Most of the 676 double lettters are taken - but no WP:JJ, WP:KK, WP:QQ, WP:VVWP:YY or WP:ZZ , or indeed WP:AY or WP:XA or WP:OB. You get the idea. All 26 starting WP:T[?] are in use.
As for the 17,576 triples, there are lots of red links in that rather large table. For example, WP:YAW or WP:OAT or WP:PAD ... and so on.
Cheers Mr/Ms 213 - that's where I got my list in the first place. I am not entering the dark world of diacritics, that way lies madness. Fish+Karate09:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
When Disney Merged With 21st Century Fox,The Xmen Were Included In Avengers 4.So Therefore,
Add The Cast Of Xmen Apocalypse And Fanstatic Four(2015) Coolguy3478 (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Fish and karate. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Done. I am happy for you to just make such reverts yourself if I mess something up on DYK when trying to fix errors, I don't mind. Cheers, Fish+Karate15:49, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
Administrators and bureaucrats can no longer unblock themselves unless they placed the block initially. This change has been implemented globally. See also this ongoing village pump discussion (permalink).
To complement the aforementioned change, blocked administrators will soon have the ability to block the administrator that placed their block to mitigate the possibility of a compromised administrator account blocking all other active administrators.
In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (Raymond Arritt) passed away on 14 November 2018. Boris joined Wikipedia as Raymond arritt on 8 May 2006 and was an administrator from 30 July 2007 to 2 June 2008.
Just here to inform, the IP user is back at it.
Ace Of Space 1
Hi MiaSays, thank you for letting me know. I have semi-protected the article for a week. Please sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~, it helps readers know who posted messages. Thanks, Fish+Karate13:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed that you protected a couple of articles for repeated addition of unsourced and/or badly sourced material, but they have been making unsourced edits on far more articles than that, so would you mind also blocking the person doing it, editing as Special:Contributions/213.30.22.157 and Special:Contributions/83.240.186.98. It's a very prolific editor in Lisbon, Portugal, who has been doing this for several years, and has recently been blocked twice for it as IP83.240.186.98, editing as that IP until today, when they, after getting another final warning for it switched to IP213.30.22.157 and just continued making the exact same edits (see page history of Kirsten Vangsness and Jane March and the contributions of both IPs). And 213.30.22.157 isn't a totally new IP for them, because if you check their contributions you'll find that it was used by the same person, making the same kind of edits as 83.240.186.98 has been doing, already in 2014. Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W talk15:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Thomas.W. Quick message I’m afraid as I’m a bit busy this evening, but I will look at this in the morning if it’s stil not resolved. If it’s urgent please report the user at WP:AIV. Cheers. Fish+Karate17:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
@Thomas.W: - as the two pages are protected at present, then I can't tell if those are the IP addresses that are causing problems. I will watchlist them both and keep an eye on them. Fish+Karate16:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Fish and karate! I'm just getting caught up with all of my Wikipedia messages, emails, requests, etc., and I saw your comment here. Is this something I still need to look into? Let me know (ping me in your response so I see it). Thanks! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)06:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi @Oshwah:. No response needed, it was more just a note for the various editors involved who reverted those IP edits without actually considering the nature of the (BLP-violating) content they were restoring, asking them to take more care in future. Fish+Karate09:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Ah okay. I was just curious about the mention and the actual content involved. The content in question that was being removed (diff) seemed well-sourced; no edit summary was left describing the reason for the removal that I reverted, and the previous edit summaries removing the same content were also not helpful. I was just wondering exactly what content was ultimately considered a BLP violation? What am I missing or not seeing? Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)10:11, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
@Oshwah: There are three paragraphs there which don't mention the article subject once, instead going into lurid detail about crimes committed by a family member. That's called coatracking. Sourcing is not the issue. It's all discussed in the ANI thread you linked above, and explained better. Fish+Karate11:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Oh boy... that's not good at all. Crap... :-/... That obviously doesn't make me happy to see that I missed that and restored the content... I'm familiar with WP:COATRACK but I obviously didn't catch it in this instance. :-( Anyways, I'll look further into the ANI report and the article text; I obviously didn't read far or deep enough into the report if I'm asking you questions over such a large amount of content like this... I'm glad that you mentioned me and got my attention about this. Thank you for doing that. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)11:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello, ِYour account-name is not permitted according to name-policy at ArWikipedia. It has been nominated for "Block", but Don't worry, I add your account to a category of "Active accounts on other wikis", so It will not be blocked. Thanks. --Dr-Taher (talk) 07:55, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello Fish and karate, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, TheSandDoctorTalk07:48, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
I would give you a more fitting template, but I have yet to find one with fish and karate involved....... Anyways, wishing you and your family all the best in 2019! --TheSandDoctorTalk07:48, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.
Members of the Bot Approvals Group (BAG) are now subject to an activity requirement. After two years without any bot-related activity (e.g. operating a bot, posting on a bot-related talk page), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice.
Technical news
Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.
Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
{{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.
Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Hi Fish - I got your name from the Sadiq Khan page; you semi-protected it. I thought you might be the right admin to also protect the Ilhan Omar page. Omar is the first Muslim woman in US Congress, (took her seat just this week), and already she is being attacked by alt-right trolls. I made a simple edit for the sake of her safety and it was immediately reversed. I had to make this appeal to the other editor to have my edit accepted. In light of my argument made there, and given the vandalism is already ramping up, would now not be the right time to apply some measure of protection? Or failing that, could you at least put it on your watchlist? Thanks. MarkDask18:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
@Markdask: Hi Mark. The route is usually to post this sort of thing at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, where it has more chance of being seen quickly, as many admins review that page. I have looked at the history of the Ilhan Omar article, and do not see much in the way of vandalism at present. I also don't think saying someone lives in a large area of a large city is a safety issue, this is publicly-available information. Fish+Karate14:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Update; I addressed three Admins, including yourself, with my concerns and left it at that. I should have gone to RPP as you suggested. Since then the page turned into a vicious partizan dogfight with some extreme vandalism, but at least it has now been PCPPed so the trolling has abated. Thanks again. MarkDask16:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I haven't made any
unhelpful edits. I suggest you examine the tomfoolery introduced by previous editors making a joke out of a simple mistake with silly comments and :) faces, rather than picking on me. Just get off my back. Leaky Caldron14:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Whereas the other comments taking the rise out of a simple mistake which I rectified before one of them was made (check the timestamps) and doing a double rollback were what, exactly? Like to select weakest targets where you will gain most kudos? Leaky Caldron14:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Read the thread and see where the mockery started before picking out one edit I made. There are others guilty of disruption. I personally resent being singled out in public when others have been just as responsible. Leaky Caldron14:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I am sorry for making you feel picked on; not my intention and yes, other editors were also not helpful, such as the other editor I also named when singling you out. Fish+Karate14:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. He cannot help it - it is clear to me at least that he lacks clue which is why I attempted to close it down at GS's request. So why name me to the clerks and not the others - who were clearly and repeatedly poking fun not only at Hhkohh but also at me and creating disruption. I'm curious. Suppose I get blocked for trying to help GS because you have highlighted my name? You consider that fair? Leaky Caldron15:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't think you are going to be blocked. the difference is Hhkohh and you were picking on the person under scrutiny, who is already under pressure, and does not need his pages being nominated for MFD for no apparent reason (a truly indelicate and shitty thing to do) or sarcastic comments like yours (less bad, but still not good). Other editors were also making snarky comments to one another. I note you came on here expecting me to "get off your back" because I was being "unfair" to you, but at no point have you either retracted the comment you made or apologised to GiantSnowman for making such a comment. I bet you haven't even considered doing so. This is a far worse thing than what you think I did to you in "singling you out" and "highlighting your name". Think about why I mentioned your name in the first place. Fish+Karate15:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
You named me first because I'm an easy target and you will not target your friends elsewhere in that thread. I am not a friend. If you look at the small number of edits I have made on the substantive Arbcon matter you will see that I have been more supportive to GS than many who want him stood down. So I suggest you look at the bigger picture before casting aspirations. My suggestion of using Rollback if he didn't like my comment is far less damaging than the pointy double rollback immediately following my post (with or without an apology 20 hours later). Just as the same person had half-wittedly attempted humour at my expense in the same thread a couple of days earlier. As for you adding your 2p 24 hours later - why? What did it achieve? Fuel on the flames of a fire that was all but out. What exactly did you expect a clerk to do with this: "address Leakycauldron and Hhkohh's unhelpful contributions" when you as an Admin. could have addressed it yourself? The thread is closed. If there are further repercussions against me you can be sure that I will hold you accountable for showing lack of balance in your personal criticism. Leaky Caldron16:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I don’t know anyone in the thread. I don’t know who you are either. I call them as I see them. What I’ve learned is you clearly don’t think you did anything wrong, and respond when criticised by lashing out and making vague threats, rather than owning your actions. This makes me glad I don’t know who you are. Fish+Karate17:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
"frequent flyer"
It's kinda off-topic for the ANI thread, but why do you think that? Since the beginning of December (before the current thread opened by CT) I made one drive-by comment on a thread that was neither about me nor involved me, blanked a sock comment, and opened a thread on an issue in which I was not involved, on which you agreed with me that the editor needed a block. In November, some other editors opened threads on issued that I was interested in but in which I was not directly involved, and I contributed to those. October was similar to January until yesterday: I opened a thread on an issue in which I was not directly involved, on which any good-faith editor would have probably done the same. September was similar to December, except I was pinged into a thread as a known policy-familiar editor who speaks both English and Japanese. August was similar to November. I can see how being a "frequent flyer at ANI" might be an issue if one is repeatedly causing disruption and having to be dragged there, wasting the community's time, but the last time I was the "subject" of an ANI thread was July (where virtually everyone agreed I was not at fault) and I don't even remember the time before that (it was certainly well over a year ago, since I went back to June 2017).
I have always thought of myself as just a semi-regular non-admin contributor to ANI, like Softlavender or Beyond My Ken. I have about 2,300 edits to the page, Softlavender has about 5,000, and BMK has about 9,600, and those are just two random names that come to mind: I'm not even sure if they're the worst "offenders".
Well, not recently. I was mostly active there in 2013-2015 (when a series of incidents involving several sock-abusing stalkers of mine brought me back there multiple times) and 2016-2017 (when I did make quite a lot of comments on other people's threads). Recently I realized that the "frequent flyer" thing can make some people peg me for a disruptive editor based solely on that 2,300 figure (and I'm sure that wasn't your intent, but it does look that way), and so I've been basically limiting myself to threads on issues that concern me (this one for example), and even then I'm usually pinged into them, and the occasional issue I feel really needs the community's (or one uninvolved admin's) attention. You may not believe this but I've actually never had ANI on my watchlist, and only check in there every couple of weeks to see if anything's going on. In this most recent case, I just want the whole thing to go away, and so made one brief comment and left it at that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
This issue was extensively discussed in Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration_to_Assam#Content_removal, where the independent counsel was "I suggest that we don't here need to report brief, un-evidenced comments based on muddled thinking. I propose simply to take the Dravidian comment out." from User:Richard Keatinge, which is what I tried to follow I am at a loss how to deal with this situation where simple issues get mired in lengthy Wikipedia processes.
Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.
Technical news
A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.
A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.
Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Proposed decision
Just an FYI (and I didn't realise at first) - you're supposed to comment in your own section, rather than 'thread' the comments of others in reply. GiantSnowman11:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Fish and karate. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 19:05, 14 February 2019 (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.
Nope. I'll do so when you quit claiming BLP policy -- which deals with statements that are defamatory -- applies to opinions that are rude.
If I said "I think X is a great big meddling know-it-all cunt", that wouldn't be a personal attack because I prefaced it with "I think"?
Also, maybe you should make up hypotheticals that are actually relevant to the policy being discussed (BLP) instead of a different one (NPA), and which said hypotheticals actually reflect the thing actually said. --Calton | Talk07:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Would you take a look at this which is posted in the comment section of my appeal. It dates back to July 2018, it is irrelevant to my appeal and obviously an attempt to smear me. I responded to this comment but the image is such a distraction it needs to be removed. Atsme✍🏻📧05:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@Atsme: It's not appropriate for me to edit someone else's statement. I agree it's not particularly relevant to the appeal and is not recent, and have said so. I do note it wasn't funny, either. Fish+Karate10:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Holiday
I will be on holiday (vacation for my American friends) until 4 March. Replies will be slow/non existent until then. Fish+Karate07:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Following discussions at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Administrators, an earlier change to the restoration of adminship policy was reverted. If requested, bureaucrats will not restore administrator permissions removed due to inactivity if there have been five years without a logged administrator action; this "five year rule" does not apply to permissions removed voluntarily.
Technical news
A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.
Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
paid-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.
I'm a bit confused over what to do about this banner which came about as a result of this discussion. The banner has a chilling effect, is noncompliant with WP:CCC, attempts to enforce a particular POV that is contentious, and discourages discussion about a controversial topic that has a much different definition per multiple tertiary and secondary sources. I've not seen anything like it in the past whereas I have seen results of RfC's and local discussions listed at the top of article TPs, but never a warning like this one. Atsme📣📧11:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello there, the recent blocked user Baccaihp pointed in his edit on the Lend-Lease article diff that the blog entry is considered reliable. This might well be true for a more simplified view and teaching, but not for a serious analysis on the impact it had on the Soviet Union's economic base. Prof. Dr. Albert L. Weeks has written an excellent book on that matter: Russia's Life-Saver: Lend-Lease Aid to the U.S.S.R. in World War II.
It should also be noted that user Baccaihp is a long-term abuser as previous investigations show diff. I seems that Baccaihp is still allowed to make contributions on the vi.wiki. Do you mind to fill a report? Thank you Wildkatzen (talk) 16:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Wildkatzen, noting that Baccaihp has been indefinitely blocked, and I agree that blogs are not usually reliable sources, atlhough the one provided above by Đông Minh (the same person?) seems to me to be quite reliable in that it has been produced by the Department of History at the University of Texas at Austin, rather than an individual. As far as his editing of the Vietnamese Wikipedia, that's really for the Vietnamese Wikipedia to manage. Fish+Karate16:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Fish and karate, thanks for the quick reply. It appears that action was already taken, sorry to bother you with that. I don't know if the user you mentioned is related to Baccaihp. As for the blog, the article was written by Charters Wynn Ph.D. However, his argumentation differs fundamentally to those made by Prof. Dr. Albert Weeks, which book is cited as 'further readings'. Regards Wildkatzen (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
I have a question about the wikipedia page that you blocked for vandalism.
In their interview they talked about their nationality and about that they sais that they are palestinians living in palestine
So why is it considerd vendalism?
@David Echoes: (from a talk page stalker) You're talking about Borgore#Biography? "Yosef Asaf Borger was born in Holon and raised in Tel Aviv, Israel. He moved to Los Angeles in 2012." I verified the cites (and added one). The video interview in cite 4 is conducted while walking around Hollywood in 2018. He grew up Jewish, though is "non-observant". —[AlanM1(talk)]—19:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi
No,I was talking about the Rock/Alternative Rock band Khalas.
You can check the resources in Khalas’s Wikipedia page and you will find their interview where they clearly say that they are Palestinian band
I am taking a break and will be back on Wikipedia eventually. I will check in from time to time to respond to any messages.
Wakhan Corridor
Fish and karate, please help me out. A user (Solkarn) is repeatedly changing the article Wakhan Corridor for what I believe are reasons of political bias. The last time, I made a gentle request in the talk page. Now we are basically in an edit war. I believe that it is correct (and supported by all the citations in the article) that the corridor is strictly within Afghanistan (and that was why the British and Russians put it there in the first place), but s/he keeps insisting it is also in Pakistan and Tajikistan. How to proceed? Paulmlieberman (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Please see meta:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019 to provide your input on this idea.
Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.
Proposed Deletion for A High-Profile Rapper's Younger Sibling
I had done this to Acalamari's page but no one replied back in a while about this. Even the subject's talk page didn't receive any responses either.
The rapper in question is Cardi B who had starred in Love and Hip Hop for a half year before leaving the show completely. Younger sister Hennessy Carolina (no really that's her given name; it originates from her father showing up like a drunken zombie during delivery) had starred in a few episodes but unlike her she is a social media personality.
Despite having a career as the above-mentioned profession, subject isn't TOO notable to have her own article which equals a proposed deletion and fellow sysop Acroterion said the deletion did not turn into any consensus on his page.
So please take this action and of course discuss on article talk first. Link: en.wikipedia.org/w/Hennessy_Carolina.
Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account.
What do I need to do?
Only to follow the instructions in this message.
Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites).
Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable).
Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers.
How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)?
Hello Fish and karate. I have requested an update of the languages template by adding a link to the Macedonian Wikipedia after it reached 100,000 articles a week ago, but an admin who joined the discussion appears to be unable of doing a new evaluation. Could you please take care about my request before it goes stale? Thanks. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Kiril Simeonovski: I looked at 10 random pages on the Macedonian Wikipedia and 7 were stubs (one of the others was finding out that the Macedonian version of Footloose was called "Careless", which is quite interesting). The 10 I checked - Stub, Stub, Stub, OK (Footloose),Stub, Stub, OK, Stub, OK, stub
It is not sufficient for a wiki to have a certain number of articles, they must also be of reasonable quality. Stubs and place-holders do not count. The admin you mention (PrimeHunter) is perfectly able to do evaluations, they are of the same opinion as mine - the Macedonian Wikipedia does not yet have sufficient quality articles to be featured on the template, I'm afraid. I hope one day the Macedonian Wikipedia improves the quality of its articles so that it can become featured. Fish+Karate09:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@Fish and karate: Thanks for your evaluation. My impression is that it should be linked based on the result you obtained. On a population of 100,000 articles, your finding of 3 regular-sized articles out of 10 sampled translates to about 30,000 regular-sized articles, which is about 60 per cent of the minimum threshold for inclusion. If not, what is then the minimum number of non-stub articles required for inclusion? Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.
Arbitration
In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.
Hi, I noticed you locked the balloon boy hoax page due to sock account activity (which is understandable). Could you review the Balloon Boy video on the Internet Historian YouTube channel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWhUvm8SunY) and consider either editing or reopening the topic to allow for the counterpoint evidence to be provided? Honestly, even you're not convinced of its veracity the video is an interesting watch. I appreciate your consideration.
SOCJUS 1984 (talk) 04:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Fish and GS. You were two of the key administrators in the discussion that led to the iBAN, so I am coming to you for this. Hijiri88 inadvertently violated our two-way iBAN by adding templates to content I added to Hellraiser: Judgment (see: [1], [2]). This appears to be a pure accident, and was instantly self-reverted.
However, in the self-revert, he also mentions "The source is unreliable, but I don't want to be the one to tag it given something else."
If someone else comes in and makes the edit for him, and I have to discuss the content (and only the content) with that someone, I could still be accused of violating the iBAN, after his accidental violation of the iBAN, possibly reigniting a shit storm that I don't want any part of. That's why I'm asking your advice on how to proceed. DarkKnight214902:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: To clarify, I'm not looking for any action to be taken, but rather advice on what to do should someone else reinstate the edit. Would I be able to discuss it without being accused of violating the iBAN (as long as the discussion is exclusively on the content itself)? The edit is, after all, templates on content contributed by me. DarkKnight214908:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
@Darkknight2149: My view is that you should probably find something else to do other than nibbling at the edges of the IBAN; at this point nobody else has reinstated the edit so this is a hypothetical situation. Should the edit be reinstated then we can cross that bridge as and when we come to it, but perhaps in the interim you could consider obviating the need for this scenario by finding a better source yourself. Fish+Karate13:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't have brought it here if not for the exact wording of the edit summary that implicitly suggested that someone else make the edit (which would necessitate discussing it with that person, obviously without mentioning the other party). And I'm not deliberately nibbling at anything. It's a legitimate question about the iBAN. I actually came here to avoid some massive conflict from breaking out, and WP:IBAN encourages administrator consultation in situations like this.
And keep in mind that Hellraiser: Judgment is an article edited almost exclusively by me. I'm not pointing this out to declare ownership, but it's certainly important to point out in this situation. Rest assured, should a discussion take place, the other party will not be mentioned (even vaguely) per GS. DarkKnight214919:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
"by finding a better source yourself" - Fish, all of the sources that were tagged were interviews with the writer/director himself. I don't see how that's unreliable. DarkKnight214919:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
@Darkknight2149: Asking questions is fine, it's absolutely the right thing to do, please don't stop doing that. By "nibbling at the edges" I was talking about addressing H88's editing elsewhere on the wiki, even by proxy, or exploring hypotheticals thereof. Regarding the source, I wasn't so much saying it was unreliable as I was asking is there any better / less ephemeral source for those small parts of the content of the overall article (which, by the way, is a great article, well done) than a YouTube channel? If there is, swap it out, problem solved. Fish+Karate10:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.
Miscellaneous
The previously discussed unblocking of IP addresses indefinitely-blocked before 2009 was approved and has taken place.
I have made the decision to indefinitely retire from editing Wikipedia. I request that my account be blocked to enforce this and in the unlikley chance the account is compromised. I did enjoy the year I was part of the community of editors, and it is sad that I must move on. funplussmart (talk) 20:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
