Thank you for visiting my talk page. Please read my
Frequently Asked Questions, which may answer your question. If your issue is something that any administrator or user could answer, consider asking at a
relevant noticeboard, as this will help you get quicker service.
Please note that I consider my deletion decisions carefully and do not change them based on talk page requests.
I consider all my AFD closures carefully and I rarely change them based on talk page requests. If you object to any of my AFD closures please refer to
Wikipedia:Deletion review. I waive all requirements to discuss with me prior to doing so.
Replies
Please reply to me here if possible.
If your message is about an AFD or other discussion that you want me to (re)contribute to, I will generally not reply other than by checking the page and adding a comment.
I will normally reply here and use {{
talkback}} to notify you that I've done so.
Please don't leave your email address. My email address is user.stiflegmail.com and you can contact me there if you have a request that needs to be answered privately. However, if you email me with a request that is not private, I will respond on your talk page.
Exception: if you are requesting the text of a deleted article, then make sure your
preferences include a valid, confirmed email address, as I will email the article to you at that address (only).
Following consensus at the
2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right
has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.
The
functionaries email list (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to
the Arbitration Committee.
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on
better tools to help.
We have
two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can
let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
Hello, I will ask you this outside of COIN. What was the reason for the self-reporting to COIN? You moved
User:Stifle/Charity Bank in 2020 and everything seemed static. --SVTCobra 15:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)reply
My boss randomly asked me how the article was going and I looked back in the email chain from 2020, saw that nothing had happened, refreshed myself on the rules for paid editing to see if I could brief a colleague on how to start the ball rolling again, and then realised I was in breach of the admin rules. Charity Bank has high ethical standards so I felt that it was necessary to own up.
Stifle (
talk) 15:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Well, you are definitely
WP:PE besides the
WP:COI. While Alex may be right in COIN, you just said it was an assignment in your job. Nevertheless, Google's AI is thwarting me in searching for news on your bank. How small is it? Is online only? What is the AUM and how many employees? --SVTCobra 15:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Charity Bank has assets of approximately a quarter of a billion GBP. It has very limited online operations, mainly operating in person and by telephone. There are 50-60 employees.
Stifle (
talk) 15:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Frankly, I expecting to hear it was all online. BTW, I'd feel better if you let me take it into draftspace before editing. --SVTCobra 16:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)reply
I am not opposed to that as a concept, but I don't want to start the 6-month clock running until I know that someone is going to actually start editing it :)
Stifle (
talk) 16:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)reply
OK, I leave it to you. --SVTCobra 16:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)reply
The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for
technical reasons. You can comment
in Phabricator if you have objections.
The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant
Village Pump discussion.
Hi @
Stifle:, I am pleased to present my views infront of you. I personally requested you to moved back to
this article to
Ahmedabad IPL Team. Thank you!
Fade258 (
talk) 11:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Not done. Move protection is not an endorsement of the current page version; it is in place to stop people moving the page back and forth pointlessly.
Stifle (
talk) 12:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Ok. Thank you !
Fade258 (
talk) 12:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Hi Stifle. I opened this CfD
[1] some time. Although everyone voiced support, it hasn't been closed/implemented yet. Would you be willing to take a look? Thanks, -
LouisAragon (
talk) 23:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)reply
I'm out of practice with CFDs; try
WP:ANRFC.
Stifle (
talk) 16:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)reply
You know, my recent experiences at Deletion Review confirm to me what I have suspected about CSD G4, articles tagged and sitting in
Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as pages previously deleted via deletion discussion can sit there for days before there is an admin who will take action on them. It's one of the most neglected speedy deletion categories. Other CSD categories get regularly cleared out throughout the day but articles sit in this one for hours and days. There are too many potential minefields and being taken to Deletion review over what you thought was a fair decision is not a pleasant experience even when one is honest, open and forthcoming with responses.
I believe in transparency and admin accountability. But I think I'll join the other admins who avoid evaluating pages tagged CSD G4 because our judgment calls will just bring us to Deletion review. None of my other deletions on articles in other CSD categories, PRODs or AFDs have been questioned at DR so I guess I'm a decent admin but not a good judge of what qualifies as a legitimate CSD G4 tagging.
It would be helpful if you worked into your editing schedule a review of articles tagged CSD G4. They could use some attention from an admin who apparently has a keener sense of what qualifies as recreated page and is eligible for deletion and what doesn't. We could use the extra help! Thank you. LizRead!Talk! 23:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Thanks, I'll try to go there from time to time.
Stifle (
talk) 17:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)reply
That would be great, Stifle.
And there is a shortage of admins closing AFDs, an admin activity which I had little experience with until January. But every time I check the deletion pages (AFDs, TFDs, RFDs, CFDs), there are plenty of discussions to close. I don't know what happened to the admins who used to do this because I see the same 4 or 5 admins closing all of the discussions. And I think for the project, it would be healthier to see a lot of admins closing a few discussions each rather than a handful closing most of them. But after my experience at Deletion Review, I'm reluctant to close any discussion that might be controversial. I understand about admin accountability but it is no fun to get called to Deletion Review for what you thought was a straight-forward decision and get scrutinized. I guess that possibility just comes with the job. Take care. LizRead!Talk! 03:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC)reply
I think we just have insufficient admins nowadays.
Stifle (
talk) 21:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)reply
An editor has asked for
a deletion review of
Brett Perlmutter. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
Ksoze1 (
talk) 14:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Hello Stifle,
Just letting you know (respectfully) that I am requesting a deletion review of your closure of Brett Perlmutter's deletion nomination. I do believe consensus was reached, as the only account arguing to keep the page was the creator of the account themself, who has made few other edits to wikipedia other than that page. When accounting for that, consensus appeared to be for deletion, with the possible merging of select data into another page.
I requested the review without consulting you first based on you stating in your talk page that this was your preference. Thank you for your continued excellent work as an admin! — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ksoze1 (
talk •
contribs) 14:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)reply
A RfC is open to discuss prohibiting draftification of articles over 90 days old.
Technical news
The deployment of the reply tool as an opt-out feature, as announced in last month's newsletter, has been delayed to 7 March. Feedback and comments are being welcomed at
Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project. (
T296645)
Care you explain how is this a keep given that there was no consensus that the topic is notable, most of the keep arguments simply said "it's notable", and nobody refuted the idea that the article violates NOT and REALWORLD (aside from special pleading)?
Avilich (
talk) 01:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)reply
There is no possibility that this deletion discussion could reasonably have been closed any other way, based on the number and weight of arguments. Feel free to go to DRV.
Stifle (
talk) 10:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Uh, no consensus? A substantial number of participants felt that the sourcing was inadequate, or that the NOT policy was not being complied with (which would have invalidated notability concerns), and none of the arguments against that were well addressed (unless you think pure headcounts should be decisive). The only way you can say that it couldn't have been closed any other way is if you pretend these participants don't exist.
Avilich (
talk) 14:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)reply
If you would be satisfied with no-consensus I'm open to considering amending to that, but obviously the article will still be kept. Or you could consider merging it, an option I explicitly mentioned as possible in my closure.
Stifle (
talk) 14:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)reply
If you can amend it to no consensus, I'll call it a day. I mention this because, despite your explicit mention of the possibility of a merger, one editor in the talk page is already taking notability for granted based on the 'keep' closure, ignoring your subsequent comments, and some people can be stubborn with this. A 'no consensus' would eliminate confusion and, strictly speaking, be more accurate.
Avilich (
talk) 14:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Okay, done. Have a good day.
Stifle (
talk) 14:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Would you consider a similar move to "no consensus" at this AfD? Your closure says that the references "have been adequately debated" but in reality, not a single argument showing why the references fail was responded to - can't describe that as a debate. On another day its possible this might have been closed with the reason that the "weight" of argument favours Delete.
HighKing++ 19:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)reply
In this case, I don't think I will. There is only the nominator and one other person supporting deletion, and the comments indicate that people have taken policy into account in making them. It is not for me as closer to determine that contributors have interpreted and applied policy wrongly; I can only discount them if their comments are clearly inconsistent. I note you were in favour of a redirect, and my closure doesn't prevent that.
Stifle (
talk) 12:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Hi, thanks for considering at least. I don't agree when you say that "comments indicate that people have taken policy into account" in relation to Keep !votes. Only the last Keep !vote references any guidelines. But it was a poor AfD in any case so no probs with your decision, just asked if a No Consensus might be more appropriate. Thanks again.
HighKing++ 19:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Access to
Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the
Researcher user group and
Checkusers who are not administrators can now access
Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (
T301928)
When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on
Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (
T284114)
No. Rather odd. Already been reverted by someone else, but a very strange first edit.
Stifle (
talk) 11:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Perhaps it was just a weird one-time thing. It did seem odd for that new account to show up out of the blue and single out two of your comments though. Sometimes that can indicate someone holding a grudge for some previous interaction, but it could also just be random in that someone simply didn't like what you posted. Oh well, Ob La Di Ob La Da. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 02:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:
Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period
Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.
22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Archduke Stefan of Austria
Dear Stifle,
The original concern about this article was that it was "An essentially unsourced article about an ordinary person who apparently has an article because he holds a long-extinct (indeed, by now fictitious) title of nobility." I added multiple references to this article from sources such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Detroit Free Press. The subject of this article clearly meets
Wikipedia:Notability. Please reconsider your decision for whih you have provided no explanation.
Noel S McFerran (
talk) 14:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)reply
I'm very happy with my closure, which reflected that the discussion was, with the exception of your view, unanimous. "Explanations" or closing statements are not a requirement and are only customary where there is some special reason for not following the apparent majority.
Stifle (
talk) 08:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)reply
An editor has asked for
a deletion review of
Dream Games. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
H5r2n (
talk) 13:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Sorry to bother you, can you take another look at this? You closing comment appears to indicate you mean this to have a different outcome. Thank you.
HighKing++ 10:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Yup that's a misclick. Reclosing as delete.
Stifle (
talk) 11:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Following an
RfC, a change has been made to the
administrators inactivity policy. Under the new policy, if an administrator has not made at least 100 edits over a period of 5 years they may be desysopped for inactivity.
A public status system for WMF wikis has been created. It is located at
https://www.wikimediastatus.net/ and is hosted separately to WMF wikis so in the case of an outage it will remain viewable.
Arbitration
Remedy 2 of the St Christopher case has been rescinded following a
motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to place a ban on single-purpose accounts who were disruptively editing on the article
St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages from those pages.
Deletion review is a venue to handle cases where deletion review has not been properly followed. It is not a venue to merely express a disagreement with or objection to the outcome of a properly-closed deletion discussion.
They don't. The place to express a disagreement with a deletion nomination is at that deletion nomination. If it goes against you, you don't get a second bite at the cherry.
Stifle (
talk) 13:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access
Special:Block directly from user pages. (
T307341)
The
IP Info feature has been
deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences →
Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.
You have previously blocked User:Commonedits for “disruptive and tendentious editing, incivility, making frivolous deletion nominations, and generally leaving a trail of mess behind you for people to clean up” Their recent appalling personal attacks in edit summaries warrant a further block in my opinion, details
here
[2], here
[3] and here
[4] Thank you for taking a look.
Theroadislong (
talk) 16:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Already blocked for 1 month by Cullen328.
Stifle (
talk) 08:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Workshop proposal
Regarding
this edit: by "they should resile from closing the discussion", did you mean to say something like "refrain"?
isaacl (
talk) 15:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)reply
No, I meant "
resile", to recoil/recede or step back from their plan to close. "Refrain" is equivalent in meaning for the purpose of the proposal, though.
Stifle (
talk) 15:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the explanation.
isaacl (
talk) 20:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Stavros Halkias
Hi Stifle, thanks for knocking out the RPP request re
Stavros Halkias. There is a discussion on the talk page, but the IP/SPA does not participate in it. If RPP isn't the way to go about resolving this, could you suggest a better set of next steps? Thank you,
Brycehughes (
talk) 17:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)reply
I'm happy to full-protect it for a week if you think that would be of use, but semi-protecting is basically saying "IP editor is wrong, go away".
Stifle (
talk) 08:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)reply
The problem is that the IP/SPA has found YouTube clips of the guy saying controversial things and then used those as a source to say, "Halkias' use of slurs and reliance on offensive humor (on topics including LGBTQ+ issues, the intellectually disabled, victims of child molestation, and terrorism) have long been a hallmark of the program's material." Fine, I have no skin in this game. But it's clearly OR on a BLP article and so far as I know should be removed pretty quickly. You can see now that many editors have thought the same thing and that the edit history is a right mess (even since I wrote this on your talk page and went to sleep the battle has continued). It has been brought up on the talk page. The IP/SPA has not engaged on the talk page. So given that dispute resolution requires two to tango, I'm not really sure what the process should be here other than what I've done historically, which is saying "IP editor is wrong, go away" via RPP, outside of asking an admin, which I'm doing.
Brycehughes (
talk) 10:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Are we looking at the same page? There's been one (1) edit since you first wrote your message to me. I don't personally think this is a policy breach, but I am not perfect and not always right, so you could file a request at
WP:BLPN if you'd like other views.
Stifle (
talk) 10:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)reply
You're right, I lazily glanced at the history and saw a revert cycle – I guess it was since I had last bothered to look at it. Sounds like the next step would be
WP:BLPN (which I didn't know existed). Thanks for the help.
Brycehughes (
talk) 10:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Well someone at BLPN just did a RPP request. Massive shrug.
Brycehughes (
talk) 11:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Oops, looks like an oversight. Thanks for flagging.
Stifle (
talk) 09:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)reply
The Stadium Tour Page
I just want to say thank u for protecting the stadium tour page. There is probably a lot of people who want to read about it but can’t because of douchebags like the people who vandalize pages. But thanks to u now people can read it without worrying about random douchebags putting wrong information on it.
The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is
here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest
NPP newsletter.
I've read
Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, which clearly distinguishes between stubs that have the potential to become fleshed out articles and dictionary entries not suited for Wikipedia. Most editors in the deletion discussion argue that it's the former, based on reliable sources that significantly cover the topic. I don't see where that guideline encourages the deletion of stubs about notable topics that initially resemble dictionary entries. Could you quote from the policy or guideline that are you relying on to outweigh the majority support of !keep at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Authoritarian enclave? (
t ·
c) buidhe 16:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Hi. I share Buidhe's view. How does
WP:NEXIST not apply here? Your close appears to treat notability as being judged on the state of the article. Regards,
Goldsztajn (
talk) 21:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)reply
As explained in my talk page header and notice, I consider all my deletion decisions carefully and do not change them based on talk page requests. I am more than happy to restore as a draft if either of you wish to improve the article, but at the moment it breaches
WP:NOT, a policy, and arguments that say it doesn't are to be given less weight.
Stifle (
talk) 08:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Stifle my apologies, I missed the waiver note. Regards,
Goldsztajn (
talk) 10:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)reply
An editor has asked for
a deletion review of
Jason Perry (politician). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
Trimfrim20 (
talk) 16:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)reply
I believe you missed an important point in the closure of the AfD as keep: all Keep !votes came from editors
WP:CANVASSED from the Polish Wikipedia. On the other hand, all legitimate participants !voted for Delete. I think therefore the consensus was clearly for deletion.
Tercer (
talk) 17:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)reply
An editor has asked for
a deletion review of
Łukaszyk–Karmowski metric. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
XOR'easter (
talk) 19:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)reply
An editor has asked for
a deletion review of
Authoritarian enclave. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
Goldsztajn (
talk) 00:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)reply
thanks
@
Stifle I would like to thank you for keeping the article I nominated -- Artemsil. I decided that if it was created by a blocked user (@
MER-C blocked them) it should be removed. But later I read carefully the guidelines and didn't find such a reason. I've already asked to withdraw my AfD nominations because of the same reason. What would you suggest to do? How to withdraw those nominations? I feel silly a littlbe bit.
Молдовський винний погріб (
talk) 12:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)reply
No need to feel silly. You can withdraw by simply writing on the AFD discussion page that you'd like to withdraw the nomination, and someone will come by and tidy it up for you. We do normally delete contributions of banned users (see
WP:BAN) but a ban is different to a block.
Stifle (
talk) 13:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)reply
An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.
Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (
T308570)
Arbitration
The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.
Miscellaneous
You can vote for candidates in the
2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed
here. There are also a number of
in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.
A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether
Fox News is
reliable for science and politics.
Technical news
The impact report on the effects of disabling IP editing on the Persian (Farsi) Wikipedia has been released.
The WMF is looking into making a
Private Incident Reporting System (PIRS) system to improve the reporting of harmful incidents through easier and safer reporting. You can leave comments on the talk page by answering the
questions provided. Users who have faced harmful situations are also invited to join a PIRS interview to share the experience. To sign up
please emailMadalina Ana.
Arbitration
An arbitration case regarding
Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee
passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.
Miscellaneous
The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the
open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
Following an RfC, consensus has been found that, in the context of politics and science, the reliability of
FoxNews.com is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use.
The
Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at
WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences →
Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.
Arbitration
Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case will be rescinded 1 November following a
motion.
Happy First Edit Day! Hi Stifle! On behalf of the
Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made
your first edit and became a Wikipedian!
CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)reply
King Kamehameha I Day
Hi Stifle, I have undeleted
King Kamehameha I Day, which you deleted in accordance with
WP:CSD#G5. I think this was deleted by mistake because Jasonagastrich moved
Kamehameha Day to its current title, which shows him as the author of the resulting redirect. As a result, you landed on
King Kamehameha I Day and deleted it. Neither are eligible for speedy deletion, though.
✗plicit 11:54, 21 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Thanks for fixing my mess.
Stifle (
talk) 12:39, 21 October 2022 (UTC)reply
I also restored
Category:Grocery stores in Hawaii. CSD G5 doesn't apply to either occupied categories or transcluded templates which can be nominated for deletion (at
CFD or
TFD) instead (see
WP:BANREVERT). But I wasn't exactly sure if this editor was a sockpuppet, there is no tag on his User page and it's not mentioned in the block notice. LizRead!Talk! 19:37, 21 October 2022 (UTC)reply
He's not a sockpuppet, in the sense that he isn't trying to hide the fact that he's using other accounts, he's just a banned user who re-registered.
Stifle (
talk) 08:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)reply
November 2022
Thank you very much for considering about me. Forgive me for this time. There are some problem in my mobile.I am trying to fix them.
Rojer Aurther (
talk) 08:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Don't make me regret giving you a chance. Please try to edit from a computer sometimes; the mobile app and website have a lot of deficiencies.
Stifle (
talk) 09:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)reply
An
RfC is open to discuss having open
requests for adminship automatically placed on hold after the seven-day period has elapsed, pending closure or other action by a
bureaucrat.
Tech tip: Wikimarkup in a block summary is parsed in the notice that the blockee sees. You can use templates with custom options to specify situations like {{
rangeblock|create=yes}} or {{
uw-ublock|contains profanity}}.
That looked like something that for sure should have been relisted: one redirect !vote, one keep stating sigcov, and no other comments. Would you be willing to relist, or should I take this to deletion review?
BeanieFan11 (
talk) 22:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)reply
There was enough contribution for me to be comfortable closing the debate, and my decision not to relist it was informed by the rubric outlined at
WP:RELIST.
If you feel the article should be restored as a full article, it's open to you to undo the redirect if you expand it sufficiently.
If you feel the article should have been deleted rather than redirected, you are welcome to list at DRV if you wish, though I rather doubt that will get anywhere.
Or is it something else?
Stifle (
talk) 09:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Per Aspera Ad Astra merge
Thank you for merging this entry into "Ad Astra". IMO, The distinction between the two phrases is not enough to justify two separate articles. It should be clearly identified as a distinct variant in the merged article and I am sure you will do it.
It may be too late to comment on the merge itself but what I have to add is more appropriate to the merge process itself. Specifically, I wanted to bring to your attention the link to "
Ad Astra per aspera" in the
Apollo_1 article which should be updated to reflect the merge when it happens.
NASA The plaque image already appears in the
Apollo_1 article but you may want to consider preserving it (with the link back to the crew of Apollo 1) in the new merged page. Many people who are too young to remember the Apollo 1 themselves still associate the phrase with space exploration having been inspired by or exposed to it through
Armageddon (1998 film), notable Engineers like Wayne Hale or newer sci-Fi films like
Ad_Astra_(film).
Annette Maon (
talk) 09:49, 25 November 2022 (UTC)reply
This is something you would need to take forward on the article talk page. I will not be performing the merger.
Stifle (
talk) 12:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)reply
This is my first time dealing with a merge. Which article talk page should I post my comments on? Is there some way for me to know who is doing the merge before it is finalized? I do not log in very often and I only got notified of the Merge decision after discussion was closed for discussion. At this stage, I am not sure what the appropriate/relevant talk page would be.
Annette Maon (
talk) 15:45, 25 November 2022 (UTC)reply
It would be
Talk:Ad astra (phrase). I do not know who will be performing the merge, but they should read that page before doing so.
Unfortunately I'm not in a position to provide you with general one-to-one assistance, but try
Wikipedia:Help desk if you need more help.
Stifle (
talk) 16:27, 25 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)reply
An RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign has been closed.
Technical news
A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the
Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the
wide-vector-2022 gadget. (
T319449)
Arbitration
Eligible users are invited to
vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 12, 2022 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen
here.
The arbitration case Stephen has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 1 December 2022.
A
motion has modified the procedures for contacting an admin facing
Level 2 desysop.
Miscellaneous
Tech tip: A single IPv6 connection usually has access to a "subnet" of 18 quintillion IPs. Add /64 to the end of an IP in
Special:Contributions to see all of a subnet's edits, and
consider blocking the whole subnet rather than an IP that may change within a minute.
Quick question, when you declined the speedy deletion did you see the note on the Talk page? Although there are multi editors aside from the cited Museeritrean2514, the other two biggest editors were also blocked as sockpuppets or meatpuppets of Museeritrean2514 (those three alone are responsible for 76% of the article), and some of the other editors even though they weren't blocked as socks were described as "suspicious" in the SPI.
AlistairMcMillan (
talk) 13:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)reply
No, I don't look at talk pages on speedy deletion review normally unless there's a dispute or other flag.
CSD:G5 requires that the article have "no substantial edits by others". 22% of the article being by non-problematic users passes the "substantial" mark for me and as such if you wish for the article to be deleted, you'll need to either delete it under your own authority, use PROD or AFD.
Stifle (
talk) 14:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Stifle, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (
talk) 02:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Stifle, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
—Moops⋠
T⋡ 16:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Hello, I saw your AFD closing statement in
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia in 1917–1921 and I now see your talk page notice suggesting to go to deletion review, and I'm not going to ask you to change the result here. I wanted to ask if it is possible to place the article on deletion review again, given that it was already reopened per deletion review. Support to keep that just amounts to "I see lots of footnotes so it must be well sourced" ignored all of the issues pointed out in the AFD on how most of the citations were either unreliable or said something different from the text in the article. I had hoped for an actual discussion of how much the article content [doesn't] correlate with the sources.
Dallavid (
talk) 20:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)reply
There is nothing stopping you from listing on DRV again, but I expect it would just result in another 3 weeks of arguments and entrenched positions becoming even more so. In my personal opinion a better alternative would be to try to discuss and improve the article for a few months on the talk page, and if unable to resolve notability concerns, list in AFD again later this year.
A bit of a fallacy I noticed some users argue after the AFD was reopened was that the article shouldn't be deleted for having unreliable sources because it would be better to replace them with reliable sources instead. The problem is that reliable sources for this subject don't exist. Some time after opening the AFD, I decided to take a look at the genocide denialist McCarthy source "
The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims 1821-1922" out of curiosity to see how immediately obvious it's unreliability should've been. And I discovered that, although Olympian removed the McCarthy citations after him being a genocide denier was pointed out, the entire article was still heavily based on McCarthy's claims, specifically from pages 208 to 221. --
Dallavid (
talk) 21:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Voting for the
Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using
bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent
Coolest Tool Awards.
Voting in the
2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
Tech tip:
Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.
Hi. I am not an expert on lists, but this list is not listy in my humble opinion: List of cases of police brutality by country. Please school me on what a list should look like. Is this a list? Cheers! {{u|
WikiWikiWayne}} {
Talk} 15:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure why you're asking me – or what "listy" is meant to mean. Please discuss your concerns about the list on its talk page.
Stifle (
talk) 09:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Hey, sorry. I thought you wrote a WP essay about
crufty lists or list cruft or such. I don't know the criteria for lists, so I turned to you as being more knowledgeable than I am. I was seeking your opinion & input. Apologies. Take care. Cheers! {{u|
WikiWikiWayne}} {
Talk} 19:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Following a
request for comment, the Portal CSD criteria (
P1 (portal subject to CSD as an article) and
P2 (underpopulated portal)) have been deprecated.
The
Terms of Use update cycle has started, which
includes a [p]roposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing. Feedback is being accepted until 24 April 2023.
I don't necessarily disagree with the close, despite me !voting the other way, but it would be useful when it's a 'some people say meets GNG, others say not' situation for the closer to provide more rationale...
GiantSnowman 21:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks. I'll take that on board for future closes.
Stifle (
talk) 10:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The
rollback of Vector 2022 RfC has found no consensus to rollback to Vector legacy, but has found rough consensus to disable "limited width" mode by default.
A
request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.
Technical news
Progress has started on the
Page Triage improvement project. This is to address the concerns raised by the community in their
2022 WMF letter that requested improvements be made to the tool.
An editor has asked for
a deletion review of
Patiphat Chalardchaleam. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
Stvbastian (
talk) 16:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Following
an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by
community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's
IP Masking project, a
new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An
associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.
Technical news
Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of
IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.
Arbitration
The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.
Hi, Stifle, how are you? Thanks for your close
here (which was an interesting discussion to read). I wondered, did you intend to actually re-delete the page? Thanks, regards,
Justlettersandnumbers (
talk) 11:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Thank you for flagging, I omitted to re-delete the page and have now rectified this.
Stifle (
talk) 13:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Hi Stifle, I notice you did not restore
HeavenMayFade despite your close [
no consensus to endorse]. I would like to bring your attention to closing instructions at
WP:DRV, specifically the requirement that If a speedy deletion is appealed, the closer should treat a lack of consensus as a direction to overturn the deletion, since it indicates that the deletion was not uncontroversial (which is a requirement of almost all criteria for speedy deletion). I am requesting that this page be restored per the DRV policy, so a user can send it to AFD if so inclined, since there was not consensus to affirm the speedy deletion. Thanks! FrankAnchor 14:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)reply
In the previous paragraph it says "If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed". This is what I applied. This appears to be a contradictory instruction to what you have pointed out. However I will abide with your request to list at AFD in all the circumstances, and look to amend the contradictory instructions.
Stifle (
talk) 15:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Following
an RfC,
TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
A discussion at
WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for
dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.
The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in
XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of
XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.
Miscellaneous
Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of
Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.
Hello mr Stifle. You know that Hades isn't actually the god of death neither Persephone or Hermes. Just because they are underworld deities doesn't mean they are also instantly death deities and Hermes is a psychopomp not a death god. Plus neither Apollo, Hypnos and Charon should been in death deities page because neither of them are death gods. Neither Pluto and Proserpina. Every accurate source doesn't say that those deities are death deities.
2A02:1388:2181:820E:0:0:EC2:B3DF (
talk) 15:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I have no idea why you're telling me this.
Stifle (
talk) 17:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Because they shouldnt be on the death deity pages. And they should also removed from death gods/goddesses pages. Isn't Wikipedia suppose to say accurate informations???? Because those deities are not death deities
2A02:586:1E33:AAFC:C47D:75A3:E14B:37DE (
talk) 14:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. We encourage you to
be bold in updating pages, because
wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always
preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in your
sandbox. If you need additional help, check out
our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at
the Teahouse.
Stifle (
talk) 15:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)reply
ok can you change them please???? Can you please delete all deities in death deities page that are not actual death deities please???
2A02:587:1F04:1700:248C:6962:BF0:236D (
talk) 18:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Also please speak with mr NebY because he always deletes all of my edits without seeing if its right or wrong and lot of times he doesn't care. Please I need your help.
2A02:587:1F0F:B300:74E2:A653:D25E:D71F (
talk) 09:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)reply
No, I can't change them for you, as I have no knowledge on the subject. You'll need to do it yourself.
Stifle (
talk) 13:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Help
But mr NebY always deletes my edits without thinking. He also deletes my Talking edits on his page and he doesn't care. We should do something because thats not right and not fair.
2A02:1388:2089:C8D6:0:0:19A2:A1DF (
talk) 09:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I've been advised you're a banned user, and as such I will not be engaging further with you.
Stifle (
talk) 09:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Omar Embarek Page
You have deleted the page without informing me. What are the reasons of deletion. At least let me know before doing this as kind of respect for my efforts. Concerning the importance, this page is about an Algerian professional football player who plays for USM Alger who won CAF Super Cup recently.
Hako33 (
talk) 22:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The deletion reason, which can be seen in
the deletion log, was that the article didn't give any indication that Mr. Embarek is
notable. Last year,
a community discussion determined that playing in a professional team no longer indicates someone is notable enough to have an article; now, the person must be the subject of
multiple substantial articles in
reliable sources in order to be eligible for an article.
As there was no indication of notability, the article was subject to
speedy deletion, which does not require notification/input from the article creator.
I hope that clarifies matters for you.
Stifle (
talk) 16:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC)reply
An RfC is open regarding amending the
paid-contribution disclosure policy to add the following text: Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.
Technical news
Administrators can now choose to add the user's user page to their watchlist when changing the usergroups for a user. This works both via
Special:UserRights and via the API. (
T272294)
Following
a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
Following
several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
Following
a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
Following
a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.
Miscellaneous
The
Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in November 2023, with 700+ drafts pending reviews for in the last 4 months or so. In addition to the AfC participants, all administrators and New Page Patrollers can conduct reviews using the helper script, Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in
the Gadgets settings.
Sign up here to participate!
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Following a
talk page discussion, the
Administrators' accountability policy has been updated to note that while it is considered best practice for administrators to have
notifications (pings) enabled, this is not mandatory. Administrators who do not use notifications are now strongly encouraged to indicate this on their user page.
Arbitration
Following
a motion, the
Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
The Arbitration Committee has
announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
An editor has asked for
a deletion review of
The Fifth Quarter (TV series). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
duffbeerforme (
talk) 12:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Following a
motion, the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were
enacted in June 2009.
The move of that page was contested. Back-end Wikipedia maintenance tools such as your AfD scripts are not a valid reason to reinstate a page move of an article in the main space that has been contesetd by several editors. Please revert it back to its long-term title immediately. —
Amakuru (
talk) 15:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
It can wait the five days until the AFD ends.
Stifle (
talk) 16:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Why though? You're setting a terrible precedent here, that someone can just move an article with no discussion, nominate it for AFD, and then it's forced to stay where they put it for the whole 7 days or whatever. Putting internal Wikipedia processes before readers is a very bad look IMHO. Cheers —
Amakuru (
talk) 18:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not setting any precedents, I'm just keeping things practical. It's not harming any reader to have the article at that title for 5 more days.
Stifle (
talk) 20:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The page has now been moved back as the AFD is complete.
Stifle (
talk) 09:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)reply
An
RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.
Technical news
Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (
T326065)
Arbitration
Following a
motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
Community feedback is
requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at
WP:AE.
A vote to ratify the charter for the
Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via
Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found
here.
Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the
Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes.
Read more
Closing of AfD premature? Have I understand WP:REFUND options correctly?
I was surprised to see the closing of
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brittany Spanos. It didn't seem to me that we'd got to consensus, and the article had changed enormously since being sent to AfD (in fact, she had been mentioned and quoted on the BBC since the last AfD edit). Did you feel confident that consensus had been reached here?Dsp13 (
talk) 09:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for linking to
WP:REFUND in your close. Am I right that in this case it's open to me to either (a) request at
Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for a draftified copy, or (b) request purely procedural
WP:Deletion review of whether or not there was AfD consensus?
Dsp13 (
talk) 10:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I see you prefer not to discuss your AfD closures here, so do ignore the question I've struck out! :)
Dsp13 (
talk) 10:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)reply
If you think my closure did not reflect consensus in the AFD, you should file a
WP:DRV.
If you wish to improve the article by adding more sources (such as stuff from
Swiftposium) then you should request a
WP:REFUND – or I'll just do it for you.
Stifle (
talk) 11:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)reply
filing a WP:DRV sounds like more procedural headache for others! Draftifying - which I see @
Cl3phact0: suggests below - sounds sufficient and will allow the article to be worked on until ready for resubmission. Thanks very much.
Dsp13 (
talk) 20:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Done! You both (and indeed anyone) can now work on the article at
Draft:Brittany Spanos. Once you've improved it to a degree that it overcomes the issues raised in the deletion discussion, please click the submit for review button I've provided on the article for you. Please note – if the draft article is left for over six months, it'll be assumed you're no longer interested, and it'll be deleted.
Stifle (
talk) 08:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)reply
New to AfD
Hello, I've not yet amassed a great deal of experience
working on AfDs, though I thought one intended aspect of the process was to encourage the improvement of articles that might be worthwhile if better sourced and more fully developed. I got involved with
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brittany Spanos with that in mind. Seeing the article disappear this morning while I was in the midst of working to improve it was a tad disheartening (in fact, I had just thought about adding a comment suggesting simply moving it to draftspace if no consensus emerged). The WP:DRV/WP:REFUND discussion above is over my head, however, I think that it's worth developing the article further and I'd be happy to lend a hand bringing it up to speed. Cheers,
Cl3phact0 (
talk) 16:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Sure, I can move it to draftspace if that's what you'd like.
Stifle (
talk) 17:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)reply
That would suit me fine, though I don't want to barge in to your discussion with
Dsp13 above. If it's a good interim solution for this situation, then yes, please do that. Thanks,
Cl3phact0 (
talk) 17:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Done! See my above reply for the instructions on what is next.
Stifle (
talk) 08:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Great, thank you! Could you do the same trick with the Talk page? It'd be good to have the reference suggestions, wikiprojects and whatnot too (if possible). Cheers,
Cl3phact0 (
talk) 09:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)reply
RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the
2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving
RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:
Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver,
Ritchie333, and
HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the
administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing!
theleekycauldron (
talk • she/her), via:
An editor has asked for
a deletion review of
Brooke Monk. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
Jannaultheal (
talk) 00:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (
T313405)
Arbitration
An
arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".
Miscellaneous
Editors are invited to sign up for
The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve
vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
Hello Stifle, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of
Draft:Kollel Beth HaTalmud Yehuda Fishman Institute, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to drafts, and the draft makes a clear claim of significance anyway. You may wish to review the
Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes, it was draftified after I tagged it.
WP:DTTR.
Stifle (
talk) 15:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
To pre-empt the inevitable requests – this article was deleted and numerous recreations and re-deletions have led to it being listed on
WP:DEEPER. There is a consensus against this article existing, and a positive consensus is needed to create that page. If having read all the previous discussions, you believe that it is appropriate this article should exist, you need to file a new DRV.
Stifle (
talk) 09:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree that
Priyanka Chaudhary (passes
WP:NPOL) is different than
Priyanka Choudhary (fails
WP:NACTOR). In general, articles that have been salted should be created as drafts and go through
WP:AFC. Please do not start another DRV, since a DRV on this was closed very recently. –
Novem Linguae (
talk) 07:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Apparently I typoed the header. I was referring to
Priyanka Choudhary. Apologies. The above stands.
Stifle (
talk) 08:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)reply
User:Stifle - I think that you made a mistake in advising the unregistered editor to file a new DRV, and I think that I agree with
User:Novem Linguae that there should not have been a new DRV. I think that the purpose of
DEEPER is to act as a blacklist for deletion review requests that are frivolous or vexatious. I see that
User:OwenX speedy-endorsed the closure, and it appears that they speedy-endorsed it because the DRV was out of process because the title is listed on
DEEPER.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 05:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
An editor has asked for
a deletion review of
Mortal Online 2. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
Owen×☎ 13:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Moresnet
It isn't my article but thanks for the message. Regards
Keith-264 (
talk) 13:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Rollback Permission Request
Hi there, I would like to request rollback rights, I have done over 500 edits and have spent lots of time patrolling the recent changes page. I would like rollback rights as I want to use tools like Huggle or AntiVandal, to speed up my process. Thanks.
CCWikiMan (
talk) 09:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi there, thanks for your interest. As you have only been active in the last week with large gaps, I would like you to gain more experience first. When you have done, please use
Wikipedia:Requests for permissions to request.
Stifle (
talk) 11:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
There is an issue with my ban
Hello! since you have banned me I cant add {{Translated page}} in all of my copyright infringement articles. Thank you for understanding
ItsMeGabeProductions (
talk) 12:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi there. I will try to adjust the settings.
Stifle (
talk) 08:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply