Jump to content

User talk:Alex Shih/Archive/2018-2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 (Page 2 3 4) | 2018 Page 2 3) |

Administrators' newsletter – April 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018).

Administrator changes

added 331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG
removed Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando

Guideline and policy news

  • Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
  • Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
  • The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
  • The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

Miscellaneous

  • A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
  • The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

YGM

Intermediate urgency.....Best:)~ Winged BladesGodric 05:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: Didn't receive it... Alex Shih (talk) 05:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Hmm...Aimed and re-projected:)~ Winged BladesGodric 05:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Socks

socks on 1982 Ethiopian–Somali Border War User:Haltshobe is creating multiple accounts. Can you do something please? 218.103.185.129 (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Accurate and useful information

I do not understand why the most recent edit was deleted and blocked. The information that in 1995, McKissick's former wife said he physically abused her, and in 2001 a former employee of his law firm said he hit her with a telephone. It is also noted in the edit that he was acquitted in both cases. The edit has a reliable new source of the Indy Week that was used as a reference to another edit within the same Wikipedia page. This information is public knowledge and should be presented. The mask the history of a public figure is to deceive the public. The public should have the facts as to Floyd McKissicks history and be able to make an educated judgement on a Senator.

History of a public figure such as a Senator should not be suppressed just because it is unfaltering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.10.12.142 (talk) 13:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Taiwan–Ukraine relations 2

  • Hi, I think you forgot to proofread the article. There are only 3 paragraphs. It's not long.
Also, how can I translate into my statement into English? Need a help.--Beta Lohman (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
@Beta Lohman: I will do it in a bit after some coffee. In terms of your profile, I am not sure if I want to translate the entire "statement" (it's better if you translate them yourself) but my quick partial translation would be: "The current situation in Chinese Wikipedia is corrupted with uninformed and involved voters, with majority of the judges being filled with particular bias, and the battleground approach is not characteristic of a civil Chinese person. As the purpose of selecting and judging entries has been largely overlooked, it would certainly lead to consequences that are considerably passive". Alex Shih (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Hello, I reviewed your edits. You simplified it too much as I was trying to expand a little more. I didn't write about how Taipei transfer the medical drugs to buy the diplomacy with Ukraine. It was the important part, hey, did you understand that? --Beta Lohman (talk) 03:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Beta Lohman, there are different standards on Chinese Wikipedia and English Wikipedia. The standards we have here it to try to make everything as concise as possible, to avoid indiscriminate collection of information. Many of the miscellaneous information would need more reliable secondary sources to establish their notability. But since hey, did you understand that? is rather a rude response, I would say do as you wish as I am done with the article. Alex Shih (talk) 03:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't follow your meaning about "hey, did you understand that" was a rude message. What I have got here is more edits will be coming out and I was working on expanding more. You said it's done right now. Did you mean you're gonna quit? --Beta Lohman (talk) 03:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Your Arbship

...for your help with April 1. Without a bit of comedic relief now and then we'd all go crazy around here. BTW, have you visited the Museums lately? EEng 07:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@EEng: Oh stop that, you peasant. I didn't really do much, but thanks anyway. Half your museum collections are too intelligent for me to understand. Alex Shih (talk) 07:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

User: Kaizenify

Hi Alex,

Thank you for the action, that was a good advice. Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Possible block evasion

I'm posting this here because you were the blocking admin, and I think it's better not to take it to any of the drama boards. In December, you blocked Pocketthis. Today, I noticed some edits by JustAMuggle, whose userpage actually states that they are a sock of the other editor. Maybe there is some sort of clean start that I don't know about, but it looks to me more like block evasion. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Ad Orientem has taken care of it. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
And it now looks apparently that I was wrong. Sorry. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
@Tryptofish You weren't wrong. I was. You saw something suspicious and reported it. I was the blocking admin. If there is egg on anyone's face, it's mine. It looked pretty open and shut to me and then it wasn't. That's one of the reasons we have unblock requests for. And for the record I should have asked a few questions before pulling the trigger on this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I was just apologizing to you at your own talk page and then I got the ping here. Thanks. What an odd situation: it really looked very much one way, and yet there is a very believable explanation that it was something else. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah. It happens now and then. But happily not frequently. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Cheers. Alex Shih (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Question...

A colourful illustration to brighten the day.

Hi, Alex - confused face icon Just curious...when a user is indef-blocked with TP access, are they able to create a user/sandbox page? Atsme📞📧 16:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: Hi Atsme. Technically no, but I've never tried. Is there a link to a specific case? Alex Shih (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) A recently-blocked editor "discovered" that they couldn't even edit their own user page  :) Blocked users are unable to edit pages, upload files, move pages, and perform other actions that additional user rights would grant. Effectively, this makes the wiki read only for those users. Until MediaWiki 1.17, sysops or others with access to the unblocking interface may still unblock others (as well as themselves if they have the unblockself right). However, since MediaWiki 1.17, blocked users who are in user groups that allow them to block nevertheless may not block or unblock other users while blocked...them's the brakes! ;) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 17:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Next April Fools: Blocking myself indefinitely. #lifegoals Alex Shih (talk) 18:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, Alex - there's nothing just yet; rather, it is related to a mentoring project I'm willing to undertake take-on involving a very talented editor who made mistakes. I think he just needs a little TLC and guidance and I'm willing to give it a try. You know, Alex, sometimes I see myself being too much of a pragmatist (if that's possible) when it comes to our volunteer work here, so I consciously make an effort to try not to lose sight of the fact that we're all just humans. I also recognize that every now and then, there are exceptions to the rules, and when it involves a talented individual who happened to make mistakes (mostly behavioral) because of personal issues, I'm an easy touch when it comes to reaching out trying to help; to let them know someone really does care and appreciates their work. I've been offering him guidance (via email) over the past few months, and am willing to mentor and help him adjust to our challenging but highly enriching community effort to build an encyclopedia. Maybe a clean start would be appropriate, I don't know. He is talented in areas where we need good editors. My first interaction with him was via his IP alt, and it was a bit rocky, but I stepped back and became an observer. I watched him turn this into Merlin_(poem), and then he created Daughter_of_Tintagel. Atsme📞📧 18:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: When it comes to editor retention, I'd like to follow your approach also. This is obviously a difficult case, but re-integrating a previously banned editor back to the community can only be a very rewarding experience, so feel free to let me know whatever I can do to help, as every one person counts. What the editor needs to know is that once they try not to taking everything personally and express themselves with more maturity, the community can be very forgiving; a recent example can be seen here ([1]). Please keep me posted! Alex Shih (talk) 18:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Alex...if he accepts my mentoring proposal, I will ask him to ping you in his "post of understanding" on his TP. Atsme📞📧 19:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

This little @#$__$ is seriously creeping me out. Don't know if you read my reply, but that's exactly how I'm going to proceed if it happens again. I'm done. John from Idegon (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: No problem, I will range block next time if they return. Alex Shih (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, Well

I don't really know why that IP chose my talk page as the place for their rant, other than that I advised the ArbCom to decline hearing a case against FPaS. I see that they mentioned competency, and clearly competency, in the sense of the ability to stay on the point and control one's temper, is one of the reasons why they are banned. Well, well. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I am not sure too, probably just randomly seeking attention. Alex Shih (talk) 06:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Alex Shih/Archive. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 16:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— Javert2113 (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Javert2113: Thanks, I've read them. Alex Shih (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Palaye Royale

Hi Alex Shih. It appears we've got a dedicated individual (or individuals) creating new accounts to continuously add unsourced content to Palaye Royale. My guess is that it's probably the same person trying to show Wikipedia who's the boss. Do you think this needs to go to SPI or can it be taken care without wasting the time and energy to do that? See Talk:Palaye Royale for more. The same thing has been happening off and on for quite some time, but it seems they've currently got some excessive energy they really want to get rid off. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look Alex. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: No problem, I ran some quick checks and this looks more like meatpuppetry coming from somewhere. Alex Shih (talk) 01:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks again. MEAT was a possibility, probably contacting each other via IM, etc. Seems similar to the thing happening on Whisk; probably just people/fans out for a laugh. One thing though is that Palyae Royale has been protected before, but they've always come back once the PP ran out. So, maybe like Whisk, this will turn out to need indef'd pending changes or something. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Having seen the relevant video, I see where it's coming now (fans from YouTube). Long term protection probably works better here. I'll apply longer protection if it continues after expiry. Alex Shih (talk) 01:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Block setting of Superfx1234

Hi Alex. Thank you for blocking the sockmaster. However I wonder the block was really changed to indefinite.[2] Thanks.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Phoenix7777: My bad, it's changed to indefinite now. Alex Shih (talk) 09:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks a lot!―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Email

I have sent you an email. Probably I don't need to tell you that, as you will probably get a notification, but I know of at least one administrator who has notifications disabled in his preferences, so I like to make sure. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Responded, thanks. Alex Shih (talk) 09:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Unping

Please ignore the ping I recently sent you. I hadn't noticed that you had already dealt with the matter I asked about. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: No problem, thank you. I should have left a YGM template, sorry. Alex Shih (talk) 11:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

COI Editors

I think RHaworth's had more than enough of me on his talk page, and deserves a break from it, so I'm moving it here. However, to address your point "I would be driven insane and off the project in no time by endless number of CoI editors that do not read instructions alone"....

I have met quite a few editors who could claim to have edited with a COI. My other half, for instance, tried to write an article about her uncle, but couldn't do it until somebody who knew all the appropriate policies of WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS, WP:NPOV etc (ie: me) did it. Similarly, there was a case last year where the subject of a BLP was upset over their article having mistakes, and getting lambasted with "COI" warnings and the usual barrage of templates. I now get the odd message from Facebook from them asking me to update their article as they've lost confidence over doing it themselves.

Essentially, the problem with "COI" is it gets used as a stick to beat people with. Sometimes, people close to someone who happens to be notable are the first to think about writing an article about them. On one recent occasion, I have gone easy on somebody creating an autobiography since they were civil and polite and did have numerous hits in a news search.

The trouble with "instructions" on Wikipedia is they are very complicated, cumbersome and perplexing to a newcomer. I think Wikipedia:Your first article is a good starting point - and for that matter, not just for newbies, but for those people who know Huggle (a program I have never and probably will never use) inside out but don't seem to have written so much as a reliably-sourced paragraph. However, people just do not read instructions unless they absolutely have to. Users don't read the manual.

There's nothing like seeing your own work deleted or edits reverted to suddenly get a whole load of empathy towards the targets a Huggle script fires at. By the far the best way you can observe this is to sit down with somebody who's not used WP very much, and watch them edit. You'll be surprised at the results. (I think this is basically what Andy Dingley was getting at) So we need to be accommodating towards them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

In fact, I've just had a practical example turn up - Ghizlan Guenez. The patroller incorrectly tagged it as A7 and forgot to tag it as G12; while I could have deleted it via the latter, I had a quick search for sources and thought "no, I can do something with this". So I rewrote the prose, RD1'ed the original text, and put the sources in. Meanwhile, the creator has now been blocked for having the "wrong" kind of user name, and I think they've just created another account and carried on editing the article, so I fear an admin will indefinitely block them for "sockpuppetry". Such is the way things go around here :-( Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: I understand your point. I should clarify that when I said "CoI editors", what I meant was: my impression is that when someone works at the frontline as much as RHaworth does, many of the encounters are simply spammers (regardless of in good faith or not) that have misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia. It's a draining approach that would easily turn anyone cynical. I agree with your point on the occasional (mis)use of "CoI" as a stick; In my case, I am always more than happy to work with editors like Jytdog to help people to manage their conflict of interest as long as they have shown willingness to respect the project and their subject(s) are notable. Even though I am firmly against paid editing, I am opposed to unnecessary harsh approach, but I think being blunt is not necessarily a concern as long as it does not devolve into personal attacks.
Being accommodating should be a two-way street: as long as their focus is on knowledge, not their personal agenda, I do agree that we should be more accommodating; but it is my opinion that the English Wikipedia has matured to the stage that new users would also need to show willingness to accommodate as well, to sit down and discuss how to edit productively (don't necessary have to read the manual, but being asked to, they should absolutely have to) so that together we can elevate the quality of the project as a whole. Alex Shih (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
In regards to your example (a good one), one thing that has always been on my mind is the hostility that is common to Wikipedia these days compared to 10 years ago (except for the Teahouse and WIR, perhaps). The number of patrollers have been growing exponentially while the number of productive content contributors have been decreasing, which is frankly depressing, and I think that's the point of your last sentence. One point that I do want to raise is that characteristics of a new editor with potential can be easily identified; I don't think accounts registered for one single purpose (it's okay if they added some spam; that's how I started editing, but if that's their only purpose, then no) is ever going to develop into a productive editor. Alex Shih (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm surprised at how far down that list (of admin activities) I am, because I regularly do NPP / CSD activities; often hoping to find an article I can rescue and spruce up a bit. I'm not sure what my ratio of declining to accepting CSDs is, but on any given batch of A7s, I can usually find at least one to decline, and about once a week I get a chance to rescue something. The typical spam or screwing about articles don't stress me out at all, I just hit "delete" and forget about them; on the rare occasion the creator takes me to town over it, I just restore to draft, put the AfC headers up, and move on. Sometimes, like here, the article they were attempting to post doesn't have a hope in hell, but at least I can put a positive spin on it and suggest somewhere else (in this case, Github).
I think you've hit the nail on the head with patrollers vs content contributors. What does stress me out (and it's pretty obvious) are what I call hit and run editors who can't write prose or evaluate sources, but treat Wikipedia as some sort of giant video game where they just go around sticking templates everywhere. They are generally not particularly good at communicating or extracting themselves from a situation, and get routinely criticised off-wiki; however, they are the sort of people that hang out on ANI and the other noticeboards, and attempting to raise concerns just falls on deaf ears. The serious content-creator editors are well down in number; the hit and run editor brigade tend to not recognise what they bring to project and chase them off. I still correspond with several who have retired and I'm pretty convinced they won't be coming back. I think Tony1 put it really well recently, and while a lot of admins wince at what he says, he has formed those opinions from years in the trenches. I think I get an easier ride them most since I'm an average content creator who can do a bit of maintenance too and hence can get the admin bits. Although you can technically block an admin, it's usually considered so controversial that people don't.
As you are probably aware, I think "paid editing" as it is normally used in discussions is something of a moral panic that has gone too far. The problem is, most paid editing is simply poor paid editing that produces non-notable or barely-notable rubbish about some insignificant hedge fun, PR firm or CEO. But there is a whole untapped area of good paid editing; effectively Wikipedians in Residence are literally "paid editors", and if somebody offered me some cash to fix up a couple of articles (and provided I could do it properly and within policies), I'd take it; you can't eat good articles. Because of the sheer stigma that surrounds the whole "paid editing" ethos, which originates from Jimbo Wales and is distributed top-down from there, nobody ever tries good paid editing for fear being stigmatised. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
For whatever it's worth, at some level, maintenance tasks vs. content creation is a zero sum game. It's a lot of the same people who are qualified to do both (even though some of them occasionally need to be shown that they're qualified to do both), and honestly, we don't often actually want people who are totally alien to content creation actually trying to do a lot of maintenance tasks until they understand what we're maintaining. So you really either do better recruitment and retention, or you find ways like ACTRIAL to make maintenance tasks less onerous.
As to paid editing...well...there's still 22,041 articles in Category:Articles with a promotional tone. So even if we could fix whatever the problem is now, we're still probably a few years away from cleaning up the mess, even if we had a concerted effort underway, which we really don't. That's a pretty big mess right there and one that, at some level, people are justified to have a little bit of resentment about having to deal with so that somebody else can pocket the money and be on their way. GMGtalk 19:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Concerns

I saw that you blocked an editor involved in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Blakey (music producer) that I !voted in. AN IP editor made a comment that "every IP address associated with a "keep" above geolocates to Los Angeles.". I know absolutely nothing about sock or meat puppets other than they disrupt Wikipedia and that there has to be stong evidence. I did note that one editor is mentioned as being an SPA with 5 edits on this subject. Another has 44 edits with over half being on this article or the related Ron White. One IP editor has 10 edits out of 13 either on the AFD or the subject. One IP user has five out of nine on this subject or AFD. One editor has only 3 edits on the subject and AFD so certainly fits the definition of a SPA.
I would not have thought anything about it except the note about a central location. Since I "do not know", but there are obvious indicators, I would like to ask if you can look into this? Otr500 (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
@Otr500: I wouldn't be too worried about IP comments since if they are voting disruptively, their comments will be disregarded in closure. But I have blocked two accounts in that AfD that are operated by the same person. Alex Shih (talk) 04:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, I only worry because we operate on good faith but there are those that will try to take advantage of that. Otr500 (talk) 08:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Nikolisko

Hi Alex. Not quite sure what to do here beyond the warning I've added to User talk:Nikolisko. At first glance, this looks like it might be a good-faith attempt at a draft for a possible new article which is just mistakenly being done on a user page. Lots of new editors do this, so it's not a huge deal and moving the draft to a user subpage or the draft namespace usually is more than sufficient. However, after reading a few sentences of it, it appears that this is just someone goofing around and figures their userpage is a free webhost for their fantasy/fictional writings. I'm not sure if this needs to be CSD'd, MfD'd or simply blanked, but maybe you wouldn't mind taking a look at it. Perhaps the editor will see the warning I added, and bring the page up to WP:UP standards; however, they've already re-added non-free image to the infobox despite it being removed once before, so I'm not sure how interested they are in in complying with relevant policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Yes, I have deleted their user page and the image, also reverted the addition of that image since not only it isn't a free image as you mentioned, the image appears to be a different person with the same name. If the disruptive editing continues I will block the account. Alex Shih (talk) 04:40, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look at this. FWIW, I thought the image violated NFCC#1, but didn't think to check whether it was a "fake" image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

For conformation on rollback and Gavin Williamson "Edit war"

I didn't mean for this to come off as passive agressive; I will attempt to be more mature and make more non-AfD mainspacee edits (I'll admit I've been grumpy and somewhat rude over on the AfDs this past week). Also, on the topic of Gavin Williamson, I don't see how that was en edit war, could you explain to me? My understanding of an edit war is when two people disagree about the content of an article and disruptively edit it to insert POV or what not. In the conflict I had with the Ip, they were removing information that they claimed was "Liberal bias" that I saw was well sourced content. I told him that this wasn't allowed (But I used the wrong twinkle template and accidentally said he had provided no edit summary) and he did it again, which I reverted. He then dragged me to the dispute resolution notice board, (Just read it, it sums up the situation), and I then made one final revert to it, before deciding that it was too time wasting and ducking out of the situation. If this was edit warring, is there anything I could have done differently if I'm involved in a situation like this again? (other than suggest consensus on a talk a page earlier, I know I messed that up) 💵Money💵emoji💵Talk 19:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Money emoji: What I would have done is: in non-obvious situations, it's better to limit yourself to 1RR to prevent escalation of conflict. Instead, respond to them on the article talk page after your first revert per WP:BRD, as they have posted their concern on the article talk page, but nobody responded to them (the DRN volunteer similarly declined the request as there were insufficient talk page discussion). If the edit was indeed problematic, another editor will revert them; if they are reverting for the third time, then report them to WP:AN/EW. If the edit was problematic but nobody was seemingly paying attention, then either 1) Ping editors that have edited the article recently 2) Since this was about BLP issues, make a report at WP:BLPN. Alex Shih (talk) 05:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Got a mail!

But you’re free to skip it for now. (lol) — regards, Revi 16:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@-revi: Haha, thanks. I will ping you when that happens! Alex Shih (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

re User:Lankiveil

Oh, that's fair enough, thanks for the clarification. Fish+Karate 10:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Alex, Fish and karate, I made that edit according to the guideline, but it doesn't really matter one way or the other. If the admin box is removed, though, the OS box will need to go as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
While the perms might have been removed from the account, his status hasn't changed, so I think leaving the page as-is is the right call. Primefac (talk) 12:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Fine by me. Cheers all. Fish+Karate 13:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Could User:Craig Franklin (SLQ) also be made a "memorial" user page please as this is an alternative account used by User:Lankiveil during his Wikipedian-in-Residence role at State Library of Queensland (created to maintain a separation from his normal administrator and other rights during that project). I suggest that the User Talk of this second account be redirected to the Lankiveil user talk page to keep any comments in one place. Thanks if you can help with this. His loss has hit us hard in the local community. Kerry (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

quicker done than asked for - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Craig_Franklin_(SLQ)&action=history&offset=20180417002216 JarrahTree 00:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to all involved, cheers. Alex Shih (talk) 02:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

IP 2601:2C6:4F80:22A5:F95F:1E96:95EB:47B1

Hi Again Alex Shih. Was wondering if you'd take a look at Special:Contributions/2601:2C6:4F80:22A5:F95F:1E96:95EB:47B1. Based upon this edit, Talk:Iran national football team/Archive 1#Iran-Iraq rivalry and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IranianLeague/Archive, I think this might be IranianLeague trying to evade their block once again. I normally ask the blocking admin to check on things like this, but Coffee appears to have retired. It's just only one edit for now, so perhaps nothing really needs to be done; however, if an SPI is needed, let me know. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Thanks! SPI can't be done with just IP anyway, and this is really obvious so I have blocked the IP for one month (wish I could range block but IPv6 is so frustrating). Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
They might also be using Special:Contributions/107.77.217.80. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

New article about Reinhard Gammenthaler

Hi Alex

I created a new, improved article about Reinhard Gammenthaler as the former one was deleted last October. I'm new on Wikipedia and I wasn't sure if I should contact you before I get started? I think I will just give it a try. Reinhard will be on Swiss TV soon and it would be great if the article about him would be online by then... Thank you! Goldmaki (talk) 08:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC) Syl Goldmaki.

@Goldmaki: Unless if you want the old source file, please feel free to go ahead. Alex Shih (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Alex Shih Thank you! I already created the article in my sandbox. I didn't really understand how to submit my draft for review (clicked the button, but nothing happened?)... also I wanted to include images, but I don't think I am able to do so (yet)? I have some photographs I'm allowed to use, could you maybe upload them for me? Goldmaki (talk) 11:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC) @Alex Shih I think now I managed to submit my draft for review. If you have time it would be great if you could review it since you're familiar with the article about Reinhard Gammenthaler? Also, I'd still like to upload images... thank you so much for your help, and sorry to bother you with this. Goldmaki (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: Unfortunately the new article I wrote was declined... would it be possible that you reactivate the old article about Reinhard Gammenthaler? Thank you very much for all your efforts in advance. Goldmaki (talk) 09:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

New Dallas Makerspace article

Hey there, I've been working on a new article for the Dallas Makerspace. I'd love some feedback on the article before I resubmit it. I've published it on my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LukeStrickland/sandbox

Thank you!

LukeStrickland (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Possible multiple accounts

Hi Alex Shih. In addition to the similar username, there seems to be lots of overlap among Kwamrak and Kwamrak14. Do you think this is just coincidental or is it something meriting a closer look? Just for reference, I came across both these accounts when checking non-free images and both accounts make the pretty much the same mistakes. I just never noticed the possible connection before. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Sorry for the late response, I'll try to look into this. Alex Shih (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Alex. It's GW, so there's no rush. Hope you enjoy the break. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
I’m not sure if this is the same editor using multiple accounts, but I’m pretty sure now that at least Kwamrak is unable to stop inappropriately adding non-free content to articles. I’ve tried explaining this to him/her more than once on his/her user talk, but there’s never been a response. I don’t think this editor has ever posted anything on any talk page, so perhaps he/she doesn’t feel comfortable communicating in English. Regardless, there only so many times you can warn someone to be careful before the warnings lose their meaning. So, not sure what to do here and maybe you or another administrator will have better luck getting through to him/her. — Marchjuly (talk) 09:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: It is the same person, but I haven't got to whether or not it is being used abusively; I will wrap this up when I get home tonight. Alex Shih (talk) 09:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed 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 equals_to_any 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

Obituaries

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

Ihardlythinkso violation of TBAN/unblock conditions

@Ihardlythinkso: violated his Post-1932 AP TBAN twice, You reduced the block of Ihardlythinkso with conditions that the next violation would have to mean an indefinite block.. Ping GoldenRing on this I suppose too. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Galobtter, I am still basically out of town without much computer access. These to me look like trival but indeed blatant violations; notwithstanding one edit is now stale. I will ask GoldenRing to make the call. Alex Shih (talk) 12:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Heh  ;) Check it. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Request for unprotection

Greetings! We recently received a request at WP:AFC/R that a page Bryan Le be redirected to RiceGum as a redirect from a personal name. However, you salted that title a while back, so I can't fulfill the request; I was wondering if you might be willing to unprotect it, now that the article exists elsewhere and the topic appears to be actually notable. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: Protection removed. Alex Shih (talk) 02:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Alternative Account

Hey Alex. Would you be willing to unblock my alternative account? As you can see, I have continued to contribute constructively to wikipedia after my unblock. I would particularily ensure not to use the alternative account for a disruptive agenda, as outlined in Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. If you don't remember the details, I can e-mail you. wikitigresito (talk) 02:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Wikitigresito: No, per your edits at University of St. Gallen. You'll have to declare any potential conflict of interest (you can do so privately) before appealing for your one account restriction. Alex Shih (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
E-mailed you. wikitigresito (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I assume you didn't receive anything? Maybe I made a mistake... wikitigresito (talk) 07:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Wikitigresito I've read your e-mail but I am entirely unconvinced for two reasons 1) I don't see a reason to continue to operate a second account that was opened for the purpose to essentially edit war 2) Both your main account and your alternative account are involved in a specific area where sock-puppetry is rampant; I still don't believe you are being completely honest based on the technical data, but I may be wrong; I would recommend you to send an appeal to checkuser-l@lists.wikimedia.org as your next step. Alex Shih (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Alex Shih. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Nagi Yanagi.
Message added 21:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Salutations!

It is my cordial imploration as to allow myself to go right ahead and formally introduce myself. I am Lindsay Alexandra S. I am an avid activist and honour system representative as well as supporter of perpetuating a new found homeostasis and keeping it in constant shape.

I am from socal currently residing in thevery San Diego area. I am very interested in becoming a sight or any sort of arbitrage. Please note I am proficient in Advanced Linguistcs as well as a background full of scientific chemistry and nuclear engineering from my Father who is always in the back of my head. ( in a gūd way) I believe I can bring balance and good input in these brain storms frequented on this client.

Okay! Thanks for your valuable time and I hope to hear from you soon. KernelRefractiontthis (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Your thoughts

I’m thinking maybe I could serve the project better as a CheckUser...then maybe in a couple of years, I can add something else? Your thoughts would be much appreciated. Atsme📞📧 14:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: No, why? You don't want to be a CheckUser, it's horrible. It will change your perception of people :( In any case, while technically possible, no regular user as far as I am aware was ever appointed CU. To do anything you need be an admin first, and being an admin actually empowers you more while not requiring you to make much commitment. At least give ORCP a shot! Alex Shih (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I have to say that I'd expect that an ORCP/RFA to go down badly based on this and other previous ANIs of similar nature. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Just because no one has been a non-admin CU doesn't mean they cannot be one. I'm currently trying to convince a "normal" user to request the permission. Primefac (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, they can technically, but per how this went down I don't think it likely Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Galobtter, I think ORCP cannot possibly "go down" as it is essentially just a venue to ask for opinions. I dislike the format and how on occasion people treat it as a mini-RfA, but I suppose you are right. Primefac, that's why I said "while technically possible", but if even Dane with their obvious need through their extensive work at ACC was overwhelmingly rejected, I can only wish the best of luck to whoever you are trying to convince. Alex Shih (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)You can try your luck at the next CU elections but in all fairness, the outcome will be but....... At any case, I heavily disagree with the perception that checkusers ought to be sysops and firmly believe that there at least 2 non-sysops, who would make excellent CUs. Also, just to note, there has been a non-admin arbitrator in past.Nothing's impossible but the difficulty level is incredibly high:) ~ Winged BladesGodric 15:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, yes, but if I recall that was also the person who designed the original Wikipedia logo and was appointed by Jimmy Wales to the first committee during the era when one essentially just had to ask and a bit could be given. I also believe (though I could be incorrect) that he passed RfA a few months after his appointment. I've voted for non-admins on the committee before, but saying there's been one non-admin arb is leaving a bit of the context out. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
See also: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2018 April 21, Wikipedia:Non-administrator Arbitrators RfC. Alex Shih (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Ah, so there have been two. I was thinking of Nohat, who did substantial work on the logo and was not an admin when Jimmy Wales appointed him in January 2004, but passed RfA in April of that year. So, both of the non-admin arbs were appointed by Jimmy Wales. One passed RfA within 4 months of appointment, and another was an admin on another project at the time of appointment. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Actually, I don't want my perception of people to change...so scratch that thought. I'm still trying to figure out the dashboard for OTRS. 😉 I've also been around long enough to know that any editor who attempts to improve highly controversial articles is forever doomed by the opposition - there is no escape when dealing with hardline perspectives. I hope to be working with a highly prolific writer in the very near future...an editor with great potential who just needs a bit of reassurance and guidance, and that is an area where I feel most productive. You're a good admin, Alex...and a kind person. Thank you for all you do!! Atsme📞📧 16:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you create Trung?

as a dab page containing the entries of Derung language and Trưng Sisters. I'm unable to do so because it's protected. Thanks! Timmyshin (talk) 10:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Timmyshin: I have simply removed the protection. Alex Shih (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Jessechi on Chinese Wikipedia

Hi. I was recently notified, due to some discussion I had with them, that a sockpuppet you indefinitely suspended, User:Jessechi is also User:Nwytbwwq. This notification came via Outlookxp who I'm guessing thought I was an admin. According to Outlookxp there Chinese Wikipedia has uncovered rampant sock puppetry with these accounts. All the information I know can be found via the notification on my talk page; I wanted to get it in the hands of someone who could do something about it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Done, but next time please link the discussion as I was unable to find it. Anyway I spoke with the Outlookxp on Chinese Wikipedia about this long term abuse case. Thanks. Alex Shih (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry was too subtle: put it as link to the word notification. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Please block Jessechi’ IP 123.192.39.95. He often uses the IP to creat new sock puppetry.—Outlookxp (talk) 12:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Outlookxp Done, for now. Alex Shih (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Please also block 123.192.33.207[3]. Now Jessechi chage to use this IP[4][5].--Outlookxp (talk) 23:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

IP 71.121.248.91

Hello, you blocked this IP for the block evasion earlier. I'm almost sure that he come back: my revert [6], his reaction [7]. Propaganda on the TP of the article: [8]. Deletion of the suggestion from his TP: [9]. Can you help? --Nicoljaus (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Nicoljaus: Done. Alex Shih (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm most grateful to you!--Nicoljaus (talk) 00:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

One block too many?

Thanks for your swift block of the Shingling334 socks 79.71.238.3, 92.3.102.128 and 92.4.231.137. I am not, however, convinced about the IP address another editor was concerned about, IP79.75.244.133. After having followed Shingling for a long time, I am quite certain that this is not Shingling. Taking a look at the edits this IP have done, I am not even convinced that any of their edits are disruptive. Perhaps you can take a look at my reasoning at User talk:DuncanHill#Reopening cases at SPI. Regards! --T*U (talk) 10:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

As I said to Tu-nor, it may well not be Shingling, but I am certain it is a returning blocked or banned editor. These edits to Britain/England/Scotland/Wales etc turn up in spates every so often, and in the past have caused a lot of hassle. At least one of the IP edits (To Palmerston) was ludicrously wrong, whatever TU-nor says. DuncanHill (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, one of the edits to Palmerston was wrong, the other one was right. And I do not know about ludicrously, they were not that far off. Anyway, a wrong edit does not make the editor a sock of anyone. Besides, we do not block editors that we believe to be a sock of someone undetermined, even if they do at least one wrong edit. We need more evidence than your certainty. Even IPs are entitled to a "fair trial". --T*U (talk) 15:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Which is why I started the ANI thread. You identified someone who, it turns out, was not who I was thinking of, and that pretty much shut it down. DuncanHill (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


McGill University

Hi, Alex. Re: indicating "coeducational" in the lead of McGill University and responding to your post: We have had more than enough discussion (see entire edit history) so we would like to go to requests for comment, third opinions to obtain consensus. Since I need to present the points I raised and have never gone for any consensus/third opinion before, please create proper venue and advise on how to proceed. Thanks. Jacknpoy (talk) 02:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Jacknpoy, using edit summaries and the undo button is not a substitute for talk page discussion. Please use Talk:McGill University instead and engage in a proper dialogue, as that's where you are supposed to "present" your points and where you need to obtain consensus. Based on your interaction with Martinevans123, I think you have potential to contribute here productively, so I will make some suggestions: As Upapilot has already made a thread there three days ago, respond there. Identify their argument(s) and rebuke it accordingly. Request opinions from experienced editors familiar with school WikiProjects; Kudpung and John from Idegon‎ are some of the editors I often go to when I have questions about school articles. Most important of all, Wikipedia is not about winning; retaining the mindset that you must "win" and force your edit is the quickest way for any editor to eventually lose their editing privileges. Let me know if you have any more questions. Alex Shih (talk) 01:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Alex, WP:WPSCH does not cover universities. Wikiproject Universities does. The only experience I've had with McGill was an unsourced article on a department of a school there, which went to AfD and ended up as a redirect. My impression from that was that this is a school hell-bent on using Wikipedia for promotion, so I myself probably wouldn't even be a good third opinion. John from Idegon (talk) 02:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@John from Idegon: I suppose (I was under the false impression that perhaps the school WikiProject is somewhat the parent project. To the original poster, WP:UNI doesn't seem to be very active; but might be worthwhile to make a post there anyway. Alex Shih (talk) 02:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I finally went to the Talk page for this issue so we are now fine. I would just like to correct what @John from Idegon: said: that he believes that McGill is using WK for self-promotion. I cannot imagine a university article in WK with hundreds of editors and contributors "belonging to" or "representing" McGill and writing for its self-promotion. I am not affiliated with McGill, for one. I was just making university articles indicating "coed" and "public" consistent. I cannot imagine that indicating that a school is "coed" is publicity or self-promotion.Jacknpoy (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

FYI

I often say that I am no sockpuppet detective but take a look at User talk:KoppaFreeTommy. I did not need to be any kind of detective to figure that one out. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Yes, thanks Jim! Alex Shih (talk) 01:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Alex Shih/Archive. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

The editor whose username is Z0 11:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello

I wonder if it would be acceptable for me to insert a few reliable statistics references into some pages related to Sweden now, or will I just get severely attacked again? David A (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi David A, I think it's fine. As long it's not the same type of edits that got you in disputes in the first place, you should be fine. Alex Shih (talk) 12:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, it is reliable statistics/facts, not opinions or ideology, so I personally do not see the inherent problem with it, as facts are what encyclopaedias should be about. I can post the references below if you wish. David A (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
David A The problem is if I remember correctly, some people had issues with you selectively choosing certain "statistics/facts" to present a point of view. If you feel confident with these references, feel free to post them; but if you feel a little bit anxious, I'd be happy to look at then first. Alex Shih (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Okay. Here they are. I would appreciate if you tell me which ones that are acceptable, and which ones that are not. After reading some of them, I am (understandably) concerned. David A (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
David A, I don't know where you'll be using these sources. They don't look very useful on any articles in my opinion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not indiscriminate collection of information. Alex Shih (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking of Crime in Sweden, Social security in Sweden, Education in Sweden, and maybe Immigration to Sweden, but the last one is less important. I think that most of it seems reliable regarding the problematic situation in my country, but I am fine with just adding the most important ones, and would appreciate help with selecting. David A (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Quite pleased....

...with the work of our investment. 😊 Atsme📞📧 14:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: Yes, indeed. Although I wish he can edit slower; high pace editing is the easiest recipe for stressful encounter. Encouraging results so far, however. Alex Shih (talk) 14:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Understood - and why I'm keeping the lines of communication open. I'm of the mind it's more of an escape for social anxiety - he immerses himself in the stories and the writing flows into the articles. He is also an amazing photographer...amazing talent in so many ways. 😊 Atsme📞📧 14:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Preethaji

Hello Alex. You deleted Draft:Preethaji, because it was written in an unencyclopaedic style and read like an advertisement. Would you mind if I recreate the article in a subpage of mine with neutral wording and checked sources and then resubmitted it for publication? Regards, --Gereon K. (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello Alex. Since you decided not to answer I took this as a "yes". Any objections against me moving User:Gereon K./Preethaji to the main space? --Gereon K. (talk) 10:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, you edited since I asked my last question and still did not answer. I am a little puzzled here. I will publish the article then. It can be found at Preetha Krishna. Thank you. --Gereon K. (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Gereon K. Sorry, I am slower in responding to this kind of queries. If you follow the proper procedures I didn't think there was much to comment on; the deleted version was created by somebody with presumably conflict of interest; your version looks fine but I don't normally review this kind of articles; I suspect people will question the notability of the subject regardless. Alex Shih (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

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

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your note. I can't really discuss my allegations further at this time, but I appreciate the good faith note. Andrevan@ 19:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Should I now apply at PERM?

Hey! Alex, should I now apply at WP:PERM for NPR? Dial911 (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Dial911 I am not active at PERM recently so I am reluctant to comment. Persistence is not always a virtue, and it makes it slightly more difficult to make an appropriate decision in your case. If Primefac and TonyBallioni thinks you are ready, you are ready. I haven't noticed any red flags recently, and since people are experimenting with time-limited user rights personally I would just assign three months NPR and see how you fare. Alex Shih (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I haven't applied to PERM because I told you I would ask first. Dial911 (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Update

Just take a look at Morgan le Fay, WOW!! Now that is what I consider representative of a real encyclopedia. 😊 Atsme📞📧 17:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Atsme It does look really impressive indeed. Although I have one concern that relates to his past writing style. Are you familiar with what I am alluding to? Alex Shih (talk) 08:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
As it relates to collaboration, citations or edit summaries? It appears we’re good in all 3. I’ve also been checking for copyvios, and we’re good there, too. He is being careful about editing disagreements - mentioned it once and that he walked away. My final guess is that it may have something to do with intensity/potential burnout which you cautioned about the other day, so I recently mentioned a slow down of sorts in this diff. Atsme📞📧 09:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
@Atsme: Actually I was referring to this RfC; after I was reminded of this RfC, I tried to read again their recent prose writing; my impression is that while there are perhaps occasional extraneous details, there is nothing that resembles sexist materials that got him in trouble in the past. I think his content contributions will benefit greatly from the Women in Red community also. Alex Shih (talk) 10:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Advanced permisssions of Andrevan

I’ve not named you as a party, but did mention your asking them to hand in their ‘crat tools, so thought you should know. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Beeblebrox Thanks for the notification. Alex Shih (talk) 07:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
You asked if anyone thought you should recuse. I do. Recusal is not admission of anything in my view, but as you did approach Andrevan before the case, which has been entered as evidence by the filer, it would be prudent to recuse -- if anything more needs to be said by you about what you said prior to the case, make it as evidence. Alanscottwalker (talk)
Alanscottwalker, thanks. I share similar position (as I made a similar recusal request to another in the past) which is why I posted the comment to invite third opinion. I've recused. Alex Shih (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I am not satisfied with the pre mature closure of the following discussion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive985#Content_dispute_at_cerebrovascular_disease

I have submitted very important review https://www.ejves.com/article/S1078-5884(05)00529-0/pdf

This review conclude that Stroke, graft patency, and limb salvage rates in patients with diabetes after surgery are similar to patients without diabetes

user:Doc James extracted following words from the above review and trying to change conclusion of review. This words from their reference book previously published.The review main aim is to prove previously published information is wrong.

"Patients with diabetes have been shown to have about 1.4–1.7 the relative risk of stroke."

user:Doc James depend on following invalid link with out any primary sources

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1871402118300250


(Subrahmanya preethamm (talk) 04:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC))

(talk page stalker) Subrahmanya preethamm, you are having a content dispute. Administrators do not arbitrate content disputes. Engage in discussion on the article talk page to attempt to reach a consensus. If that fails, use one of the many methods of dispute resolution available. WP:Forum shopping will not help your cause, and repeated forum shopping is considered disruptive and could lead to you being sanctioned. The discussion at ANI was properly closed within policy. John from Idegon (talk) 04:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Yup, adding to what have already been repeated on multiple occasions. Alex Shih (talk) 14:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, no more avenues of dispute resolution shall be provided.He has been granted a rope, long enough and the next re-litigation ought be greeted with an indef....... ~ Winged BladesGodric 14:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Funny you should say that... 74.70.146.1 (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I reverted this editor's most recent contributions at ANI, and now they're making comments on my talk page of questionable coherence; it includes a template saying they've reverted my edits, but they have done no such thing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Well NeilN blocked them for 31 hours; presumably because there is some assumption of good faith (that Subrahmanya preethamm has indicated they are intending to listen and not repeat the same mistakes). If they come back again with the same soapbox, then they should be sent away with indefinite I think. Alex Shih (talk) 02:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Alex Shih/Archive. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sir Sputnik: Responded. Alex Shih (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

CU request

Hi Alex Shih. Was wondering if you could do a CU check on "AlanKirk6891", "Rupertlemonsworth", and "UostwisRDewoh" per WP:QUACK. New SPA accounts edit warring at Dave Williams (Colorado politician). They might not be the same person, but good bet they are connected to the article subject. If I need to file a formal SPI over this let me know and I will. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Adding "CameronGabardi301" to the list. This does seem like lots of new SPA accounts being created for a state politician's BLP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Endorse request. --NeilN talk to me 00:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Marchjuly and NeilN. I've checked and blocked the obvious ones. I'll take another look later. Alex Shih (talk) 01:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this Alex. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK

Hey, sorry to bother you but i have a question about the current RfC on DYK talk. Would it not be sensible to advertise the Rfc to get some neutral perspectives? Everyone who has commented so far seems very much involved with DYK one way or the other. And it does affect more than just the DYK project as well. Having dreadful hooks that may hurt real, living people in Wikipedias name should at least gain consensus by as broad a base as possible and not just by one single project(obviously i am biased in what is 'right' here myself, so excuse that if you will). Would it be possible to add it to the 'centralized discussions' or am i wrong in my thinking that any decision made there affects more than just DYK but Wikipedia as a whole? Any thoughts on bringing it to wider community attention would be appreciated. 37.138.76.71 (talk) 12:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I second dotsevenone; these side-projects are walled gardens. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
37.138.76.71, DYK is part of the Main Page, so I don't see any reason not to add the discussion to WP:CENT since any drastic changes there will directly impact the Main Page; I have never added a discussion at CENT before, so I think it's better if you ask editors that are actively involved there. Personally I think you would garner more attention through WP:FRS by starting an actual RfC. Alex Shih (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
It was more a general question if it even was a sensible idea. Yoninah started the RfC after a hook was pulled. I have mentioned that i asked you about adding it to centralized discussions. So... if it were not too much trouble, could you perhaps make a comment there that someone should add it to cent? Obviously totally different if you say something in that regard than when i do. Otherwise, who should i ask to add it? And again, sorry to be bothering you. 37.138.76.71 (talk) 13:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
37.138.76.71, No problem. Yoninah did not really start an RfC in the sense of WP:RFC, if that makes sense. I will try to summarise the proposal, since at the moment it isn't really clear what is being debated (a complete ban of all murder hooks at DYK? Defining the role of DYK?). If you can help me out with that, that would be great. Once that is done and an actual RfC is started, I will add the RfC to CENT. Alex Shih (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
The basic premise is that local DYK consensus for a hook about a murder was overridden by pulling it from the main page. It was a very recent murder, from february if memory serves right. So, victims who have living relatives who could stumble across it on Wikipedias main page. So the question that was aksed is: Is it ok to pull hooks which some may view as distasteful in subject matter? Or is it acceptable to have such things and the pulling admin just did not like it? Then it seems tacked on to that was a more general question of how crime, riots and murder should be dealt with. That was my reading anyway. 37.138.76.71 (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Pong

Hello.
I didn’t instruct TonyBallioni how to manage LTA documentation here, or your Committee what namely to do with either Solomon203 or Bbb23. Note: just now see how their usernames are similar – amazing. I only communicated my opinion. Should you indeed instruct me how to fend off hounding against certain Wikimedia Commons contributors? Don’t take it personally, but the community of en.Wikipedia is withered and its informal authority largely squandered, not unlike technical data on edits from autumn 2017 originating from HiNet. Of course, if you want to contribute in rightful direction, then I appreciate it, but don’t expect that your status per se impresses me very much. Have a good day. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

RfC at WT:DYK

Hi, I started the RfC on murders, riots, etc., at WT:DYK, but I am completely unfamiliar with opening the discussion to the wider community. I'm not even sure I set up the RfC properly, as there is no template on it. Could you help? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Yoninah, I am no expert too but everything looks fine to me (Legobot responded and create the RfC id and listed the discussion at the RfC page). Perhaps the RfC itself needs to be rewritten since the ERRORS discussion has been removed, and the current wording is probably unclear on what exactly is being asked, and also not neutrally worded. Jbhunley? Do you have time to help us to do this the right way? Alex Shih (talk) 03:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I'm uncertain whether this is within process, to be honest. I use/participate in RfCs frequently. They are most useful when there's a specific question with respect to which consensus needs to be assessed; especially when there's a deadlock among regular editors of a topic. What Yoninah has opened is a very broad discussion, from which it is going to be difficult to synthesize a binding outcome. If I were required to close such an RfC, I wouldn't know what to do...Vanamonde (talk) 08:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Alex Shih and Vanamonde@Vanamonde93: I did think that RfC meant "request for comment", so I was trying to solicit comments. To take this to the next step, should I propose a specific question and write "Support" and "Oppose" under it? My thought is that we need a new rule for the DYK rulebook in order make our policy on murder/riot hooks clear. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Yoninah, yes I would write something along the lines of "Question 1: Do you think Did you know? section of the Main Page should be strictly a trivia section, and not feature hooks/blurbs involving recent murder/riots? Question 2: If yes, where do we draw the line on what is appropriate, and what is not, in regards to compliance with WP:BLP? Alex Shih (talk) 10:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd suggest phrasing it as something like a) "Should DYK restrict itself to light-hearted hooks?", and b)"If no, should DYK refrain from featuring articles covering recent incidents of violence?" "Should it be a trivia section" complicates things, in my view; there's clearly different definitions of trivia, and some folks will argue that it is already trivia and shouldn't be, etc, etc. Then of course there's the issue that TRM and others bring up; that we shoudn't codify something, but should apply decency and sensitivity; the problem being, of course, that there's widely differing standards for that sort of thing, just as with civility. Regards, and apologies for butting in on your talk page with lengthy suggestions, Vanamonde (talk) 10:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
It should be part and parcel of being an admin to recognise where material is unnecessarily insensitive. And "unnecessarily" is key here. The hooks at DYK are chosen from an article. There's nothing requiring insensitive material from being selected to be the hook. Indeed, the sheer inability of the DYK project to simply "fail" nominations (i.e. articles which simply don't contain anything of interest to a broad audience) exacerbates the problem, find a hook at all costs which maximises the clickbait. It shouldn't be this way in an encyclopedia. And for the avoidance of doubt, the current RFC will bring nothing tangible at all in its current form. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Whiiich will perfectly suit anyone whose wiki-careers are built around DYK and little else! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 10:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Was anyone actually suggesting that DYK should only post lighthearted material? It seems odd to ask a question that was never asked. I obviously cannot speak for others, but all i ask is some common sense when looking at nominations of some topics of articles(including racism, recent crime, recent conflicts and the like) and to take extra care as well as thinking twice who may read the hooks, what information the hook conveys and what part of the article it concentrates on. For example focusing on the investigative work or a case's social significance rather than the actual crime may be more acceptable. No universal ban on violence, no universal ban of difficult topics. Just having editoral judgement. As i said on DYK talk, sometimes it just is not a good idea to post some things even if one could. Does there really need to be a rule for that? Why not accept that even if you think due care was taken, a broader group of people may see it completely differently? And then just live with the fact that other people disagreed with your assessment and took action. How often does something like this happen anyway, once or twice a year? 85.16.230.164 (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
So in less words, what is the big deal if a hook gets pulled for being 'distasteful' once or twice a year? 85.16.230.164 (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
85.16.230.164, you are correct, if something is distasteful, it should be pulled. That's why I think we should codify some standards on what kind of hooks should be rejected/pulled at DYK; not having a rule at the moment means that it is dependent on the discretion of an admin, which can be incredibly unfair for those who participate in the (admittedly broken) DYK process, to engage in weeks of discussions only to have their article pulled from the Main Page at the last minute based on an random admin's discretion. Speaking from personal experience, I had one of my DYK pulled after couple hours from the Main Page for "bad grammar"; it's incredibly negative feeling, and I wouldn't want anyone to feel that way. While it is important to maintain the quality of the Main Page, I think we mustn't forget the purpose of DYK was to encourage new content/contributors, so a clear set of rules on how to maintain the balance on sensitivity and collegiality is necessary in my opinion. Alex Shih (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough, just seems like so much effort for something that happens so rarely. But i can certainly understand the need for a rule after your comment, so cheers for that. Also, sorry for having brought this onto you... 85.16.230.164 (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Alex, reading through the discussion here and at the RfC it seems to me what is under discussion is really a sensitivity/values issue and Wikipedia is notoriously bad about agreeing on those. Am I correct that the matter specifically revolved around whether an admin should promote material which could be seen as 'grossly offensive or insensitive' e.g. recent murders, deaths, bodily injury/crimes? Not, as some comments mention, a general desire to define DYK as "light-hearted" or "interesting trivia"?

If that is the case it might be best to frame the issue as guidance based on BLP – it is really the only baseline for 'sensitivity' that we have. Since DYKs are inherently without context I think it would be reasonable to consider them "unsourced or poorly sourced" and I think the material at question could be considered contentious. Since promotion to the front page comes down to the discretion of an admin, it is possible to be confident in their handling BLP so long as the issue is framed as such. Trying to frame the question in other ways seems to me to both cast either too narrow (just murders etc), or too wide (DYK is only for interesting trivia) a net and to go beyond where there is a general agreement on appropriateness of content. Do you think something like

Should DYK hooks be considered "unsourced or poorly sourced" for the purpose of applying Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons?

or words to that effect, would cover the areas of concern? I am not really familiar with DYK so I am working from first principles and may have missed something obvious – like this already being the case… This would still leave open hooks involving mass casualties and things not directly relating to named individuals. We do not have any existing consensus on such things and NOTCENSORED argues against considering sensitivities for such things.

Since the intent seems to be have an RfC I would suggest a second question about guidance for promoting admins since, as I understand it, there is no requirement to promote a DYK i.e. it is already subject to discretion. Perhaps something like:

Should the following statement be added to [DYK_wherever_it_should_go]: "DYK hooks on the front page are widely seen and lack any significant context. Because of this, and while recognizing the principle that Wikipedia is not censored"?, administrators are reminded to be sensitive to the victims of recent tragedies or disasters when selecting hooks for the front page.

would give a sense of the community's view about balancing the sensitivities of our readers vs NOTCENSORED in this particular context.

These are just a couple of preliminary ideas and I might have missed something obvious, especially as things relate to existing DYK procedures. I would be happy to work with anyone to construct an RfC on this. Jbh Talk 14:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Jbhunley! These are excellent insights, thank you so much. I think you have identified the problem correctly, and the way you are proposing to frame the question highlights a important problem in DYK: DYK hooks are not necessarily restricted by the norms of encyclopedic writing as long as they are interesting, factual, sourced and mentioned in the article. As for the suggestion in the second question, I think it is entirely sensible; perhaps another line to address what kind of standards admins should follow in pulling hooks off the Main Page. Like Vanamonde93, I don't know what the final binding outcome would be. Alex Shih (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Jbhunley. To take my RfC to the next level, I would like to formulate a new rule for the DYK reviewing guide and submit it to the community for consensus. I'd like to take you up on your offer to review it before I do so. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: glad to help. Jbh Talk 23:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at User:Kudpung/What do admins do?

 You are invited to join the discussion at User:Kudpung/What do admins do?. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment

Wang Bingzhang, general, GA, Hi Alex, :) Asking nicely--do you have the time to look at the Article on GA noms that you started reviewing in February? It seems to me that it is suitable for GA, and I'm willing to finish the review if you are inundated elsewhere. Please let me know. auntieruth (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Auntieruth55: Thanks, I think I can wrap this up today. Alex Shih (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Alex! I'm sure life is busy, and wanted to give you the help I could. auntieruth (talk) 16:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Alex, thanks again for your thorough review! Honestly, I spent far more time than I originally intended on this GA, but your knowledge and insightful comments made the article much better. @Auntieruth55: Thank you for your copyedits and comments as well! -Zanhe (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Kudpung/What do admins do?

Hi Alex I would really appreciate if you could take a moment to participate in this. Your comments would be particularly valuable. It's not an RfC or anything like that. It would only take 5 minutes of your time. Only a few days left. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Sock

Found another one WorldCuppian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Is there an SPI open? They are coming in at an alarming rate. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

And another Pepperplantersz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
@HickoryOughtShirt?4: It's related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RJCola. At this point it's just revert, block, ignore. Alex Shih (talk) 19:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Emercoin project wikipage restore & unlocking

Can you be so kind please & help to resolve issue with abnormally fast deleted useful wiki page of Emercoin project [10] Page was deleted by User:Enigmaman & User:L3X1 - after short 5 days discussion - just deleting comments here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Emercoin + page locked by Extended confirmed protection, also known as 30/500 !? unreasonable 

no signs of notability Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:08, 19 June 2018  ?!

according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Primary_criteria has mentions and notability

Project is useful and just start to grow this year again, after in Jan 2018 Bitfury made strategic investment in emercoin.

we has multiple mentions by general news forbes.com/forbes.ge/finance.yahoo.com/cnn.com/bloomberg.com and over 2m by mentions by google search

1. forbes.com [11]https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogeraitken/2016/02/08/microsoft-partner-emercoin-joins-cryptos-openledger-to-deliver-robust-blockchain-services/#25eda2643d12

2. forbes.ge - Emercoin blockchain enables graduates to store & share verifiable diplomas, education certificates. [12]http://forbes.ge/news/3866/Emercoin-Builds-New-Blockchain-System enterprisetimes.co.uk [13]https://www.enterprisetimes.co.uk/2018/05/10/emercoin-delivers-graduate-certificate-blockchain/

3. finance.yahoo.com First BITCoin Capital Corp. (BITCF) announced today that it has signed an evaluation agreement with Emercoin International Development Group, a leader in solutions to provide distributed blockchain services for business and personal use. [14]https://finance.yahoo.com/news/first-bitcoin-capital-corp-signs-185600316.html?guccounter=1

4. cnn.com [15]https://www.ccn.com/first-bitcoin-capital-corp-signs-evaluation-pact-emercoin-will-promote-technology/

5. bloomberg.com bitfury & Emercoin [16]

6. econotimes.com Deloitte electronic document based on Emercoin services blockchain [17]https://www.econotimes.com/Deloitte-demonstrates-new-solution-for-electronic-document-flow-based-on-Emercoin-blockchain-605619

7. bitfury make strategic investment in emercoin [18]https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitfury-and-first-block-capital-make-strategic-investment-in-emercoin

sure there a lot of other articles but like wiki policy require there at least forbes/cnn/finance.yahoo.com/bloomberg.com Since Jan 2018 Project developing in times faster right now. official Twitter[19] official web-page results of 2017 [20] [21]http://www.chain-finance.com/2017/01/31/chronobank-partnership-with-emercoin-and-changelly/

emercoin was mentioned on wikipedia 5 pages

OpenNIC [22] On January 15, 2015, domains registered in Emercoin's blockchain became accessible to all users of OpenNIC DNS.[32] Emercoin DNS supports the domain zones .coin, .emc, .lib and .bazar. However, Emercoin DNS records can be registered/maintained from within the Emercoin software, and not as part of OpenNIC's management system.[33]

Alternative DNS root [23] Emercoin provides the top level domains .coin, .emc, .lib, and .bazar via a blockchain-based DNS resolution service.[3] Resolution is also provided by OpenNIC.[4] STUN VoIP/NAT/ENUM services [24] PKI [25] [26]

we building real product for decentralized open-dns,emc-ssl,tts-timestamping.

  • EMC/SSH – A secure shell management system needed by every site administrator.

• EMC/DNS – An uncensored domain name system, peering with OpenNIC. • EMC/LNX – A decentralized pay-per-click advertising network. • EMC/SSL – A system for passwordless authentication on the World Wide Web. • Info/Card – Storage for electronic business cards for use with EMCSSL. • EMC/TTS – Trusted storage for digital time stamps on the blockchain. • MAGNET – A distributed torrent tracker for Internet file sharing. • EMC/DPO – A digital proof-of-ownership solution for physical or digital goods and services.

with all respect can you please help with unlocking & restore page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emercoin Sysmanalex (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Uninvolved opinion requested

Hi Alex Shih. Since you're uninvolded, an admin and also a checkuser, and also because you've helpful in the past in situtations such at this. So, I'm wondering if you'd mind taking a look at 213.205.240.204's post here. This is an IP account which has made seven edits since 2014. Five of those edits were made back in July – August 2014, and then the account goes silent until yesterday when it makes an edit the talk page of an article about a astromnomer/mathematician before posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts#Under attack, a contentious thread about non-free image use. The IP's post specifically mentions Betacommand (an editor currently banned for issues related to non-free content use) who isn't involved in any of the current discussions and whose name was not mentioned by anyone involved in the discussions until now. All of the Betacommand stuff happened before I started editing in December 2013 and although I've heard about it, it's not like it's recent news. The IP shows up after four years to bascially voice support for a WP:CANVAS-type post which went unresponded to by anyone for nine days. This "Under attack" post is related a number of non-free images of works of art currently being discussed at various FFDs, some of which have been closed resulting the removal of some files from some articles. My concern is that this IP might be a SOCK or MEAT attempt at trying to move the discussion of these files in a certain direction by trying to tie them to past problems associated with Betacommand. In other words, an attempt to stir things up and muddy the waters, so that the discussion moves from discussing whether a particular file's non-free use complies with current policy, to one questioning the good-faith suggesting that it doesn't. My guess is that this is being done by someone who doesn't want to use their main account. Anyway, you've been editing for quite a long time, so I'm wondering if I might be completely misreading this situation and this is nothing but a coincidence. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Well I've disappeared for 10 years, so actually you'd know more than I do. I often see this IP range around; appears to be legitimate contributor on a busy mobile network. Alex Shih (talk) 09:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: For perspective, that IP address is part of a very busy, dynamic mobile range, so it's highly unlikely that any edits from any single address that are more than a few hours apart were made by the same person. If you look at the edits coming from the range, you'll see that there are many people making a variety of edits. I haven't looked, but from a checkuser point of view, it would likely be difficult, if not impossible, to connect a couple of anon edits to any registered account using that range. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Alex Shih and DoRD for looking at this. It seemed suspicious at the time, but after reading your posts it's probably just a coincidence. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
@DoRD: Just curious if 213.205.251.112 is from the same range you’ve mentioned above because it seems like it’s the same person as the other IP. The problem is when the same person starts posting in the same discussion using a different IP (even if they’re not intentionally trying to do decieve), it gives the appearance of more people discussing than they’re really are. So, I’m wondering if it would inappropriate to ask them to clarify they are the same person when they post. — Marchjuly (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the range includes everything from 213.205.224.1 to 213.205.255.254, and it's entirely appropriate to ask them to make it clear that they're the same person. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks DoRD for clarifying. I've previously self-reverted a similar comment, but I'm going to revisit it because it seems to be becoming a pattern instead of an isolated incident. It's comments made by the IP(s) in posts here and here as well as edit sums here which lead me to believe that this is the same person, possibly even an editor already participating in the discussion who doesn't want to use their main account but who is trying to turn this into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. This matter being discussed is quite contentious. I realize that tensions are high and that some people might let their emotions get the better of them. Anyone can participate in the FFDs related to these files. If they make their case based upon current policy and guidelines and their arguments are sound, they will likely convince others to support their position. However, trying to turn these FFDs (even after the fact) into WP:RIPPED type of discussions isn't going to help them accomplish their objectives, and purposely inserting strikenthrough snarky comments into posts before posting them or trying to make a comparison (even an indirect one) between a NFCC-related discussion and "sexual assault" is not going to help resolve things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Marchjuly, I agree. I am not sure what can be done at the moment but I'll keep watching. Alex Shih (talk) 03:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Alex and also thanks to DoRD. There are certain things about the IP(s) posts, e.g., their choice of wording, which are similar to some of the things posted by others. Again, this might just be coincidental or just people agreeing with each other. At the same time, it could be a tell that they are unaware of. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:22, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Alex and DoRD. I'm assuming that 213.205.251.58 is also one of the IPs ranging within this range. Once again, posts like this do make hard to not assume that this is someone participating in the currently ongoing dispute over non-free images, etc. and is just using IPs from this range to try an appear to be someone else. Since one of the editors in the dispute (Modernist) has been blocked for DE, this now might also be a case of WP:EVADE. Is an SPI helpful in the case of something like this where inappropriate use of multiple accounts is expected, or would it just create more work than it's worth? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

CU Rqst

Hey. Was wondering if you could do a CU check on Assembly Pramukh and Rajpramukh per WP:QUACK?. I think they are related to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Chhatrapati Shinde . One IP address also expressed the same in a talk page. These two accounts are created in a one week difference and editing in similar type of pages without using edit summery and talk pages. If I need to file a formal SPI over this pls let me know and I will.Thank you. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

(tpw) Akhiljaxxn, yes, please file this request at SPI. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks DoRD. Akhiljaxxn, I ran a check and filed the SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chhatrapati Shinde for the record, but next time it's better to file the SPI yourself, thanks! Alex Shih (talk) 03:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this; And yes indeed i will do next time. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Adding Legislature Pramukh to the list.Its seems they are making lots of new SPA since the rest are blocked. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 09:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Hey Alex, sorry for bothering you again.He is back again with a different name Assembly Prime. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 10:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Akhiljaxxn, I cannot say I will always have the patience, when I asked you explicitly to file formal SPI in this kind of situations. It's not just for formality, but as a way to keep an record and transparency. Finally, please at least link the usernames using {{u}}. Alex Shih (talk) 13:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Alex

If you have the time (I don't think it will be a time sink) to deal with an apparently sincere GF editor with some CHILD issues, shoot me an email and I'll give you the details. Thank you! John from Idegon (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: Sure, e-mailed. Alex Shih (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2018).

Administrator changes

added Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor
readded Gogo Dodo
removed Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes

removed Andrevan • EVula

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus that the {{promising draft}} template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

Technical news

  • Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
  • Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon () in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
  • IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for 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.

Miscellaneous

  • Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

File uploads by User:Ashwini Gadade

Hi Alex. Ashwini Gadade appears to be a new editor doesn't not seem to understand WP:IUP. As you can probably see from looking at his/her talk page, pretty much every file the user has uploaded seems to have been either already deleted or flagged for licensing problems. Making mistakes is OK and even expected because image use and image licensing can be tricky things to get the hang of. The main problems is that he/she seems to misunderstand WP:NFCC#1 since most the images uploaded of of still living Indian actors/actresses. Again, the uploading of such images is a fairly common mistake that even more experienced editors sometimes make. Anyway, my concern is that Ashiwini Gadade might be using Special:Contributions/2402:8100:301b:5f25:1:4:1dc2:b381 to remove {{rfu}} templates added to his/her uploads. I don't think this is a malicious attempt to upload copyvios or anything like that; I just think this is a new editor who does understand why Wikipedia cannot accept such files. FWIW, I tried explaining the issue at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 July 4#File:Shivangi-at-Bright-Miss-India-perfect.png, but maybe I used too much Wikispeak for this editor follow. I also tried at User talk:Ashwini Gadade#Image uploads, but again that might have just confused things more. Anyway, I thought you might be able to determine whether the IP and Ashwini Gadade are one and the same, and then possibly advise he/she to be careful with these kinds of edits. The files are almost certain to be deleted fairly soon since many also ended up at FFD, but removing the templates from the files' pages is something which should not be repeated. If, by chance, the IP is not this editor or you cannot determine one way or another, then maybe a general note about file uploads would be helpful. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Ashwini Gadade has added {{Retired}} to there user page. I don't think this was a goal of anyone who has expressed concern about his/her file uploads. My post was just an attempt to try and get him/her to slow down and get a better feel for IUP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: This was probably another case of CIR that was not salvageable. For what it's worth, CU cannot link IP to named accounts. Anyway, I have mass deleted all of the images they uploaded, as they appeared to be all screenshots. Thank you for your image work as always. Alex Shih (talk) 13:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot about IPs and CUs. Also, the image problems were originally found and tagged by ShakespeareFan00; I just saw them at FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

UpFront

Hi, can you please block ThFour2018 (talk · contribs) as an obvious sockpuppet of New Hampshire 100 (talk · contribs) and the previous one as shown at the article history adding the same promotion, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Atlantic306: Done, thanks for keeping me posted. Alex Shih (talk) 14:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

You just locked the page after an admin's decision was undone?

Fish and karate (admin) intervenes in a dispute, makes a change, and you locked it in a state were someone UNDID that change!

I suspect that was not what you meant to do

East_Croydon_station — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.50.203.144 (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) The admin was acting as an editor here, not in an administrative capacity. Alex's protect is fine. --NeilN talk to me 15:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
But, all the semi does is stop the IP editing, surely? —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 15:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: Full protect was also an option. But judging from their edit summaries, I don't think they were going to stop reverting any time soon. --NeilN talk to me 15:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)


Polemic commentary on The Rambling Man's user page

Hello, User:The Rambling Man currently has a super blatant violation of WP:POLEMIC up on his user page criticizing some arbitrator. I don't know which arb or what caused it. I assume he has been back at AE for some reason recently and is venting his dissatisfaction. But I do know that there's no way to interpret the comments that they are not a blatant violation of the policy. He has been asked to remove the comments but simply blanks the requests. If you think it would be best that I take it to ANI, I can do so. But since it is in connection to ArbCom activities, I decided to bring it to your attention first. I hope this is the right way to address the matter.

Pinging all other active arbitrators so that this matter does not fall solely on your shoulders: Callanecc, DGG, DeltaQuad, Doug Weller, Euryalus, KrakatoaKatie, Mkdw, Newyorkbrad, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, RickinBaltimore, Worm That Turned. Thank you. 46.38.241.229 (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

That's about as benign as it gets. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Yep, and pinging the polemecist himself since the "anon" (ha!—I wonder who it really is?) didn't. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I am not someone who has an axe to grind with Rambling Man, if that is what you mean. In fact we have never spoken before. But I have seen him retaliate pretty hardcore against others when he is reported and hold a grudge for a very long time. I do not wish to have to live with that. Can you blame me? What does it matter who reported it or why if it is a violation of a policy? That is a peculiar way to defend the action rather than explainig why it does not violate. I am open to convincing, but I don't see how it does not violate that policy. It may be tame but it has no reason but to bring insult upon another editor. This is no good right? Also was I supposed to ping Rambling Man? I thought that was for ANI. I apologize if I am ignorant of the current policy. 2001:628:200A:F001:21:0:0:150 (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
You would know better than I whether it is a violation of the policy, but it seemed pretty certain to me, based on the wording of the policy: "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws . . . Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason." And other material from the policy is on point. I know the comment is not the worst thing that ever got put on Wikipedia. If it were I would have cited different policies. But it certainly is needless insult in bad taste that can only do harm to community morale and seems like the exact reason we have WP:POLEMIC. Besides maybe the arbitrator who it is meant to insult does not feel it is super 'benign'? If it is you I guess no one has a place to be complaining for you. If not maybe we should ask them. Do you know who it is directed against? 2001:628:200A:F001:21:0:0:150 (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I see now that it is probably BU Rob13. If BU Rob13 thinks I should drop it or any arbitrator does I will. Or maybe I am putting arbs in difficult spot because they are afraid that acting will make them look like they side with eachother. Perhaps I should go to ANI and let a not involved administrator respond? Please direct me to best action. 2001:628:200A:F001:21:0:0:150 (talk) 13:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Stop stirring the pot and drop it. --NeilN talk to me 13:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Respectfully I was not trying to stir any pot. I honestly thought the policy was violated. I still question if the target of the insult might not thing this is benign. But if you are telling me as administrator that this for sure does not violate WP:POLEMIC then I will take that as my answer and pursue no further. If that is the case, I guess I do not know what the policy is really meant to prevent. But I do not understand hostility towards a concerned editor who only trying to raise an issue I thought involved unkind remarks. I will have to reassess doing so in the future I guess. 2001:628:200A:F001:21:0:0:150 (talk) 13:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm telling you as an administrator that the content does not violate WP:POLEMIC. --NeilN talk to me 13:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
In that case thank you for your help. 2001:628:200A:F001:21:0:0:150 (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, lulz. "I am not someone who has an axe to grind with Rambling Man". Life's so funny. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I doubt I can convince you it is true, but it is. I have never interacted with you before. I just thought your comment was unkind and served no purpose but to mock another editor. I thought this violated the policy and tried to raise it with you, but you did not want to discuss it (blanked message) so I tried to get input from elsewhere. If I was wrong about the policy prohibiting all meanspirited comments on user pages then that is beyond my ability to change but there was never anything personal about my question. 2001:628:200A:F001:21:0:0:150 (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Well perhaps if you had bothered to understand the context of it you'd understand what it's all about. I do get a lot of traffic from IPs but very few are just introducing themselves to berate me, as you did, per a failed understanding of a guideline. I'd drop it now if I were you, this is just bringing the original issue back to the fore, and there are no doubt a few people who would prefer the matter left to just a friendly graphic on my user page (which barely gets 100 hits/day). The Rambling Man (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I have already been told by an admin that my understanding of the policy was wrong and do not see any wisdom in challenging that. I do see now the context you are talking about, but your comment still looks like it has no legitimate purpose and is only there to mock, which seems wrong regardless of context. My opinion is not changed by the fact that you think you could have said worse. It just seems mean. But that is the last I will say on the matter. I cannot convince you to remove it and it seems like you cannot be made to, so there's no gain for us to debate it. I will only say the one last thing that I did not 'berate' you. I asked kindly if you would consider removing it the same as I would hope someone else would ask me in your place. Kind day to you. 2001:628:200A:F001:21:0:0:150 (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I find the graphic to be quite entertaining, to be honest, and think that it should be incorporated into a template for use at ANI. Just kidding, but not by much. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Meh. What NeilN said. — Euryalus (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, nothing for me to add. Alex Shih (talk) 04:35, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Unblock Request

Hi Alex Shih. User:Fhsig13 is requesting to be unblocked at UTRS. The request can be viewed here. I have reserved the request pending your input. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Ad Orientem. I have responded at the UTRS request. Alex Shih (talk) 03:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Alex and I agree with your response entirely (at least what I got before it was cut off). This should put them on notice and slow them down. We shall see what the future holds but if issues persist reblocking is relatively easy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

C. W. Gilmore

After having his talk page access revoked he just sent me an email saying essentially the same things that he was saying on his talk page. Might I suggest revoking his email access as well? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I see it's already been done by cyberpower678. Alex Shih (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Question

Since Bbb23 doesn't seem to like answering my question, I forward this one to you: Does the ban cover rail transport vehicles? And an additional question: Why does the ban cover non-automobile related articles such as air-blast injection? It is simply too large for "automobile" (Take a look); also, virtually any book you can find that covers the topic "air-blast injection" states that this design is ineligible for automobile use. Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Johannes Maximilian, as it has been clarified on multiple occasions I think, "broadly construed" means what it means literally. Please do not edit articles relating to rail transport vehicles nor air-blast injection. I understand your intention is while you don't want to actively edit here, but you would like to make occasional uncontroversial edits from time to time without being concerned that someone will report you for topic ban violation. If there are actual edits you would like to make, post them at the relevant talk page or admin's talk pages and myself or others would be glad to help to clarify. Continuing to to be WP:POINTy without actually indicating what kind of edits you would like to make is tendentious and is what led to your topic ban in the first place. Alex Shih (talk) 04:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
So that basically means while I am banned from automobile, I am also banned from several other things that are not even mentioned in the ban just because some individuals say so? Why has someone said that I take the ban too broadly then? Isn't this arbitrary? You understand my intention correctly, but I had actually considered contributing a bit more to this project. If there are edits I would like to make: Well, first of all, the ban applies to talk pages as well. If you say that I should post them to talk pages, I bet another individual will say that posting edits I would like to make to talk pages is a ban violation. And second, don't you think that this a bit inconvenient and basically renders contributing useless in the first place? It would be reasonable for anyone to say that this procedure is WP:POINTy too, since, I would virtually ask for allowance for every edit I make which will turn out to be annoying for everyone. And third; I have said before that I would like to write the air-blast injection article as it does not exist yet; it is still a redirect. I am this type of editor who writes completely new articles rather than edits existing articles. My problem here is that the process of consideration which article to write next is a process itself. For instance, I have seen several historical trams last week and posting a tram-related edit I would like to make means that I write an article before even knowing if I am allowed to write that article in the first place; Wiener Linien Type E ist a redlink. I guess you know that I am pretty much just frustrated since this entire process has turned out to be nothing but inconvenient. Your suggestion that the ban would be suspended was an excellent idea but well. It was not meant to be. So, there are several articles I could create:
Something I could improve:
  • Lever frame; currently, the article says that signalmen operate signals and points; it misses track locks and that dispatchers also operate these devices, hence the this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject-box.
Anything here that I should not work on? Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 13:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Johannes Maximilian, on a second look Air-blast injection should be fine; I was reading more about the Diesel engine part. Your shortlist looks fine to me too, and should be very interesting articles to create/improve. I would definitely be willing to help out. Alex Shih (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! :-) --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Another question regarding sources: In English Wikipedia articles, I have seen books that are used as sources listed in the Bibliography section of the article while the pages appear in the References. I found this quite useful and I had adopted this for the German language Wikipedia until other editors have told me that the Bibliography section should only contain the latest literature on the topic; this basically renders it useless for historical books. So, I have merged the books into the References as seen here: de:Dieselmotor#Einzelnachweise. Can I use this over here or should I rather stick to the system used in today's featured article Nigel Williams (conservator)? Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I am not posting here with the intention to overexert you; however, I ran into some problems: For the railway article, adding length, electrification specs, operational speed etc. is sort of required I suppose? I mean, I can do it without mentioning that and provide 99 % of the article content anyways. And for the air-blast injection article, I would have to add operating pressure (but it's just one figure and leaving it out doesn't hurt a lot); so, what should I do? Just not mention anything of that at all? Thank you for your patience, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 00:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Hey Alex, have you read the drafts yet? I still need some time for the railroad article Győr-Sopron-Ebenfurth; one of the original authors of the corresponding German article is involved in "long-term conflicts" which recently "came back to life"; I suppose an indefinite block is not unlikely in their case; currently, asking this editor any questions is virtually impossible since they have said I am a louse and they consider themselves "asshole of Wikipedia". Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Johannes Maximilian, sorry, where are these drafts you are talking about? Alex Shih (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I have sent them to you via e-mail. Standard txt files; three in total. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Hey Alex, have you read the drafts yet? I seriously don't want to get blocked by some non-article-creator for an article on air-blast injection. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 01:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Socking

On the Mozambican War of Independence article I noticed this ip address is from the Netherlands and made the exact edit as previous editor [27] As is User:Runehelmet [28] This user has a history of IP socking to make controversial edits looking at his block log and he made the same edit couple years ago. [29] Can you please run a CU? 94.236.181.183 (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Alex Shih/Archive. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 10:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

—SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 10:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, was this about the previous e-mail, in which I did not respond as I thought the issue was addressed, or are you/have you sent a new e-mail (in that case, it's not appearing in my Inbox)? Alex Shih (talk) 10:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't know which one's which. The long one, not the short one  :) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Serial Number 54129, "Express elevator to Hell—going down!!!"? Alex Shih (talk) 11:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes. If it doesn't need a reply, all well and good; but of course one never really knows that for sure without being told in the first place... —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Serial Number 54129, true, I am terrible with acknowledging e-mails (one of my few qualifications for ArbCom), especially when they are not questions but general (addendum: solicited) commentary :-) I will take some time to digest them. Alex Shih (talk) 11:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Solicited commentary. Please don't worry about it, it's dated by now. Take care, —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Damn, sorry forgot to mention that, clarified. Hopefully my incompetence doesn't strain my future requests for your commentary. Alex Shih (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Revert

is this really the only reason that you reverted my edit? Is that enough to revert the edit?--▸ ‎épine talk♬ 10:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Épine, of course it is, see the revision history and the edit immediately preceding to your edit. Speaking in general terms: When making a drastic change to a template that is being transcluded to 179 pages and has been unchanged for at least the past six years, seeking consensus is not optional. Alex Shih (talk) 10:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Alex Shih (Public)

Hi Alex, saw this account at UAA. Just confirming that it is your account? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Callanecc, yes I created the alt account just now after finding myself editing on public computers from time to time. Must be the "(Public)" part that triggered the bot report. Alex Shih (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Alex Shih/Archive. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Trijnsteltalk 16:54, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Trijnstel: responded, thanks. Alex Shih (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Jeffrey Sussman BIO

Hello I am adding the bio of an accomplished author that happens to have a marketing company. He is the official biographer of Judith and Gerson Leiber, and is participating in major events in the Hamptons NY. I believe that his original biography, (that was on Wikipedia for 8 years) was deliberately deleted by someone with intent to do so. His latest book "Rocky Graziano: Fists, Fame, Fortune" is included in Authors Night 2018, co chaired by Alec Baldwin. I am asking to be A. Unblocked and B. Have the original bio reinstated. Thanks, Lou

24.89.147.126, in that case, log in, file an unblock request following instructions at Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, and we can go from there. Alex Shih (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


Sensitive Templates which need fixing/repairs for the new parser...

These are some that owing to their sensitivity, I felt it would be better if a clerk admin etc, made the appropriate changes to.

Extended content

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Batch 2

Batch 3

Batch 4

Batch 5




I think that's all the ones I could find on a first pass. In repairs to the above you may find others. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC) |}

Administrators' newsletter – August 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2018).

Administrator changes

added Sro23
readded KaisaL • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

  • After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
  • Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.

Technical news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Response to your question

In response to this, "things" means all of the RfA discussion, all of the RfA talk page discussion, and the external links provided in some of the posts. Regarding "having difficulty deciding which way the discussion went", it means exactly what it says. I couldn't see a consensus either way, so there was no consensus to promote. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nihonjoe: Thanks for the response. I still think you are being far too general for these comments to serve any true purpose, but the point is moot now. Alex Shih (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Give your feedback about changes to Special:Block

Hello,

You are receiving this message because you are a top user of Special:Block on this wiki. Thank you for the important work that you do. There is a discussion happening about plans to improve Special:Block with the ability to set new types of blocks. To get the best design and new functions added, it is essential that administrators who use the tool join the discussion and share their opinions about these changes.

Instead of a full site wide block, administrators would be able to set a Partial Block. A user could be blocked from a single page, multiple pages, one or more namespaces, from uploading files, etc. There are several different ways to add this feature to Special:Block. Right now Important decisions are being made about the design and function.

Please review the page on Meta and share your feedback on the discussion page. Or you can reach me by email Also, share this message with anyone else who might be interested in participating in the discussion.

I appreciate any time that you can give to assist with making improvements to this feature. Cheers, SPoore (WMF) (talk) , Trust and Safety Specialist, Community health initiative (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Autopatrolled rights

Hi I was wondering if you could check the article creations for Vincelord as you gave him autopatrolled rights. I noticed a deltion discussion notification on his talk page for an unsourced probably non notable hockey player. I was surprised by this as he is autopatrolled and a reviewer. I checked out his history and there are quite a few unsourced articles and creations that do not show notability which I started tagging. If this had been a one off I would have opened a thread on his talk page but it seems to show a real problem with policy and guidelines and I think he is not ready for autopatrolled rights. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Domdeparis: Thanks for the heads up. That was over an year ago, so I don't quite remember the circumstances. I will review their article creations when I get a chance. Alex Shih (talk) 08:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that wasn't sure if this was the best way to deal with this, I'm not a fan of "snitching" but as he is a NPP patroller it seemed inappropriate to remind him of the basics of article creation. Cheers Dom from Paris (talk) 09:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Request for rangeblock

Hi Alex Shih.. I have a request regarding the unstoppable disruptive editing and persistent block evasion by User:Albert20009. After reading this and saw you are one of the user with checkuser access but don't know where to propose for a range block, can you help me to propose for the block since it seems no matter how many notice and block have been imposed to his IP, the user keep popping out with another new IP and continue with his disruptive editing. I have collected the list of his IPs here where we can see the user are coming from Aceh in North Sumatra of Indonesia with IP range mainly from 36, 110, 125 and 180. Tide rolls and Dl2000 also have persistently reverting the user disruptive editing, perhaps they can help to propose for a range block too. Molecule Extraction (talk) 08:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

First I would like to thank @Molecule Extraction: for their help confronting this disruption. I've been engaged with the matter for more than five years and can confirm the basics of their post. Keeping in mind the behavioral evidence, I don't really think checkuser action is necessary. Even though I have moderate technical deficiencies WRT range blocks, I believe the ranges would be too large. Additionally, the persistence of the individual demonstrates that any range blocks might be ineffective. If proxies are being employed, then maybe, since they can be blocked for extended periods. These are not bad ideas, I simply don't know how effective they would prove. Thanks to all involved. Tiderolls 11:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Like Tide rolls said, I don't think checkuser will be very useful here. I think a WP:LTA page needs to be set up at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Albert20009 moving forward, Molecule Extraction. Once the information page is up, other administrators and myself can actively track down the disruptive editing and apply range blocks. Alex Shih (talk) 13:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome and thank you also for the response from both of you. 😀👍 Actually I only mean the range block since the third paragraph on that page mentioning that "If you propose to block a significant range, or for a significant time, consider asking a user with checkuser access to check for collateral damage". 😅 By any means, since Tide rolls has explained that range block could be less effective..Alex Shih suggestion could be more right since I think we need create a long-term abuse case page for the user and gather all the evidence there. ☺ Molecule Extraction (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Haven't had many recent run-ins with the Albert20009 socks (which I tend to call the "Asian media overlink vandal"). The culprit may have evolved in evasive editing tactics, perhaps also shifting to different categories than in the past. Will try to keep a lookout, though. My thanks also to @Molecule Extraction: for the continued hard work. If setting up WP:LTA, one example to look at is Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Martial arts vandal, which seemed to help control the horseplay on the martial arts film articles. Dl2000 (talk) 01:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome and thank you for helping to revert his disruptive editing too Dl2000. ☺ I will try to collect more evidence regarding the sock, thanks for the LTA case page example too. Regards. Molecule Extraction (talk) 04:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Johannes Maximilian and air-blast injection

Johannes Maximilian has asked me to help with getting an article on air-blast injection posted. I would like to assist with this. From your comments when asked, you seem to have no objection either. However it would be prudent to have some agreement first that this wouldn't breach their TBAN against "automobile" or "units of measurement" edits. It's outside the scope of automobile, but not so clearly so that some enthusiastic admin couldn't block first and enquire later. Also any article is likely to involve measurements - however the past problem was changes to such aspects, against other editors, not creating from scratch.

It's a year since the TBAN and over six months since the six month appeal start date. As such, I'd see this article as being a good point to start from to see if a repeal would be appropriate.

As the closing admin, I'd request that the TBAN is withdrawn for this article (or for the other articles they listed too?) and then see how it goes. With a view to an appeal, if that is well. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

„It's outside the scope of automobile, but not so clearly so that some enthusiastic admin couldn't block first and enquire later“ → That is what I am afraid of. I don't want to create an article someone blocks me for. Andy, I had asked Alex regarding the article air-blast injection a month ago and I have sent him my draft already (but I didn't receive a response yet). I didn't mean to not mention this when I asked you to help me. Since replying on two different pages causes confusion, I will reply to your reply here as well: You are saying that an article on air-blast injection is outside any scope for automobile (which is why I want to start with this article), but well, someone else said it is within the scope – and this is a bit confusing for me, since I have no idea how bans work here in detail and I definitely don't want to make any mistakes. „I strongly suggest getting the ANI closing admin to agree to you posting this first“ → This is why I have asked Alex already. Also, you are saying „any article is likely to involve measurements“ → Exactly that is what I wanted to point out when I attempted to address my ban some weeks ago, but I guess I exaggerated slightly by explaining, that, technically even the signatures on talk pages contain units (hours and minutes); ironically, it all started with minutes... But I felt like it was hard to understand for the administrators. I have also finished a stub on the engineer Julius Magg (de:Julius Magg (Techniker)). Since Magg worked on stationary Diesel engines (which means unsuitable for vehicles), but, still, Diesel engines, I wasn't sure if an article would violate the ban; therefore, I haven't posted it to the ANS yet. I would like you to read the drafts and tell me what you think (maybe you will find some oddities here and there); I'd rather post them to the article name space myself though (as long as doing that will not violate my ban). Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I need to apologise to never finding the time to read over your draft, Johannes Maximilian. The purpose of topic bans, like Andy Dingley said, is to address the original issue, which was changes to such aspects against other editors. I don't think any of the intended draft should be covered by the topic ban, and if by chance any enthusiastic admin decides to intervene, no one should be blocking first inquiring later anyway, especially not before checking with the admin that closed the discussion, and not before knowing the context of the original ban. So while I don't think I have the power to "withdraw" certain articles from TBAN, I think this discussion here should serve a similar purpose. Alex Shih (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, then hopefully we can see it posted soon. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Julius Magg, Air-blast injection. I have got some photos I would like to add, however one of them is 100 % vehicle-related, the other one most likely. In the article BMW_6_Series_(E24)#1987 there is no photo yet; I got a QI here. Also I want to add this pic to the article throttle, since there is no nice photo showing the throttle valve yet. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC) Also, there is no photo of a "standard" facelifted BMW E28 (only M5 and M535i) in the corresponding article yet, I also got some QIs (1, 2), someone could add them too. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Checking this translation?

Hey mate.

Editing the Special Assault Team article for a particular translation. Can you say that the translation of Special Armed Police is 特別武装警察? Ominae (talk) 03:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ominae: I think 特殊警察部隊 would suffice in Japanese for SAP because the "armed" aspect is implied in "special police"; 武装警察 is probably more common in Chinese usage, I haven't seen such term really in Japanese texts for police forces. Alex Shih (talk) 05:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Gotcha. Ominae (talk) 06:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alex_Shih/Archive/2018-2&oldid=1081897778"