User:Maile66/AdminGuides


 * Template:DYK admins


 * Template:Shared IP

DYK-Time Between Updates

Library Platform

toolforge.org/hyphenator/


 * Coin

WP:ARBCASES
 * HOW TO FIND THIS: WIR →Redlist index→By Dictionary→U.S. by state
 * WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by dictionary/State encyclopedias of the United States


 * Ballotpedia
 * Ballotpedia
 * Wikimedia Foundation

→ found at User:Cyberbot I Template:Adminstats/Maile66


 * Time Between Updates
 * Next update Time


 * KrinkleBot
 * MP Commons media protection - add image here if Krinkle has not protected it on time
 * [:[User:MusikAnimal/responseHelper|Response Helper]] - SIDEBAR links to noticeboards
 * Guide to appealing blocks
 * Changing username
 * Template:COI
 * Template:Sockpuppet
 * Template:Sockpuppeteer
 * Plain and simple guide to vandalism
 * WP:911
 * WP:OS
 * WP:OSFAQ
 * WP:DENY
 * WP:NOTHERE
 * WP:NOTCENSORED
 * WP:NOTFREESPEECH
 * WP:GFFENSE
 * Category:User block templates
 * {{`s} - an apostrophe and "s" after bolded words

{{'s} - an apostrophe and "s" after italicized titles
 * {{-?}
 * redacted


 * Template:Shared IP
 * WP:REVDEL
 * Help:Wiki markup
 * List of colors: A–F
 * Template:Archive
 * Template:Redacted/doc
 * Template messages/Disputes WP:DT


 * Tendentious editing
 * WP:RFA
 * WP:NPA
 * Admin Score (APerson bot for use re non-admins)
 * List of Wikipedians by FA noms
 * List of Wikipedians by featured list nominations
 * NBSP
 * NBHY
 * Category:Inline spacing templates
 * Help:Contents/Browse/Policies and guidelines
 * Writing better articles
 * Hirtle_chart Commons Hirtle chart re image copyrights
 * Commons Freedom of panorama United States
 * WP:COAT
 * WP:ATA
 * Mos WPMH
 * Help:Using colours
 * User:MusikAnimal/responseHelper

DYK

 * User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates (in seconds)

Classroom assignments

 * Wiki Education Foundation - higher ed assignments

Labs

 * Graphics Lab
 * Resource Request
 * WMF Labs stats tool
 * Quarry
 * xtools
 * autoFormatter
 * FACStats

Discussions

 * Arbcom Enforcement Archive235#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Makeandtoss


 * ArbCom decisions on Palestine-Israel articles


 * Extended Confirmed protection WT:RPP

I'm getting confused on this, with the changes to it. And what I am confused about, I tend to avoid touching. I get that it can be applied to any article "reasonably construed as belonging to the Arab-Israeli conflict". What I am confused about is how long that should be, how old should the article be? Do we preemptively protect such an article on an indefinite basis from the moment it's created? Right now, Celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the Liberation of Jerusalem has been on the requests for "Extended confirmed" for more than 10 hours with nobody touching it, so I'm probably not the only one confused by this issue. The editor is not specific about how long they want. The article was created on April 28, and really has had no disruptive edits. Do we just preemptively put Extended confirmed as Indefinite on something like this? We need clarification of the guidelines, because one size does not fit all. It would really help if we just had a bullet-point list of possible scenarios on how to handle these. Please advise. — Maile (talk) 00:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Arbcom has mandated indefinite preemptive protection for any article in the topic area. An admin who agrees with that stance just has to come along and fill the request and log the protection. --Neil N  talk to me 01:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I just moved the entry as new entries are added to the bottom. --Neil N  talk to me 14:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:ARBPIA3

You need to log the protection here: Arbitration_enforcement_log --Neil N  talk to me 05:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Done. — Maile (talk) 11:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I just moved the entry as new entries are added to the bottom. --Neil N  talk to me 14:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Jordan


 * RFPP May 21, 2017
 * RFPP May 29, 2017

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Makeandtoss
''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).''


 * Appealing user : – Makeandtoss (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Protection log for Jordan, discussion at
 * Sanction being appealed : Template:ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement


 * Administrator imposing the sanction :


 * Notification of that administrator :

Statement by Makeandtoss
Edit notice template should be removed as the page is not protected as part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The page should also not be protected to be part of the Arab-Israeli conflict as it is illogical to do so. Jordan gathers around 6,000 views/day-it is a high level article. 5 out of 95 paragraphs in the article discuss the Arab-Israeli conflict, and this somehow makes it part of the conflict? If we want to apply the same criteria here then why aren't the United Kingdom and United States articles protected? The protection is intended to quell disruption, which does not exist on the Jordan page. The protection would only prevent IPs and new accounts from contributing to the article-which is what I am mainly concerned about. I was advised to take this issue here by after an amendment request on Arbitration. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * why not apply the same criteria to UK? The country that gave rise to the conflict, or the US that is nowadays directly involved? Makeandtoss (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Isolated incident that could take place in any article. Again the question that everyone here avoids, why not also UK and USA articles? If the protection wouldn’t be accepted there then it should not be accepted here. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Primefac
In general I have no opinion on this matter, but as background I did ten of these requests in a relatively short timeframe, and all ten seemed reasonable (and still seem reasonable). Given how much nonsense was thrown around at the time (with certain admins quitting over DS notifications) I figured it was better to err on the side of caution and place (and later keep) the notices. It's not a hill I feel the need to die on, though, and I'll respect any consensus reached. Primefac (talk) 11:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * In hindsight, I should have asked Makeandtoss to get a consensus somewhere, as is usually my reply; I'm not in the habit of making an edit for one editor, then immediately reversing it because another asks (i.e. I don't edit war with myself). I suppose 's responses kind of did that. Primefac (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by BU Rob13
I just want to comment narrowly as an arbitrator on this. Discretionary sanctions are applied to the topic area "broadly construed". None of the restrictions in that edit notice are discretionary sanctions, so we don't need to talk about that anymore. All the restrictions in that edit notice are only applied to the topic area "reasonably construed". This difference in wording was very intentional. Since these restrictions are more draconian, they are intended to apply to a smaller set of pages than the discretionary sanctions. It is ultimately up to uninvolved admins to decide what "reasonably construed" means. Whereas you only need to look for some connection to the topic area, however small, to meet the "broadly construed" standard, you should ideally be evaluating an article more holistically for "reasonably construed". The exact placement of the line is ultimately up to you. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 22:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Makeandtoss

 * This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.


 * I'd decline the appeal, which I understand is directed against the existence of the edit notice at Template:Editnotices/Page/Jordan. WP:ARBPIA3 provides that restrictions apply to "any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." Jordan is an Arab country that borders Israel. The countries have been officially at war until 1994, see Israel–Jordan peace treaty, and I understand based on our article Israel–Jordan relations that bilateral relations remain shaped by the wider Arab-Israeli conflict. In my view, therefore, Jordan is very much an article that is related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the edit notice is correct. Probably extended confirmed protection should be enabled also, as provided for by WP:ARBPIA3.   Sandstein   11:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, Israel also has the edit notice and the protection, which also appears correct.  Sandstein   11:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Ideally, the template should be excluded from the Jordan page because the Arab-Israeli conflict is, presumably, only a small part of what defines that country. With apologies for editorializing, this is the problem with blunt instruments like the DS notice requirement. A few edits in the sanctioned area that could easily be handled by templating users becomes a big notice on a peripheral article that probably scares away legitimate editors. In this case, I say toss out the notice. --regentspark (comment) 14:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Per Sandstein, the 500/30 prohibition applies regardless of whether or not ECP in enabled, and we will block editors for violating it repeatedly on numerous articles that are unprotected. In terms of ECP, I think our recent practice has been to enable when there has been a violation of the restriction that is noticed. This would seem to qualify. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, per below, if we find that the article is not part of ARBPIA, and I can see an argument either way on that, the template should be removed with all of the restrictions removed, not just 500/30. If it is within the scope, then I think ECP should be applied as this is a confusing situation for new editors as to whether or not they can edit an article, and comes from the difficult situation we are in with this area now, where protection isn't mandatory but the restriction as worded applies whether or not protection does.In terms of the article itself, while I did link the above issue, I'm not currently sure as to whether or not it is reasonably within the scope. As Sandstein noted, until 1994 they were at war, but tensions have died down recently, and the majority of the article isn't about it. The tricky thing here is that the prohibition applies to pages, not sections. How to enforce that is a difficult question. From a philosophical standpoint, I don't like the idea of entire countries being under ECP. From a pragmatic standpoint, I'm not sure how you enforce something like this on a section by section basis. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I actually think your point re: the USA and to a lesser extent the UK are valid, and were one of the main reasons along with Seraphimblade's comments that I expanded further here. I'm less convinced that the diff I linked above could happen in any article. Having reread the article I'm inclined to say that the article as a whole falls outside the scope both given the developments since 1994 and the fact that the article is not, as pointed out below, primarily or solely within the conflict area (i.e. Jordan is currently at peace with Israel and it covers the conflict as a historical part of the country rather than being devoted to the conflict itself.) To go off a point being made at the ARCA, this falls within the sanctions broadly construed, but not necessarily reasonably construed, and after further thought, I'd be inclined to remove the template and rule that the article about the country as a whole falls outside of the scope (which, in my mind, would also mean the 1RR bit would not apply). TonyBallioni (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * A final note here: if no consensus is reached or if consensus is that this is part of the scope, I support restoring ECP immediately. I think the current situation we have in this topic area of "Wait for disruption until protection, it might bite the newcomers, but we'll block your for editing articles we knew were eligible for protection if you aren't extended confirmed and you continue to do it." is ridiculous and is one of the most confusing parts of the Arab-Israeli conflict from both an enforcement standpoint and for new users. As I said above, I'm leaning that the article on the entire country is not in scope, but whatever the case, the status quo should not stand. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think, generally speaking, to apply discretionary sanctions to an article like that, the article should be primarily or solely within the conflict area. A geographic area certainly could fall within ARBPIA in that way (I would certainly say, for example, that Gaza Strip almost certainly would), but I'm not so sure in the case of Jordan. Reading through the article, I'm trying hard to find very much in it that falls under ARBPIA, but I certainly wouldn't say the majority of the article content does. There's information on Jordan's structure of government, an outline of its legal and justice system, history from antiquity to present, climate, whatever else have you. I think application in this case is too broad, and that we should instead handle editing problems on the covered sections of that article as such. So I'd lean toward granting the appeal insofar as "300/50" has been applied to the entire article, though I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm undecided whether I think Jordan should fall under the "reasonably construed" language of the remedy or not. In a sense, every nation is involved in this conflict in some way, as they all vote on UN resolutions etc.  There is a spectrum of involvement, from Israel itself, through to nations whose only involvement is voting on non-binding resolutions at the UN.  At some point on that spectrum, a nation becomes "reasonably construed" to be related to the conflict.  On the one hand, Jordan's geographical proximity to Israel; the historical war between them (formally ended more than two decades ago); and Jordan's ongoing involvement in the relations of Israel and the Palestinian Authority (our article Israel–Jordan relations describes peace between them as a "major priority" of Jordan) are factors arguing that Jordan should be included.  On the other hand, Jordan is one of only two (out of 21) Arab League members of the UN who recognise Israel and maintain diplomatic relations; Jordan has given up its claims to territory lost in the 1967 war; Jordan has historically co-operated with Israel, even when a formal state of war between them existed; there is considerable economic co-operation between them; and so on.  I'm still thinking about where in all this the line should fall.  GoldenRing (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * On reflection I would accept this appeal. Some edits to Jordan may still fall under ARBPIA DS and related articles (such as Israel-Jordan relations) should be subject to the general prohibition and the general 1RR restriction, but Jordan should not.  GoldenRing (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I have just run across Sockpuppets of BlueSalix. I know that G5 on WP:CSD gives us the go-ahead to delete anything created by banned or blocked users. I know DarjeelingTea and LavaBaron are two of the somewhat prolific socks here. Based on G5, should we just delete articles they created (and I think there are many), such as United States presidential election, 2020, Secret Service Counter-Assault Teams and Abraham Lincoln's hearse are examples. Do those articles just get deleted because they were created by a blocked user? In the case of these last two socks, I think you might need a bot to go through them all. Also, the same thing for reviews. I just deleted one GA nomination submitted by one of the socks. Just off the top of my head, I remember seeing many LavaBaron nominations at GA in the last year or so. And I notified the Military History project that one of the socks has posted throughout several of its on-going A-class reviews. What is the process? — Maile (talk) 22:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * On a procedural note as I don't see you mention it in your question, the CSD G5 criteria only applies to articles and pages "that have no substantial edits by others".-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I was going to say what Ponyo said. Creations by sockpuppets of blocked/banned editors may be deleted, if there are no substantial edits by others. There's no requirement to do so, though. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. — Maile (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The other thing to note is that pages created before the SPI was filed and/or the users were master was blocked are not G5 eligible. Not sure if this is the case with some of the articles, but I thought I'd mention it for the record. Primefac (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As long as the master was blocked at the time the sock created the article, it is eligible as it was created "in violation of their ban or block".-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point. Amended above. Primefac (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, this is something I see at CSD, which are numerous speedy delete nominations where the article was created before it was determined they were a sock. In most cases, it's articles that could be deleted on other factors anyway. But now I see the clear answer - if the master was blocked when the sock created it, it's eligible. Overall, I'm glad I opened this thread as I do a lot of work at CSD, and all of the above is good information to have. — Maile (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

An article which survived an AfD (such as United States presidential election, 2020) can't be deleted under G5. The other2 articles you mentioned could be, althoughan admin may simply decide against. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, something that's been alluded to but not stated explicitly in this section: just because a sock created an article, it doesn't mean it has to be deleted. If the contributions are clearly helpful (as the ones mentioned here), there's no real reason to delete them. ansh 666 08:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)