User talk:Vanamonde93/Archive 21

Brandon Victor Dixon
Hey, I might live to regret this idea but I’m wondering about potentially reducing the restriction on the Brandon Victor Dixon page to pending changes rather than semi-protected? He just did a widely watched television special in the US and I’m wondering if we might get some helpful new users wanting to add to the page constructively. Reaching out to you because I saw you were the one who had to protect it when there was so much vandalism in 2016, so if you think this is a bad idea, I completely defer to your judgment! Just a thought. Innisfree987 (talk) 07:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to give it a shot. So reduced. I'm still sort of on break, so if vandalism resumes you may get a faster response at RFPP. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 11:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! Will do. Hope all is well with you, meanwhile. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Colt AR-15
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Colt AR-15. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Legality of cannabis by country
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Legality of cannabis by country. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Brad Smith (American lawyer)
I responded there; I was worried without the contrast of "known for settling but filed some rather big lawsuits", it's not really "hook-y". Can you say what needs to be done? --GRuban (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * replied. Vanamonde (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kathua rape case, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page People's Democratic Party ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Kathua_rape_case check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Kathua_rape_case?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Syria
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Syria. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year

 * Cheers, FR. The same to you and yours. Vanamonde (talk) 11:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Holocaust denial
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Holocaust denial. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

See
User talk:Yogesh Khandke Doug Weller  talk 17:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Found nothing of use, I'm afraid. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll admit I was drowning in confusion. Doug Weller  talk 17:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks very much like one of the stalwarts from my RFA; several of them have learned to dodge the doctor's checks, I regret to say. I don't know which one specifically, though I could speculate. YK is in any case topic-banned from Indian History (though it really needs to be an Indian politics and history ban), and can't do much about it. Thanks for the revdel. Vanamonde (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Robert's Rules of Order
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Robert's Rules of Order. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2018
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Trump–Russia dossier
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Trump–Russia dossier. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 May newsletter
The second round of the 2018 WikiCup has now finished. Most contestants who advanced to the next round scored upwards of 100 points, but two with just 10 points managed to scrape through into round 3. Our top scorers in the last round were:


 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with three featured articles
 * Iazyges, with nine good articles and lots of bonus points
 * 🇮🇳 Yashthepunisher, a first time contestant, with two featured lists
 * SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with seventeen good topic articles
 * 🇺🇸 Usernameunique, a first time contestant, with fourteen DYKs
 * Muboshgu, a seasoned competitor, with three ITNs and
 * Courcelles, another first time contestant, with twenty-seven GARs

So far contestants have achieved twelve featured articles between them and a splendid 124 good articles. Commendably, 326 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2018 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met; most of the GARs are fine, but a few have been a bit skimpy.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). 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 your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2018). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg None
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Chochopk • Coffee • Gryffindor • Jimp • Knowledge Seeker • Lankiveil • Peridon • Rjd0060

Guideline and policy news
 * The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
 * A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

Technical news
 * AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new  function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
 * When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
 * The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
 * There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration
 * The Arbitration Committee is seeking additional clerks to help with the arbitration process.

Obituaries
 * (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Madurai Airport
Hello Vanamonde93. Since this dispute was reported at WP:AN3, I've issued a block of the reported editor. Possibly this would influence your thinking on whether full protection of the Madurai Airport article is still needed. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It would indeed. Previous protection restored, and thanks for letting me know. Vanamonde (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pantheon-Sorbonne University
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Pantheon-Sorbonne University. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Protection modified
Just a courtesy FYI that I removed your pending changes protection from Hurricane Harvey and replaced with straight semiprotection, due to a recent uptick in vandalism that probably has to do with an internet meme (but I don't know which). Your PC would have expired before my semi did anyway, I just removed it early since I was in the dialog anyway. Cheers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, thanks for letting me know. Vanamonde (talk) 07:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2020
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2020. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Otsego
Hi there Vanamonde, I just thought I should let you know, since you raised an issue earlier, that I tweaked the hook to say "escaped destruction" after adding some sources to the article to clarify that this was in fact a potentially destructive event for ships. Otsegos stablemate, Prinz Waldemar, was wrecked at the mouth of the harbor shortly before Otsegos arrival, because the lighthouses had been destroyed by the earthquake. Otsego was initially reported as similarly wrecked but had in fact escaped the same fate, hence the hook. Cheers, Gatoclass (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That looks fine. I did see this when you made the change some hours ago, but I was otherwise occupied and since you had promoted the set to the queue anyhow, I felt it was no longer urgent. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Wanda W.
I am disappointed about the closing of the violinist who died 1 May. Recordings are recordings, see discogs, worldcat, musiekweb, all in the article, which could also live without the section. What else would you need? This was a great person known around the globe, - please let this not fail due a formality, without the chance to repair. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , it's possible you misunderstood me. I didn't close it because the recordings were unreferenced; I closed it because it was older than the last entry currently on the ITN template (when I closed it, May 2). Had the article been 100% referenced, I may have ignored that rule and posted it anyway; but with the recordings unreferenced, I would have caught a lot of flak for doing so. Is that more helpful? Vanamonde (talk) 13:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I find the whole thing terribly disappointing, - sorry to have blamed you. The article was was mostly as it's now on 3 March. What should I do differently next time? Yell sooner why nothing is happening? (I felt like it but wanted to stay calm and polite.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries, I entirely understand your pique, I was unhappy myself; the ITN/C admin corps should have done better. Yes, possibly yelling about why nothing was happening would have helped; or perhaps leaving a talk page message for an admin who works ITN/C and whom you know to be active. I wasn't active on 3 May, unfortunately. Vanamonde (talk) 14:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I hate yelling. - I should have learned by now not be attached. She was the first violinist I heard on stage, had so much to do with my personal memories. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * In that case, doubly understandable. I don't meant to suggest it's your fault for not yelling, only that yelling may have been the only option :) Vanamonde (talk) 04:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Just a heads-up
, I have no intention of vandalizing Wikipedia. Regarding this [] Bringing to your notice that similar reverts of sourced material have been made on various other articles by "MBlaze Lightning" and his teammates (could be a case of WP:MEAT with "Adamgerber80, D4iNa4, Razer2115 etc.) after which they get it protected! Wow! Look at these reverts:

[] (Removed sourced material then got it protected)

[] (Same here, removed a chunk of sourced material from a book and replaced it with an unreliable/self-published website, got it protected)

Many more instances.

MBlaze Lighting has been warned, a few days back by. Find it here []

Just a heads up for the admins. Please have a look at edit history before you protect an article or ban an IP. Thanks. 122.173.12.72 (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I've had extensive interactions with MBlaze and others. Their conduct is far from perfect, but that does not excuse block evasion on your part. You evaded a block a few hours ago, and are doing so again now. If you want to be taken seriously, go back to whatever your original account is, wait for a while, and then appeal your block. Vanamonde (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The IP seems to have missed that MBlaze had a pretty decent explanation for the thing I notified them off, so this account is at the least incomplete, and more realistically, it's misleading. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * In this case, absolutely; but MBlaze does have a record of reverting socks, and suspected socks, with less-than-ideal explanation. Be that as it may, none of us can treat the IP as anything other than a sock until he quits dodging blocks, goes back to his account and files an unblock request; which is really the point I'm trying to get across to him. Vanamonde (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh absolutely, and that's in part what I scolded them for. As an admin it's not always easy to see, smell, or guess at the reasons for a revert, and MBlaze and the other editor could have been much more clear. But this IP is just using that as an excuse. I have no sympathy for the person behind that IP address, and I think it's (again!) a combination of POV warring and a certain incompetence. Drmies (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but I know I'll be blocked again on behest of these editors even if my edits are made in good faith. By the way, still has to learn that if an IP (or even a sock) is helping revert removal of cited material, it should not be treated as a vandal (can always see the edit summary). You should block the IP but always have a look before the claimant reverts their edit(s) and "protection" is not applied blindly. Cheers. Hope this MBlaze Lightning and his WP:MEAT friends don't go out of hand. 122.173.12.72 (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "if an IP (or even a sock) is helping revert removal of cited material, it should not be treated as a vandal" means nothing. It depends on the edit, but if, someone editing Yoni, makes the same edit 13 times without bothering to explain, that's just douchebaggery. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Drmies, re "I have no sympathy..." neither do I. IP; you're doing yourself no favors. Your argument is disingenuous at best; IPs and socks are very different things, and no one has accused you of vandalism. You know sockpuppetry is not tolerated. Under these circumstances, if you persist in evading blocks, I can only conclude either that you are here for illegitimate purposes, or that you haven't the necessary competence. Even if you have raised legitimate issues with content, you are actively making those worse by socking to fight over them. The only legitimate path for you is to come clean; if you have no intentions of doing so, then please don't post here any longer, and don't be surprised to receive further blocks. Vanamonde (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Request for Review
Hi,

I am a paid consultant to Nextdoor. I am an experienced Wikipedia editor, though not even close to your level. The article for Nextdoor is poor. There are hundreds of reliable sources about the company, stretching over 10 years, but the article, in my view, is incomplete, poorly written, poorly structured, inaccurate in many places, and violates policy in some instances. So I created what I hope is a much better draft at: User:BC1278/sandbox/Nextdoor, with the goal of getting it to B class, and eventually GA. After opening a discussion at Talk:Nextdoor and an RfC for an ongoing dispute regarding one section of the existing article, an obstinate editor surfaced to voice various objections. This is all fine and good. I have a thick skin and expect extremely close scrutiny as a paid editor. However, upon researching the History of this article, I see that the same editor has been deleting reliably sourced content from the article stretching back for years, while adding spuriously (in my view) to the Controversy section, partially explaining why an app with tens of millions of users and extensive media coverage has such a weak article.

I checked the editor's user page and saw that a year ago you considered blocking them for problematic editing after multiple warnings. This led me to considering asking you to help with the independent review here. I don't know whether you have time, but given this state of affairs, it's going to be tough to have a constructive discussion with other editors about improving this article, and trying to eventually get it to GA, unless a senior editor/admin such as yourself is involved. I wonder if you might have time to do the review? Thank you. BC1278 (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278


 * If you give me a day or so, I will be able to look into potential behavioral issues here. However, I'm not willing to get involved in the content, as the topic is outside my area of expertise, and in any case, if I did so, I would be unable to act as an administrator. I am sure you will be able to find other folks willing to undertake a review; WP:GAN and WP:PR may be slow, but they do receive responses. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 04:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the guidance. As I mentioned, nothing this editor has said on the Talk page about my request violates Wikipedia policy. And in the past, the editor wasn't challenged after this removal of content, so there's no edit warring, just weak editing that supports his stated belief on Talk that articles about internet companies are too long and detailed. In this case, I will follow your advice, and wait for an independent editor(s) to do a review from WP:PR or some subject matter project. If the editor removes content after that, I'll go through a dispute resolution process of some sort and I can report any behavioral issues if the consensus decision is  interfered with. Thanks, Ed BC1278 (talk)BC1278


 * I am the editor to whom BC1278 refers. He wrote, "I checked the editor's user page and saw that a year ago you considered blocking them for problematic editing after multiple warnings." That just isn't the case, as you can see by going in your archive to Charged with vandalism by UW Dawgs again, where I communicated to you about another editor. The matter was resolved amicably. BC1278 is being paid by Nextdoor to rewrite this article. Now he is canvassing others, including you, to take his side. As you know, canvassing is against the rules of Wikipedia. BC1278 canvassed the following editors:
 * BC1278 DocWatson
 * L3X1
 * Daylen
 * Xezbeth
 * Editor 357


 * All edits I made over the years to Nextdoor were made in good faith. I simply do not like to see companies use Wikipedia has a means of publicity or advertising. This is an encyclopedia, not an advertising venue. What is at stake here is the credibility of Wikipedia. If you agree Wiki should be a credible source of information, maybe you can help me out. BC1278 and some of the people he canvassed have commented on the article. I think they should recuse themselves. Chisme (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I have suggested that there were behavioral problems at the article, only that I would look into it. Having read through the talk page and the draft, BC1278's conduct isn't perfect, but isn't really actionable either. The promotional tone in his draft comes from too much detail, which by itself is a very tricky problem to deal with. I suggest that you stop asking individual uninvolved editors for a review; it comes across the wrong way. And I also suggest you seriously look into any suggestions that the tone of your draft is promotional, because a person in your position cannot afford to do otherwise. Keep in mind that verifiability is necessary for inclusion, but isn't sufficient; not every detail attested to by reliable sources needs to be in an article. Vanamonde (talk) 04:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Vanamonde. I'm always pleased to work with experienced editors with constructive criticism, such as yours, and to modify any proposals I make accordingly. I'd like to find a way to make this happen within Wikipedia policy. Perhaps you can make suggestions. I have been seeking such an editor in the manner recommended manner by Wikipedia policy for years: I post on relevant projects, I ask specific editors within these projects, I ask editors who have previously edited the article constructively or I go to admins, as I did with you. I do not go to editors without any relationship to the subject, article or with admin expertise. Other more general, non-individual, avenues for getting response to a substantial rewrite are precluded: I am precluded from WP: PR or WP: GA because the redraft is in sandbox; WP: request edit is good for a review of a small updates, but for substantial updates, I have been instructed before via template to "request the editor with a COI attempt to discuss with editors engaged in the subject-area first." WP:RfC is specifically not for updates or redrafts, but for disputes.


 * Would it be acceptable if I only approached admins? Or only approached editors who had responded randomly to the RfC bot on Talk? Or if I ask each of the last 20 editors who have made edits to the article? Or every editor in the Websites project? There should be a mechanism for generating attention to this type of request that would be fair.


 * I also posted to the Talk page of the article, of course, which has how this other editor became involved with the redraft. In their comment, this editor expressed the viewpoint that a misdemeanor traffic accident offense by the company founder deserved its own section, but the article should not mention that the company had raised $285 million in financing; that the article needed to have a separate section called "Complaints"; and that the History section was typical of Wikipedia articles on Internet companies, but that this was a bad thing because all such articles have too much detail. And when facing all other editors, so far, in the RfC about the traffic accident (all four of the responding editors summoned by the RfC bot) saying this section is coatracking, responded with a personal attack on me: "How much is Nextdoor paying you to white-wash this Wikipedia article? How much would Nextdoor pay me not to write an article about Nirav Tolia?" None of these positions is defensible under Wikipedia policy. Then, in looking at the article history, I see that this editor has been feeding the "Controversy" section with Founder traffic incident, compounding the Founder section coatracking with inflammatory quote from a plaintiff's lawyer, adding a WP:BLP violation to boot. [dif [dif] [dif]. Even after an informal consensus was reached to remove that quote, Talk:Nextdoor, this editor keeps adding it back. I came to you after seeing you left a Talk comment for the editor about adding unsourced content and removing tags: User_talk:Chisme" "You were warned multiple times for this, but you chose to ignore those warnings. If you make the same type of edit again, expect a block without further warning." Taken together, this adds up to an editor who has a widespread misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. And now is attempting to impede this redraft from getting a fair, independent review from a neutral party with extensive Wikipedia experience who will follow policy. My redraft, with some work, should be able to get to a "B" and eventually a "GA", vastly improving a very weak article about a service used in 170,000 local communities worldwide, each with an average of 1,000 users (about 170 million people.) There needs to be some mechanism so more experienced editors can be involved in the review in order to greatly improve the quality of an article that should be of wide interest.BC1278 (talk)BC1278
 * I'm afraid I have no easy answers for you. Our restrictions on paid/COI editing are tight for a reason, and I don't deny it's going to be difficult to work within the rules. That said, pestering a number of editors is probably not the best way to go forward. My suggestion would be for you to put forward alternative versions for each section on the talk page (one at a time) and if folks raise objections, to open an RFC, because that could legitimately be construed as a dispute. As I said before, I'm disinclined to get involved further. Vanamonde (talk) 17:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. There are already two editors who have expressed a willingness to help here, but they were approached in the manner I describe above. I have absolutely no personal or professional ties to them and they both have connections to the article (one was a previous editor; one left a comment on an RfC, summoned by a bot). So I don't need to pester anyone else, but it seems as you might not want me to work with them for the reasons you cited above. Or can I? I always thought asking people who were editors of an article to comment on Talk was encouraged. It's important to me that I stay within your guidance.BC1278 (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278
 * If they've been involved in content discussions on that page before, sure, you can work with them. Vanamonde (talk) 05:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

RD
Hey Vanamonde93! I just fixed up a few sources for George Deukmejian and wondering if there's any other sources that are out of place so this nom can pass RD. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look. Vanamonde (talk) 04:47, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ursula K. Le Guin bibliography, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Nicholls ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Ursula_K._Le_Guin_bibliography check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Ursula_K._Le_Guin_bibliography?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Immigration and crime in Germany
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Immigration and crime in Germany. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Abusive IP
Hey, Vanamonde. The IP is static, and has only ever been used on Wikipedia by one person, for one edit, the one on Sitush's page. Revolting. I don't even understand what they're on about, as Sitush has never edited "Sagarika's page". Maybe a bit more than 31 hours? Or do you think that's pointless? I don't understand Indian IPs very well, sorry. Bishonen &#124; talk 18:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC).
 * If you believe it justified, certainly; what would you recommend? I blocked for 31 hours only because I'm not comfortable enough with the technical details to judge whether a long block was justified off the bat. Vanamonde (talk) 04:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I think it's justified, after the crap on Sitush's page; the question is more if there's any point, or if they'll just flit on to a new IP and continue to post predictions that people will die of cancer. But I don't see that it can hurt, so I've upped it to a week. Bishonen &#124; talk 10:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC).
 * Oh absolutely, I meant "justified" from a technical point of view; given the nature of the IP, how long a block is "justified" before we run too high a risk of collateral damage. Which you've answered. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 11:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That IP is Shantanusingh10 who I blocked a few hours before the IP showed up. He'll be back with a new IP soon enough, it's a Vodafone India mobile IP and that changes as often as the phone is restarted or a connection reset. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  11:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah well. I suspected as much. Hopefully Sitush's admin stalkers are spread across enough time zones to handle it :) Vanamonde (talk) 11:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

About the XFD closure on 2016 Indian Line of Control strike
Hi, This is pertaining to your statement about "they not been blinkered by their agreement with the closure" at WP:AE. The XFD was actually re-opened because I bought it to the attention of and  at User_talk:Bonadea. The only reason I did not open it myself was because that would lead to another round of reverts. Again this more like a FYI and I replied here in order to avoid the WP:AE becoming just about this specific XFD. Hope this clears some of the confusion. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that you brought it to Bonadea's attention, but that doesn't matter much. My point is simply that D4iNa4 pointed to a bad NAC as evidence of a bad AfD, which to me is symptomatic of the fact that they (and everyone else in that discussion, including the OP) is searching too hard for evidence that could lead to sanctions. Vanamonde (talk) 05:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Judicial Watch
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Judicial Watch. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Sdmarathe
Under IPA DS, I have banned Sdmarathe from interacting with you. This is a one-way IBAN and does not imply any wrong-doing on your part, nor does it formally restrict you in any way; however, I thought you should be informed of it and would advise that you take care not to inadvertently act in a way that could be construed as provoking violations of the ban. If this puts you in a difficult place regarding administrative action, please do feel free to contact me either on-wiki (generally best during business hours UTC) or by email (which I generally get quickly most times). GoldenRing (talk) 09:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw the notice. The solution makes sense to me; given his limited activity, more sense than a t-ban, actually. I do not act as an administrator in most areas related to South Asian politics, because I've contributed content in those areas; so I do not foresee any trouble. I also note that there's only two articles, and no topics, which he edited before I did; so unless there's a major increase in his activity, I'm in no danger of even appearing to follow him around with the intent of provoking IBAN violations. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 09:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

FYI
- the user repeatedly modifies comments by others on article talk page. Perhaps you do not mind that he modifies your comment, by I do mind when someone makes my comment a part of another new section. My very best wishes (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll drop a note on his talk; at the very least, that sort of thing isn't conducive to discussion. Vanamonde (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is my understanding of this. Collect did explain his revert here. One can agree or disagree about it, but I think it was an explanation. By breaking this thread to separate parts, Paul Siebert makes it to appear as if Collect did not respond anything of substance. My very best wishes (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, he shouldn't be doing that, and I've told him as much. I wasn't happy with Collect's response either, but that isn't the way to discuss it. Vanamonde (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is what he did in response to your recommendation to self-revert. Like I said, Collect did explain his edit. The entire point here is to start discussing user Collect on article talk page instead of discussing content. My very best wishes (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm addressing it. Collect's explanation is quite inadequate, but this isn't the way to address it. Vanamonde (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Joseph Campanella
For the record one source that was tagged was already there (so I did not place it there!!!) and the main issue were that the sources were very vague with the content they were covering but no worries with more reliable obits coming out I replaced them with more precise (non-vague) references. Hope you understand! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of that, and I'm also aware that it was that source which had the largest shortcoming. That said, I don't think you've taken my advice quite to heart. You cannot google a sentence and use the top hits as sources without running into this problem quite frequently. Also, if you find a source which supports only part of a sentence, then rewrite the sentence, don't just add the source. Please, please, take more care, as I am really not keen on escalating this. Vanamonde (talk) 14:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Colt AR-15
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Colt AR-15. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Pseudoscience has edit wars again
Template:Pseudoscience, since your last protection expired, has had more edit warring again.

Sorry all I can do is bring this up on your talk page, but my real-life limitations won't let me find the right board or procedure for this at the moment and I won't be able to follow-up.

Thank you! I really like your show/hide bars on your user page, by the way. —Geekdiva (talk) 07:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I've re-protected it. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 07:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Old Music and the Slave Women
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Old Music and the Slave Women you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 11:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Tawana Brawley rape allegations
I addressed all of your concerns regarding the Tawana Brawley rape allegations article.--MagicatthemovieS
 * I'll take a look: I still have a little bit of the article to go through. Vanamonde (talk) 09:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Old Music and the Slave Women
The article Old Music and the Slave Women you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Old Music and the Slave Women for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Tawana
Are you satisfied with this version of the article?--MagicatthemovieS
 * What's the flaming hurry, MagicatthemovieS? I have the review page watchlisted; I'll get there soon. Vanamonde (talk) 04:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2018 Gaza border protests
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2018 Gaza border protests. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Re: Nextdoor discussion.
Sorry. I didn't mean to ping you. I was just trying to source the genesis of the discussion that led me to that approach. I wasn't trying to get you to weigh in. Really, otherwise, I would have left the redraft as one proposal and tried to deal with it there.BC1278 (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278
 * That's alright. For what it's worth, I don't think the fault in that discussion is entirely yours. Vanamonde (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 May 2018
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Old Music and the Slave Women
— Maile (talk) 00:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Request for deletion
I need to request you that please delete four pages - User talk:Ram The Editor, User talk:Misser Boss, User talk:Yisrael Kristal and User talk:Widr farted as the reason G6. We don't need those pages any more. Thank you. 182.69.24.11 (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * User talk pages are only deleted under exceptional circumstances. I do not see any such applying here: G6 certainly does not qualify. Why exactly do you want them deleted? Vanamonde (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cameron Kasky
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cameron Kasky. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Talkback
Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Continuation of "Request for deletion"
The other criteria to delete those four pages are "G7: Author requests deletion". 182.69.24.11 (talk) 08:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You are not the author of those pages, and therefore cannot request their deletion under G7. Furthermore, G7 is certainly not going to be applied to a user talk page with authors besides that user. Who are you, and why do you want those pages deleted? Vanamonde (talk) 08:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Talkback
Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Patience, :) Vanamonde (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Rashid Vally
Alex Shih (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit Protection on Page Neerali
Hello Vanamonde93

Upcoming movie page Neerali was edit protected but I do not see much reason for that. can you please check on that ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zyravi (talk • contribs) 07:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It was protected because of repeated disruptive editing, and that protection is not going to be lifted anytime soon. Vanamonde (talk) 07:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Leyla Express and Johnny Express incidents
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Leyla Express and Johnny Express incidents you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Canadian Paul -- Canadian Paul (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Cabinet of Donald Trump
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Cabinet of Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Leyla Express and Johnny Express incidents
The article Leyla Express and Johnny Express incidents you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Leyla Express and Johnny Express incidents for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Canadian Paul -- Canadian Paul (talk) 10:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Leyla Express and Johnny Express incidents
The article Leyla Express and Johnny Express incidents you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Leyla Express and Johnny Express incidents for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Canadian Paul -- Canadian Paul (talk) 10:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

AN3
Hey. Thanks for your contribution to the report I filed, but I believe you may have misinterpreted it, and the user/page being reported. --  Alex TW 10:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks to the fact that the bunch of you are edit-warring over multiple pages, yes, it seems I have; but my conclusion remains the same, and an additional page has now been protected. Vanamonde (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, my edits on the singular page after I stated that I was the one that stopped any warring for the sake of discussion... What a great job you've done, bud! --  Alex TW 10:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If you expect an editor to be blocked for edit-warring when the last edit she made was more than 72 hours ago, you need to reevaluate your expectations. That said, since Drmargi hasn't been editing the talk page either, I've unprotected. Vanamonde (talk) 11:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, that wasn't a mess. Thanks for your help on a thread that already had administrator involvement. By the way, "abandoning" indicates involvement. --  Alex TW 11:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ""abandoning" indicates involvement" Um what? Vanamonde (talk) 11:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * one party appears to have abandoned the page You said abandoned. That means that there was recently involvement. --  Alex TW 11:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I explicitly referred to the article as a whole, not the talk page, so I'm afraid you're not making much sense. I reiterate, drop this and move on. Vanamonde (talk) 11:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, because I deliberately didn't edit any further and left their version, so that they couldn't war further, and then they refused to talk on the talk page. Thank you for your contributions - I'll reopen the discussion so that the initial admin, NeilN, can contribute to the discussion, as he initially did handle it properly. Thanks again. --  Alex TW 11:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * NeilN is not going to block anyone for edit-warring three days ago, and while I'm not going to stop you reverting uninvolved admins on admin boards on a report you submitted is very poor form. Vanamonde (talk) 11:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I never asked for a block. I asked for a proper review of the report, and NeilN was and has been the only administrator to handle it properly. Your opinion is noted. --  Alex TW 11:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You protected it for 3 days after there hadn't been any edits in 3 days, and the warring editor hasn't replied to my talk page discussion at all... Did you read the report? --  Alex TW 10:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As you might say, no of course I didn't; I dish out protections and blocks merely on a whim. Now enough; please go do something productive. Vanamonde (talk) 11:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg None
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news
 * Following a successful request for comment, administrators are now able to add and remove editors to the "event coordinator" group. Users in the event coordinator group have the ability to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit. Users will no longer need to be in the "account creator" group if they are in the event coordinator group.
 * Following an AN discussion, all pages with content related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, are now under indefinite general sanctions.

Technical news
 * IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
 * The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
 * There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
 * It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration
 * A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous
 * In early May, an unusually high level of failed login attempts was observed. The WMF has stated that this was an "external effort to gain unauthorized access to random accounts". Under Wikipedia policy, administrators are required to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)