User talk:Fish and karate/Archive 31

]

DYK for Fiora Contino

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers fish&karate 09:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you delete my article because i said that Japan is not Great power, it's very not gentle. Come on try to be objective. Orangdepok1 (talk) 05:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don’t know what article you’re referring to, could you let me know the name and I can take another look. fish&karate 05:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding Iran to the On This Day section. :) Nusent 20:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. fish&karate 19:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

Muboshgu

Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned

None

Bureaucrat changes

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• A
  WP:RFA
  and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

• The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey results have been posted. The Community Tech team will investigate and address the top ten results.
• The Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting comments on new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools for development in early 2018. Feedback can be left on the discussion page or by email.

Arbitration

• Following the results of the 2017 election, the following editors have been (re)appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Alex Shih, BU Rob13, Callanecc, KrakatoaKatie, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, RickinBaltimore, Worm That Turned.

---

Not sure why you reported this to

]

I didn't semi protect because protection isn't for resolving content disputes, and semi protection won't stop the edit warring anyway. fish&karate 10:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection stops the socking to continue the edit war that you suspected was happening. It also forces IPs to use the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How may I get this deleted page moved into my draft space? I was not finished editing it to add better references and for notability on Wikipedia.

RJ Thomas 08:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC) talk

Yes, of course - please see Draft:Ran Neu-Ner, which I've restored for you. fish&karate 10:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fish and Karate, I made the article "Motty Steinmetz" a few days ago, being new to Wikipedia I didn't know all the rules about notability ,so it got deleted.I then researched all the notability criteria and made sure my article complied with it. I thought then it was suitable so put it up again. It obviouly did not meet the criteria so you took it down. What am I doing wrong and how can I prove notability.Would it be possible for you to have a look at the draft to tell me what edits I need or what is wrong with the sources.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Adam_Bernstein/sandbox Thank you very much Adam Bernstein (talk) 13:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Adam Bernstein[reply]

Hi Adam. I've replied on your talk page. Regards, fish&karate 13:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't see thatAdam Bernstein (talk) 13:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've had another go at writing this article. I've replaced all the sources with ones from reputable publications(I've explained the publications in the talk section) is this more suitable for an article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Motty_Steinmetz Thank you very much Adam Bernstein (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm a new user on Wikipedia. I wasn't finished drafting the page before you deleted it. I was going to add references for notability shortly. Can you let me know?MikeGolin (talk) 08:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, see your talk page. fish&karate 10:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was an unfortunate raising of the stakes. If I did it as an AE action, and you undid it, that would greatly endanger your future editing powers. --John (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Threats? Really? Just because you say something is to do with an Arbcom sanction doesn’t make it so. fish&karate 20:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

pls open the page of ishq mein marjawan so that i can update the story of show plzzz its a request plzzzzzzzzzzz

Hello, I would like to request that the protection on the article Mark Sifneos be elevated to full protection with the same expiration date as the current semi-protection. The semi-protection has not stopped a number of auto-confirmed users from adding blatantly false, uncited information to the page. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

extended confirmation protection, which should stop the vandalism without resorting to full protection. fish&karate 14:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. I thought full might be a bit extreme, and I forgot about ECP. Cheers, —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

None

Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC
  Wikipedian-in-Residence
  or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
• Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

• A
  automatic edit summaries
  .

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee
  standardized editnotice
  when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.

---

Just to explain, you hadn't closed it at the point I edited the subsection, since you closed the entire thread and I was only editing the subsection, there wasn't an edit conflict, but it does appear as if I edited a closed discussion now. It doesn't make any impact on the result, but I will drop a quick explanation on my !vote Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, thank you for the courtesy note, it's appreciated. No worries. Fish+Karate 13:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more annoyed I missed the entire discussion tbh given I have extensively commented elsewhere (at the state of WD for example) and only noticed it from Fram's closure request. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I've never seen anything like that! Really needed a good karate chop. I will watch for similar problems on other articles. Thanks for the good work. Regards, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 09:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there's loads of articles like that. You come across them from time to time. Often they're done in good faith but forget that this is meant to be an encyclopedia and not a proxy for an institution's or company's website; we we don't need to dump every last bit of trivia onto the article. But thanks for the kind words! Cheers, Fish+Karate 10:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just dropping by to say hi. It's nice to see another old-timer (hope you don't mind me using this term) coming back after a long break and finding joy in editing again. I came back to editing actively last July after allegedly 10 years of absence (ha) and I've been confronted with worse labels I think (after doing some administrative works); IMO I think the atmosphere in Wikipedia these days are far more toxic than in the past. Alex Shih (talk) 06:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Alex Shih:, I think you're absolutely right. Nevertheless, we persevere :) Fish+Karate 08:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neil, would you be able to clarify your closure of the RfC on that page? My question was:

Is the Oxford English Dictionary a reliable source? Specifically, should we cite what it says about "useful idiot", that "The phrase does not seem to reflect any expression used within the Soviet Union"?

Your closing statement was:

the consensus appears to be pretty clear that while the OED is usually a reliable source for etymology and the like, in this instance there are sufficient concerns that if it is referenced within this article, it should be specifically attributed to the OED and it should be noted that other sources differ in their opinions.

I then added in a reference to the OED with what I thought was appropriate wording. My very best wishes (talk · contribs) then removed it with the comment, "RfC closing does not tell it must be used on the page. It tells: "IF it is referenced within this article" - I do not think it should be used/referenced at all - as explained on talk page.". He is correct in that the closing statement does use the word "if". Therefore, the closing statement does not address the question I asked, and the question editors were answering. I don't have a problem with what you concluded, and I don't think anyone else does, but if taken literally, it doesn't answer the question. (By the way, the article has always acknowledged that people attribute the phrase to Lenin and it always will.) We have had a long-running dispute about this at the talk page, which is why I started the RfC. It would be good to have a clear answer either way.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jack Upland:. Apologies for the fuzzy wording in my close. I did see the consensus as being to include the phrase, but specifically attributed to the OED and with the caveats discussed. I will note this on Talk:Useful idiot. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Fish+Karate 08:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your very prompt reply.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you can guarantee that the article "always will" state that it's widely attributed to Lenin. There were several editors obstinately edit warring to remove that, and although some are now banned, I don't think we should mandate what must be used, but only how to properly attribute and contextualize it if, in the future course of the article's improved versions, it is included. SPECIFICO talk 15:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @

Consensus can change, new sources can become available, please don't think that I'm trying to decree that it Will And Must Be In The Article From Now Unto Forever. Fish+Karate 15:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the quick reply. I didn't mean to say you were implying that. I meant to say that @Jack Upland: said he was confident this will always be in the article but that recent history suggests it will be relitigated over and over. Anyway, we'll see what develops. SPECIFICO talk 15:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slakr's Closer Award Since you spend so much time closing long-open discussions , you are hereby awarded something to help you close other things that might be otherwise left open in the meantime. Admittedly, you might now need to get one of those automatic cat flaps to let the good ones in and/or keep the bad ones out, but I think that probably requires spending a bunch of time on WP:ANI , doing hard time as an arbitrator, and other hells. :P Keep up the great work, and cheers. =) --slakr\ talk / 16:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey. Thanks @Slakr:, that’s very much appreciated. Cheers! Fish+Karate 18:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was a pleasure to read. I do love a close that goes into both the !vote counts and explicitly weighs the merits of the arguments. Closes that like should be more common. (I bet you thought I was going to complain about it when you saw the title of this section, didn't you? )

]

I did, but then I saw I closed it in the way you !voted ... Fish+Karate 15:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there's that, too, heh. I just really liked the way you spelled out your thought process and judgements about the arguments. I try not to get too vested in the results of RfCs on political pages, so I'd have probably liked it just as much had you not gone the way of my !vote. It really caught me off guard (in a good way), as I'm used to seeing summaries like "no consensus here" or "consensus is such-and-such" or just commentary on the !vote count. You did a really good job there and deserve some praise for it.

Tell me all about it. 16:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you very much, it’s appreciated. Fish+Karate 21:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the protection log, you said in the reason you intented to semi-protect it for one week, but you actually gave the article indefinite semi-protection. — MRD2014 ^Talk 16:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! Corrected. Thank you for spotting that, and for letting me know. Cheers @MRD2014:! Fish+Karate 18:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About an hour after you closed the RFC at

]

@Iffy: - what a strange thing to do, particularly as the user got the outcome he asked for. I've messaged them on their talk page. Fish+Karate 14:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

Lourdes†

AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V

† Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2018 Steward elections, the following users are our new stewards: -revi, Green Giant, Rxy, There'sNoTime, علاء.

Obituaries

• Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.

---

I am grateful for your kind supportive post at my

]

@Roman Spinner: - of course, I hope you can take on the advice everyone gave, and don't have any problems. Cheers, Fish+Karate 08:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, many thanks for being so thoughtful and considerate. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your close... I... can't help but feel like there is somewhat less than maximum possible clarity there. You say that there is consensus for the original proposal, but the wording of the close itself is the alternative proposal. Both proposals are pretty explicitly for a five year time period, and saying it's simply mentioned may be... maybe low balling it a little bit? I get that consensus wasn't super clear regarding non-logged actions, (by a wide margin the most contentious point) but... Overall I suspect this particular wording you've gone with might be a little... anemic, and may wind up putting crats in a sticky situation before too long, or put us in a situation where we need to have an RfC to clarify our RfC.

I realize that the original proposal probably could have been worded with more clarity to start out with, and I'm not necessarily saying I could have personally done much better, just offering... my intuition for whatever it's worth (possibly very little). GMG^talk 13:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo: - I do get your point. It wasn't the best wording (RFCs, ideally, should have a nice, clear, binary choice) but consensus was pretty clear that something should be in place. Bureaucrats already do have some discretion, and I think it's better to allow them to have some wriggle room to use their judgement on the rare edge cases rather than set absolute parameters; this was mentioned a few times in the RFC, such as by Beeblebrox, Bishonen, and SoWhy. Fish+Karate 09:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was mentioned a few times, but it didn't feel like it was a clear consensus for it, and no obviously policy based reason to weigh them more heavily. I was trying to catch you while you were still online, and maybe avoid the need for immediate and subsequent clarifying discussions. I don't disagree with the substance of the outcome. Honestly I'm fine either way. They both move things in the direction I would prefer. But I'm not confident someone affected with a strong cup of coffee and a penchant for lawyering couldn't challenge a policy not perfectly aligned with the close, which is not perfectly aligned with the discussion. GMG^talk 11:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some questions that perhaps a few people could chime in on. I'm approaching senior members of various projects related to the subject as I can find to see if they might be interested in reviewing the draft and comments on the talk page. Smkolins (talk) 11:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Smkolins:, I have posted my thoughts on the talk page. I like the article a lot but it's perhaps a bit too long and laundry-listy (I know this is not a real word). Fish+Karate 09:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I had created a biography article on malayalam author C. Ravichandran and it was speedily deleted per the earlier discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C. Ravichandran. But I doubt if the reasons cited in that discussion page was relevant for the newly created article. There was no promotional content and sources were cited to establish the notability of the subject. Here is one such source. There were also recent news links to the person winning reputed literature awards in Kerala. I wonder what mistake I did and what I should do next to restore this article. Can you guide me through the steps? JK (talk) 12:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @

notability. At this point given the article has been created and deleted twice, I suggest you work on it in your own test environment, which you can find at User:Jayakrishnan.ks100/sandbox. I have had a look for what is available on this person, however, and I do not think that there is sufficient evidence available at this time that this person is sufficiently notable to have a dedicated Wikipedia article. Regards, Fish+Karate 12:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Noah Oppenheim consensus

Hi,

Thanks for summing up the consensus on the Weinstein matter on Noah Oppenheim. During the discussion, one of the participants added a sentence about the matter back into the article (another editor had deleted all of the proposed language), rather than wait for the consensus.

• "Oppenheim was criticized for NBC News not using the Ronan Farrow report on Harvey Weinstein."

He took the criticism part of the passage being discussed in the RfC and added it to the article. As decided, it's COATRACK, but also worse for NPOV than before this RfC discussion began because it doesn't have the NBC explanation that the story was not ready for publication because it had no named sources.

As I disclose on the Talk page, I have a COI as a paid consultant to NBC, so I cannot make changes to the article. Can you take a look and make any needed change? I think the sentence should just be deleted as per the consensus.

By the way, there is a very extensive passage about this matter now in the NBC News article -- I made sure it was fairly discussed and a consensus reached. Another editor added the passage. NBC News#1995 onwards

Thanks,

Ed BC1278 (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

Thanks,

Ed

@BC1278: Hi Ed. I have removed the sentence in question as per the RFC consensus. Cheers, Fish+Karate 22:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fish and karate: I just noticed you also inadvertently dropped the citations, which were the only sources being used to support the preceding statements, unrelated to Weinstein. I know this is minor housekeeping, and normally I'd just restore the citations myself, but this matter has also been contentious, so I don't think I should touch this article at all. Best BC1278 (talk)BC1278

@BC1278: Apologies, I was away for the weekend to couldn't respond quicker. Thanks for fixing that for me, I can't imagine there is any issue or COI whatsoever with your just restoring some citations, that was entirely reasonable and appropriate. All the best, Fish+Karate 09:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey buddy, why did you delete my contribution in Edward Low? --Sarmiento 007 (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC) Okay, but according to who? who says what is an improvement and what not? it's your opinion against mine, and I saw a low of wikipedia's articles about pirates with the same kind of reference in pop culture, so I don't see why in Edward Low could not be. greetings--Sarmiento 007 (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because yours isn't written in legible English, is unsourced, and is nonsense. What does "he can split the enemies with his devil's fruit hability" even mean. See your talk page. Fish+Karate 09:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

what do you mean with is not written in legible english? I don't want to argue, so i will edit that, and i'll put these references: https://aminoapps.com/c/onepiece/page/blog/curiosidades-de-trafalgar-d-water-law/pXvX_aK0TQuNneG1BjpwweJNXJJ0WK7Nzj and http://www.onepiecepodcast.com/2014/12/16/chao-time-the-meaning-behind-trafalgar-law/. so you can not say that it's unsourced. But for your information, in a lot of other pirate's wiki, one of their pop culture references is about the MOST FAMOUS anime about pirates in history, One Piece. please don't say that i am a vandal. I am not a vandal, i just love the pirate history and i love to improve articles and help. greetings dude.--Sarmiento 007 (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC) Hi. Ok i give up, but tell me please, why do you say that is not understandable english? what it is the problem? I think the redaction was ok. --Sarmiento 007 (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarmiento 007: can I ask is your first language English? Fish+Karate 11:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi buddy, yes, I can speak english fluently. Which specific part is not understandable? greetings.--Sarmiento 007 (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarmiento 007: The following bits of your edit were not written in accurate, understandable English:

• the pirate Trafalgar Law is based in this pirate (presume you mean "is based ON this pirate")
• Low used to enjoy torturating other pirates (presume this means "Low used to enjoy TORTURING other pirates" - and there's nothing in the article that suggests this is the case)
• the surgeon of the death (no idea - maybe "The Surgeon of Death"?)
• because he can split the enemies with his devil fruit's hability (what on earth does this even mean)

The very poor English above makes me wonder whether there's a language issue, which would explain things. And the two references you provided are blogs. Blogs are not

]

Dude, I really appreciate your help, thank you very much, and for your information, Trafalgar Law can divide (split) the parts of the body of the people. You would understand it if you would see One Piece. Hugs, buddy ;) . --Sarmiento 007 (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please review and close the RM at

]

@Mitchumch: - Hi, it looks to me like discussion is ongoing and it would be far too soon to close it. Typically I would only close a discussion such as this if there have been no comments for several days, rather than seven days from the initiation of the discussion. Cheers, Fish+Karate 11:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fish & Karate, over at

]

I have said no such thing, and it's really not going to be worth anyone's while to pursue this any further.

The RfC did not specify the proposed article text and has led to a lot of confusion that can best be resolved by a new, clearly stated proposal on the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 03:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have misrepresented the RfC result over and over again:

• "Did you bother to read the close of the RfC? It does not require the disputed reference to be used. It simply limits the claims that can be attributed to it." -[1]
• "'When you use OED you should attribute its statement' does not mean 'you should use OED'" -[2]
• "We have MVBW, whose view is apparently shared by 1/2 dozen editors, reading the close as supporting a certain article text." -[3]. Here, you're defending article text that removes the OED discussion entirely, in violation of the RfC result (e.g., [4])

You've also removed the OED discussion from the article multiple times, claiming that this removal was following "consensus," despite the fact that your edit violated the result of the RfC:

• "Remove edit-war against consensus."
• "Please step back and respect consensus."

The level of cynicism involved here is really startling. You know what the RfC result was, yet you've misrepresented it several times over at ANI, and you've continued to remove the discussion of the OED from the article, citing a non-existent "consensus." Then, when I bring this issue to Fish and Karate's attention, you deny having misrepresented the RfC, despite the proof being easily available. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really think it would be better for you to make comments as to the substance of the articles and not undocumented aspersions about various other editors. Especially, as you've already been reminded by others, when you are fresh off a TBAN relating to Russia content. The matter has now been sorted out, more or less, at the ANI thread. You may not be pleased with the outcome but it's time to return to the article. SPECIFICO talk 01:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"undocumented aspersions": I quoted directly from your posts, with links. These aren't "undocumented aspersions" - they're documented cases in which you misrepresented the outcome of the RfC, and then denied having made those misrepresentations. I agree that focusing on content is far preferable to focusing on editors, but when an editor's behavior disrupts work on content (for example, when you don't accept the outcome of an RfC and then misrepresent it), addressing that behavior can become unavoidable.

"You may not be pleased with the outcome but it's time to return to the article": I'm pleased with the outcome as regards the content question. The result of the RfC, to include the OED's statement on etymology, was affirmed. I hope you won't continue to deny the RfC result. However, a clear statement by an admin on the behavioral issues I documented above would help make sure those problems with your behavior don't recur. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to both - am on holiday (vacation) and my internet access is very limited. Back in a week. Fish+Karate 13:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG

Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

• There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee
  WP:ARCA
  .

Miscellaneous

• A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
• The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.

---

First, thank you for closing the RFC. By having someone uninvolved close the RFC I hoped to avoid any issues. However it seems that it the problems were unaviodable. Based on the consensus as you assessed it I tried to limit the amount of biographical details in article.

]

@

Rusf10: - You don't need to go straight to ANI every time. I have left a message for Djflem on his talk page. Cheers, Fish+Karate 08:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I have asked the other editor involved to clarify how the essay Wikipedia:Coatrack articles is relevant to Bergen County Executive. That editor has cited that as his reason for very selective and random edits. S/he has been asked to explain how s/he is applying the policy. Can you please also do the same citing specific parts. And explain how you came to the conclusion that it would be OK to remove specific information that was never specifically discussed, namely where any other editor besides the one who removed he birth-dates called for specific removal of that information. And hence your edit to also remove it? In general can you also explain where you find in the consensus to remove the information that has been removed? If you indeed have no vested interest, why are you also making edits which favor one editor's choice, which you have done? Please revert. Clearly there has been long discussion, but there was never a consensus to as to which specific material should or should not be kept, was there? If you think so, then please elaborate.Djflem (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is most of what is mentioned in the discussion about what NOT include: "information such as high school attended, spouse, children, family life, which unions they belong to", "a boyscott at 13", "my hometown, my employer or the building I happen to live in", "family life of office holders is not appropriate for an article of this nature", "strictly personal info (school, education etc) should be limited to a sentence or two for each person" "I'd expect to see dates of office, dates of life, and a few bullet points of key decisions made. Biographical detail might also include other political positions and key business involvement. School, family, etc seems extra". Those specifics are generally not in the article, but there appears to no consensus as what NOT TO include or TO include. With regard to your edit, why did you remove dates-of-birth?Djflem (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:COATRACK: Enforcement of the policies on biographies of living individuals and what Wikipedia is not makes it clear that "coatrack" articles are a particularly pressing problem where living individuals are concerned. I didn't specifically set out to remove dates of birth, I undid your edit warring against the consensus in the RFC; the consensus was to remove the irrelevant information. If you can explain why the fact someone who served as an executive was born on April 13 is of encyclopedic relevance, I will be delighted to undo my edit. Fish+Karate 08:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Project name

Hi. Could you add to the discussion at Winged Blades of Godric's talk page, where his close of a project name has been pointed out to be inaccurate due to several factors. The consensus to change the project name is not present in the discussion, and in fact the opposite seems true. This one may be worth some time to reread and reanalyze, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: I'll take a look. I can't read all that thread on his talk page as that horrible font gives me a headache. I'll have to copy and paste it to a sandbox and change the font. Fish+Karate 08:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just finished reading your close of the firearms RfC, and wanted to point out one minor item; you wrote ...not one argued for option B for either question, which makes things (infinitesimally) easier. Actually, I did, and when I look through the other replies, I see that two others did as well, with another two beyond that listing 'B' as a secondary choice. Now out of the total numbers, I don't think those three (+2 'sort ofs') would have much of an effect on consensus, but I thought I'd point it out anyway. I note the way the three are worded might have been a factor in them being missed. But anyway, it was a lengthy and messy RfC and I (am I'm sure others as well) appreciate you taking the time to go through it and then write out lengthy, detailed close to make your determination as clear as possible to as many as possible. Nice job and Cheers -

]

@

Thewolfchild: - whoops, missed that. Thank you for pointing that out, they weren't worded in such a way as to spot that readily, as you say. I've made a minor tweak to the wording of the close to reflect this. Thanks for the kind words also :) Cheers, Fish+Karate 08:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Mail

--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: - I got your email. I think my interpretation is somewhat different. My close would be along the lines of:

I note one of the people supporting the retention of the list of names now topic banned from "any edit in any article with biographical content relating to living or recently deceased people, or any edit relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles of any page in any namespace", and therefore their !vote here is discounted.

13 people have argued to retain the list (2 weakly), and 12 have argued to remove it. In addition, arguments must be in line with Wikipedia policy and guidelines. A number of the arguments to remove the list (the 'opposes') have cited

also cover the recently-deceased

).

I feel a broader discussion may take place at some point around lists of victims in articles around a mass murder, and whether these are always, never, or sometimes relevant, but in this instance, the strength of argument rooted in policy, and hence the consensus, is to retain the list of names.

Hope that helps. I appreciate it's different to your thoughts. Fish+Karate 09:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it all comes down to how you read

WP:MEMORIAL and then weight the comments. I think the fact that we read the discussion in opposite ways is a decent argument that there isn't really a consensus in either direction. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I think it's a decent argument that many closes are a roll of the dice and depend too much on who shows up to close. The reason is that the body of policy is—unnecessarily—vague and self-contradictory, and very little attention is being paid to improving that problem. But that's a much larger issue than the one addressed in that discussion, and I am not challenging the close. Thank you both for your interest and participation. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, with clearer policy that discussion might have been avoided entirely. If that many experienced editors are misinterpreting NOTMEMORIAL, for example, there's something wrong with NOTMEMORIAL. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: - I agree, it could be more explicit that NOTMEMORIAL means "don't make a memorial page for your dead family member/teacher/friend/pet." Fish+Karate 08:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. And then there's the fact that policy is supposed to reflect community consensus, and many, many editors disagree with that interpretation for the reasons expressed fairly well in that discussion. Thus any community consensus for that interpretation is weak at best. See User:Mandruss#The p&g paradox. You seem smart and knowledgeable, maybe you'd care to take a shot at explaining that paradox. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Policy should indeed reflect community consensus, and then the community should adhere to that. That's not a paradox; it's not binary, both can and do happen simultaneously. The main issue in my view is that the community is vast, and every single 'community' discussion is only ever participated in by a small self-selecting section of that community, with that participation determined by interest (whether that be in the topic, through self-interest, through in the political aspects, to influence something else, etc.; everyone has a different reason for doing what they do). I would hazard a guess that the majority of Wikipedia editors have never even looked at the Village Pump, let alone participated in policy/guideline discussions there, yet that's purportedly where policy and guidelines are formed, amended, and withdrawn. And those discussions that do take place are often subverted/led (depends on your perspective) by a few editors with the time and the inclination to out-shout everyone else. So you end up with policy and guidelines being determined by a minority of a minority. The

fundamental policies of Wikipedia, though, are pretty incontrovertible, and every other policy and guideline should derive from them. Fish+Karate 08:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm regularly told that community consensus is in what editors do, not what is codified in PAGs. They assert unwritten community consensus and expect you to take their word for it. Invariably the person saying that disagrees with what is written—if they agree with it, then they point to what is written as community consensus, and any number of editors who are doing something different are simply wrong. Sorry if this whole thing seems more than a little rigged to me. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for closing the Firearms RfC. Would you mind taking a look at the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms#Criminal use? –dlthewave ☎ 21:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look, but honestly I don't really want to get dragged in to a topic area I'm not interested in. I just closed the RFC. Fish+Karate 09:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, I'll ask NeilN (talk · contribs). –dlthewave ☎ 12:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlthewave: - if you don't have any luck, then I can try, but us Neils are usually quite sensible. Fish+Karate 12:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Fish and karate, I am very sorry write this lines here. But Dlthewave encouraged me by this. As quoted above there is an "ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms#Criminal use". Sorrowfully I am not familiar with RFC's Poll's as they are handled in en:WP. But I support WP-Project since more than 10 years and our 5 Pillars of WP are in the centre of global common sense. The target of the RFC should have been to find a consensus/guideline to continue our work on this encyclopedia. The RFC should not be a key-opener for a mission as it now shows out to be. If Dlthewave is going on with his (felt by me) "Hardliners Course" it will harm the project more than it helps. In de:WP we have had similar situations and we already lost most of our technical orientated co-autors. The last right you have, is choosing to leave. So please if you don't mind take a closer look on the projekt-page. For better understanding, please also to other related threads there. I already asked Dlthewave to be "a little more affable" but it did not cause a change and I feel some uprising WP:Wikilawyering. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 14:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC) P.S. sorry for my lack in language skills[reply]

Ｔｏｍ, I suggest you accept the result of RFC and work with editors trying to implement its close. This isn't de:WP and frankly, some of your prior posts (example) have me wondering if you should be editing here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I follow your suggestion, I accept the RFC and I try to work with editors trying to implement its close. But "The closing admin encouraged folks to come forward with any concerns ..." and in this case I just try to mention that there are discussions about how to interpret the closure of the RFC. I apologize and hope this may be done. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 07:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you find it necessary to attempt to further antagonize the situation at WBG's talk page? That seems incredibly unbecoming for an administrator, and it especially doesn't look good after your aggressive message at my talk page that was both uncalled for and without any actual reason. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[5] [6] [7] - edit warring to remove a comment that (civilly) criticizes you

[8] - threats

[9] - snide edit summary

[10] [11] - threatening both to leave Wikipedia if you don't get your own way, and to be disruptive

[12] - calling me a 'patronizing ass'

[13] - "bullcrap"

[14] [15]- moral superiority because WBoG "is not an administrator" (in bold)

And that's all just today. Fish+Karate 12:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At no point was I acting in an administrative role in those diffs, so I fail entirely to see your point. Editors are allowed to be snide, snarky, and to express emotions. But deliberately attempting to antagonize a situation and misrepresent my comments (I said "patronizing ass commentary" not that you yourself were a patronizing ass, but kudos on the attempt to take my words out of context) here are things that appear to be completely disruptive for the point of disruption... whereas I'm actually attempting to accomplish things here (see my literally just today passed DYK nom, the GA that just passed before that, and the many other pieces of work I've done outside of the talkspace). Regardless, I asked you a question about why you were acting immaturely and your only response is to point to a singular conflict I got into today regarding only one particular (and very tedious/borderline meaningless) matter. Do you actually think that excuses your behavior somehow? Is this how you typically respond to editor concerns about your actions? Listing their actions as a defense for yours? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 13:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would defend my actions if I felt they required defending, or if they'd been queried by anyone whose opinion is not rendered irrelevant by their breathtaking hypocrisy. Fish+Karate 13:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your close at Talk:Aaron Rodgers. For future reference in other bios, would you be able to update your close to explain the compelling arguments to mention his current dating situation as opposed to closing as "No consensus"? Thanks in advance.—Bagumba (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:RECENTISM and made two months ago, which pretty much renders them moot. I appreciate you wanted a different outcome, but I close them as I see them. Cheers, Fish+Karate 10:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Honestly wasn't expecting a change, per se. I can respect your close based on your thinking that two months had passed. Best.—Bagumba (talk) 11:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I request extended confirmed protected indefinitely for this page. There is continued IP vandalism and suspicious accounts vandalizing the page. QuackGuru (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@QuackGuru: - please go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, and follow the instructions there. All the best, Fish+Karate 08:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did request extended confirmed protected indefinitely[16] for the other page. The only way to obtain extended confirmed protected indefinitely is with a RfC. QuackGuru (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't, you can request it at

diffs why it is required. Fish+Karate 14:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

The discussion should be over at Talk:List of electronic cigarette brands but after the close it continues. Can you reclose it or just archive the discussion? QuackGuru (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine, one editor made one comment, it's not going to end the world as we know it. Fish+Karate 09:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I originally made my comment here and now it is be moved again to where I did not comment. I think it is best to reclose it or just archive the discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That w***** made a comment inside the closed discussion and is now complaining about another user doing the same as a response to her own posting. Figure that chutzpah.--TMCk (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just couldn't let this go unnoticed. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:) Fish+Karate 14:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you closed the Proposed merge with 2018 Supreme Court of India crisis discussion at Talk:Supreme Court of India. I have removed the, now obselete, merger discussion notices from the two articles. I have also proposed a different merger for the 2018 Supreme Court of India crisis article, namely to the Dipak Misra article, for the reasons explained at Talk:Supreme Court of India#New proposal. --Bejnar (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at

may be of use.

Thanks, Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was a bit startled to read your comment directed at me here. You might want to read through past AE archives and see how many discussions were closed by admins participating in the discussions. AE does not operate like ANI. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: I get that, but given a) the propensity for wikilawyering and b) just as a second pair of eyes on decisions, *my opinion* is it's better to let someone else close. I didn't mean to startle you. I hope you're ok. Fish+Karate 10:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

None

Chochopk • Coffee • Gryffindor • Jimp • Knowledge Seeker • Lankiveil • Peridon • Rjd0060

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee is seeking additional clerks to help with the arbitration process.

Obituaries

• Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.

---

Hi! I saw your closing comments at Talk:High_Point_High_School#RfC_about_including_a_map_of_the_school's_attendance_boundary. Would it be okay if I added a link to the school district's attendance boundary map? It is readily available, and perhaps I should have thought to include it... WhisperToMe (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@WhisperToMe: Sure, I don’t see why not. Fish+Karate 16:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

]

DYK for New England White

Gatoclass (talk) 12:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• They are trying to pull your DYK - see Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors#DYK_current. Johnbod (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  They were unsuccessful. Yay! Fish+Karate 10:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Fish+Karate [17],

You've previously concluded an RFC on Collaboration in German-occupied Poland. Would you like to conclude another one? My thanks if you so choose. François Robere (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hi admin. you might want to see the mess here [18] to review not to protect the page. thanks Quek157 (talk) 10:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

salting it will make lives easier for all Quek157 (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Quek157: Hi Quek157, we don't preemptively protect pages before an issue occurs. See Wikipedia:Protection policy#Creation_protection. If an issue does occur, let me or any other admin know and we can delete and salt it then, which takes just a couple of seconds. Fish+Karate 10:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your kind explanation. will do so Quek157 (talk) 10:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Fish. You closed an infobox RfC on Talk:Nicholas Hoult on 30 April, apparently with some qualms as there was no strong consensus either way, but you ended by saying "I'm going to close this and surmise that the infobox is to be removed, and if it is to be re-added, there needs to be a consensus achieved on this talk page to do so. I will remove the infobox now, and will view further edit-warring about this dimly." And then you removed it. And then the box was re-added on 12 May with the edit summary "Restoring infobox as per talk page discussion?"[19]. Yes, the question mark was part of the edit summary. The box was re-added in the midst of yet another infobox RfC, which so far has plenty of support for inclusion, but has only been running for 16 days. (Too many infobox RfCs! Maybe the article needs the same kind of page restriction as I added at Talk:Stanley Kubrick, to stop these RfCs erupting over and over.) Anyway, how do you feel about the re-addition? Do you want to express your dim view of it, perhaps remove the box again, or leave it while the RfC runs? And would you have any objection to me adding a page restriction like at Stanley Kubrick? I'd be happy to do that, but I don't really want to decide the fate of the box currently on the article. I bet you're sorry you ever had anything to do with the infobox wars. Bishonen | talk 17:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: Hi Bish. I just closed the RFC as I saw it. As it looks like the new RFC is heading towards a different conclusion, I could make a fuss about removing the infobox until the RFC has run its course, but would there be any real point to digging my heels in? It's going to end with the infobox being restored anyway, and as I don't care either way whether it has one or not, I'm inclined to let it be. Fish+Karate 11:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'll also hang fire with the page restriction, because that talkpage isn't quite as infobox-RFC infested as Stanley Kubrick. But if the box is restored per the new consensus, as seems likely, and there is then another RfC attempting to remove it a few weeks later, I'll do it. Bishonen | talk 11:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Fine by me, consider this a stamp of approval: *thunk*. Fish+Karate 11:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've recently fully protected the page

]

@

Alduin2000: no problem.  Done Fish+Karate 13:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Ram Mohan Roy‎‎

I think the article

]

@Chewings72: - please request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Cheers, Fish+Karate 13:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't the EC protection is necessary, or atleast semi should be tried first. Looking at the edit history, the vast majority of vandalism/disruption is from IPs/non-autoconfirmed accounts. Since the page has been semi-protected for a year before indef semi seems perfectly reasonable but EC 6 months far too high, at-least without seeing if semi is ineffective per policy first. I think similarly for Alireza Motevaseli, where all the new accounts are non-autoconfirmed and thus trying semi first seems sensible. Thanks Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Galobtter: That’s fine. I don’t mind you changing the protection levels, go right ahead. Fish+Karate 05:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Galobtter isn't an admin, Fishie. Bishonen | talk 06:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Yeah I don't have the magic buttons :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, my first talk page stalker. I've dropped both articles down to semiprotected. And @Galobtter: - whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? Why not? Fish+Karate 09:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, User:Darwinfish watches your page. If there was a user:Karatebish, they probably would, too. Bishonen | talk 10:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks; not experienced enough I suppose; I've only really been active for the past 8 months. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's plenty as far as I'm concerned. Wikipedia always needs more admins, and the fact I thought you were one makes me think you should be. I encourage you to consider applying. Fish+Karate 11:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Much thanks for the encouragement. I am thinking about it but right now in RfA the standard is ~12 months Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was hoping you could take a look at the page for Diana al-Hadid. There's currently a request for a reversion of the page to a version of the page that is close to nonfunctional because of a copyright dispute. I'm happy to remove the offending paragraph under the "work" section, but I don't think reverting the page to it's old form would be of help to readers. Please let me know if you think the full redaction is necessary. Thank you. Mynameisjaysa (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mynameisjaysa: The removal of the copyrighted material was completely correct, I'm afraid. Fish+Karate 08:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.

By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.

Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the

, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.

If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.

Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   22:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: if you reply to this message, please {{

}} me. Thank you. -TT

At an MR you closed, you wrote: "The access rights owned by a closer's account are irrelevant to their ability to gauge and close a discussion." This is misleading, and (depending on interpretational nitpicks) even incorrect in part. Per

]

@SMcCandlish: Noted. When I said "ability to gauge and close a discussion", I essentially meant in the sense of "how well (or not) a person can assess consensus". Cheers, Fish+Karate 09:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I s'pected as much, but in this little space in particular, people have a tendency to wikilawyer and game the system anywhere they see something they leverage. I would love to see "and close" removed or struck, or the sentence otherwise revised, lest anyone try to later cite it as precedent against challenging NACs that don't comply with RMNAC.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: That's fine, and done, see Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2018_May#Involuntary_celibacy_(closed). All the best, Fish+Karate 10:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thankee. :-) I've learned the hard way to be sensitive to closures' wording. (Part of it's from doing so much policy editing, too; it's made me alert to any potential for gaming.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion of

]

• Yeah, per
  WP:RIA, one can add attribution later to fix these cases Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Agree, please restore the 16 articles you deleted on that basis today or a bundled deletion review will be needed, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Atlantic306: @Galobtter: @WikiDan61: - I've restored one page - Luis Rubio - can you please check you're happy I've done it correctly and if so I will go through the others. Doing the attribution properly takes a bit of time - a lot more than just checking for a lack of attribution in the first place - and I have to log off shortly, but I will do the rest tomorrow. Fish+Karate 14:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, looks good/correct to me Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Concur. You seem to have gotten the attribution correct. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes that's great thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Luis Rubio -  Done, has been prodded (not by me)
• Los que aman, odian -  Done
• El Maestro (Argentine TV series) -  Not done - two sentences and a cast list, one primary reference, one IMDB reference, no claim to notability
• Cuéntame cómo pasó (Argentina)
  -  Done, but again has no secondary sources other than IMDB, needs work
• Penal Code of Argentina -  Done
• Todo por dos pesos -  Done, but is completely unreferenced
• Cinemargentino -  Not done, unreferenced one sentence sub-stub
• Draft:Historical Archive of Radio and Television Argentina -  Not done, unreferenced one sentence draft stub
• Draft:DiFilm -  Not done, unreferenced two sentence draft stub
• Draft:Yo soy así, Tita de Buenos Aires -  Done, still in draft though
• Arturo Alfredo Rojas -  Not done, 13 word sub-stub, would fail CSD A7
• Héctor Toty Flores -  Done, needs cleanup though
• José Maria Torello -  Not done, 18 word sub-stub, would fail CSD A7
• WP:BLP
  ).
• Manuel D. Pizarro -  Done, perfectly good stub
• Manuel Pizarro Moreno -  Done, stub which needs cleanup
• Manuel Pizarro Cenjor -  Done, needs cleanup
• Draft:Manuel Esteban Pizarro -  Not done, garbage machine translation which makes no sense and had been drafted, rejected at AFC, and drafted again with no changes made, would fail CSD G1

Will update as I go through them. Fish+Karate 08:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: @Galobtter: @WikiDan61: - all done for now, I haven't done some of them as they were dire. Are you happy with the above? Fish+Karate 09:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Great work! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

None

Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful request for comment, administrators are now able to add and remove editors to the "event coordinator" group. Users in the event coordinator group have the ability to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit. Users will no longer need to be in the "account creator" group if they are in the event coordinator group.
• Following an AN discussion, all pages with content related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, are now under indefinite general sanctions.

Technical news

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

Arbitration

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

Miscellaneous

• In early May, an
  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.

---

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Nice work at RFPP this morning - I pottered over there wondering if there was anything that needed doing, and saw that you'd barnstormed your way through the lot! You'll make the rest of us look bad, you know... Yunshui 雲水 09:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you. Appreciated! Fish+Karate 09:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]