User talk:Yamla/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

Olive Branch - Could we talk?

Do you use discord, or some other means of IM? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.191.14.95 (talk • contribs)

I do not. I have no idea who you are. If you are blocked, you have your user talk page or WP:UTRS available to you. --Yamla (talk) 11:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

There is, but as a courtesy it would be nice to speak with you direct because the block itself was issued by yourself and it's turned into a long, incomprehensible cluster fuck where we're viewing each other as bad actors as opposed to acting in good faith. I've tried speaking before by other means and had that line of conversation shut down and it's a bit jarring, it left me with a somewhat embittered attitude and I'll admit it made me biased against you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.191.14.95 (talk • contribs)

I don't use any form of IM outside of work. You are free to sign in with your account and make your case there. If you've already lost talk page access, you can use WP:UTRS. If that's been removed from you as well (which is unlikely but possible), you will have to wait until that access is restored. --Yamla (talk) 11:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Sock edits by banned User:Binit14

Sir, this new user User talk:Vipersden seems like a sock of User:Binit14. This edit by the new user and this by Binit14. Apart from others, his inclusion of the text "twelve Sarola Brahmin caste from Uttarakhand" instead of the "Semwal is one of the thirty-six subcastes of Sarola Brahmin from Uttarakhand" and the inclusion of unreliable source [[1]]. He also deleted the "pp-sock" tag. Also the draft he created Draft:Semwal looks like a photocopy of this edit from 8 May 2019. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeap, definitely. Blocked and reverted. --Yamla (talk) 12:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much sir. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019

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

Administrator changes

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

CheckUser changes

Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Miscellaneous

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

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Returning editor needs advice.

Hello. My apologies for bothering you. I have an civility issue to ask for suggestions from you. I've come across an unpleasant editor after I stopped editing Wikipedia for several years and want to come back. The first small edit is greeted with disappointing behavior, and I have decided not to engage and decided that drama on Wikipedia is no longer worth my time. But I want to let him know he's being particularly rude. To make a long story short, I made an edit. I got reverted, and I went to his page to describe my reasoning at the bottom section of this page here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:UKER However, the carefully worded reasons along with example has been dismissed as a "rant" by the user, with his saying "I only skimmed over that rant. I did give you proper explanation for my revert." This indicates he does not care to consider any provided reason. As a result, I no longer trust myself to respond further in a controlled manner. What is left of me to do is repeating the same reason I have stated there in the link, but I suspect that I would be wasting my time, seeing that he's the user who has the history of sitting on a soft 3RR warning before, just above in the same talk page, regarding the exact same article. I am going to stop contributing everything on Wikipedia in general to cut my problem short, but I would like to let this user know that his dismissal of another editor's reason as rant is... unpleasant to work with, yet I do not trust myself to do so. I've read the guidelines and a third opinion of an experienced editor is one of the suggestions. Would you be able to let him know this as a more experienced editor, rather than using administrative power? I was going to leave the following response (below), but I decided not to, and would ask for your help in letting him know about uncivility.

My intended response: "::The fact that you are not paying enough attention doesn't make the long reason I gave a rant. Shinnok being immortal is obvious, but being decapitated not killing him is not. That part about him being alive at that point or not is hardly relevant. He was in the state of being permanently incapacitated either way." Anthonydraco (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I will be happy to help you out. First, let me restate some of your points, and you can tell me if I am stating them accurately. That helps ensure I understand what you are saying. You have decided to retire from Wikipedia because of the general drama here. This is in part, but not necessarily entirely, because of the interaction you describe above. You might change your mind in the future, or you might not. In your opinion, you want to this user's talk page to try to calmly discuss the issue and were met with what you perceived to be hostility. Rather than returning hostility with hostility, you stepped back and engaged me. You hope that I will have a quiet word with this user, to let them know how they came across. Hypothetically: If I believe you could have worded your initial interaction differently, that's not particularly relevant. If I believe you were entirely in the right, that's not particularly relevant. If I believe the other editor was entirely in the wrong, that's not particularly relevant either. What's relevant here is that you tried to interact calmly and rationally, and were met with what you believe to be hostility, and it soured Wikipedia for you. You'd like that not to happen to other users. Is that roughly correct? If instead, you'd like me to investigate and weigh in on whose edit was correct, etc., let me know. I don't believe that's what you are asking for here. --Yamla (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for the almost immediate response. To clarify points, you are entirely correct about my retirement from Wikipedia. I retired once. I came back. I was met with this uncivil behavior and was reminded that this is why I left in the first place. I no longer want to actively participate in this kind of online politics. So I will resume my retirement. But I feel that this user's uncivility should not stand. I should let him know, but I do not trust that I can be patient enough. I am also no longer neutral in this regard, so any suggestion to him to do anything will be perceived as an insult by him, so I ask for your help in letting him know about his incivilty. That is the main point. Because as you can see, the user implicitly insulted my reasons as a rant, and indicated that he did not care to read any reasons provided. All in one single sentence. Plus, he has a history of sitting on 3RR on that very same talk page. You can see that it is very tiresome just to think about the work of reasoning with him, let alone convincing him or working with him. Especially when he stated that he did not care to read the reasons. Whether you think I am correct with my edit is only incidental, but if you want to investigate further and give additional opinion, you are welcome to. It will help improve the article, so I would doubly appreciate the extra effort. I believe you can clearly see the point of the reasons I stated. If you wish to read the summary of the plot itself, you will see that whether the character is alive is barely consequential at all. Anthonydraco (talk) 21:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, I've caught the hint that you think I could've worded it differently, and I can see why. Still, I doubt if I could've done much better. But the point is barely of consequence, since no matter how well I worded, he did not demonstrate the willingness to read the reasons he deemed too long. Anthonydraco (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm really not implying anything. I mean, you can always word something differently, but I'm not implying you should have done. I have no opinion yet, because I freely admit I haven't investigated the edits or fully read your comment over there yet. :) I'm nearing the end of my day now but I will take a look either later today or early tomorrow! --Yamla (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

(Not ignoring this, just waiting until I have some free time, which I expect to happen tomorrow!) --Yamla (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

2600:1006:b11e:75b2:d1cd:d423:332f:9691

Blocked user: 2600:1006:b11e:75b2:d1cd:d423:332f:9691 is abusing her talkpage. CLCStudent (talk) 12:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeap. Talk page access revoked. --Yamla (talk) 12:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Please explain deletion...

of File:Battle pass fortnite.png? It met none of the conditions of CSD F7 (wasn't tagged, had a rationale for use, etc.). --Masem (t) 21:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

In fact, you need to explain about the last 20 deletions you just did around 21:20 today. Spot checking, none of those had any F7 failures. --Masem (t) 21:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Checking a bit more, is it due to the block on User:Minecraftgamerpc69? who appears to have at least touched all the images? Blocking a user doesn't deem there content innappropriate to require removal of their past contributions. --Masem (t) 21:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not because the user was blocked, it's because those files (but not the one I didn't delete) did indeed violate WP:FU. In almost all cases, the rationale violated both WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#2. Now, I'd be more than happy to reinstate those images if you'd be willing to go through and add the mandatory explanations in each case. Just let me know and I'll recover them all later today! --Yamla (talk) 21:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Read WP:CSD#F7 closely. There are only four allowed cases where speedy deletion is allowed. Failing NFCC is not one of those conditions save for the case of F7b which ties to NFCC#2 when the images come from press corp/licensed images library like Gettys, so F7b does not apply. None were tagged with an invalid fair-use tag (F7a), replaceable fair use (F7c) or had been tagged for more than seven tags with a invalid fair use tag (F7d). As WP:FCSD says, all other deletion routes for files should be through proposed deletion or Files for Deletion. That's on the CSD side.

On the NFCC side, all those did meet NFCC #1 (in general, cover art for video games are an allowed use of non-free) and do not fall into NFCC#2. --Masem (t) 22:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I also see you have admin permissions and therefore the ability to reverse the deletions. I would consider it acceptable if you did so and then modified the fair-use justifications to bring them into compliance. And look, if you just undid my deletions without modifying the fair-use justifications, I would consider that a mistake but not something to complain about. So, feel free to act as you see fit, or let me know if you are willing to modify the justifications but want me to do the undeletes. --Yamla (talk) 22:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

They did fail #1 and #2 in that the claimed rationale indicated "n/a", but the policy requires explanations. #1 and #2 did apply to those images, the policy is applicable. It doesn't have to be much, but you (well, the uploader) can't just say "not applicable" when it is applicable, you have to explain why the images comply with the policy. It's fairly easy, doesn't need to be a long explanation or anything. --Yamla (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

There's a couple issues here still then: First, failing parts of NFCC for not having a complete rational (the claim of n.a.) still does not allow CSD F7 to be used as the deletion policy. They could be tagged for deletion to give people the time to fix (which, a long-time NFCC editor here, is extremely preferred option to avoid ticking people off) or you can FFD them, but not CSD. Second, and this comes from recognizing what the Upload Wizard leaves behind. The Wizard doesn't always give editors to include the specific fields, and we end up with "n.a." in some parts of NFCC. But lets take an an example, , File:Battle pass fortnite.png. Yes, it has two n.a. fields for NFCC#1 and #2. But you'll see there are two NFCC#1 and the second one is filed, so NFCC #1 is at least met. Then, with NFCC#2, recognizing this is obviously not from a press corp image set, there's no need to spell out a rationale for #2 (it doesn't apply), so that's fine. In other words, deletion of that image is not appropriate per both CSD and NFCC. Others don't have that second NFCC#1 line filled in, but again, these are fixable issues and deletion without warning is not appropriate. --Masem (t) 22:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay. I understand, and will nominate them for deletion in the future to give people time (what is it these days, still a week?) to resolve. How would you like to proceed now? Would you like me to undelete them and you'll address the failures in the rationales? --Yamla (talk) 23:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

That's probably the best course of action (though I'm an admin and could revert the deletions too but would not do that without your allowance); I would then give it a day or so and if those restored aren't fix, then you can nominate them. --Masem (t) 23:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Done! 14 files restored. I checked and firmly believe that's all of them. If you think I've missed any, please restore yourself because it's just an oversight. Thanks for the very civil discussion! --Yamla (talk) 00:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

That looks like all of them, and I have gone through to fix NFCC #1 and #2 blocks, at least with the ones I know I am watching. I do see that the original uploader on some of the other images was very lazy, using the same text in all fields in the upload wizard, so some of them are still flakey for rationale, though they generally still all fall within WP:NFCI uses and only need better rational improvement. --Masem (t) 05:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Wojciech Waleczek

Hi. Could you please help me to move an userspace draft about an award-winning composer into article space? The draft is about Wojciech Waleczek—a succesful pianist from Poland whose numerous achievements deserve to be celebrated with his own Wikipedia page. He took 3rd prize at the Premio Mario Zanfi competition and was the absolute winner of the 4th Franz Liszt National Piano Competition—to name just a few of his accomplishments. Mr Waleczek already has his articles on German and Polish Wikipedia. Hope to hear back from you. Regards, AngelOfDestiny (talk) 14:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe that draft would be appropriate as an article at this time, it's filled with inappropriate language such as "known for his high quality performances, and rigorous focus on core musicianship" which violate WP:PROMO. The best thing for you to do is submit the article via WP:AFC, which allows someone more familiar with the process to review the draft, move it to an article if appropriate, or give feedback and suggestions if not. --Yamla (talk) 13:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. Could you please submit it via WP:AFC then? I don't edit Wikipedia that much so it would help me a lot. AngelOfDestiny (talk) 08:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not my draft! Given that I don't think it should be an article yet, it would be inappropriate for me to submit it. But you can! It's fairly simple, WP:AFC explains how to do so, but all you need to do is add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page! --Yamla (talk) 09:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

user:2601:584:101:25F7:8DC2:8646:DC01:A21F

Hello. Could you please block user:2601:584:101:25F7:8DC2:8646:DC01:A21F. I don't know how long AIV will take to get around to it, but this user keeps vandalizing. CLCStudent (talk) 16:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Done! And I protected the article for 24 hours. --Yamla (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For your tireless work on unblock requests. I think I'm quick in responding to requests; half the time you've been there and answered the request already. Keep up the good work (but don't tire yourself out)! Huon (talk) 12:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Page Protection

Hi Yamla, I want protection for page Zaira Wasim. You can check page's history to know what's happening there. Thanks. Chinar(Message) 14:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019

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

Administrator changes

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

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

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

Bureaucrat changes

28bytes • WJBscribe • Wizardman

Interface administrator changes

MSGJ • TheDJ

CheckUser changes

Beeblebrox • BU Rob13 • DoRD

Oversight changes

Beeblebrox • BU Rob13 • DoRD • GB fan

Guideline and policy news

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

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

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

Technical news

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

Miscellaneous

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

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Malvasia wine

Dear Yamla, thank you for the unblocking. I joined the wikipedia community because I saw mistakes and misleading information about the Malvasia wine and I would like people to know the origin and exact history behind it, I'm not trying to sell a product. The company I work for has done 15 years of research about it. So if have to avoid in the future to write about the malvasia or wine in general I really don't understand what I'm doing here. I'm sorry if I'm making mistakes, I'm really trying to understand how wikipedia editing work, but believe me it is really difficult with so many rules and restrictions. I've put 2 hourse in writing an article and they just deleted my sand box without give me any chance to edit it so that it would meet wikipedia policy. Winelover10 (talk) 07:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

You are required to abide by WP:COI. --Yamla (talk) 10:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Panama's degree of latitude

I hovered over the link and saw no degree, so I clicked it. Ok, there's Panama City's (fractional) degree--wait a minute, a country would have to lie between two latitudes... Please consider what I did AND unlinking the word Panama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brogo13 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Panama

Countries lie between latitudes (actually so do cities). Dare we just un-link the word?Brogo13 (talk) 11:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Wopr

Hi Yamla, where is the community consensus to block this user?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, I claim it was raised at WP:ANI and then you took action and nobody objected. It may be too strong to claim this constitutes "community consensus", though I've seen ANI discussions used as evidence of community consensus before. Except... I freely grant I misread the closure. The closure was by Nosebagbear just indicating the account was blocked, not that the discussion lead to the block. --Yamla (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Community consensus to block = community ban. There would have to have been a much-longer discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll go comment on the user's talk page. --Yamla (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Great comment! Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Flatulence

Please notice "through the anus" in the first paragraph and reconsider my second. Hey, 'preciate you.Brogo13 (talk) 07:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed editor

Hello Yamla. It is getting tedious. Please see [2]. I don' want to interact with him anymore but apparently he will not stop talking about me with flat-out misinformations. See for example this. Someone should make it clear that he has been banned because of his own actions violating WP policies, not because of *me*. He has been indeffed because he did falsify sources (repeatedly), he did persistenly violate copyrights (despite his first indef was due to persistent copyvio), he did personal attacks and he did tendentious edits (which he admitted on his first unblock appeal) for a long time... What should be done? Revoking TPA? Because it looks like that he will continue his annoying gish gallops which has nothing to do with addressing the reasons for his block. Puduḫepa 19:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Ridiculously, he continues his personal attacks targeting me directly: "your meanness came back all of a sudden". Puduḫepa 20:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Best plan is to simply leave that talk page alone. Stop monitoring it, just leave it alone. I'll examine the email when I have a moment. :) --Yamla (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Banned User:OdRajput making similar edits in the articles

Sir, User OdRajput, (Previous discussion at your talk) is again making disruptive edits through IPs by adding contents using irrelevant sources, original researches and linking Wiki articles as sources. See diff1, diff2. Kindly see the matter. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Mistake?

Is this a mistake? Who is the blocked or banned user you have in mind? Thank you. --2604:2000:E010:1100:A41C:89DC:32C7:F864 (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The blocked spammer, Essex PR. --Yamla (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Are you sure that is who it is? I thought I wrote an article on an academic with that name (I can't see this one). And I am certainly not that spammer. My IP address changes from time to time, not my doing, but within a narrow band. Thanks. --2604:2000:E010:1100:A41C:89DC:32C7:F864 (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The particular IP address you are using has not been involved in that article. If you wish to track your contributions, you are welcome to create an account! If you are unrelated to that blocked spammer and the company involved and have no conflict of interest, you are welcome to create the article. --Yamla (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. My IP address moves as I said, but in a narrow band. On its own. Is the draft article of an academic by that name? And by an IP address similar to mine? I can't see it. If it is mine, I would not want to recreate the work I did. I have no conflict of interest. Thanks.2604:2000:E010:1100:E92D:710E:418A:818 (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Is it possible for me to see what that draft article looked like? Thanks. 2604:2000:E010:1100:89F0:B256:5888:8426 (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

May 2019

The edit that you reverted 13:28, 17 May 2019 in Sarola Brahmin was just the removal of a red link. Please act unbiasedly and also do not act in haste

User:Wopr block

I was looking through User:Wopr and the blocks made against him, it seems quite unfair to me. I am getting the impression that he was not blocked for any good reason other than having an unpopular opinion. He seems to have earnestly been trying to set what is wrong right, an having such an unpopular opinion contrary to your political beliefs, you blocked him. Now I am convinced that your block is highly motivated by disagreeing with your agenda and nothing to do with "not being here to build an encyclopedia" or whatever. Am I mistaken? Nikolaiho^☎️📖 19:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

No, I do not believe the block was inappropriate. The user page was unambiguously in violation of WP:SOAPBOX. The original blocking administrator (who is not me) acted correctly in my opinion, as did everyone who reviewed the block. I have no idea what Wopr's political viewpoint is, nor do you know what my political viewpoint is. I have been described as a bleeding heart liberal here, as well as a far-right nazi. I am neither of those things, nor do I live in the U.S. (which appears to be where Wopr lives, based on their now-deleted userpage). --Yamla (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Marauder2021

I do not understand what instructions to follow and my talk page is blocked — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marauder2021 (talk • contribs)

As you were able to post this on my page, you are not currently blocked. Therefore, there's nothing for you to do. If you are subsequently hit by a block, you'll be given instructions and must follow those so we can find the block. --Yamla (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

User is now blocked as a checkuserblock-account. Well, there you go. :) --Yamla (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Re

How about this? My very best wishes (talk) 15:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019

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

Administrator changes

Johnuniq • Kosack • Valereee

Ad Orientem • Ched • Gadfium • Jonathunder • Nick • Yelyos

Bald Zebra • Beetstra • Doug Bell • Journalist • Ruud Koot • Splash • Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

Dinoguy1000

CheckUser changes

RickinBaltimore

Oversight changes

Beeblebrox

RickinBaltimore

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the page Wikipedia:Office actions has been changed from a policy page to an information page.
• A request for comment (permalink) is in progress regarding the administrator inactivity policy.

Arbitration

• Editors may now use the template {{Ds/aware}} to indicate that they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for a topic area, so it is unnecessary to alert them.

Miscellaneous

• Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
• The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

  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.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Reverting socks

Do you really revert edits made by sockpuppets because they are socks? Just curious. --93.78.24.217 (talk) 11:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:RBI. We typically revert abusive edits, and all edits from a block-evading sock are abusive. --Yamla (talk) 11:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@ Yamla Are even constructive edits made by socks are abusive and need to be reverted? --93.78.24.217 (talk) 12:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

By definition, all contributions from a user engaging in block evasion are abusive. --Yamla (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Heh. This user is a long-time troll. Go away, troll. --Yamla (talk) 13:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

ShappeAli

Hi, isn't two weeks a little short for a close as stale. No admins upheld the block if it was so obvious so I ask you to undo your close, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

That's the standard we use, but I want to be very clear, I created that standard template. It's used by other administrators, but I created it. It's incredibly rare for unblock requests to be reviewed outside of about three days. The vast majority are reviewed in a few hours, only a small minority remain open longer than a day, and basically none of them are ever going to be reviewed if they are open for more than about three days. Two weeks is really generous, then, and the point of the templated response is to encourage further action from the blocked user. If I accidentally closed-as-stale one of my own blocks, please let me know and I'll be happy to reopen it. Otherwise, I stand by my decision to apply the template. However, if you have suggestions for how the wording of the template can be changed, I'm happy to hear it. The template is template:decline stale. --Yamla (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. In this case I suspect the delay to be due to the complicated nature of the block involving evidence on commons. Regarding the template I suggest removing "if you substantially reword your request." because it implies the appeal is faked which is not always the case, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Without that sentence, users simply repost the exact same unblock request, which is obviously pointless. I'm not remotely meaning to imply the appeal is faked, only that it is not convincing. Any suggestions for better communicating that point? --Yamla (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps changing from "sufficiently convincing" to "sufficient" removes the faked implication, Atlantic306 (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Done! Thanks for the suggestion. --Yamla (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

IP-hopping vandal

You might want to extend the block to ‎65.92.180.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log). They've demonstrated that they're able to easily hop across different IPs, and all edits from the past 1 or 2 weeks have been only vandalism. Additionally, it seems that they're trying to imitate IPhonehurricane95 (the person behind the original "UnderArmourKid" vandalism), probably the worst LTA to ever vandalize tropical cyclone articles. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Nice. I had been trying to calculate the range and not getting very far (or, more accurately, getting much much too broad). /22 is a reasonable block for this troll, I'll go to the thing now! --Yamla (talk) 19:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

On that note, can you please block 184.98.132.0/23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) as well? They've returned after the expiration of a local IP block, and all edits on their range in the last month have been only vandalism. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

That particular one seems to be limited to just the two IP addresses right now, no? 184.98.132.78 and more recently, 184.98.132.103? Probably not enough yet to go for a range block, though I expect that'll change sooner or later. --Yamla (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually, it's 3 (goes back an entire month). And I'm pretty sure that they're going to return soon (they were vandalizing just minutes earlier). LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

If you see one more, I'll block the range! --Yamla (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

You mind blocking the latest IP for now? It seems a bad idea to leave them with a free hand. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

done! --Yamla (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I found a fourth IP (this one from two months ago), but it's on an even larger range: 184.98.128.0/19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log). Not sure if you want to block that one. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Please block Jessechi[3]’ IP 123.192.33.207

He often uses the IP to create new sock puppetry,like[4][5][6].For more information, please go to Chinese Wikipedia see[7]—Outlookxp (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Recent ban: Gotchynow

I can confirm there was no legal threat made by the user "Gotchynow" apart from the previous one, for which he was banned and unbanned after appeal. I don't think he meant any harm. :)

I disagree. This edit says "defamatory and libelous". WP:NLT explicitly calls this out in the "Perceived legal threats" section. Combined with the refusal to properly declare the user's conflict of interest and the user's single purpose here, I strongly believe it's enough for the block. The user is free to request unblocking if they wish. --Yamla (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Alright then. Thank you for your fast response. :)

Gotchynow

I know you've said we don't need your approval to unblock, and I imagine your watchlist has informed you already, but as a courtesy I'm just letting you know that I've lifted this user's block. Yunshui ^雲_水 22:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Not a problem. Thanks for letting me know! :) --Yamla (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Page discussion

Hi Yamla, it's not about policy violation, my question is can a genuine company not have a wiki page that doesn't advertise it ?

If that's the case, can you help me with how to setup an informational page because I do know this company is doing good work in their field and that people should know about its existence.

As you said it violates a lot of policies, my point is there are a lot of other pages doing the same and blatantly advertising as well but nobody questioning it ?

Genuinely asking for help, let me know if I am missing something specific. Volcanicsnow (talk) 10:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

You indicated you were approached by a friend. Therefore, this is a violation of WP:MEAT. It's completely irrelevant what's happening on other pages; WP:OTHERSTUFF explains why. In general, though, other pages aren't written by people with conflicts of interest. Regardless, the matter is closed. You would be violating WP:MEAT and WP:COI if you pursued this matter further. --Yamla (talk) 10:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Good to know you think other pages do not have a WP:COI though i will beg to differ, fine i am dropping the matter from further discussion but i really do think this aggression is unjustified considering the page is not doing any promotional activity and its just a page that defines that such a company also exists, which has been the true purpose of wikipedia to be a know it all for the world, I really think you guys should consider somebody who does not have COI will never get enough information about a company whatever source they cite to have such elaborate detailing, let me not give examples as nearly all company pages blatantly advertise. Thanks for not being helpful, you may block my account if you deem fit, you are the admin after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volcanicsnow (talk • contribs)

Now blocked by another admin for sockpuppetry. --Yamla (talk) 16:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm Confused

Dear Yamla. In April I was notified that my account was blocked because of "Caught by a colocation web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is 89.187.184.190. VFF0347 (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)." At that time I sent in a request to unblock my account. Per my talk page I was notified that my request was denied because "Confirmed proxy. Yamla (talk) 11:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)."

Regardless, it did not seem to cause me any issues. As you can see in my list of contributions I have made many edits since April 2019.

Can you explain to me what this all means? What does "colocation web host block" and "IP is not a web host" mean. I am a real person. I am an ordinary Wikipedia user (and monthly contributor $10) who studies history and since I became an editor I have made corrections to Wikipedia articles when I find facts in error, conflicting information, confusing language, poor grammar, incorrect spelling, etc. I document the changes that I make and I add in-line citations and references when I am changing or adding content. I am not doing anything malicious so I do not understand why I was send a notice that my account was blocked.

Can you help me understand what the blockage notification of April 2019 was all about and why if in fact my account was blocked that I can continue to edit and contribute.

Thank you for your help. Virgil Fairchild VFF0347 (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

You can read about proxies at Proxy server and you can read about VPNs at Virtual private network. The block wasn't targeted at you, it's just you were using a proxy or a VPN for a while. I want to be clear, as the block wasn't targeted at you, you did nothing wrong and are free to continue editing! WP:PROXY goes into quite a bit more detail on the specifics of why Wikipedia blocks these services. --Yamla (talk) 11:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Thank you!!!!!!! 2605:A000:121E:E246:2D79:D815:2629:4F8F 2605:A000:121E:E246:2D79:D815:2629:4F8F (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

This is about [8] - I did think it was just another religious editwarrior, but I guess not. I've posted to their talk page explaining that we date from when a settlement became a city and stayed a city until today, not the first settlement. Doug Weller talk 15:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Oculus rift edit

I copy pasted from the main Oculus rift s page which is linked like a couple lines above in the title of the Oculus rift s subsection i edited. Go back an undo it. ( Hello, I'm Yamla. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Oculus Rift, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Yamla (talk) 22:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC) ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.248.13.154 (talk)

Great. WP:CITE will teach you how to cite your edits. --Yamla (talk) 23:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't do console text write speech whatever. Maybe wikicrap should invest in proper tools and messaging system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.248.13.154 (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

This is incoherent. If you don't wish to edit Wikipedia, nobody is forcing you to do so. --Yamla (talk) 23:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

And yet i added good correct info and your expert ass editing skills have fucked it up and now had to backtrack ...Tell me now how silly your citation request is when the info is on the article itself ?

You are expected to remain civil. See WP:CIVIL. --Yamla (talk) 23:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

You are confused. The article with your edit (after you removed your vandalism) is here. The 115º figure is not cited on that page. The 110º figure is, but it is your responsibility to cite the information you are adding. --Yamla (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

No, the information i added is correct and you're the one who vandalised the page as soon as you removed the 115 degrees edit. I don't have to provide citations cause it's not a controversial topic. AND it's actually correct on the proper page if you weren't lazy and had checked.

It's still not fixed. Go fix it and stop vandalising the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oculus_Rift#Consumer_version is still misssing the proper degree info as per the main article on Oculus rift s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.248.13.154 (talk • contribs)

For the last time, it is not relevant if the information is correct. See WP:V. You must cite your change. You did not do so. You are welcome to reintroduce the change, if but only if you provide a reliable citation that meets WP:RS and WP:CITE. This is the last time I will respond to you. Please go away and leave my talk page alone. --Yamla (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:TRUTH is also on point here. --Yamla (talk) 23:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

American Thinker is currently cited 1.4million plus times on WP

The judgement is a fact. The material is RS as illustrated by the 1.4million WP coincidental citations from the same source. Revert the edit and cease bullying and threatening me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk) 02:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Herald Sun is one of the leading Australian newspapers. Make WP great again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk) 03:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I haven't discussed the Herald Sun at all. Claiming American Thinker is used 1.4 million times on Wikipedia is easy to determine as false. User is blocked for continued refusal to abide by WP:RS and for long-term disruptive editing. --Yamla (talk) 10:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Possible vandalism

See edits of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/134.41.157.161 — Preceding unsigned comment added by KKKNL1488 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

That IP address hasn't edited in more than a month. --Yamla (talk) 11:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

IP-hopping page-blanker

Can you please block 184.98.128.0/19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)? They came back recently on a fourth IP range (actually five, if you go back a few months). There's almost a solid three months of vandalism now. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 08:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)