This page is an
archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page.
January 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia invites everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, but one or more redirects you created, such as with
Granita (restaurant), have been considered
disruptive and/or malicious, and have been reverted. Take a look at the
welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you.
Calabe1992 22:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Postcodes in the United Kingdom
When you reverted the citation that I added to support the text you removed from
Postcodes in the United Kingdom#Special postcodes, your edit summary stated: "cite DOES NOT SAY that postcodess are desined to be about constituion".
The relevant article text stated: "Britain's constitutional hierarchy is unofficially reflected in the ordering of the following three postcodes:"
Being "reflected" in the postcodes is not the same as the postcodes being "designed" for them – readers can choose to believe that it is a coincidence if they wish, though I think it a ridiculously unlikely coincidence (0AA, 1AA and 2AA are three out of at least 4,000 potential postcodes in the SW1 postcode district).
But either way, the article text informs readers while leaving them to draw their own conclusions as to the intention. Even if it were a coincidence, the symmetry is still a fact, and in many ways these are the three most notable addresses in the UK. So, why delete notable factual information?
Thanks for the feedback and for the useful guidance link. I agree that it would be wrong to link facts together tendentiously, though the connection does not seem to me a matter of opinion or reasonable dispute. But given your concern, I agree that a reference drawing attention to the hierarchy would be helpful. How about replacing the Cabinet Manual ref with the following {{Cite news}} reference to make the connection explicitly?
"Summerley, Victoria (24 May 2006).
"Town Life". The Independent. London. Retrieved 15 February 2012."
i.e. "...one could argue that there is some evidence of forelock-tugging in the allocation of some postcodes. Buckingham Palace, for example, is SW1A 1AA while 10 Downing Street is merely SW1A 2AA. (The House of Commons, though, is SW1 0AA – perhaps because it's full of zeros.)"
THat article in the independent looks like its synthesiss too. Guesswork "one could argue that there is some evidence..." and its jokey "perhaps because it's full of zeros" and it doesnt mention a hirarchy of constituiton.
WP:SYNTHESIS prohibits synthesis by wiki editors, not the reporting of synthesis by reliable sources! In other words, we are here to summarise objectively what experts and influential sources do and think, so long as we don't distort that into what we ourselves think. We are not here merely to list facts without any context. So you are overstating your original point. After all, when theoretical physicists make educated guesses about how the universe works,
we record it, and rightly so.
I agree with you that the Independent article is archly written in places, but that does not necessarily invalidate the observations it makes. Indeed, since it is drawing attention to a trite correlation, it's unsurprising that the author felt no need to argue her case in depth.
Incidentally, you deleted the above disputed content three times without discussing the matter beyond your edit summaries (which, as you've seen, confused me as to the exact grounds for your deletion). I strongly encourage you to raise issues on user or article talk pages if good-faith editors do not accept your changes the first time:
WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. It's easier to make your case and re-establish consensus if you demonstrate your reasonableness than through
persistence alone! And, even on your own assertions, you had no grounds for deleting the postcodes themselves (as distinct from the disputed interpretation of their significance), still less for doing so three times.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of
your recent edits, such as the one you made to
Proprietor, did not appear to be constructive and has been
reverted or removed. Please use
the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the
welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. WaggersTALK 11:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
IT WAS NOT VANDALISM!
August 2012
Hello, I'm
Barryob. I noticed that you recently made an edit to
Nicola Sturgeon that seemed to be a test. Your test worked! If you want more practice editing, the
sandbox is the best place to do so. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you. Please read
http://www.snp.org/people/nicola-sturgeon before you change it to Deputy againBarryob (Contribs)(Talk) 04:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
An RfC has clarified that
user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included
clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the
harassment policy.
There is a new
tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict
other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
Following
an RfC, the
editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an
archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.
One source is usually enough for a small sentence, but in the case of your original edit, it was seemed to be an unreliable source. That's the point. Now, I am 100% open to being wrong about that source being unreliable in the context of this article, but in the second case, you added 8 sources for 1 sentence. I left two in, one from Money and one from The Times of Israel, which is
over-citing. We don't need more than 2 references for 1 sentence. Sorry for any misunderstanding.
Soulbust (
talk) 20:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Middle schools and notability
We typically just redirect middle schools to their local school board or municipality. If you do this, you can also add the template {{r from school}} so people know why you did it.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 23:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I have removed the A7 tag you placed on this article because it is an educational institution, and they are not eligible under that criteria for speedy deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, I would suggest taking it to
WP:AFD.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 17:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Replacing curly quotes
I'm not sure if replacing one or two curly quotes is worth a whole edit, but that is up to you. However, if you are going to replace right curly quotes, you should replace left curly quotes too (e.g.
this diff). At the same time, there is a shedload of other glyphs that get used instead of apostrophes that you might want to look for. Regards,
Mr Stephen (
talk) 20:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Regarding this edit: your use of an apostrophe was incorrect. The symbol that you replaced is here denoting
minutes of arc, for which the correct symbol is not an apostrophe but a
prime. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 15:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
@
Redrose64: My apologies if I misunderstood how those symbols work, but I am familiar with minutes and understood that the curlyness of the ' mark was imamterial? See eg
[1] which just uses a plain ' not a curly ’
Amisom (
talk) 15:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
That's fine for Google Maps; they're using the apostrophe because it's easily typeable - one keystroke is sufficient on many keyboards, some require a shift as well: but it's never more complicated than that. But the help page for an interactive website is not a universal authority. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 15:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
An
RfC proposing an off-wiki
LTA database has been closed. The proposal was broadly supported, with further discussion required regarding what to do with the existing LTA database and defining access requirements. Such a tool/database formed part of the
Community health initiative's successful
grant proposal.
Some
clarifications have been made to the
community banning and
unblocking policies that effectively sync them with current practice. Specifically, the community has reached a consensus that when blocking a user at
WP:AN or
WP:ANI, it is considered a "community sanction", and administrators cannot unblock unilaterally if the user has not successfully
appealed the sanction to the community.
Fuzzy search will soon be added to
Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding ?fuzzy=1 to the URL, as with
Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.
A newly revamped
database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to
request resysop. Please practice appropriate
account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling
two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago
on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.
Having reviewed your contributions I have removed your rollback rights, and I am close to blocking you for
not being here to build the encyclopaedia due to your disruptive behaviour. You remove sourced material from articles based on your personal opinion rather than editorial guidelines, you edit war, and you are abrasive in discussions with others. While we have a policy of allowing everyone a chance at editing Wikipedia, not everyone has the appropriate mind set or skills, and so we do block users who, even though they may be well intentioned, are causing more harm than good.
I am leaving this account unblocked for now to give you a chance to prove you can be an asset to the project. What we would like to see is you adding useful sourced content to articles. For the time being, you are banned from reverting any editor, and banned from removing content from any article. After a period of usefully adding material to articles you will be allowed to remove inappropriate content after first raising the issue on the article talkpage and waiting at least 7 days for a response. SilkTork✔Tea time 13:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
(
talk page watcher) Amison, if an
admin says you are banned from reverting, and then you make
edits with both the words 'banned' and 'revert' in the edit-summary, do you not think there's a slight anomaly somewhere? I think this needs clarifying, don't you? Cheers, —
fortunavelut luna 16:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
You have been blockedindefinitely from editing for disruptive editing. If you wish to edit here, you'll need to convince me or another admin that you are here to build the encyclopedia rather than here to argue with people. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may
request an unblock by first reading the
guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. SilkTork✔Tea time 16:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
administrator, who accepted the request.
My grounds are: * SilkTork's message on my talkpage purporting to "ban" me from reverting other editors was not binding because there is no policy giving administrators the power to impose unilateral bans.
WP:0RR is very clear that such bans can only be imposed "by ArbCom, under administrator enforcement [of ArbCom decisions] or by the community". If he had no authority to ban me I cannot have violated the ban. ** Even if I am wrong as to the above, it was unfair to impose a ban without
giving me a chacne to give my view. ** Even if I am wrong as to the above, the 'revert' I made after the 'ban' was imposed
[2] was nevertheless a good one, because (1) the editor I was reverting was reverting an edit I made prior to the 'ban' on the grounds that I had been banned from making it, which was incorrect; and (b) I was removing irrelevant material from the encyclopedia. * I make dozens of constructive edits every month (examples:
irrelevant infoserious BLP issueNPOVcorrection of contenthousekeepingcorrecting contentadding contenthousekeepingcitationingaddition of content ) and there is no rule saying that deleting material which should not appear in articles is wrong. We have content policies for a reason. So an indefinite block is plainly disproportionate. * The removal of rollback was unfair as I have never abused rollback – indeed, I have never even used it once! --
Amisom (
talk) 18:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Accept reason:
I'm unblocking you mostly because the original restriction placed on you was egregiously invalid and appears to have directly led to the circumstances of your block. Having said that, take under advisement the fact that you're currently under heavy scrutiny. If you fail to discuss your edits, follow the
bold, revert, discuss cycle, or otherwise keep your edits constructive, you will be blocked again, and that one may not be lifted. Please read
WP:DE carefully and avoid fitting that description. ~
Rob13Talk 20:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I share the same concerns as
Amisom. Administrators cannot apply sanctions like this toward users unless it's placed by the community, or if it's in response to disruption made directly to articles under
discretionary sanctions (and even if... there are bans and sanctions that community cannot apply; only ArmCom can). I'd like to ping
SilkTork and ask him to explain the exact rationale that be believes justifies this ban, as well as makes it valid per Wikipedia policy. As of right now, I don't believe that it was.
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 18:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
As Amisom is unblocked the issue is moot, however if you would still wish to have an explanation of why I gave him a chance before blocking him, then please drop a note on my talkpage. The main issue here is my use of the word ban, and I agree that was inappropriate and careless. SilkTork✔Tea time 09:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I will leave the decision to someone else, but based on the discussion, there have been
multiple attempts since March by number of different editors trying to engage you with problems in your editing on your talk page, and you have responded with open hostility. Your response to other editors in this
recent discussion is borderline
disruptive. I would suggest a closer look at
etiquette guideline before appealing again. By the way, I had to fix the unblock template because you didn't follow the instruction.
Alex ShihTalk 19:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks for your help @
BU Rob13:.
Amisom (
talk) 20:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
A friendly word of caution
Here you are accusing others of behaviour that is just not true. Please read
WP:CIVIL and
WP:NPA and avoid commenting on other people or their rationale, or by deliberately mis-writing someone's username ("sagacious matey"). It is also imprudent to accuse other people's good faith work as OWNership. It is something that could lead to being blocked. –
SchroCat (
talk) 11:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Here's where I think your problem is. Your modus operandi seems to be to go round articles and remove content you don't like, even if it's properly sourced, with curt edit summaries like "irrelevant". This tends to upset other editors as you're not only removing someone's hard work but doing it in a manner that suggests disrespect. In future, you might want to think about going straight to the talk page first to air your concerns.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 23:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Rollback granted
Hi Amisom. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing
Twinkle.
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see
Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my
talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing!
Swarm♠ 04:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I have removed rollback rights due to contentious behaviour and history of edit warring. SilkTork✔Tea time 13:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for taking the time to write. I (just about] gathered that from having read through it several times. My concern was more (1) that Jydog had given it to me for no good reaosn - even if it doesn't mean I did something wrong I wouldn't just go splashing it on arbitrary users' talkpages, that would be inappropriate: and (B) it said, "biographical articles, a topic which you have edited..." which wasn't at that time true, I hadn't editedt hat topic. But thank you for talking :)
Amisom (
talk) 12:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
And while I'm here, before the alertyou participated in the AfD for Shneur Odze, edited
Clive Mantle and
Steve Punt and perhaps others and that this DS also covers anyplace that a living person is discussed.
Doug Wellertalk 10:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Inline citations - this should make it easy for you to make them in the future
LoginNotify should
soon be deployed to the English Wikipedia. This will notify users when there are suspicious login attempts on their account.
The new version of
XTools is nearing an official release. This suite of tools includes
administrator statistics, an improved
edit counter, among other tools that may benefit administrators. You can report issues on
Phabricator and provide general feedback at
mw:Talk:XTools.
Following an
RfC,
WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a
bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through
articles for creation.
Technical news
You will now
get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also
set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (
more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
Applications for
CheckUser and
Oversight are
being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.
Following a
successful proposal to create it, a new user right called "
edit filter helper" is now assignable and revocable by administrators. The right allows non-administrators to view the details of private
edit filters, but not to edit them.
Following
a discussion about mass-application of ECP and how
the need for logging and other details of an evolving consensus may have been missed by some administrators, a
rough guide to extended confirmed protection has been written. This information page describes how the extended-confirmed aspects of the protection policy are currently being applied by administrators.
A
request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
A new function is
now available to edit filter managers that will make it easier to look for multiple strings containing spoofed text.
Arbitration
Eligible editors will be invited to submit candidate statements for the
2017 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 12 until November 21. Voting will begin on November 27 and last until December 10.
The Wikipedia community has recently learned that
Allen3 (William Allen Peckham)
passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as
JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.
Following a
request for comment, a
new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.
Technical news
Wikimedians are now invited to vote on the proposals in the
2017 Community Wishlist Survey on Meta Wiki until 10 December 2017. In particular, there is a section of the survey regarding new tools for
administrators and for
anti-harassment.
A
new function is available to edit filter managers which can be used to store matches from regular expressions.
Over the last few months, several users have reported
backlogs that require administrator attention at
WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on
WP:SPI,
WP:AIV and
WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
The
Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with
Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please
sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.
Hello, Amisom. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the
Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello Anisom! Thanks for signing up to to take the AN/I survey. As you don't have email enabled, I am unable to send you the survey link. You can enable email in your preferences, or email me at pearleywikimedia.org and I can send it on to the address you use. Regards,
Patrick Earley (WMF) (
talk) 20:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
A
request for comment is in progress to determine whether the
administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at
WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.
Hello Amisom, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of
Busters on the Planet, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 cannot be applied to videos; also, since the makers of the video are notable, significance is indicated anyway. If you are interested in learning more about how speedy deletion works, I have compiled a list of helpful pages at User:SoWhy/SDA. You can of course also contact me if you have questions. Thank you. SoWhy 14:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
An RfC
has closed with a consensus that candidates at
WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a
Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
Editors
responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using
Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.
Technical news
A
tagwill now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by
automatic edit summaries.
Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee
has enacted a change to the
discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a
standardizededitnotice 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.
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 featurecontains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.
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.
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.
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 considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at
WP:AE or
WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at
WP:ARCA.
Miscellaneous
A
discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to
enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the
Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.
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.
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.
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.
IP-based
cookie blocks should be
deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build
granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at
the talk page.
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.
An
RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of
WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at
MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the
reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an
upcoming change that will
restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new
technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the
FAQ.
Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon () in your editing toolbar (or under the
hamburger menu in the
2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
IP-based
cookie blocks should be
deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
Miscellaneous
Currently around 20% of admins have enabled
two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider
doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate
account security by ensuring your password is
secure and unique to Wikimedia.
After
a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "
interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like
MediaWiki:Common.js and
MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by
bureaucrats.
Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
Following a
request for comment, the
WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to
Wikinews should only be made as per the
external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.
Technical news
The WMF
Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input on the
second set of wireframes for the
Special:Block redesign that will introduce
partial blocks. The new functionality will allow you to block a user from editing a specific set of pages, pages in a category, a namespace, and for specific actions such as moving pages and uploading files.
Following
a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made
interface administrators while
discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide
CSS and
JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.
Technical news
Because of
a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
Some
abuse filter variables
have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables
on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
Abuse filters
can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.
Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of
Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the
Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.
There is an open
request for comment on Meta regarding the creation a new user group for global edit filter management.
Technical news
Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the
Test Wikipedia and the
Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to
measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
Because of
a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.
Following a
request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are
being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.
Recently there was
a complaint about you at WP:AN3 regarding the amount of detail in a plot section. The article in question was
The Partner, a novel by John Grisham. Can you point to any articles about novels whose plot sections you think are appropriate in length and coverage? If the old plot section at The Partner were fixed up according to your personal standards, would it be about the same length, a lot shorter, or just a few sentences? So your blanking is just because you don't have time to do the rewriting but in principle you think it should be fixed up right? Excuse the vagueness of the questions. A month of full protection doesn't seem to me like the best choice of admin action since the problem may continue anyway. So a negotiated solution would be a better outcome. Thanks,
EdJohnston (
talk) 17:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi - thanks for the message. My concern was not at all about the length of the plot section but about its tone and style and content (I explained my reasons more fully on the article talkpage, where the other editor involved sniped and moaned and didn't really engage.
Amisom (
talk) 17:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Since you've already explained your thinking on the talk page, that may be enough. But as a concession to those less-informed about these things, would you be willing to point to any other article where you think it was done right? For example, any novel in
Category:Novels by John Grisham? Thanks,
EdJohnston (
talk) 17:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I dont think I quite understand what you're asking for. You ant an example of an article with a plot section that doesn't use an unencyhclopedic chatty style?
Amisom (
talk) 18:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and is of the right length for the size of the article. A plot section that is good enough so that you yourself don't see obvious flaws in it.
EdJohnston (
talk) 18:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Once again, I'm nto concerned about the length. it's a red herring.
I don't really see why you need an example - you're an admin so surely familiar with what is an encyclopedic style and what isn't - but from a brief skim the plot summaries on The Chamber and The Confession look reasonable
Amisom (
talk) 18:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. So the only remaining dispute is about who has to do the updating. Unfortunately I see no obvious way out of that one, because you and Thewolfchild aren't likely to volunteer. Maybe I should ask some recent editor of the article if they want to help.
EdJohnston (
talk) 18:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Remembering, of course,
WP:TIND.
Amisom (
talk) 18:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but if protection is removed, some of us would expect that you and Thewolfchild would continue to revert about the 'blanking' issue. A possibility is to restrict both you and Thewolfchild from making any edits of the plot for one month, except through prior talk page agreement. That would probably result in you having to do some plot improvement, if you were not willing to abstain totally.
EdJohnston (
talk) 18:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Partial blocks is now available for testing on the
Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the
local talk page or on
Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
A
user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
The
2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for
admins and stewards that may be of interest.
Arbitration
Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the
2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
The Arbitration Committee's email address
has changed to arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.
Hello, Amisom. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the
Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Amisom. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the
Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
A
request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the
Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
A
request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
Administrators and bureaucrats can no longer unblock themselves unless they placed the block initially. This
change has been implemented globally. See also
this ongoing village pump discussion (
permalink).
To complement the aforementioned change, blocked administrators will soon have the ability to block the administrator that placed their block to mitigate the possibility of a compromised administrator account blocking all other active administrators.
In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on
a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (Raymond Arritt) passed away on 14 November 2018. Boris joined Wikipedia as Raymond arritt on 8 May 2006 and was an administrator from 30 July 2007 to 2 June 2008.
R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no
file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at
Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (
discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (
discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.
Members of the
Bot Approvals Group (BAG) are
now subject to an activity requirement. After two years without any bot-related activity (e.g. operating a bot, posting on a bot-related talk page), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice.
Technical news
Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new
password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors,
et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available
on MediaWiki.org.
Blocked administrators
may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A
request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
{{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the
RevDel checkboxes already filled in.
Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
Around 22% of admins have enabled
two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider
doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate
account security by ensuring your password is
secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Hello, Ami! I'm replying to your request here as I don't see an option for "Email this user" on your User page; hope you don't mind. Do I understand correctly: you're researching for the purpose of writing here in Wikipedia? Before I see the material you need translated (from Modern Hebrew; I'm not qualified in Biblical), it's essential we cover the following:
provide me the name of its author and where/by whom it was published, to vet these as authentic and responsible sources of information;
if you use content based on this material in WP, you agree to cite the source for verifiability;
and if two or more lines of the translation are included, you will cite my User name in a footnote as the translator.
I'll watch for your reply. -- Cheers,
Deborahjay (
talk) 12:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
You also requested my help. I too could help you with translation from Modern Hebrew, with the same conditions that Deborah specifies. RolandR (
talk) 14:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent
request for comment has amended the
blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
A
request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.
Technical news
A
discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of
Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (
permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at
WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.
A new
IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be
identified.
RE:
this, I was wondering whether you're aware of the
user talk page policy. With very few exceptions, users can remove just about anything from their talk page; the action being taken as proof that they're aware of it. Best regards,
79.40.62.31 (
talk) 12:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I didn’t stop him removing anything or complain about his removing anything. I just left a reply. Problem?
Amisom (
talk) 12:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
No, no problem; at a first look it appeared that you've readded a previous message, while you added a new one. I failed to double check, so my apologies.
79.40.62.31 (
talk) 12:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
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
two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g.,
WP:COIN or
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.
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. Please see
meta:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019 to provide your input on this idea.
Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable
two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate
account security by ensuring your password is
secure and unique to Wikimedia.
As a reminder, according to
WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a
proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.
XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well:
Steward Stats and
Patroller Stats.
Arbitration
In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee
passed a motion amending the
procedures for return of permissions (
diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
Following a
formal ratification process, the
arbitration policy has been amended (
diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.
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.
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).
The Wikimedia Foundation's
Community health initiative plans to design and build a
new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.
Miscellaneous
In February 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF)
changed its office actions policy to include temporary and project-specific bans. The WMF exercised this new ability for the first time on the English Wikipedia on 10 June 2019 to temporarily ban and desysop Fram. This action has resulted in
significant community discussion, a
request for arbitration (
permalink), and, either directly or indirectly, the resignations of numerous administrators and functionaries. The WMF Board of Trustees is aware of the situation, and discussions continue on a statement and a way forward. The Arbitration Committee has sent an
open letter to the WMF Board.
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.
Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights
removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.
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.
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.
Following
a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added:
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.
The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the
Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
An
RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new
request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally,
Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
A
request for comment asks whether
partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. If enabled, this functionality would allow administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces, rather than the entire site.
A
proposal asks whether admins who don't use their tools for a significant period of time (e.g. five years) should have the toolset procedurally removed.
The
fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was
closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
Following a
request for comment,
partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at
Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
The
request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.
Technical news
Twinkle now supports
partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title.
[3]
Arbitration
Following a
recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.
Following an
RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
A
request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.
Technical news
Following a
discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your
Twinkle preferences.
Following the
banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee
resolved to hold a Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.
Miscellaneous
The WMF has begun a
pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The
report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
The Wikimedia Foundation announced that they will develop a universal code of conduct for all WMF projects. There is an open
local discussion regarding the same.
Arbitration
A
motion was passed to enact a
500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.
The
Medicine case was
closed, with a
remedy authorizing
standard discretionary sanctions for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles.
Your recent edits that removed sourced information at
999 (emergency telephone number) was, in my view , unhelpful. Each of the sources that you removed explicitly included the reference to the use of 999. Please check much more carefully in future. In general, with information that is very likely to be correct and has been added in good-faith and which may only need a source finding for it, it would be much better to tag it as requiring a source rather than deleting the entry. Deletion in such cases is counter productive and, in this case at least, could have been harmful. VelellaVelella Talk 12:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
I checked perfectly carefully thanks Good use of sarcasm though. The sources mentioned 999 but did not say that their particular service could be reached through this number. If anything, it’s dangerous to list inaccurate information in these articles. Don’t list this stuff again without a source please.
Amisom (
talk) 17:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
There was no sarcasm, simply concern. Mentioning the number as a way of contacting the service is a pretty good indicator that 999 is the number to use. VelellaVelella Talk 18:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Sysops will
once again be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to
interface administrators when that group was introduced.
Twinkle's block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a
discretionary sanctions block and/or template.
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the
Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 02:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Voting for proposals in the
2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding
administrators and
anti-harassment.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by
visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with
Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
67.84.231.44 (
talk) 21:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
@
Amisom: Before editing further, I'd advise you to elaborate on this. Several editors agree that this is a hoax and no one was able to produce any sources. Can you please explain your creation?
Praxidicae (
talk) 23:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
(
edit conflict)Having looked into that page quite thoroughly, she does not appear to exist, which means you made a hoax. Your other contributions will be scrutinized for hoaxes. You can save me the trouble by telling me if you have made any others. Should you opt to not tell me, and I find more hoaxes, you will likely end up blocked. If I have misread the situation, and Magel really did exist, please provide a source that proves me wrong. However, she was clearly not in the Gazette, nor in the other sources linked, and a rather in-depth Googling turned up nothing.
CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
@
CaptainEek,
Praxidicae, and
Amisom:, fwiw, after seeing this at Help desk I searched databases for about 45mins for an obit (or any record) that might hold clues for further searches but found nothing at all. //
Timothy :: talk 13:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
It's strange indeed that the editor in question, while ignoring their talk page, is engaging with other editors in an RFC about an
obscure DAB page--
Quisqualis (
talk) 19:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
December 2020
You have been blockedindefinitely from editing for creating hoax articles and not providing an explanation.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the
guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
GeneralNotability (
talk) 19:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
blocking policy).
I’m not sure what
User:GeneralNotability wants to hear by way of “explanation”. I created one hoax article - not articles plural as he has stated - almost two years ago. I shouldn’t have done but I’m not sure what’s necessary as “explanation”. I’m a productive and positive editor that aside and an indefinite block seems disproportion.
Amisom (
talk) 02:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Per below. I find it difficult to believe that you branched into creating hoaxes after
this warning.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 05:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the
guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I'd like to register my opposition to unblocking a user who knowingly let a hoax article sit for two years while "editing productively" and ignored concerns about it for equally as long.
GRINCHIDICAE🎄 02:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Amisom, indefinitely is less than eternally. See
WP:Standard offer, as that is 6 months and a good demonstration of your understanding of the mistake.--
Quisqualis (
talk) 05:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
This vandal does not seem to understand the situation or what a productive and positive editor actually is. This isn't something that was "done" and over, it is something that is still ongoing by virtue of this hoax information making it into at least 11 other sites. Putting the word explanation in quotes in the unblock request (twice) shows an arrogant disregard for this ongoing situation. At a minimum they should clean up the mess which they created with this hoax before being considered foran unblock (I will still oppose any unblock). //
Timothy :: talk 06:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
@
TimothyBlue: Can I ask what steps you would suggest in terms of cleaning up?
Amisom (
talk) 09:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
@
NinjaRobotPirate: I note that the block explanation says, "unblock at your discretion once they've satisfactorily answered
User:CaptainEek's question about whether they've made other hoaxes". To be fair to myself I have answered that ('No') and it's unclear what more is necessary. Requiring me to take [at least] six months out beause of something I did once nearly two years ago feels punitive and that's not what the blocking system is there for.
Amisom (
talk) 09:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Amisom, My suggestion for you cleaning up your mess is simple: Go to every single site where this information is present, explain the situation and have the material deleted. This is an entirely reasonable beginning, but I highly doubt you will even start to do this. An unblock shouldn't even be mentioned before this is completely done.
You did not do this two years ago: this is an ongoing situation. This block is not punitive, it is preventative: Your continuing dismissive attitude towards this situation is reason to assume you do not understand the situation and I believe you will do this again given the opportunity. When you ignored posts about this ongoing situation until you were blocked, it showed you had no intention of answering for your actions, short of being blocked. I do not believe you regret your actions, I believe you regret being caught (your claim on other editors to AGF about your actions is completely gone). On top of all this you haven't even mentioned the needless work you created for others. The above replies show your sole concern is about how this impacts you, not other editors, not WP.
When you created a hoax and allowed it to continue, you mocked every editor that works hard to improve WP. //
Timothy :: talk 10:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
You do know that the mirror sites are run by robots right? They're not manually compiled. They don't accept contacts from members of the public.
Amisom (
talk) 10:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
How you correct the situation you created is your problem, not others. Spend the time you used to spend on WP figuring out a solution. //
Timothy :: talk 11:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Asking me to do something impossible doesn’t seem constructive.
Amisom (
talk) 11:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
You have zero credibility on determining what is constructive, and I disagree it is impossible, start with WHOIS lookup for domain contact information. //
Timothy :: talk 17:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Final reply: A quick WHOIS search will show it is not impossible. //
Timothy :: talk 18:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Really? Do tell me where on this Whois page
[4] it lists contact details for this particular mirror site? 🙄
Amisom (
talk) 18:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
TimothyBlue, knock it off. I have never seen an administrator care about mirror sites in unblock requests. What those sites do or do not do with our information is not our problem, and expecting a blocked editor to take offwiki action like this is basically unacceptable as an unblock condition, both from a practical perspective and a "things that we can reasonably ask someone to do" perspective.
GeneralNotability (
talk) 18:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
rather sad
GeneralNotability that you appear to be taking the side of a hoax article creator against a longstanding excellent contributor to the project who is now apparently leaving, what happened to your
WP:AGF and
WP:Civility).
Theroadislong (
talk) 22:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Timothy’s suggestion (while doubtless made in goood faith) was unrealistic and far from sensible. I’m not sure why you think we should overlook this fact just beveusse he’s a long-standing excellent contributor and threatening to leave: those things don’t somehow magically make his proposal sensible.
Amisom (
talk) 22:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Theroadislong, I am on nobody's "side". TimothyBlue made unreasonable and harassing demands of a blocked editor and I asked them to stop. No more, no less.
GeneralNotability (
talk) 22:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
The requests may or may not be unreasonable, but calling them
harassing, with all the baggage that word carries, is too strong. Amisom: you say that TimothyBlue's suggestion was "doubtless made in good faith", but earlier you also all but claimed he deliberately suggested impossible conditions so you would never be unblocked. I'm not sure what gives. –
Teratix₵ 23:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
@
GeneralNotability: Since I have answered the question you specified in your block message, where do you think I should go from here?
Amisom (
talk) 22:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Creating a hoax article is one thing. Sitting on the article for two years without informing anyone is another – and without intervention I don't see any reason this situation would have changed. Wilfully ignoring multiple editors' concerns posted on their talk page – to the point where they needed to be blocked before they started taking them seriously – is just the icing on the cake, and spending as much time comparing themselves to Sisyphus as reflecting on their own conduct in unblock discussions is the cherry on top. I don't see any evidence these behaviours will change if Amisom is unblocked. If they are ever unblocked, at a bare minimum they should be indefinitely required to submit their articles through AfC. –
Teratix₵ 23:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
December 2020
You have been blockedindefinitely from editing for creating hoax articles and not providing an explanation.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the
guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
GeneralNotability (
talk) 19:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
blocking policy).
I’m not sure what
User:GeneralNotability wants to hear by way of “explanation”. I created one hoax article - not articles plural as he has stated - almost two years ago. I shouldn’t have done but I’m not sure what’s necessary as “explanation”. I’m a productive and positive editor that aside and an indefinite block seems disproportion.
Amisom (
talk) 02:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Per below. I find it difficult to believe that you branched into creating hoaxes after
this warning.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 05:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the
guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I'd like to register my opposition to unblocking a user who knowingly let a hoax article sit for two years while "editing productively" and ignored concerns about it for equally as long.
GRINCHIDICAE🎄 02:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Amisom, indefinitely is less than eternally. See
WP:Standard offer, as that is 6 months and a good demonstration of your understanding of the mistake.--
Quisqualis (
talk) 05:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
This vandal does not seem to understand the situation or what a productive and positive editor actually is. This isn't something that was "done" and over, it is something that is still ongoing by virtue of this hoax information making it into at least 11 other sites. Putting the word explanation in quotes in the unblock request (twice) shows an arrogant disregard for this ongoing situation. At a minimum they should clean up the mess which they created with this hoax before being considered foran unblock (I will still oppose any unblock). //
Timothy :: talk 06:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
@
TimothyBlue: Can I ask what steps you would suggest in terms of cleaning up?
Amisom (
talk) 09:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
@
NinjaRobotPirate: I note that the block explanation says, "unblock at your discretion once they've satisfactorily answered
User:CaptainEek's question about whether they've made other hoaxes". To be fair to myself I have answered that ('No') and it's unclear what more is necessary. Requiring me to take [at least] six months out beause of something I did once nearly two years ago feels punitive and that's not what the blocking system is there for.
Amisom (
talk) 09:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Amisom, My suggestion for you cleaning up your mess is simple: Go to every single site where this information is present, explain the situation and have the material deleted. This is an entirely reasonable beginning, but I highly doubt you will even start to do this. An unblock shouldn't even be mentioned before this is completely done.
You did not do this two years ago: this is an ongoing situation. This block is not punitive, it is preventative: Your continuing dismissive attitude towards this situation is reason to assume you do not understand the situation and I believe you will do this again given the opportunity. When you ignored posts about this ongoing situation until you were blocked, it showed you had no intention of answering for your actions, short of being blocked. I do not believe you regret your actions, I believe you regret being caught (your claim on other editors to AGF about your actions is completely gone). On top of all this you haven't even mentioned the needless work you created for others. The above replies show your sole concern is about how this impacts you, not other editors, not WP.
When you created a hoax and allowed it to continue, you mocked every editor that works hard to improve WP. //
Timothy :: talk 10:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
You do know that the mirror sites are run by robots right? They're not manually compiled. They don't accept contacts from members of the public.
Amisom (
talk) 10:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
How you correct the situation you created is your problem, not others. Spend the time you used to spend on WP figuring out a solution. //
Timothy :: talk 11:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Asking me to do something impossible doesn’t seem constructive.
Amisom (
talk) 11:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
You have zero credibility on determining what is constructive, and I disagree it is impossible, start with WHOIS lookup for domain contact information. //
Timothy :: talk 17:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Final reply: A quick WHOIS search will show it is not impossible. //
Timothy :: talk 18:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Really? Do tell me where on this Whois page
[5] it lists contact details for this particular mirror site? 🙄
Amisom (
talk) 18:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
TimothyBlue, knock it off. I have never seen an administrator care about mirror sites in unblock requests. What those sites do or do not do with our information is not our problem, and expecting a blocked editor to take offwiki action like this is basically unacceptable as an unblock condition, both from a practical perspective and a "things that we can reasonably ask someone to do" perspective.
GeneralNotability (
talk) 18:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
rather sad
GeneralNotability that you appear to be taking the side of a hoax article creator against a longstanding excellent contributor to the project who is now apparently leaving, what happened to your
WP:AGF and
WP:Civility).
Theroadislong (
talk) 22:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Timothy’s suggestion (while doubtless made in goood faith) was unrealistic and far from sensible. I’m not sure why you think we should overlook this fact just beveusse he’s a long-standing excellent contributor and threatening to leave: those things don’t somehow magically make his proposal sensible.
Amisom (
talk) 22:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Theroadislong, I am on nobody's "side". TimothyBlue made unreasonable and harassing demands of a blocked editor and I asked them to stop. No more, no less.
GeneralNotability (
talk) 22:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
The requests may or may not be unreasonable, but calling them
harassing, with all the baggage that word carries, is too strong. Amisom: you say that TimothyBlue's suggestion was "doubtless made in good faith", but earlier you also all but claimed he deliberately suggested impossible conditions so you would never be unblocked. I'm not sure what gives. –
Teratix₵ 23:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
@
GeneralNotability: Since I have answered the question you specified in your block message, where do you think I should go from here?
Amisom (
talk) 22:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Creating a hoax article is one thing. Sitting on the article for two years without informing anyone is another – and without intervention I don't see any reason this situation would have changed. Wilfully ignoring multiple editors' concerns posted on their talk page – to the point where they needed to be blocked before they started taking them seriously – is just the icing on the cake, and spending as much time comparing themselves to Sisyphus as reflecting on their own conduct in unblock discussions is the cherry on top. I don't see any evidence these behaviours will change if Amisom is unblocked. If they are ever unblocked, at a bare minimum they should be indefinitely required to submit their articles through AfC. –
Teratix₵ 23:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
That condition is fine.
Amisom (
talk) 09:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
December 2020
You have been blockedindefinitely from editing for creating hoax articles and not providing an explanation.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the
guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
GeneralNotability (
talk) 19:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
blocking policy).
I’m not sure what
User:GeneralNotability wants to hear by way of “explanation”. I created one hoax article - not articles plural as he has stated - almost two years ago. I shouldn’t have done but I’m not sure what’s necessary as “explanation”. I’m a productive and positive editor that aside and an indefinite block seems disproportion.
Amisom (
talk) 02:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Per below. I find it difficult to believe that you branched into creating hoaxes after
this warning.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 05:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the
guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I'd like to register my opposition to unblocking a user who knowingly let a hoax article sit for two years while "editing productively" and ignored concerns about it for equally as long.
GRINCHIDICAE🎄 02:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Amisom, indefinitely is less than eternally. See
WP:Standard offer, as that is 6 months and a good demonstration of your understanding of the mistake.--
Quisqualis (
talk) 05:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
This vandal does not seem to understand the situation or what a productive and positive editor actually is. This isn't something that was "done" and over, it is something that is still ongoing by virtue of this hoax information making it into at least 11 other sites. Putting the word explanation in quotes in the unblock request (twice) shows an arrogant disregard for this ongoing situation. At a minimum they should clean up the mess which they created with this hoax before being considered foran unblock (I will still oppose any unblock). //
Timothy :: talk 06:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
@
TimothyBlue: Can I ask what steps you would suggest in terms of cleaning up?
Amisom (
talk) 09:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
@
NinjaRobotPirate: I note that the block explanation says, "unblock at your discretion once they've satisfactorily answered
User:CaptainEek's question about whether they've made other hoaxes". To be fair to myself I have answered that ('No') and it's unclear what more is necessary. Requiring me to take [at least] six months out beause of something I did once nearly two years ago feels punitive and that's not what the blocking system is there for.
Amisom (
talk) 09:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Amisom, My suggestion for you cleaning up your mess is simple: Go to every single site where this information is present, explain the situation and have the material deleted. This is an entirely reasonable beginning, but I highly doubt you will even start to do this. An unblock shouldn't even be mentioned before this is completely done.
You did not do this two years ago: this is an ongoing situation. This block is not punitive, it is preventative: Your continuing dismissive attitude towards this situation is reason to assume you do not understand the situation and I believe you will do this again given the opportunity. When you ignored posts about this ongoing situation until you were blocked, it showed you had no intention of answering for your actions, short of being blocked. I do not believe you regret your actions, I believe you regret being caught (your claim on other editors to AGF about your actions is completely gone). On top of all this you haven't even mentioned the needless work you created for others. The above replies show your sole concern is about how this impacts you, not other editors, not WP.
When you created a hoax and allowed it to continue, you mocked every editor that works hard to improve WP. //
Timothy :: talk 10:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
You do know that the mirror sites are run by robots right? They're not manually compiled. They don't accept contacts from members of the public.
Amisom (
talk) 10:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
How you correct the situation you created is your problem, not others. Spend the time you used to spend on WP figuring out a solution. //
Timothy :: talk 11:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Asking me to do something impossible doesn’t seem constructive.
Amisom (
talk) 11:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
You have zero credibility on determining what is constructive, and I disagree it is impossible, start with WHOIS lookup for domain contact information. //
Timothy :: talk 17:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Final reply: A quick WHOIS search will show it is not impossible. //
Timothy :: talk 18:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Really? Do tell me where on this Whois page
[6] it lists contact details for this particular mirror site? 🙄
Amisom (
talk) 18:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
TimothyBlue, knock it off. I have never seen an administrator care about mirror sites in unblock requests. What those sites do or do not do with our information is not our problem, and expecting a blocked editor to take offwiki action like this is basically unacceptable as an unblock condition, both from a practical perspective and a "things that we can reasonably ask someone to do" perspective.
GeneralNotability (
talk) 18:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
rather sad
GeneralNotability that you appear to be taking the side of a hoax article creator against a longstanding excellent contributor to the project who is now apparently leaving, what happened to your
WP:AGF and
WP:Civility).
Theroadislong (
talk) 22:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Timothy’s suggestion (while doubtless made in goood faith) was unrealistic and far from sensible. I’m not sure why you think we should overlook this fact just beveusse he’s a long-standing excellent contributor and threatening to leave: those things don’t somehow magically make his proposal sensible.
Amisom (
talk) 22:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Theroadislong, I am on nobody's "side". TimothyBlue made unreasonable and harassing demands of a blocked editor and I asked them to stop. No more, no less.
GeneralNotability (
talk) 22:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
The requests may or may not be unreasonable, but calling them
harassing, with all the baggage that word carries, is too strong. Amisom: you say that TimothyBlue's suggestion was "doubtless made in good faith", but earlier you also all but claimed he deliberately suggested impossible conditions so you would never be unblocked. I'm not sure what gives. –
Teratix₵ 23:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
@
GeneralNotability: Since I have answered the question you specified in your block message, where do you think I should go from here?
Amisom (
talk) 22:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
I would rather a different admin review the unblock. Please file a new unblock request.
GeneralNotability (
talk) 00:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Creating a hoax article is one thing. Sitting on the article for two years without informing anyone is another – and without intervention I don't see any reason this situation would have changed. Wilfully ignoring multiple editors' concerns posted on their talk page – to the point where they needed to be blocked before they started taking them seriously – is just the icing on the cake, and spending as much time comparing themselves to Sisyphus as reflecting on their own conduct in unblock discussions is the cherry on top. I don't see any evidence these behaviours will change if Amisom is unblocked. If they are ever unblocked, at a bare minimum they should be indefinitely required to submit their articles through AfC. –
Teratix₵ 23:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
That condition is fine.
Amisom (
talk) 09:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
blocking policy).
The blocking admin said I shouldn't be unblocked until I answered a specified question. I have answered it. The blocking admin has thus advised me to file a new unblock request.
Decline reason:
We only consider unblock requests on user talk pages.
Yamla (
talk) 13:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the
guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.