User talk:KrakatoaKatie/Archive 56

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Muboshgu
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg None

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news
 * A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news
 * The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey results have been posted. The Community Tech team will investigate and address the top ten results.
 * The Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting comments on new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools for development in early 2018. Feedback can be left on the discussion page or by email.

Arbitration
 * Following the results of the 2017 election, the following editors have been (re)appointed to the Arbitration Committee:, , , , , , ,.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Unite the Right rally
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Unite the Right rally. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Review of block on 180.191.64.0/18
Can we chat about this? A user appears to have been caught by collateral damage about 3-4 times and is convinced you're out to get them (I know you're absolutely not but when you get the wrong end of the stick....). See User talk:Nicco18. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Potential SPI issue
Hi, I don't really know much about filing SPIs but I am not sure what the right thing to do would be in this case - I came across a Draft:Ini Njan Urangatte while reviewing AfC submissions with an unusual deletion record saying that 18 days ago there had been a mass deletion of articles by User:Pkjaya for "mass spamming of an author's works". It looks like the same draft may be back. It was created by User:Avinashkz and has since been edited by User:Pkjaya. Not sure what's going on, but thought I should let someone know.SeraphWiki (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is addressed in this archived SPI case.

This Month in GLAM: December 2017
About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 21:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Block
Please see this and block vandal.--C3r4 ( (ask me) ) 19:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

reverting vandalism
–Hi Katie,

Thank you for the swift response to Edit warring report at National Iranian American Council. I just noticed that you have protected the page and issued a warning to the user involved. However, the current protection reflects user Wikidave2009's fifth reversion which has removed Section: March 2017 revelations and implications. Please see # "" which shows user Wikidave2009's latest edit which has removed the entire section. Three editors have created and recreated that section, while only one user keeps deleting it. So there is a general consensus on that. Can you please revert that? Thank you so very much. Alwaysf (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2018 Winter Olympics
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2018 Winter Olympics. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Request Unban
Dear KrakatoaKatie, I'm having trouble emailing the Arbcom list. Although it is a pain, could you forward this to the list for me? I will not put such an amount of text on your page again.

Dear Arbcom,

Herewith do I request an unban on the basis "I didn't do it." I'll keep this short but will be happy to answer any detailed question any of you have. After 5 or 6 years of productive content-editing without incident, I abandoned my original account for privacy reasons and was banned with a button click as a sockpuppet by Timotheus Canens. You can see what I was doing at my very first edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Colton_Cosmic&oldid=477070007. You don't even need to follow the link, I'll quote it:

"I'm Colton Cosmic. I had a previous Wikipedia account but I'm switching to this because of privacy considerations. In my previous account I found that certain among editors whose style tended towards the adversarial went so far as to engage in "opposition research," which is to say one used the dominant search engine not to locate reliable sources that countered my edits on the article in question, but rather to attempt to discredit me personally, and under my actual name. The switch is not specifically about that incident, but rather the privacy considerations it called to my attention.

I looked over the Wikipedia policies regarding accounts after one's first and they did not really account for my situation. However I think what I'm doing is entirely in tune with the Wikipedia project, with its goals and spirit and morals. To assuage any concerns, I hereby state that I will not edit any article under this account that I edited under the previous, neither will I even access the previous account except should there be unforeseen circumstance, in which case I will make notification here, at this page.

What else? I really cared about the articles I edited so it has an effect on me to leave them behind (though I still will look at them now and then). But rather than melancholy, I see it as renewing, like in Logan's Run or whatever. Colton Cosmic (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)."

Timotheus Canens turned inside out to outside in and decreed me a sockpuppet by virtue of the fact that I refused to pretend to be someone else.

After that WP:AN/ANI landed on me. There're 51 of them watchlisting my talkpage, and these are not the nice, fair ones. I've accumulated pursuers. You can say "oh just try back after a year like the last one told you" but it's been 6 years. There's no reason for even my talkpage to be blocked to me, you can scour whatever I managed to write there going back like 5 years and you won't find an insult or rude comment. The last admin to open my talkpage for me to participate was Jayron32 and he was immediately reversed *without prior consultation* by Thyrduulf.

Given the amount of pursuers I have, it'd be quite disingenuous for you Arbcom to advise me "just come back in a year." I won't last 30 seconds then anymore than I will right now.

Lastly, although I recall Arbcom making a motion to take itself out of the appeals business a couple years ago, I don't think that you can do that because it's in the Arbcom charter. The charter would have to be amended, which I think Wikipedia at large has to vote on.

Therefore I ask that my appeal be considered and that my talkpage be opened to me for discussion purposes. Thanks.

Colton Cosmic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.207.11.59 (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Procedural note: Arbcom still handles appeals from (i) from editors who are subject to an OversightBlock or a Checkuserblock; (ii) from editors who are blocked for reasons that are unsuitable for public discussion; and (iii) from editors blocked or banned by Arbitration and Arbitration Enforcement decisions. – so if you were actually blocked as a result of checkuser (I haven't checked) then it's still for them to handle. The address should always work. &#8209; Iridescent 20:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Strangely enough I guess one could consider me checkuser-blocked. What happened is that in desperation, I block-evaded using a raw IP, clearly disclosing my account name in the edit. Let's call that (A). Then a day or so later, someone impersonates me, signs my username. Let's call that (B). This same someone (I don't even know what the heck he or she was on about) socks as somebody else. Let's call that (C). The checkuser finds technical association between (B) and (C), but nothing having to do with (A). Nevertheless some "sockpuppet investigations clerk" writes it up as (A) = (B) = (C), and slaps me with it at my user page. If this gets me a hearing at Arbcom, fine. If you want to bring up my case at WP:AN/ANI, Iridescent, that's fine too. Colton Cosmic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.207.11.59 (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd want to wait and see what Arbcom says first, and I'd need to know the full back story. Despite popular opinion, the Wikipedia hivemind is generally very reluctant to ban people outright and very keen to give second chances, so I suspect there's some more background here you're not mentioning which shows you in a poorer light than the summary you've given above. (This is a request for you to send me a wall of text! Wait and see what Arbcom say first of all, and if they decline your request as ultra vires I'll  researching the full history myself and seeing if I agree that there's been a miscarriage of process.) &#8209; Iridescent 21:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd check User_talk:Colton Cosmic first - the whole saga is probably summarised better there. According to that, CC cannot appeal his ban until December 2018, and I suspect that will be reset as soon as someone notices this conversation as well. Black Kite (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd check User_talk:Colton Cosmic first - the whole saga is probably summarised better there. According to that, CC cannot appeal his ban until December 2018, and I suspect that will be reset as soon as someone notices this conversation as well. Black Kite (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * You can't just say you suspect I'm withholding damaging information, Iridescent, and expect me not to respond if I'm able. Ask me anything. I've done a lot of clearly-disclosed-under-my-username raw IP block evasion in an effort to get around my pursuers, and correct an unjust and unjustified and untrue ban. That's about it. If you find me a little rude at edit #2312 or whatever, I assure you it's less than a tenth of what (good lord!) has been dished out to me by my pursuers. "The Wikipedia hivemind is generally very reluctant to ban people outright and very keen to give second chances" has not been my experience at all. Colton Cosmic. PS: As fair warning, if you do try to help me, there's serious risk some of my pursuers will become your pursuers. I have noticed this happen more than once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.207.11.59 (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You can't contact the Committee because your email has been disabled. I see several CU checks in the log, but no CheckUser or Oversight blocks. In addition, this is a community ban, not an Arbcom ban. Does that AN discussion sound familiar to you? I was on a health break then so I don't know much about it, but I think  is correct that these edits reset the one-year clock to January 2019.
 * About Colton's request to forward this 'I didn't do it' appeal – no, I won't forward it, because it's a waste of time. The community banned you and you have to appeal to the community on the community's terms, which require you to not edit for a full calendar year (as I said, I was pretty sick in 2014 and I don't remember your case). You keep not doing that, so there's not much I can do to help you. Katietalk 01:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't around in 2014 so haven't seen this particular incident before. If the only issue is that CC has logged on as an IP to submit block appeals and by logging on as an IP has thus technically reset the appeal clock, and there's been no other activity that would constitute sockpuppetry—which seems to be the impression I get from User talk:Colton Cosmic—then keeping the block in place for five years seems excessive. Looking at this thread from 2013 it appears that Arbcom has previously reviewed the block and imposed unblock conditions in doing so, so this may be a de facto Arbcom-imposed block. That thread isn't very informative, and it seems to assume that everyone commenting is already aware of the background. My personal inclination would be to unblock, given that the account would be watched like a hawk and anything inappropriate would lead to an immediate reblock; given the time elapsed CC could easily have set up a new account and nobody would be any the wiser, so it appears that we're punishing someone for attempting to follow the rules rather than slipping back in under the wire. However, because at least some of the discussions have clearly taken place privately it needs someone who wasn't involved in the original discussions, and who has access to the arbcom-l archives and arbwiki, to review the original correspondence regarding the block-unblock-reblock discussions in 2013. &#8209; Iridescent 09:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't around in 2014 so haven't seen this particular incident before. If the only issue is that CC has logged on as an IP to submit block appeals and by logging on as an IP has thus technically reset the appeal clock, and there's been no other activity that would constitute sockpuppetry—which seems to be the impression I get from User talk:Colton Cosmic—then keeping the block in place for five years seems excessive. Looking at this thread from 2013 it appears that Arbcom has previously reviewed the block and imposed unblock conditions in doing so, so this may be a de facto Arbcom-imposed block. That thread isn't very informative, and it seems to assume that everyone commenting is already aware of the background. My personal inclination would be to unblock, given that the account would be watched like a hawk and anything inappropriate would lead to an immediate reblock; given the time elapsed CC could easily have set up a new account and nobody would be any the wiser, so it appears that we're punishing someone for attempting to follow the rules rather than slipping back in under the wire. However, because at least some of the discussions have clearly taken place privately it needs someone who wasn't involved in the original discussions, and who has access to the arbcom-l archives and arbwiki, to review the original correspondence regarding the block-unblock-reblock discussions in 2013. &#8209; Iridescent 09:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * It wasn't "the community" that banned me, ever. The community is all the content editors and administrative participants. A representative sampling of the community would unban me in a flash. Instead the ban was handled by a WP:AN/ANI mob composed largely of my pursuers. You speak of terms, this mob violated its own terms and rules. The vote counter and discussion closer is supposed to discard votes that are unaccompanied by a reason. The vast, vast majority of my banners provided no reasoning. It was simply "we don't like you, go away." Further I was disallowed from defending myself. I have never been able to defend myself throughout a ban debate. I am satisfied with the content work I did prior my ban, which included originally authoring about 10 articles which of course show up as the top results in websearches. You can see at least one of them "Rain City Superhero Movement" which I was able to make as Colton Cosmic before being wiped out. It was used in two Slate.com articles and quoted by anchor Robin Meade on a national cable news network. My original content work in my single prior abandoned account were of a more "serious" nature and no doubt had even more impact. It doesn't hurt me that much, though it's a bit galling to be branded a sockpuppet for refusing to sock. I don't understand how you turn me down and look at yourself in the mirror and say "WP:AN/ANI works fine." Colton Cosmic. PS: Iridescent, I dunno about checkuser blocks in whatever log, but I believe I'm "confirmed" by checkusers to be "BIG OL BENDER" and some other account named in Latin or French using characters I don't even know how to type, and both allegations are unequivocally, absolutely, irretrievably false. I had never heard of those accounts prior being confirmed to be them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.207.9.219 (talk) 02:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * See my comment immediately above. I withdraw my offer to review this; because some of the discussions have clearly taken place privately, it will need someone with access to arbcom-l and arbwiki (which I don't have) to investigate what's happened here. &#8209; Iridescent 09:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Bah, I swear this is about my last here at KK's talkpage and I will keep it short. Iridescent, you're looking for some Rosetta Stone figuring that if only you could absorb every detail and opinion it would all make sense to you. But it's all bull. I am a good editor that was falsely blocked. Sure, I recall first contacting Arbcom in 2012. I communicated only with Silktork, who fooled me by signing his emails "The Committee" which made me think Arbcom was discussing my case, but it was just him. Based on his later activity, which including threatening the administrator rights of Nihonjoe who helped me, and his suspicion-mongering, I view him as among my pursuers. It's stupid. He says a year later, in 2013, that he "was provided information that I may be the returning sockpuppet of a banned user." I'm like "What?! Why didn't you tell me this a year ago?" Why can't Silktork say who has provided this secret evidence, or even who I am supposed to be? I dunno, because he'll quickly be found out as full of baloney and he knows it? I'm exactly who I say I am, Iridescent, all this other stuff is just noise, suspicion mongering and, forgive the crudity, administrative group masturbation by sadistic blocklovers. There's nothing there. Colton Cosmic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.207.13.189 (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Here is the orignal block discussion (well, the unblock/reblock one). Like Iridescent, assuming there's nothing we don't know about, I'd suggest submitting an unblock request here which could be thrown over to AN.  I suspect it probably won't go well, given the daft amount of posting on Jimbo's page and elsewhere since, but it's worth a try. Black Kite (talk) 01:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The standard method of dealing with Colton Cosmic's unblock trolling is RBI. It is not uncommon when January rolls around for CC to try to find new, well-meaning arbitrators who don't know the backstory, and waste as much of their time as he can. (Why would any sane, decent human do this? That's an excellent rhetorical question, Floq.) Katie, don't spend any time on this.  You have my word that this person should never be unblocked, and I'd be willing to bet will never be unblocked.  I do wish we would stop going through the silly theater of resetting the 1 year unblock request clock, and just be honest with him: CC, you are never going to be unblocked. It won't change his behavior, but it would be more honest. The only answer to trolling is RBI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

UTRS #20330
Hi, I wonder if you would be good enough to take another look at the block that is affecting this user, please? The IP range belongs to 'GBB SJN IP Pool', which is well known a Filipino ISP. There seems to be significant collateral damage from blocks on this ISP ranges (I have had notice of a number of problems). Would it be possible to check the webhost status, please, and also whether a 'Anon only/Account creation disabled' block would suffice. Thanks! Just Chilling (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Responded. No objection to granting a temporary or permanent IPBE. Katietalk 17:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

AN
You never do anything bad. I just wanted to "exonerate" Vanja, not that I imagine he cares much.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * FWIW I was also not meaning to imply anything, I was just honestly curious if one checkuser could "approve" an unblock request on another checkuser's block. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The policy I quoted was for any kind of blocking. Per CheckUser policy, Katie could have unblocked the editor without even talking to me. Separate topic., you are missed at SPI! --Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Aw, you guys are awesome. Thanks. I felt this one deserved some wider scrutiny on the merits, hence my advice. (Plus I totally missed NEVERUNBLOCK. Went in one eye and out the other.) And yes, Ivanvector, you are missed at SPI! :-) Katietalk 00:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

User talk:AlwaysTwisting block notice missing
I see you blocked User talk:AlwaysTwisting, but forgot to add a blocking notice so it is clear why they were blocked. Cheers! -- Alexf(talk) 19:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, he knows. He's a confirmed sock of . No notice per WP:DENY. Katietalk 19:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I see now. Thanks. -- Alexf(talk) 19:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 26
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 26, December – January 2018  Arabic and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
 * # 1Lib1Ref
 * User Group update
 * Global branches update
 * Spotlight: What can we glean from OCLC’s experience with library staff learning Wikipedia?
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

re: desysop
Understood. That is a sensible precaution to take for the time being. Please keep me posted on any further developments in this matter. --  Denelson83  03:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The stewards have also globally locked your account until we can be certain you've got firm control of it. You won't be able to reply here, obviously, but pings still work. It's a precaution for your protection and that of the encyclopedia, but you can email us at the arbcom-l list or the CheckUsers on the checkuser-l list. Katietalk 03:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Since the account is locked for the time being, Denelson83 won't be able to log in to see pings or to edit their talk page, so email will be the best contact method. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg None
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news
 * An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
 * Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news
 * A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration
 * The Arbitration Committee has enacted a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a standardized editnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Clarify
I just want to seek clarification here and see what's going on. Are you (as in ARBCOM) dismissing the case? Or is the case still taken into consideration and there are other private matters going on? Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a privacy issue. I can't comment more than that, sorry. Katietalk 18:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, no problem. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Will I get an update on this? Just wondering. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I'm sorry, but you won't. I can't comment further. Katietalk 20:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I understand the sensitivities involved. My request for an update is not to be enlightened further about the privacy issue itself. I’m just wondering if Abbatai will continue to edit or not. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not ArbCom so I'm almost in the dark as much as you are, but I can confirm that that user is no longer a user here. That's about all I can say, however.  Ian.thomson (talk) 04:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ian. That's all I wanted to know. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BANREVERT, I've also been reverting some of A--'s tendentious edits. They were not only disruptive, but made forcefully through various socks and tag-team edit-warring. But at the same time, I don't want to be jumping the gun here. Let me know if WP:BANREVERT would be applicable in this case. Thanks, Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: January 2018
About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 13:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: January 2018
About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 13:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 March newsletter
And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. With 53 contestants qualifying, the groups for round 2 are slightly smaller than usual, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining users.

Our top scorers in round 1 were:


 * 🇺🇸 Aoba47 led the field with a featured article, 8 good articles and 42 GARs, giving a total of 666 points.
 * 🇩🇪 FrB.TG, a WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points, gained from a featured article and masses of bonus points.
 * 🇮🇳 Ssven2, another WikiCup newcomer, was in third place with 403 points, garnered from a featured article, a featured list, a good article and twelve GARs.
 * 🇺🇸 Ceranthor, 🇮🇳 Numerounovedant, Carbrera, 🇳🇱 Farang Rak Tham and 🇷🇴 Cartoon network freak all had over 200 points, but like all the other contestants, now have to start again from scratch. A good achievement was the 193 GARs performed by WikiCup contestants, comparing very favourably with the 54 GAs they achieved.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) and Vanamonde (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Lourdes†
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V
 * † Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news
 * The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
 * Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
 * A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
 * A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news
 * CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
 * The edit filter has a new feature  that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous
 * Following the 2018 Steward elections, the following users are our new stewards:, , , ,.

Obituaries
 * Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Canada
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Canada. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Service Merchandise
Hi! I received a strange message on Commons, the one and only edit from that user, that is probably related to the SP case on Service Merchandise. There is something that I should know about that case, in order to monitor it on Commons as well? Thanks -- Ruthven ( msg ) 16:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi yourself! This is the case, and it's pretty straightforward. Any of the logos and images related to any of those companies can be targets. Be careful, though, because these people have a history of harassing admins. Might be best to ignore it and see if we can draw some more sleepers out of the woodwork. If we do, we can put one of the Commons CUs on it and start blocking them there, or even putting down global blocks for crosswiki abuse. Katietalk 20:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * They're probably related to Commons user Wopogo, who uploaded the image and is blocked there for multiple account abuse. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've noticed that as well, thanks. There were several IPs related to the file: 174.91.57.36 and 76.66.172.10. Pinging who blocked the user. Btw: I restored the deletion request on Commons. -- Ruthven ( msg ) 20:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Email
Nothing urgent! - TNT❤ 20:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)