User talk:49TL/Archive/February 2019

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Enterprisey • JJMC89
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg BorgQueen
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svgprisey

Guideline and policy news
 * A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
 * Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
 * A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news
 * A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous
 * Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
 * A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me...
...but I don't think someone who edits an article with the statement "Jose is also a bonafide spic" needs to be treated with kid gloves.HalfShadow 01:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * True enough. I tend to go through the motions anyway, but you're not wrong. 49 TL   01:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Stephen Breyer
Hi 49TL! I hope you're having a great weekend. I noticed that you blocked the 2600:1015:B125:E4E2:B4F2::/64 range (perfect!), but after blocking each individual IP from that range for evasion. I just wanted to let you know that I removed the individual IP blocks you placed so that the /64 range block you placed would take care of them all. It makes it easy in case we were to need to remove that /64 range block, or extend it to a wider range (we would just unblock the /64 range and apply a wider block, etc). If you have any questions, let me know. Cheers ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   23:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for that. Are there any pages that discuss best practice for range blocks (such as unblocking the individual IPs afterwards)? I've searched but can't find much. 49 TL   09:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome! :-) Other than the pages that have the in-depth technical information about what IP ranges are and how CIDR notation works, there really isn't much. I've had to apply some best practices from what I've learned from making them myself after making many range blocks and from helping other admins with ranges. One recent example is on my user talk page here, where I helped a group of admins by walking them through how to check for collateral damage. Even they agreed that instructions and pages with best practices regarding range blocking is very lacking here. I do what I can to help though; I've put creating or adding this information to the appropriate place on my to-do list. When it gets done is up in the air; I have a lot of different projects and daily tasks on my plate where getting things on my to-do list completed has been going pretty slow...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   09:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Good read, thanks! I'm encouraged to see my pre-block checks are pretty much in line with yours. Will definitely bear in mind removing the original blocks in future. 49 TL   19:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You bet; always happy to help. :-) And again, removing individual blocks placed after extending a block to a range isn't absolutely urgent or crucial... but I can tell you that it makes life a lot easier. It changes the block for each individual IP to inherit the block placed on the range, which means that all of the blocks are set to the same expiration, and if you have to extend the block to a wider range - you just unblock the first range and then apply a block to the wider one. Or, if you find that you need to remove the entire block for any reason - you just need to remove the one block as opposed to having to rush and search through range contribs, block logs, etc and hope that you unblock them all. Just little things like that... the small conveniences and advantages definitely add up as you apply and manage more range blocks for various and unrelated things - lol. I'm glad that my input was of some inspiration and use to you. If you need me for anything else, you know where to find me. ;-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   19:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Wanda Nara
Hello, 49TL! Thanks for defending the article Wanda Nara. Someone listed it at RfPP. I semi-protected it for a week, and I revision-deleted the grossly inappropriate stuff. I think I got it all, but please check to see if I missed anything. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks. Looks like you got them all. I've done a bit of reading on revision deletion and will remember to clean up next time :) 49 TL   22:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, with BLPs it's important to not just revert that kind of stuff but to get it out of the history as well. Sometimes you have to rev-del a dozen perfectly innocent edits between the vandalism and the revert, because the intervening edits display the vandalism too. It would sure be nice if some of these jerks would get a new hobby. :-( -- MelanieN (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * And welcome back, admin. We appreciate the help. I saw you revdeleted that offensive username: thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate the note. There's a decent amount of new stuff around since I was last properly active, but I think I'm getting the hang of it again! 49 TL   18:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Indian Air Force
Hey, I saw you changed visibility of some revisions on Indian Air Force and Future of the Indian Air Force due to RD3. Can you please take a look at List of active Indian military aircraft for similar issue? Thanks —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 06:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey there, I've just had a look through the edits from the past couple of days and can't see anything that would usually meet the revision deletion criteria. From what I can tell, it seems like "standard" vandalism, but let me know if I've missed anything or need to look back further. 49 TL   07:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)