understand. Merely a citation of a publication on the company by an independent publishing house as well as a link to their corporate website was included in my draft. Furthermore, I would be happy to add some references like Financial Times, etc. and not only on this company, but actually others later on as well. But before preparing different drafts, I would like to know the exact requirements.

Thank you for your kind help!! Best regards, BulbousBow 56 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BulbousBow56 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I think I deleted a broken redirect, I didn't delete your article. I think your article was moved (the page should state that) and then it was deleted by another admin. A broken redirect is just a redirect to a page that was deleted. Do you have the exact name of the page? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

No I didn’t. Signpost is part of Wikipedia and we have every right to enforce our policies there. Defamation is a “hair on fire” situation where you remove first and ask questions later. Jehochman ^Talk 17:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

[15] If we want to disagree on something, we'll have to find something better ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

We just needed a link to the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Breitbart is blacklisted, technical wizardry is required. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam¹ • Flyguy649 • Fram² • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe

¹Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

²Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment seeking to alleviate pressures on the request an account (ACC) process proposes either raising the account creation limit for extended confirmed editors or granting the account creator permission on request to new ACC tool users.

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

• The scope of CSD criterion G8 has been tightened such that the only redirects that it now applies to are those which target non-existent pages.
• The scope of CSD criterion G14 has been expanded slightly to include orphan "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).
• A request for comment seeks to determine whether Wikipedia:Office actions should be a policy page or an information page.

Technical news

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

Miscellaneous

• In February 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) changed its office actions policy to include temporary and project-specific bans. The WMF exercised this new ability for the first time on the English Wikipedia on 10 June 2019 to temporarily ban and desysop Fram. This action has resulted in significant community discussion, a request for arbitration (permalink), and, either directly or indirectly, the resignations of numerous administrators and functionaries. The WMF Board of Trustees is aware of the situation, and discussions continue on a statement and a way forward. The Arbitration Committee has sent an open letter to the WMF Board.

---

He also joined the person from the redacted site in calling me a sick and twisted pervert. True crime is a specialist subject for me, not an obsession. I feel that someone should care about victims after the media spotlight has changed. If i was wrong, i am sorry. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Liz, I believe the very first sentence of your ArbCom statement may be disputed. I invite you to read paragraph 4 of my statement, where I provided some evidence. starship.paint (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I think my questions are valid, Starship.paint. Did Smallbones get permission from Fram? If "yes", then he can't be faulted for publishing the Signpost article. If "no", then he violated Fram's rights to not be accused. I don't think one can only take on-wiki evidence, ArbCom needs to see the email exchange that Smallbones mentions that occurred between them. I don't know if that will happen because Smallbones states that Fram wanted to keep it private. But I do know that I'm undecided on the matter until consent has been determined. Otherwise, it is he said, he said.

While you have been very polite, I think you have already made up your mind that any charges against Fram are false.. That's definitely the standpoint of the most vocal Wikipedians but I don't know that this is actually the Truth, with a capital T. But, as you know, Wikipedia doesn't care about truth, we care about verifiability. So, let's have ArbCom see all the available evidence and they can come to a decision. But what I do know for sure is that NONE of us knows the whole story behind this whole mess. Ideally, WMF would disclose more information to ArbCom to make this possible but, unfortunately, that doesn't seem like it will happen. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

(1) Yes, Liz, one cannot only take on-wiki evidence, but that is all I know of and can show, and that shows that Fram disputed before press time. (2) Yes, Liz, ArbCom should take a look at private evidence. (3) No, Liz, I don't agree that any charges against Fram are false. I don't even know Fram, actually. There's so much we don't know. That doesn't mean that we can keep casting more and more aspersions, I hope. Fram might very well have done many bad things, and if so, he has to go. Let ArbCom see it all and decide. starship.paint (talk) 01:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, I'll strike that comment then and apologize. You have been so adamant about this issue that I made assumptions about your position. I guess we can both agree that ArbCom should step up and take the lead here because otherwise, there will be continuing acrimony between hard-working editors and the WMF which I think is an unacceptable state of affairs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we agree, ArbCom needs to do the work. Thank you for apologizing. I do want justice for Fram, that does not mean an acquittal on all charges, but that does means the right to reply / defend oneself / appeal, that's all. starship.paint (talk) 01:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)