User talk:AmandaNP/Archives/2019

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...

Nous n'oublions jamais.
... you were recipient no. 1868 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

Best wishes for your health! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes Evad37 There'sNoTime Alex Shih • Brian • Mushroom • Nakon • Oscarthecat • PeruvianLlama • Ragib • Reaper Eternal • Rossami • Tom Interface administrator changes Evad37 • Galobtter Ritchie333

CheckUser changes There'sNoTime Keegan • Ks0stm Oversight changes There'sNoTime Ks0stm • Sphilbrick

Guideline and policy news

• The RfC on administrator activity requirements failed to reach consensus for any proposal.
• Following discussions at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Administrators, an earlier change to the restoration of adminship policy was reverted. If requested, bureaucrats will not restore administrator permissions removed due to inactivity if there have been five years without a logged administrator action; this "five year rule" does not apply to permissions removed voluntarily.

Technical news

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

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee announced
  WP:SPI
  ).
  • paid-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive
    paid editing
    .
  • checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2019 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Base, Einsbor, Jon Kolbert, Schniggendiller, and Wim b.

As was once said to another RfB candidate, "there's an excellent chance that this one will go to a bureaucrat chat. You might just barely eke this one out, [Amanda]. In the event that it ultimately passes, I'd like to give you my preemptive congratulations. (Fingers crossed.)" (Kurtis). I wholeheartedly agree that despite my support, this RfB might be destined to....*gulp* succeed - er - fail. I also particularly like the followup, but your username does not contain 'flux' and therefore the pun doesn't work much. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Fingers crossed... Kurtis ^(talk) 23:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

DeltaQuad, congratulations on passing your

Could you update on the matter please? Thanks.

^📞 19:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

Masum, most of us look holistically when evaluating request for permissions. Currently on your talk page NinjaRobotPirate and Swarm are talking with you about other recent issues that you have had. These are basic issues of competence with Wikipedia and maintence, that if you're having trouble with, means that it'd be unlikely for you to get the new page reviewer permission from any admin. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Special:Diff/899394472

The bot just tagged this as needing a human to review. However, I agree with revdel in this case and don't think a human needs to review it. What should I do? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually there is an issue the bot correctly points out. You have labelled it both as a free image and a non-free image. --

Amanda (aka DQ) 22:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: Although you've correctly identified the copyright status of both the objects depicted and the image of them i.e. your freely licenced image of some copyrighted objects, this mix and match is very difficult to program a bot for as there are so many possible combinations therefore the bot errs on the side of caution and asks for a human review. As someone who does a lot of the reviews I'd much rather have that then everything go unchecked. Nthep (talk) 12:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nthep: Oh gotcha! Thank you both for addressing my concerns! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Haven't seen any DQ bot reports at UAA the last few days, so giving you a heads up so it won't be three months like last time.

@

Amanda (aka DQ) 00:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Awesome.

talk) 00:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll do my best to remember that CU blocks aren't just for keeping the socks at bay. Rivselis (talk) 04:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. --

Amanda (aka DQ) 04:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, you recently blocked 98.162.170.103 and what appears to be IP hopping on the same article/talk page for the same changes for an IP with a matching ASN has arisen from IP 24.252.174.130. As the prior block referenced an Arbcom action which I am unaware of, rather than an SPI case, I am uncertain where to report this activity. It seems incredibly unlikely not to be IP hopping considering the ASN and context, yet I was criticised by Mathglot for saying anything about the likely match without first creating an SPI case. Naturally, considering the work in starting SPI cases every time an IP hopper changes address would end up with us not bothering to get any of them blocked. Equally obvious is that if the 'Arbcom aware' case applies, then any related edits from IPs or socks should be removed. Advice on how best to proceed appreciated!

As a courtesy I have left a note on the IP talk page. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

WP:AGF applies, in my opinion. Mathglot (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding to this. I did block someone, but it was not referencing an Arbcom action. ANI is fine as a place to request blocks for any form of block evasion, as it will process there way faster. Also, just to clarify, checkuser blocks can be made for multiple reasons, not just because a block is involved. --

Amanda (aka DQ) 18:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Are archived talk pages presentable at ARBCOM, or are diffs mandatory? François Robere (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

You can link to any discussion that has been made in the past. The only thing that is prohibited is trying to make a personal statement only (and not show anything about the case) with a link. --

Amanda (aka DQ) 19:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

So if I provide a relevant a thread and want to highlight a particular comment within it, I can do it with a quote or time stamp instead of a diff? François Robere (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

My advice is that a diff would be the best to show it, as reading a whole discussion on top of everything else is a lot for an Arb. Remember this is not the evidence phase. If you do quote someone, you do need to attach a diff. --

Amanda (aka DQ) 04:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I can understand why you rejected my application for NPR perms, but I just wanted to know what sort of things I can be doing to get my application accepted. You mentioned CSDs and draft space editing - what else is there to give me the right experience for being an NPR? It would be great to get your thoughts, as I'm hoping to reapply once I pass the 3-month milestone. Thanks for your help (and consideration) - OliverEastwood talk 23:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Normally I write a long paragraph explaining why, but I'm just not having the energy to do that tonight. Basically anything that shows me you 1) Have a knowledge of Wikipedia's inclusion policies and 2) shows you are applying them properly. Whatever you do end up doing, there needs to be a significant quantity of. I would normally recommend at least 50 CSDs or AFC reviews, but 100 is closer to my comfort zone to granting it fully without a trial. It may be also useful to go back through the approved applicants and see what they have to help answer this question. --

Amanda (aka DQ) 05:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I have some fresh idea on how to deal with the conflicts like the one that is currently being discussed. If you grant me a word extension, I can propose it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

[7] --

Amanda (aka DQ) 19:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

May I be granted a word limit extension to respond to the above? François Robere (talk) 10:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

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

CheckUser changes

Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Miscellaneous

• The previously discussed unblocking of IP addresses indefinitely-blocked before 2009 was approved and has taken place.
• The 2019 talk pages consultation produced a report for Phase 1 and has entered Phase 2.

Hi, just wanted to point you to this WP:UAA/BOT edit, in which your bot made a couple of typos, "similiar charecters" for "similar characters". Nyttend (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Fixed --

Amanda (aka DQ) 23:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

In response to my last request for rollback, you said that I had issues identifying vandalism and with edit summaries. I am still unsure about the issues with identifying vandalism, but I think that I have resolved the edit summaries concern. If I understand correctly, the issue was that I was using a default STiki revert message for good faith edits. After discussion with ToBeFree, for whom I am very grateful, I realized that I could modify the edit summaries. I have since done some STiki-ing with manual edit summaries: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], and [23]. Could you confirm whether or not these address your concern? If you don't have time, I completely understand. Thanks, StudiesWorld (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

My primary concern is in which cases would you use for rollback, and which you would not. It is fine to use no summary in clear cases, but in unclear cases a summary is required, and likely rollback shouldn't be used. Can you tell me which ones you would use rollback on and which not? --

Amanda (aka DQ) 03:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

DeltaQuad, based off of the link numbers, I would most likely use rollback on 24 and I might use it on 14, 15, or, 23. However, those last three on unlikely. Thanks for your time, StudiesWorld (talk) 10:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I would  Use rollback on: 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 22, 23, 24, 26

I would  Not use rollback on: 11, 12, 17, 19, 20, 21,

I would Not sure. on: 25

--

Amanda (aka DQ) 18:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

DeltaQuad, thanks for the advice. I really appreciate your time and help. I'll work more on improving my accuracy before applying again. I have one question remaining: Would I be correct to assume that it is better to err on the side of not rollbacking and manually reverting when in doubt? StudiesWorld (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely. --

Amanda (aka DQ) 23:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, AmandaNP/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:30, 29 June 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)
  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
  .

Hello, DQ,

I thought I'd try to tackle the hundreds of files at Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old needing human review. I followed the instructions, pasted the code, bypassed my cache but I'm not seeing the rescaled tab. I have several user pages with Javascript but when I clicked on the link, it brought me to User:Liz/vector.js where I pasted the code. Could you check the page and tell me if you see anything wrong with it? I'm not sure what the problem is.

I understand you aren't editing much so no rush on this question. I just thought I'd tackle the mass o' files. Be well, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Liz: There's a % missing. You have multiple version of the same script there: lines 2 and 5. I'd remove the first one if you fix the second one. You should see 'rescaled' under More when in the file namespace. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, JJMC89. I thought I just cut and paste the code that was on the category page. I'll double-check and see if I can find the missing %. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, I cut & pasted the code in your diff link into User:Liz/vector.js and when I saved the page I got an error message. Some day, I'll get this right. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Liz: you have multiple errors in User:Liz/vector.js, including on the very first line. Notice the red x's on the line legends. Also, these scripts will load in addition to the ~35 scripts you have at User:Liz/common.js so if things are a bit awry you may want to try disabling some other scripts while you test. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

This is what happens when you don't know what you are doing. There were over 200 files that needed deletion and I thought add some code I'd try to help but it's clearly not going to happen. I just have added scripts over the years as I came across them and I don't remember what each one does. I remember going to some admins .js pages after I passed my RfA and just copying their scripts. Maybe I'll just the delete the pages and start from scratch. Frustrating. But thanks for the advice. I just need A-B-C instructions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Liz: You removed '); from the end of the first line. I think everything should work it you restore that bit. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Fixed for Liz. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I still am not seeing the rescaled tab, Oshwah, even though I've cleared my cache and even rebooted my computer. I just will have to leave this work for another admin to tackle. Thanks for trying to help. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi DQ. You deleted the target yesterday as

@

Amanda (aka DQ) 00:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I did not get the chance to move it yet. However, I still think Kong is the common name. This will go to

WP:RM probably. StaticVapor message me! 06:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, AmandaNP/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 19:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm

}} template.

MrClog (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I've opened a bureaucrat chat for a current RfA. Your input would be most appreciated at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam 2/Bureaucrat chat. Primefac (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi User:DeltaQuad,

I would like to drive your attention to Ticket:2019080110001198 am sure you would help to assist the query.

Thank you --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 05:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I had noticed the issue earlier last night and again tonight. The issue should be fixed and they can refile. --

Amanda (aka DQ) 06:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey! I sent you an email regarding ACC on July 29. Could you take a look at it? (Just a friendly reminder.) Kind regards, MrClog (talk) 10:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I think I already know the answer, no need to reply. --MrClog (talk) 11:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Did anyway. --

Amanda (aka DQ) 15:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

And I sent a reply to your reply :-). --MrClog (talk) 07:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to be impatient, but just a reminder as you may have forgotten about my email. --MrClog (talk) 11:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes Johnuniq • Kosack • Valereee Ad Orientem • Ched • Gadfium • Jonathunder • Nick • Yelyos Bald Zebra • Beetstra • Doug Bell • Journalist • Ruud Koot • Splash • Voice of Clam Interface administrator changes Dinoguy1000

CheckUser changes RickinBaltimore Oversight changes Beeblebrox RickinBaltimore

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the page Wikipedia:Office actions has been changed from a policy page to an information page.
• A
  administrator inactivity policy
  .

Arbitration

• Editors
  alert
  them.

Miscellaneous

• Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
• The
  removal for inactivity
  at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

Hi Delta Quad - just wanted to thank you for indenting my "Neutral" post after I'd switched to "Oppose". I realized from the report at the top of the page that I was showing up,in the "Dupes" column, but wasn't sure what to do - didn't want to delete the earlier post, but didn't know how to take it out of the "Dupes". (My lack of editing skills wasn't helped that I was simultaneously trying to figure out that problem, on a wonky old iPad, while watching Scooby Doo with my son. 😀 ). Thanks again, Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

No problem. --

Amanda (aka DQ) 17:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, AmandaNP/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm

}} template.

Amanda, if God is real, then how come peecha chakka no wookie boonowa tweepi, solo? Ho ho ho ho hoooooo.... I hope you're doing well... please stay in touch. How can I reach out to you like I used to be able to? TS? Do you visit that server often anymore? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

Bradv • Chetsford • Izno

Floquenbeam • Lectonar

DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

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

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Miscellaneous

• A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Chris.Sherlock/Letsbefiends unblock request. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Greetings Amanda! I'm not sure why my request was archived by bot prior to getting a yes or no response (but I must admit I'm not too familiar with the RFPP habits). In light of my rationale below, would you consider reducing the protection level for the 9/11 redirect, perhaps to ECP instead of full protection? — JFG ^talk 16:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Quote from archived thread at

Unprotection: No apparent reason to fully protect a simple redirect. — JFG ^talk 22:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Note: @JFG: According to the instructions above, you should have asked the protecting admin, DeltaQuad, as she is currently active. Now done – if the notification system works. Favonian (talk) 09:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@

Amanda (aka DQ) 16:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

What changes to this page do you envision being made that are currently blocked by the protection? Prodego ^talk 20:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Following a recent merger of dab pages for "911" and "9/11",[24] I was performing cleanup work on various related pages and redirects, and simply noticed that this one was fully protected. I do not envision any immediate changes to this particular redirect, but I note that the history of vandalism is ancient (2009–2010) and mostly by IP editors. The page was re-protected on 11 September 2011 "out of respect",[25] perhaps as a precautionary step on the anniversary day, given there had been no recent vandalism at the time.

Examining the history more closely, I realize now that unprotection may be excessive, as it has been tried earlier in 2009,[26] but in the spirit of keeping our encyclopedia open with the minimum required level of protection, I believe that ECP would be sufficient in this instance. Note that somebody on the talk page already wondered why this redirect was fully protected, noting that the redirect article September 11 attacks is itself only semi-protected. — JFG ^talk 20:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I have reduced it to ECP. Semi can easily be evaded for a proper vandal, and ECP didn't exist back in 2011. --

Amanda (aka DQ) 00:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Great, thx! — JFG ^talk 20:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

Is there an issue with UTRSBot? We've had plenty of requests coming through on UTRS in the last few days, however UTRSBot hasn't been posting? Indeed, since July it's only posted 3 times?-- 5 albert square (talk) 05:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there is definitely an issue. I have to code another partial replacement, but have not had the time of day to sit down and do so. I'll see if I can do so this week. --

Amanda (aka DQ) 13:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

If there's a JSON API somewhere that exposes the same information found at User:DeltaQuad/UTRS Appeals, I could write something to post it. This would take that part of the weight off of you - and JSON being easy to work with, if the next person running a utrs bot gets hit by a bus, they're easier to replace, without requiring direct UTRS developer intervention. You wouldn't really even need to add authentication to a JSON endpoint as it's intended to be posted publicly. SQL^{Query me!} 00:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@

Amanda (aka DQ) 06:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

No worries, the bot appears to be doing some reporting today.-- 5 albert square (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I hadn't been monitoring UAA lately and I guess nobody else knew to tell you that DQB hasn't been making reports there for a while.

@

Amanda (aka DQ) 17:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you help?-- Deepfriedokra 11:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I've tried to mediate the issue by renaming you directly in the database. Has that helped? --

Amanda (aka DQ) 07:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Did you mean to remove Reaper Eternal's vote here? – Joe (talk) 07:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

For fuck sakes...no I didn't. Thanks for pointing this out. --

Amanda (aka DQ) 08:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

If you are going to clerk the RfA, perhaps a comment like this one may be applicable for removal as well? I don't object to people opposing and describing me as unfit to be an admin and so on, but I think "pathologically compulsive negativity" clearly crosses a line.

Already hit that one on the head before reading this, trying to get everything I can as I have limited time. Feel free to point out anything else I may miss. --

Amanda (aka DQ) 08:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, an editor asking "was this the thing that got oversighted" is perhaps a problem?[27] If not, I will reply (since my statements were made long after the reban, not at the time the editor was active), but I guess it's better if the question gets removed (revdel or oversight) and a friehndly word spoken to the editor instead?

Fram (talk) 08:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi

legitimate reasons and purposes (such as good faith efforts to evaluate a situation, process, or user on project-related processes), editors are free to ask and to speculate to an appropriate and reasonable measure. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay. I didn't doubt that Wugapodes made a good faith edit, but it seems strange that associating the same label to the banned editor in this way is not a problem.

Fram (talk) 09:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Fram - It depends on the situation and the user's intent. If a cookie jar disappears and nobody saw what happened to it, it's okay for someone to legitimately ask, "Did you break the cookie jar?" Similarly, it's okay to speculate within reason and say, "I think the cookie jar was broken." It wouldn't be okay if I pointed my finger at you and said, "Fram, you broke the cookie jar!", or asked you questions or made speculation with the intent on harassing you or causing disrepute. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I get where you're coming from, and I'll drop the issue, but I'm a bit torn between two scenarii. If you would say "Fram is not only a bad admin but also a double murderer", then it would be good if this was revdelled, but if someone then asks "did Oshwah really call Fram a double murdered", then that question should remain as well (which is the point you are making). If on the other hand you said "Fram is not only a bad admin but he is the same as notorious troll DeathtoWikipedia from the facebook group "HappyWikiPuppies", then you would be outing me and it would again need revdel; but while it would then be allright for someone to say "Oshwah should be blocked because he tried to out Fram", would it be acceptable if they said "Oshwah should be blocked because they tried to out Fram by saying that they are the same as DeathToWikipedia"? I don't think repeating e.g. outing in such a way would be acceptable. And I'm not sure if the current situation, which is at first sight closer to the first than the second scenario, but where serious (perhaps not sufficient, but to the point) evidence has been given to support the statement, is not closer to the second in that regard.

Anyway, just wanted to explain my reasoning, no problem if you agree that the question can remain.

Fram (talk) 09:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Whatever harm was mitigated with the original oversighting is now being re-introduced by the speculation and commentary about it. –xeno^talk 12:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Fram, I completely see where you're coming from with your viewpoint, and I'll admit that I felt conflicted when writing my argument in response to you above. While I think reasonable questioning and speculation will undoubtedly exist in general, this is obviously a situation where determining exactly where "the line" is in regards to being acceptable is important. The right thing to do here is to take this to the team and come to a consensus regarding its acceptability and (if applicable) its visibility. I hope that you both know and understand that I'm doing everything I can in order to be helpful and (above all else) make sure that we do the right thing. I'll get back to you as soon as I can about this... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't think that you (or Wugapodes or me) did anything wrong, certainly not deliberately, but I wasn't completely comfortable that what we did was right either, or how best to handle it.

Fram (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Fram - I agree, and no problem; always happy to help. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

At the risk of prolonging this, I want to say that I support whatever decision the oversight team comes to with regards to my question (and if the page history is anything to go on, it seems a decision has been reached). It's not an easy situation, but I actually like when my comments are refactored in good faith. Having said that, on a more philosophical level, the major concern that led me to ask the question the way I did is that I worry about suppression being used to prevent adequate community oversight, especially after the WMF and ArbCom have kindly given the community the chance to perform its own oversight as we requested.

Whether a revision is deleted does not change the fact that the revision occurred. If the community is trying to make an informed decision, claiming that suppressed diffs cannot be used to show behavioral patterns and also claiming that questions regarding the specifics of that behavior just binds our hands. Taken to its logical conclusion, suppression would give carte blanche to bad actors because as long it's suppressed we cannot hold the actor accountable for their actions. I am not saying that is what has happened here (I choose to believe no one was acting in bad faith), rather, I worry that the combination of not being allowed to use secret evidence and not being allowed to speak frankly about the behavior that led to the evidence being made secret weakens the ability for the community to perform adequate self-governance.

At a lesser extreme, as has been seen in this situation, we are forced to use

not normally speak so candidly about oversighted material. Moving forward, we'll all need to reflect on the balance between privacy, community oversight, and institutional authority, but I respect that others may and have come to different opinions on how those ideals should be balanced. Wug·a·po·des​ 20:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Simply, that if I do use it, it will throw off the entire numbering of the vote.

Amanda (aka DQ) 21:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I think there’s a way to do it if you define the next number in the list, but it’s really more trouble than it’s worth (if an earlier vote gets indented, etc.). Moving to talk page is fine. –xeno^talk 22:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes Barkeep49 Beetstra • KillerChihuahua • Kusma Arcadian • Extraordinary Machine • Xeno JamesBWatson → JBW Interface administrator changes Evad37

CheckUser changes Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens Oversight changes Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

• The
  2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process
  has begun. The community consultation period will take place October 4th to 10th.
• The
  incident
  . It will be open until October 30th.

Miscellaneous

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

Just wanted to let you know, in case you didn't realize it, that your "homepage" link at https://accounts.wmflabs.org/team.php points to DeltaQuad rather than User:DeltaQuad. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 01:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

DannyS712, I sent a pull request to fix this, and some of my information - see: [28] SQL^{Query me!} 20:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello! There is an edit request at User_talk:158.169.40.9 from a user who is behind an IP which you had blocked last year. I understand that requests from blocked users may be disregarded, but was unsure how to proceed when the block is on an IP range, and not on a specific editor. May I answer the request? Please advise. Thank you! Regards,  Spintendo  12:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a potential proxy, so if your willing to take responsibility for the edit, go for it. --

Amanda (aka DQ) 19:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Why was the RfA of RexxS sent to crat chat, and the RfA of Greenman (with a higher support/oppose ratio, and rising for the last days) not? I haven't seen an RfA going up from 50 to 61. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I was also curious if you had considered sending this to a wider discussion. What weighting (if any) did you apply to those whose sole oppose rationale mentioned COI editing but failed to actually provide any evidence of controversial edits? I found these to be particularly unconvincing and indicative of a pile-on. –xeno^talk 22:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

So next question: could the crats decide they want to chat about it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think there’s precedent for that. Certainly a closing statement at least was indicated here. –xeno^talk 22:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

So next question: even without a precedent, could the crats (or one crat to begin) say that the unique RfA might profit from more eyes? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I mean, sure, yes, with my bureaucrat hat on: I think it would have benefited from a bureaucrat discussion. However if DeltaQuad doesn’t want to send it there, I respect their decision but suggest a detailed closing rationale be provided. –xeno^talk 22:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'm also surprised at the quick closure given the circumstances. I'm aware, Amanda, that you commented on the talkpage of the RfA that you were not in favour of a vote to extend the RfA, but I'm not sure how aware you were then or at the close of the exceptional circumstances of this RfA. A comment as to your thinking on the matter, and the rationale you used to dismiss the circumstances would have been useful. Indeed, it still would be. An indication, at least, that you were aware of the circumstances and decided to disregard them, would be something. I can't recall any RfA in which people were talking strongly as to how it should be closed early because it was such an obvious fail, that then turned around to climb within a few points of a crat chat. We've had an RfA recently pass successfully at 64%, and this one in a matter of days climbed from under 50% (I think it was at 48%) to 61%. I don't think the candidate should be an admin, but there were plenty who did so, and out of courtesy to them some comment should have been offered. Also, it would be useful to 'Crats in the future to have some rationale to refer to in deciding that a reverse of direction and strong climb in the last few days due to positive arguments used in an RfA does not count as "exceptional circumstances". SilkTork (talk) 23:12, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

To come out strongly against an extension, and then making your very next edit to be closing the same RfA on the minute ... the optics aren't great. –xeno^talk 23:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Optics are all about how you view something, not what it actually is. There was a picture that I saw a while back where someone showed two different angles of a picture. The front on angle showed something like several fingers up in the air. The second picture, from a side angle made it look like he was giving someone the middle finger. If you plaster the second photo on the news and social media, then ya, "optics" will never look good. There was 16.5 hours in between those edits, and include me staying up and watching Chicago PD and Fire along with doing some very heavy lifting on essay research and note collection for my courses right now. That and I stayed up till like 7am specifically for work so I could make money. That's why I didn't make any other edits in between that talkpage edit and the close. --

Amanda (aka DQ) 00:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but for a bureaucrat to be seen to be impartial is sometimes just as important as actually being impartial. –xeno^talk 00:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

With respect, no. The person is or is not impartial, based on facts. We don't ban someone from the encyclopedia for looking like they are going to be a problem, same with potentially problematic CUs or ArbCom members. 'Looking' impartial is appeasement of the public for what they want to hear. Wikipedia is here for diverging viewpoints, not turning into a political circus like some ArbCom proceedings have. --

Amanda (aka DQ) 00:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The person is or is not impartial, based on facts ... 'Looking' impartial is appeasement of the public for what they want to hear. is surprising to read. Avoiding the appearance of impropriety isn't about appeasing the public, but reassuring them. Crats should be seen to be impartial so that editors have no reason to question their impartiality, so that editors are confident in the process. – Levivich 02:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

We are getting way too deep into theory. I commented in line with policy, just like the admin who closed it. I did not express a vote, just an interpretation of policy before it spun out of control. And then yes, hours later after I woke up, I closed the RfA on time. If someone

Amanda (aka DQ) 02:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I’m sure that you feel you have been impartial. I still think it was a mistake for you to close the RfA on your own under these circumstances, as there are other bureaucrats who had not opined so directly in the discussion that could have done so. Being a bureaucrat requires a different skill set and approach than being on the arbitration committee. Could you please write your closing rationale into the RfA? Thank you. –xeno^talk 05:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

For greater certainty, the mistake I feel was made here was in relation to the opinion being provided on the extension, and then being the one to close it on the minute. Sending it to a bureaucrat discussion is a distinct topic and I do not feel any mistake was made there, though I would not have taken the same approach. DeltaQuad, I've been contributing while time-limited and distracted, and some of my comments may be coming across harsher than I've intended (including one unintended word choice I found at BN). Please accept my apologies for this. –xeno^talk 03:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• I came to ask why Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Greenman does not appear to have a result, just a 'silent' box-close. My recollection is it is usually stated to be 'successful', 'unsuccessful', or 'no consensus' (sometimes with more added as a closing rationale, which I take it some of above are asking for). Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

  @Alanscottwalker: the very first line of that page says: The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. That "closed as unsuccessful" wasn't typed in doesn't seem to be confusing to the reader. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, it is normal convention to type it in, but it's still rather obvious. For another example this year, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/JJMC89. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Xaosflux, Eh, look again at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GermanJoe: "Closed as successful by Primefac (talk) at 23:57, 5 October 2019 (UTC)" is precisely the type of note I was expecting but Greenman does not have it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• (some of these may have ec'd each other) - I agree it is the modern convention to type it in to the wikitext. It was typed in to the edit summary as well as using the template though (see Special:Diff/920938087). — xaosflux ^Talk 00:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• I put it into the template that gets substituted, and apparently it didn't make it to the final. I mean it does say "did not succeed" at the top of the page, but I can make it clearer. --
  Amanda (aka DQ) 00:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, especially with 'did not succeed' it has come up before, was that one unsuccessful or no consensus (and perhaps withdrawn too) Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC) (I should add, thanks for your time. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC))

• I am building a statement for the talkpage here, not ignoring this, please give me a bit to do so. --
  Amanda (aka DQ) 00:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not going to compare this RfA with a previous RfA. The numbers at the end of the day only give an idea, not determine the direction something should go.

My assessment of this RfA is that it was unsuccessful. There is mention of the COI issue, but that is not the only issue that plagued the oppose section of this RfA. Looking at the COI opposes, a lot of editors comboed their opposes with comments about other things. Amoung this: answers to questions, questions of suitability and ability to respond with a thought out explanation in line with consensus, and concerns about article development and deletion all were flagged. That said, I also looked back through the support section, and found a lot of supporters dismissing the COI issue or just giving a generic support. In fact, some people in support even said they were concerned by some of the things noted in the oppose section, but not enough to sway their weaker support vote into an oppose.

As for how this RfA went from below 50% to a last minute resurgence of support, it still had the standard 7 days. If we had left it open for a longer period of time, there would be concerns that we were trying to bake the numbers to show more support. There was no new issues presented before the last few days of the RfA that made it important to keep the debate going. It's simply people finding the time to vote. If we held every RfA open just for people to vote, we'd never close them. I get that things statistically flipped. But you also see this type of thing happen at the start of an RfA. It starts out all as supports before people start finding reasons to oppose. Some might make an argument for a snow closure in favour at that point. The point is, regardless of where it occurs, statistical flips occur in every form of vote (!votes and votes). Closing them early because of it, or closing it late because of it only increases the level of bias in determining the canidates success or failure. We don't close ArbCom votes or Steward votes early or late because of this. Same as political elections in the world beyond the internet. --

Amanda (aka DQ) 00:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Can you address why there wasn't a discussion among crats about having a crat chat before this was closed? – Levivich 02:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn't take it to BN as I felt the consensus was clear enough. Barring a requirement, I had no reason to. I can't speak for other crats if they were concerned why they didn't post a thread on BN about a chat being needed. --

Amanda (aka DQ) 02:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Your argument that closing at a specified time is the most appropriate way of achieving consensus is not how I see us arriving at consensus on Wikipedia. I don't see it as about completing the discussion within a fixed time; I see it more about ensuring that people have a fair chance of putting their views across. We often extend discussions if consensus is not clear, or discussion is still ongoing. It is generally regarded as inappropriate to close a discussion too soon - that is when discussion is still ongoing and the matter has not yet reached stalemate. There were 26 votes in the past 24 hours, 18 of which were for support. This was still a discussion in which people wished to take part, and in which the majority of new votes were pushing for support. I didn't feel the candidate was appropriate for adminship, yet I could see the value of keeping the discussion open to establish a consensus. We run Wikipedia by consensus, not by fixed (or arbitrary) time limits or by the word of law. If the wording of our policies hinders fairness or progress, we don't stick by the word of the policy - we are a wiki, so instead we change the wording to meet the intention. In this case, I don't see that the wording nor the intention called for a strict seven day to the minute close, let alone an early one. SilkTork (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@

Amanda (aka DQ) 03:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I was basing the two hours early on the time stamp of the nominator which shows to me as "12:12 pm, 5 October 2019", and the time stamp of your close as "9:56 pm, Yesterday" (12 October), so it appeared to me to be two hours short. But I now see that there were votes starting at 10:27 pm, 5 October 2019, so the 12:12 pm time stamp of the nominator has led me astray. I apologise. I think there were some errors in setting up the time stamp which has resulted in the nominator's statement being timed as pm instead of am (at least on my browser). SilkTork (talk) 13:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

There are 3 people here who are concerned about the closure. Not sure that qualifies as "a number of people". I don't have much history to go on, as the community only lowered it's consensus mark earlier this year, but Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AmericanAir88 was closed no consensus/unsuccessful in August at 57%. As I noted above, I closed it on time, not two hours early. I closed it after I was up for the day and made it to my computer. My "involvement" in this RfA was making a note of how I would handle things based on existing policy. I did not believe it clouded my judgement even in the slightest. If I thought it did, I would have stopped, it's why I don't run CUs on RfAs I clerk now, because I am a crat. If you want, I am absolutely happy and willing to face the music of the community and my fellow crats with a post at BN. If I did truly do something wrong, it can then be overturned there or I can be trouted or disciplined in what ever matter needed.

I have read your viewpoint here, and while I can see where it comes from, I disagree from an RfA standpoint. It's one of the most hostile areas of the wiki. We have had several timed RfCs where it has said it will close on X day such as the

Amanda (aka DQ) 04:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I posted at

WP:BN#Greenman RfA. (Not that I think you stepped over the line.) – Levivich 04:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

DQ, I only asked why, remember. You say "I felt the consensus was clear enough", I say the same, but we reached different results. If I was you I'd just revert the close and let someone else do it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not asking for anything more here than a reflection on the incident. I think it prudent in such cases to offer an explanation of the rationale given the circumstances (which you have now done, though placing it on the RfA at the time of the close would have been better, and that's something I'm sure you'll consider moving forward). I also think, given the circumstances, that the Crat who opposed the idea of extending the RfA should have considered the reaction of the some parts of the community if they were also the one to close the RfA, particularly with a such a strict timing. I want to reiterate that I personally feel the candidate was not suitable for the role of admin, however, I prefer to see consensus unfold and reach an appropriate outcome than simply achieve what I want. As regards the issue of was this your average Joe RfA that should have closed on time - I think we're probably going to have to agree to differ on that. Indeed, it might be a matter for an open discussion, perhaps via a RfC (when things are more settled in a few months time), on what sorts of things could be considered to be "exceptional circumstances" in an RfA, such that it could be considered for extension. SilkTork (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I've posted a rationale and definitely will consider posting one next time when it's closer to this number. Would like to avoid more of the drama beforehand. --

Amanda (aka DQ) 17:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for posting it. –xeno^talk 18:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• I waded here somehow, but just want to lend my support - I think your close was proper. Historically, very few users with <70% support become admins, and I can't find any with a lower tally than RexxS, which was quite unusual (there may have been one or two more awhile back, I don't remember, I looked at the stats a couple of hours ago.) Perhaps a "crat chat" would be worthwhile here, but with all due respect to the candidate, it would be historically extraordinary if anything changed. SportingFlyer T·C 09:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• Just wanted to say I fully support and endorse your closure, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 12:49, 13 October 2019‎
• +1 and fully support your closure. More at BN. Lourdes 14:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• Also fully support the close. What's the point of having a specified discretionary range if we're going to start regularly ignoring it? And @Xeno: given that you were quite vocal in supporting this RfA and arguing against those of who opposed because of the COI editing, is it really appropriate for you to suggest to your fellow crat how she should weight the votes you disagree with? For a bureaucrat to be seen to be impartial is sometimes just as important as actually being impartial and all that. – Joe (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  Joe, I don’t think I supported the RfA and asking someone to substantiate their claim is not “arguing against.” Nor did I ask DeltaQuad to weigh the votes the way I would have, merely asking them to elucidate their thought process, which they’ve now done. I support DQ’s closure. –xeno^talk 18:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Joe, before people go off track here, the concerns raised were in regard to Amanda closing without a rationale given the circumstances. It's not about the "specified discretionary range", it's about the timescale and the guidance given that seven days is a "minimum" (not a maximum), and that 'Crats can decide to extend longer in "exceptional circumstances". As part of that discussion was that Amanda commented in the RfA that she was not in favour of such an extension, so there was a query as to was she the Crat best placed to close this RfA, particularly as it was not overdue for closing, so there was an "appearance" of possible bias. Amanda has explained that as she saw and felt no bias - that she was closing normally, she didn't consider there was a need to make that clear to anyone else. As for closing as unsuccessful at 61% - of course. I don't think there's anyone who is saying that is an inappropriate close. It is a) lack of rationale, b) appearance of potential bias, and c) closing strictly on time that are the concerns here. And these have now all been addressed by Amanda. SilkTork (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:BN, but admittedly you do preface that with "I don't think there's anyone", so perhaps that's a subjective review of the situation. — Ched (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Well I agree that some people, such as myself, were concerned that a prompt close was made by a Crat who had indicated they didn't see the value in keeping it open, and that there was no rationale given for what was a non-standard RfA, however my take on the discussion here (I've not looked at BN as I'm satisfied with Amanda's response) is that folks are not concerned about a close of unsuccessful at 61%. It was closing on time when there had been discussion about extending it, without making a statement about the close, that appeared to me to be the focus of the discussion on this page. SilkTork (talk) 02:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@SilkTork: I have to disagree. Gerda's original question was why wasn't there a crat chat, and xeno followed that up with I was also curious if you had considered sending this to a wider discussion. – Joe (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I can't speak for Gerda, but my take on their comment was in regard to a 'Crat chat to discuss extending the RfA because the swing was still upward, rather than discussing the possibility of passing the candidate at 61%. SilkTork (talk) 02:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I thought I was clear enough. I would have liked this - with a COI accusation that could not be substantiated - to have gone to crat chat. I accept your afterwards reasoning, Amanda, but would (obviously) have weighed arguments differently, which is fine. Peace? - Just what can we do to not have the same 11-year old copyvio and alledged COI come up in Greenman's RfA2? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

​"At this particular time stamp I'm not seeing that it would be valid to keep this open beyond the standard seven day minimum".¹ Lourdes 05:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, at that particular timestamp it looked like the swing toward support had stalled, but after that it continued upward again. We don't know how the RfA would have ended if it had been kept open, though I suspect it wouldn't have reached pass level. Amanda applied the strict sense of seven days as that in her view is the best way of deciding a RfA. There are many who agree with this approach. My view is slightly different, as I feel the procedures are here to serve us rather than we serve the procedures. Amanda's approach is strict and firm so there is a uniformity which gives a clear standard. My approach is more fluid and flexible to accommodate the situation. It's a difference in philosophy, and I cherish the range of approaches within Wikipedia - that is the strength and beauty of our project, and why we favour having discussions when outcomes are unclear. Of course, the point at when a discussion becomes appropriate can at times be blurry, as was the case here. SilkTork (talk) 09:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I supported both Rexxs and Greenman, and I think I was in that small minority who supported lowering the discretionary band to 60%. But I can recognise when consensus is against me. I'm OK with this close. The rally in support from under 50% to 61% was very unusual, but I don't see it as being late enough and steep enough to justify an extension or a crat chat. If the post close conversation was dominated by opposers saying that they regretted not having the opportunity to reassess and go neutral or even support then things would be different. Instead we have some of the opposers hoping that the candidate will come back to RFA at some point next year. I wish that people were more willing to support those who they thought were good candidates but who weren't quite ready. But we are where we are, and in the circumstances it was a valid close. ϢereSpielChequers 11:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, out of interest could you tell me what was the username of the editor who left a message on my talk page and its content (which is now removed)? Thanks :) JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 05:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@

Amanda (aka DQ) 06:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks :) JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 06:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@

Amanda (aka DQ) 06:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Do you think the Michael Johnson1212 who also left a message on my talk page is a sockpuppet (possibly of the hidden user)? JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 06:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Ran a CU, came back unrelated. That said it's definitely interesting the they were about the same thing. --

Amanda (aka DQ) 06:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, AmandaNP/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 16:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm

}} template.

Vanamonde (Talk) 16:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I've replied. --

Amanda (aka DQ) 21:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, AmandaNP/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I am both shocked and saddened to see your notice and the corresponding request to hand in your various tool sets. Please take whatever time off you need and come back. Your long term departure from the project would be a hard blow. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, please come back. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I am too. Are you sure you;re not overreacting? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• I am sorry to see you go, Amanda. Best wishes, and I hope after some time off you'll find yourself wanting to come back. --valereee (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• I and many others will miss you. Thank you for all your service. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• I do hope to return to the project some day (though that is not a promise). I'm going to be around, my bots are staying and I'm still working globally, just not on enwiki at this time. I took 5 days to consider stepping back alone, so it wasn't a spur of the moment decision. I'm glad that I've created good ideas of me, and that you want to keep me around. Thank you. --
  Amanda (aka DQ) 06:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Your greater experience in some areas has been very helpful to me during the period we were both on arbcom. I want in particular to note this because we did not always agree; but without you I would have found it much more difficult to understand the issues. I remain grateful, and hope to work with you again whenever. DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Despite my deep disappointment with the current Arbcom, I recall you being a wise voice in the past and regret that you find it necessary to retire. I hope it won't be for long. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry to see you go. You have always been a pleasure to work with. Good travels to you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
• I only just noticed this now, and also want to say thank you for the many significant contributions you've made to this movement, to wish you well in your retirement, and also to hope we see you again when the time is right. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
• Just saw the news, sad but enjoy the break my friend! Thehelpfulone 21:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Well, that news hit me like a sack of bricks to the head this morning. I will be very sorry to see you go, Amanda; your skills and experience have not only been invaluable to the project but inspirational to me (and, I suspect, many others). I strongly hope you'll make a return to en-wiki soon; you will be much missed. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• I should have posted earlier. As others have said, you're missed. I hope you find it possible to come back sometime. I enjoyed working with you on ArbCom. Doug Weller talk 09:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Just saw this and it is a great disappointment. You have been a sensitive, reasonable and skillful contributor and "official". I know nothing about what may have caused this but I am sure you are not doing this lightly. I hope you just need some time for other activities, projects and rest, and will return. Best wishes. Donner60 (talk) 04:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Amanda, I've said this to you what must be a million times, but I'm repeating it now: You are a Star. Do whatever you need to do to ensure you're healthy and happy, and know that your wiki family will be here waiting for you when you're ready to return, my friend.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

	Mint tea
	I'm vaguely aware of current issues and haven't looked into excatly what happened, but I thought that I'd say hello. I felt that you were friendly when we've talked on a few occasions. I support people taking breaks, and I hope that you're able to relax. Best wishes, ↠Pine (✉) 03:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey, DeltaQuad. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the

Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

At User:DeltaQuad/SPI case list, which is transcluded into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, the date format of the "timestamp" columns is non-standard, and (understandably) cannot be made to sort correctly (I tried the three relevant values of data-sort-type). How about switching to a standard format, like "2019-11-09T23:39Z", which will sort correctly?

—[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I see that this is currently used only as a backup, and the normally-used list does not exhibit the problem. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@

Amanda (aka DQ) 09:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

	Happy Holidays! May your winter holidays be filled with joy, laughter and good health. Wishing you all the best in 2020 and beyond.

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello DeltaQuad: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 08:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

From my family to yours, I hope that you have a wonderful Christmas holiday and a Happy New Year! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 08:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)