User talk:KillerChihuahua/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Wikipedia Day meetup at University of Florida on January 15

Remember when you asked to be notified about the next Wikipedia meetup in Gainesville, Florida? Good news! I'm organizing a meetup to celebrate Wikipedia Day at the University of Florida Marston Science Library from 4pm to 7pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2019. You can find more about the event on its event page -- I hope you'll be able to join us!

If you wish to opt-out of future notifications, please remove yourself from the list of interested users. Alternatively, to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Thank you so much for your attention! -- Gaurav (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Art+Feminism editathon in Gainesville this Saturday, March 16, 2019

The Harn Museum of Art in Gainesville, Florida is organizing an Art+Feminism editathon this Saturday, March 16 from 11am to 4:30pm. You can find out more on their Outreach Dashboard or on the Harn's website.

If you wish to opt-out of future notifications, please remove yourself from the list of interested users. Alternatively, to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. -- Gaurav (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Woohoo

Hey, KillerChihuahua. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Mjs1991 (talk) 05:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Plushies for you!

Very welcome back dear Deathdoggie! Have plushies and hugs! [In his enthusiasm, Bishapod positively rains plushies over the little deathdoggie.] bishapod talk to your inner fish 19:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC).

Oh, my. Yes, dear, that's... um, very generous of you. KillerChihuahua 19:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of rounding up the plushies and putting them all here, where they can keep each other company. Chihuahuas are not known for being herd dogs, but in extreme circumstances, they can rise to the occasion. KillerChihuahua 19:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of Clint Pulver page

KillerChihuahua, let me apologize in advance, I'm not well versed in how to make comments on talk pages like this and tag myself and my articles appropriately. I'll do my best. You deleted the page Clint Pulver earlier today, citing G11. It must have gone up shortly before that as a nomination for speedy deletion, but it was certainly "speedily deleted" as I didn't have a chance to look at it before you deleted. So I read through the link you have here on your talk page ("please read this before posting here." and went back over what G11 is. I could really use your advice as I tried to make the article as neutral as possible and used multiple objective citations for nearly every sentence included in the article. I'd love to be able to fix whatever I did wrong and get the article back up. Please advise. Cheers, tbc32 15:44, 16 September 2019

Let me go take a look to refresh my memory, and I'll respond here. KillerChihuahua 23:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok. The article has been a bit of a problem since it's inception. It was moved from mainspace to draft as Not Ready For Mainspace, and then on 1 July 2019 was moved back to article space as Issues Addressed - then speedied today. I am willing to undelete and move back into draft space, preferably in your userspace, if you're willing to work on it some more. Here is the issue - what's he notable for? You literally cannot tell from the article. There is a LOT of fluff in the article. It needs to be trimmed, and the more hagiographic bits removed outright, the actual biographical details rephrased. It may still get deleted - but it would stand a better chance if it were less advert and more even handed, and made clear why we even have an article on him in the first place. Does that make sense, or do you want detailed rundown of each issue? KillerChihuahua 23:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for revisiting this. In July I did address the issues so I was surprised to see the article put back up for speedy deletion. I am happy to continue working on the article to improve it. I think my challenge with establishing notability is that the industry of "public speaking" (where Pulver is a leading influencer right now) may not be regarded by the Wikipedia community as notable. That withstanding, I believe Pulver meets notability as a result of founding the Green Man group, for his work as a professional drummer, and for his acting roles. I don't think any of those accomplishments are as notable as the work he is doing as a public speaker, but the criteria for notability as a speaker would probably fall under WP:AUTHOR, "1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." He meets this criteria through citations on podcasts (the preferred news medium in the speaking industry), evidenced by many of the citations which are podcast interview transcripts. I've been working on several articles about notable public speakers but have this same issue across the board, that the credibility of podcast interviews are low because such interviews are not the traditional "news" medium used for citations on Wikipedia (even if they are way more credible than a blog post or crappy news publication). Any advice on what I can/should do to establish credibility for speakers when most of the news about them are released in audio form? tbc32 06:44, 17 September 2019

Have you spent any time on WP:RS and the related noticeboard, WP:RSN? KillerChihuahua 13:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Karaiskakis stadium

hello! I do not vandalize i revert the vandal in this article see the talk page section location https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Karaiskakis_Stadium --Jjik43 (talk) 14:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

NEITHER of you is vandalizing. STOP accusing an editor with whom you are having a content dispute of vandalism!!! See WP:NOTV. READ it. Commit it to memory. And then go study WP:DR. Puppy has spoken, this had better be the last damn time I have to explain that an edit war, which IS what you're doing, can get you blocked, but accusing the other editor of vandalism will NOT help your case. Do you understand? KillerChihuahua 14:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok--Jjik43 (talk) 14:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Heated discussions are best enjoyed with a heated beverage; you are not at fault (well, except for being wrong about the AIV/spam thing, but this place is an arcane bewildertempest of bureaucracy, and we all get little things like that confused from time to time!) so relax and enjoy a nice cup of tea. (*slides teacup down admin lounge bar like an old-timey cowboy) Yunshui 雲水 14:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

As I said in that discussion: Here is the thing. I have known a number of editors who started out exactly like this. One issue editors, often spamming with the same link to multiple articles, the "Warrell vandal" comes to mind. Instead of immediately blocking, we kept reaching out to him, explaining NPOV and NOT. He became a valuable contributor. Wikipedia is in decline. The number of editors and admins has dropped precipitously. Biting newbies is a primary reason people don't become contributors. Will I have to indef Harold? Probably. But I'm NOT going to do that first thing. I'm going to at least try to get him to understand and follow policy. I care more about Wikipedia as a whole than I do about smashing newbies with my banhammer just because they're not helpful at first. I understand current terms; you don't need to insult and pretend to explain things to senile old timer me. It isn't necessary nor helpful. I'm not "wrong", thank you so much for your help; I'm just not a fucking asshole who blocks everybody on sight if I think they might be able to learn to be a helpful contributor. Your opinion and approach may vary, that's fine. Just because I don't immediately block all new editors who fuck up, does not mean I'm "wrong" or "confused". KillerChihuahua 14:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh dear. I apologise, that was intended entirely as a, "hey, I see you're getting dragged over the coals a bit, just letting you know that I agree with your position and sympathise", not in any way an attempt to passive-aggressively teach you to suck eggs. It's clearly come across the wrong way and I'm profoundly sorry; my intention was to diffuse the situation and hopefully give you a smile, not escalate it and piss you off. Your administrative work is beyond reproach and I fully concur with your reasoning above; I really wasn't trying to criticise. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Eh, no worries. "Confused" on top of Prax telling me I didn't understand "current" terms just struck me as painting me as a semi-senile incompetent. I do appreciate that it's a cuppa tea template, which is always a friendly gesture. I just think this project is very nasty to new users, and it's harmful. If an editor is a BV, I'll indef immediately. But if it looks like they mean well, even if they're initially only posting the same same site (often their own), then I think we should at least make the attempt. AGF, what ever happened to AGF???? Pretty sure that hasn't been deprecated. But far too many editors act like it's optional for newbies and especially IPs. They get some stars for vandal fighting, and newbies are just notches on their belt. They never try to retain them. It doesn't even occur to them. KillerChihuahua 15:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I've been watching this conversation with some interest, and I feel I should point out that there are hundreds of accounts created every day simply to promote links to other websites. Many of them are real people just trying to promote their own agendas, but many of them are spambots. Wikipedia is the fifth-most popular website in the world, and on the first page of Google searches for nearly every search for a product, company, or person. Fighting spam on Wikipedia is an arduous task, and people who have the stamina and the expertise to find these spammers and report them are people to be valued and encouraged. You say Wikipedia is in decline - I'm not sure that's true, but spam is probably its biggest threat. – bradv🍁 15:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

And why do you feel the need to explain that? Who in this discussion do you feel is ignorant of that? I'm about done being patronized on my own talk page. KillerChihuahua 15:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Apologies if this was more patronizing than intended. I'm just trying to stand up for one of our most prolific spamfighters. – bradv🍁 15:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Since no one has attacked her, not here or on her talk page, and since your method of defending her involved absolutely nothing positive about her - actually nothing about her at all! - but rather a condescending explanation of how bad spam is, I'm missing how your explanation is accurate. Your assertion that fighting spam is hard and we should value and encourage spamfighters is mildly relevant, as is your opinion (with which I disagree, btw) that spam and vandalism are a greater cause of the decline of editors and admins on Wikipedia; you could have said that without the preface of explaining spam to me. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 15:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

AN/I

fair block, plenty of AGF. you have been missed. — Ched (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! We certainly tried. He was highly resistant to clue, sadly. Hopefully he'll calm down on his enforced break and come back with a better attitude. KillerChihuahua 23:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• for future reference, this is about this. KillerChihuahua 01:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of "Incentive Solutions" Page

Hello - just looking for some additional guidance/feedback regarding the draft article "Incentive Solutions," which you speedily deleted, citing G11 - unambiguous advertising or promotion. I look forward to making the changes in violation of this criteria. Thank you in advance! Leslie Wells (talk) 19:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

It would help if you could provide the name of the deleted article. I see no history at Incentive Solutions. Thanks - KillerChihuahua 19:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah, it was at Draft:Incentive Solutions - found it now. It has been deleted twice now - by Alexf and by myself. How exactly is that company notable? KillerChihuahua 19:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Just saw your declines on a series of half-baked reports. One one hand, I don't want to be bitey and discourage people from helping fight vandalism, but jeesh, lots of people not following directions. Seems that it's a pretty small of regulars who use the board properly. The other type of report I see very frequently on AIV is "vandals" who are making small tweaks on articles pertaining to (1) wrestling (2) cartoons (3) TV/radio stations, being tagged as "disruptive." Not being well-versed in any of those topics, it's difficult to tell if it really is disruption or just a content dispute between people who are extremely passionate about those topics. Life is hard. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah thank you, I was feeling rather alone here. I was genuinely surprised at the number of bad reports; then there was also a questionable one (another admin has since indeffed, so it's moot so far as that goes) where I thought the spam was borderline and the editor might become productive if not met with nothing but hostility rather than reached out to. I've now been told I'm senile, ignorant, confused, and wrong - all according to those who wish to block first, ask questions never. :-/ KillerChihuahua 15:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I've also noticed you declining some reports at AIV, with good feedback given. I have observed lately an increase in reports at both AIV and UAA that are not consistent with our current guidelines and it's nice to see someone giving a little pushback where appropriate. So I just wanted to say I support you in this regard. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I am trying to explain why I'm declining, and pointing the reporting editors in the right direction. AIV is not the place for content dispute resolution or reporting edit warring. KillerChihuahua 16:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Can I please add myself to the list of sycophantic administrators saying "You are doing a great job, Killer"? A truly astonishing proportion of editors seem totally unable to understand that "vandalism" doesn't mean "anything at all that I don't agree with", and it's good that someone is willing to say "no". Also, your comment "the spam was borderline and the editor might become productive if not met with nothing but hostility rather than reached out to" touches on a point which I feel quite strongly about. I have always thought that 99% of editors blocked immediately for "spam" are not spammers at all, but good faith editors who simply don't yet know what is acceptable, so we should give them a friendly message explaining the situation, and block them only if they continue after that. Unfortunately, when I first became an administrator I found that following that policy far more often than not just meant that another administrator blocked them, and also gave a totally inappropriate and unhelpful block message, so I reluctantly started blocking the editors myself, so that at least they would get what I thought was a not-too-bad block message. However, I don't always do that: quite often I give a friendly message instead, and often the editor gets blocked anyway, sometimes not.

Just one more thing before I sign off. How many legs does a dog have if you don't call its tail a leg? Six: fore legs in front and two behind. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I wrote that message just on the basis of reading this talk page section, but now I've seen the one above too, and there's a lot more there relevant to what I said. I thoroughly agree with you in that section. I also disagree with the statement "many of them are spambots". A small minority of them are spambots, and those, yes, I block on sight, without any compunction, but that doesn't justify presuming that everyone who comes here and makes a promotional edit is an unrepentant spammer. Most of them aren't. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and yes! Much too familiar with that experience, alas. Good to confirm that we're still out there, trying to AGF and be decent humans. It is nice to know not all remaining Admins have subscribed to the "they're all vandals, kill them with fire" attitude. :-D KillerChihuahua 23:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Damn, I take a little break, and look who pops out of the woodwork. I gather you got your bit back. It's really good to see you active, again. Now, I need to spend some time in here. - Donald Albury 21:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Wow, how very good to see you again! Yes, you need to get in the trenches with me. :-D KillerChihuahua 23:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Kakooskavin

Please do not introduce inappropriate pages, such as Kakooskavin, to Wikipedia. Doing so is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Begoon 16:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

that was me trying to undo the first page move, and accidentally running into another admin doing the same thing. I've speedied the Kakooskavin article, so that's done now. I appreciate that you're trying to help, but did you even look at my page? Had you done so, you would have realized the move was accidental. Have you ever read WP:BITE? I suggest you might want to do that, to avoid treating newbies with as much callous disregard for courtesy and intentions as you have me. KillerChihuahua 16:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Erm, that's an automatic message which, if you hadn't been interfering in the vandalism I was trying to fix without understanding what was going on, would have gone to the now blocked vandal. WP:BITE, my ass. Once you've worked it all out and decide to apologise you know where my talk page is. smh... -- Begoon 16:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

No interest biting in your ass, thank you - thanks for showing it off to me. Clearly you are all knowing and perfect, and being rude to me because I fat fingered something is absolutely not only the correct approach, it's something you are proud of. Barnstar of bitable ass? So glad there is perfection walking among us. I'll try not to get in your way, as you alone can fix the encyclopedia, and you never err. KillerChihuahua 16:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Rude? Because of course you weren't? Jeez. Step back and think about it. You tore me off a strip, wrongly, pointed me at WP:BITE as though I was a noob, lectured me, all without any basis. Now you're upset that pissed me off and I said so? Perhaps you should take your return to the tools more slowly. Yes, confusion happens, but it wasn't me who started the over-reactions, nor do I regret pulling you up for it. In fact "Have you ever read WP:BITE? I suggest you might want to do that, to avoid treating newbies with as much callous disregard for courtesy and intentions as you have me." turns out to apply perfectly to you, here, ironically. Have a nice day. -- Begoon 16:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

You paste a vandalism warning on my page, yeah I am going to ask if you've read BITE. Since I didn't use my admin tools in this anywhere except to speedy the article, your telling me to stop using my tools is a bit ironic. "It wasn't me who started it" is both immature and inaccurate, not sure where you think that's going to go. And I have no idea what the phrase "pulling you up for it" even means. KillerChihuahua 17:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

"Pulling you up for it" means telling you where to get off for accusing me of WP:BITE. I actually had no idea that Twinkle had sent that vandalism message to you instead of the vandal until you posted on my talk page. It's unfortunate, but there was nothing pro-active in that message and I certainly didn't "paste" anything anywhere. It seems to have happened because I speedied a page you had created - but I had no reason to suspect anyone but the vandal would have done that. I probably would have been as surprised as you were to receive it, but I like to think I'd have been smart enough to work out it hadn't been done deliberately.

And now I'm "immature"? Look - here's the way I see it: for obscure and unfortunate reasons, that message ended up here. You assumed there had been something active about it and gave me a condescending lecture. I didn't like that so gave you one back. Now I'm very bored with the whole thing, so if it makes you feel better I'm sorry you thought I was rude, but, honestly, you do need to look at how you jumped up and down defensively too - I'll forget all about this in half an hour - not everybody would. -- Begoon 17:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh cool, then I can forget about it too. Moving on, you get barnstar of bitable ass + bragging about letting things be bygones, hopefully we're all done now. KillerChihuahua 17:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, no - lol - since it seems we both like "the last word" and are neither of us short of a "smart" retort - I think it would be funnier if I reply one last time. I'm done now, yes. -- Begoon 17:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Just a quick reminder, Begoon when you use automated tools, you're responsible for the edits they make. "Oops, sorry, my bad" would have been more than enough. Also keep in mind that even on Twinkle, you aren't supposed to use rollback on good-faith edits, like you did here. Guettarda (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Just a quick reminder, Guettarda, that I'm well aware of my responsibility, and, had I had time to review my contributions and realise what had happened before getting my throat leaped down, "Oops, sorry, my bad" would have been exactly my response. I'll also continue to remove messages I'm replying to from my own talk page how I like, thank you, particularly "talkback notes" which I've "talked back" to. -- Begoon 17:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Begoon you do realise that abuse of rollback is grounds of removing your Twinkle privileges, right? Guettarda (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Guettarda, Don't be silly. Even if I'd used rollback, which as you point out I didn't - check point 2: Wikipedia:Rollback#When to use rollback. I really have no idea why you're still stirring the pot, when an amicable conclusion had been reached here, but I politely suggest you stop doing it now. Thanks. -- Begoon 23:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Can we please let this pass? GMG^talk 23:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

User:BigDwiki

I'm not sure that recent actions merit an ANI report, and I'm hesitant to engage further than I already have here given the recent history. BigDWiki is continuing to make axe-grinding sorts of edits using sources that clearly don't meet WP:RS guidelines; see also here; thankfully someone else has already stepped in to that dispute. Thoughts? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

(whining) Why are we not done with him already? Argh. Puppy will take a look. KillerChihuahua 00:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Looks like DrMies and ToBeFree are on it. KillerChihuahua 00:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Back?

Yay! Guettarda (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

That's the general idea, anyway. :-) Thank you for the kind welcome. I am delighted to see you are still here! KillerChihuahua 14:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

It's great to see one of my favourite Wikipedians back to editing! Guettarda (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

... also delighted! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I am blushing! You are too kind, both of you. KillerChihuahua 15:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back!!

Very pleased indeed to see you're desirous of returning to the fold. Woof! . . dave souza, talk 15:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Except that IIRC (and I think I do!) adminning here is more like herding cats than sheep. Rabid mutant cats. KillerChihuahua 15:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely right, though this lot are also scary to meet face to face. . . . dave souza, talk 16:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

You mean like this one?. I join the chorus of those who are glad to see you back KC!! Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 15:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Marnette! I should caution you against outing editors, even by linking to their photographs, though! (I think I recognize that one....)  :-D KillerChihuahua 16:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome home. Carptrash (talk) 16:19, 13 2019 (UTC)

How nice to see something welcome and happy on Wikipedia for a change. Welcome back. Giano (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

This round’s on me. G -- Thanks, Giano! I see you're springing for the good stuff. - KC

Thank you, both of you! My goodness, this is turning into quite the old-timers' reunion! (Garçon, another round for my friends, please!) KillerChihuahua 17:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

So glad you're back! :-) Katie^talk 17:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Katie! Pull up a chair, we're just getting another round going, join in the festivities! KillerChihuahua 18:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• idk why, but your name feels very familiar. Anyways, welcome back —usernamekiran(talk) 15:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

  No idea. We've edited some of the same pages, but the closest in time was 160 days apart, so we've never had a discussion or edited an article at the same time. Stats (slow, be patient if you go look) KillerChihuahua 15:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

  I must have seen your name in some old RfC/RfAs, as your username certainly has a good impression on me. Have you tried to delete the main page? That might have impressed me. I have thought about moving it, as well as ANI. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  No, never did that. Did once offer a statement against Jimbo in an ArbCom case, that might have had a similar effect. KillerChihuahua 14:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oh heavens - so great to see you KC. Sorry to hear you had health issues, hopefully very distant in the rear view mirror. Bow to the Wow and welcome back. — Ched (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

  Ah thanks muchly, Ched! Everything stayed calm and reasonable whilst I was away, yes? No huge arbcom cases, no overreach by the WMF, no vandalism? Good, good. Wait, what? Dang. Well, well. Who'd have thunk? KillerChihuahua 16:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

  LOL - might have to change your name to "KillerGreyhound" - you got up to speed mighty quick there. :) — Ched (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

  If only I could fix my usereboxes as easily as I can read up on Current Events. :-/ KillerChihuahua 16:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

+1 :) Good to see you. Antandrus (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Good to see you here still, also! KillerChihuahua 23:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

So glad to see that you're back! Have fun and all the best, Miniapolis 00:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! KillerChihuahua 12:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

3 days late, happy to see you at ANI. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

ah, it's never too late to give/get a cheerful welcome message! Thank you! KillerChihuahua 12:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back! --random anon admin 19:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.182.252.233 (talk)

Oh, I missed this when it was posted, Thank you so much! KillerChihuahua 14:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

• Hey, that was quite the Wikibreak! Really happy to see your aound again. Guy (help!) 00:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  It was! I don't know that I even expected to come back. It's been a rough several years, what can I say? Cancer, several surgeries, divorce, relocation, job hunting, etc. etc. Life got complicated. I'm so pleased you're still here, and have fond enough memories of me that you're happy to see me back! KillerChihuahua 00:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• Look what the cat dragged in! Oh, wait, probably poor choice of words... --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  ROFLMAO! Wuv you, Floquenbeam. KillerChihuahua 16:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Instana

Hi, just wanted to checkin with you on the deletion of my recreation of Instana. Did you read my objection against the speedy deletion? As I pointed out the deletion vote 9 months ago was not unanimous. There were several votes to keep it. Also the page content has been significantly extended. Thirdly the expanded contents, as well as the inherent notability should at least have a regular discussion for deletion. Lastly, locking a page which was recreated after 9 months is not really appropriate, right? FabianLange (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Take this to Request for Undelete. I am more than happy to accede to the will of my fellow editors; I scanned the article and it appeared to me to be a slightly padded repeat of the deleted article. If others disagree, I'll offer no objections at all. KillerChihuahua 14:15, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I cannot, because Request for Undelete does not apply to G4, under which you deleted the article. it is requested that I find consensus with you here, otherwise I would need to take it to Wikipedia:Deletion_review. If you are inviting others to voice their opinion, why not turn the speedy deletion into a regular one? FabianLange (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Eh, you're right. I'm digging through contributions of a pair of edit warriors who came to AN right now, sorry! Please be patient and as soon as I'm done there I'll take a harder look at your article. Thanks in advance for your kind forbearance! Busy puppy. KillerChihuahua 14:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

thank you for waiting. Ok, the articles ARE mostly identical. The new version has the following added:

None of this establishes the company's notability. The original article was rejected twice at AFC, then created anyway, then deleted due to not meeting notability. The rest of the article is identical to the deleted version, and the added text is advertising, basically. So yes, this is the same problem as before, the article has been created three times now (not one) and deleted every time. KillerChihuahua 15:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate you looking into this in more detail, but you are ignoring the fact that the contents of the article does not need to meet the notability threshold, but the company itself. Time has passed, right? The AfC was in 2017, and it was controversial at that time already, since one particular editor was just voting against the article and not helping in the creation (as is the intention of AfC), then after a year in late 2018, the page was deleted, with effectively a 3:2 vote. Now 9 months later you are deleting it under G4. But G4 does not apply to "pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies". I ask for the reason for the deletion to be re-examined. Please let me know if you still stand by your decision that this is a valid Speedy Deletion, so that I can move on with my appeal to Wikipedia:Deletion_review FabianLange (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring a damn thing, "older" doesn't mean "more notable" and you have not shown the company to be notable. Not in the "new version" of the article, not here. KillerChihuahua 15:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

The point is not that "old" = "notable", but a deletion discussion that focused on notability cannot cover 2019 facts when it was run in 2018, right? if you think it does not pass notability, please restore it, mark it for deletion, and have a new discussion, on new content and new 2019 facts. This is not a page that was created 20 times a months. we are talking 3 times in three years. FabianLange (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Where is your 2019 fact that establishes notability? What event occurred that establishes the company as notable? What newsworthy event, what ground breaking strides, what action that was covered in multiple major news sources? If such an item exists, you failed to place it in the article. KillerChihuahua 15:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

As I pointed out WP:ARTN says that the contents of the article are not to be used to determine the notability of the subject but third party sources. You are right that I failed to provide them, but that alone does not justify deletion, let alone speedy deletion. WP:NTEMP also explicitly says that articles may be recreated when new evidence supports its existence. You have not considered the possibility of new evidence. Again, I request that you either undelete or unprotect the page. I am willing to work with you or any other interested editors to make the page better. FabianLange (talk) 15:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

And you're missing the point profoundly. Where. Is. Your. New. Evidence. Put it here. Right here. On my talk page. Because it certainly wasn't on the article page. KillerChihuahua 15:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I am appealing the speedy deletion here. This is not the place to argue notability. You have violated the rules for speedy deletion. Thats ok, everybody can make mistakes. As you pointed out you didn't even read it, and you were thinking about an edit war. The speedy deletion was incorrect. It doesn’t matter if you consider it notable or not. But no problem. I will bring it up on Wikipedia:Deletion_review. FabianLange (talk) 16:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Your argument for undeletion is that the company is now notable. Show me. Or I don't undelete. It's really very simple. The article made no claims of notability above what was in the original article, which was deleted for failing notability. If you don't have something, there is no reason for me to undelete. Either show me something to support your claim, or stop this endless posting asking me to undelete. KillerChihuahua 16:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Instana

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Instana. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. FabianLange (talk) 17:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion question

Hi there, just a question as I've not seen it clearly stated - are user sandboxes CSD-able under U5? I get that sandboxes are for testing, and I've come across sandboxes that look like drafts for legitimate things, and others that look like adverts. What's typically the best course of action or a place to report these? - D7a894f1d (talk) 19:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Speedy as adverts if they look unsalvageable, IMO. I'm pretty lenient about sandbox space, and articles started in a sandbox are sometimes (I hesitate to say often) improved, sourced, and cleaned up either before moving to mainspace (by original editor), or soon after (by others). YMMV, though, you just have to use your best judgement. KillerChihuahua 19:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

IP personal attack

Hello KillerChihuahua, it looks the IP 100.19.65.89 removed my previous 4im NPA warning and continued with the general personal attacks. -- LuK3 (Talk) 19:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, he did. He's venting against Teh Evil Admins here; he's not vandalizing articles. I'm a lot more lenient about usertalk space; I suspect this is a previously blocked editor but he's not editing anything but a usertalk page so far. It's NPA violations not mainspace vandalism, and it's on a user talk page, and it's vaguely directed at all admins rather than anyone in particular. I think he'll run out of steam; if another admin chooses to block then I won't fuss because I don't care, but I'm not going to block unless he keeps at it. KillerChihuahua 19:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Copy that, thanks for the reply. -- LuK3 (Talk) 19:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

aaaand, he blanked his talk page, and it was tagged for speedy, and I speedy deleted it. Finis (hopefully) KillerChihuahua 19:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

your assistance please...

I saw your question. Fram's claim that he has left me alone? Incorrect. He has needled me enough to let me know I am on his Nixonian list. The most recent, prior to [1] was [2] Geo Swan should have been banned from BLPs years and years ago. This one was far from the worst (borderline speedy, but I certainly would have voted for deletion at AfD anyway). Things like User:Geo Swan/Fa‘iz al-Shanbari (from 2009) or User:Geo Swan/Hesham Mohamed Hussain and User:Geo Swan/Mohammed Quayyum Khan (from 2012) should not remain in userspace indefinitely, and have no chance of becoming articles anyway, so a major cleanup of Geo Swan's userspace seems necessary.

In the fall of 2010 Fram and I had had very little interaction. He left what looked like a good faith suggestion I consider deleting some userspace pages. That is how I treated it. I spent a long time looking at. Hours? All morning, all afternoon, all day? I can't remember now. But I looked at every page he listed, and tried to figure out what triggered his concern.

1. For some pages I thought triggered his concern because he couldn't understand what they were for. So I spent time, considerable time, trying to explain how I was using them. That turned out to be an enormous mistake.
2. For some I thought his concerns were misplaced.
3. Finally, in some instances, I thought I saw what triggered his concern, and I made edits to fix them.

Spending hours assuming good faith on Fram's part turned to have been a horrible mistake. Here is the frankly unforgiveable edit summary from his reply: Congratulations, you have just ruined your chance at any further cooperation.

Fram wasn't joking. He soon proceeded to return to my contributions, and nominate userspace pages, and articles, at a far greater pace than anyone could reasonably be expected to respond to. This first intense focus on me lasted for months. At least half a dozen of his fellow administrators warned him that his focus on me gave the strong appearance of malice.

Fram blew them all off.

It seemed to me, at the time, that if Fram had not been an administrator, and he ignored just a couple of administrator warnings, he would have found himself issued a 24, 48, or 72 hour block. And if, after that block, he had returned to giving the appearance of a focus triggered by malice, he would have been issued longer and longer blocks, right up to indefinite.

If Fram returns to being an administrator, will he be an "unblockable" again?

Finally, can I ask you to email me a deleted file? Could you email me the former contents of User:Geo Swan/Eyad Alrababah? It is the page the other administrator deleted, and then asked for Fram's support, when I asked him to email it to me.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo Swan (talk • contribs) 17:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Fram has made it clear he doesn't want you on his talk page, yet you posted there twice three times, in quick succession. I suggest you avoid doing so, as it is you're hardly in a position to cast aspersions. If an editor states they want to avoid contact, and you post on their page, you can hardly expect them to be kindly disposed towards you. KillerChihuahua 17:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

As Drmies is the admin who deleted the page as a BLP violation/attack page, I suggest you approach him first, and make your case for why he should send you the deleted page. KillerChihuahua 17:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Killer, GeoSwan is sometimes criticized for writing up BLPs with little or no sourcing. This is one of those cases, where we have a completely non-notable person (who was accused of something and then cleared) whose biography has a strong BLP1E flavor to it, but in addition it has a ton of content about a previous misdemeanor and all the accusations that were leveled at him, which resulted in his eviction on the rather vague conviction of "playing a role in identity theft". The sourcing is minimal: a few newspaper articles, a single mention in one book, and a few mentions in a rather sensationalist book which seems to blow up his role far beyond what was proven in court. So, the article as a whole is pretty much an attack page, in blowing this out of proportion. It's not even a biography since not a single event of his life outside this one single episode is described.

I'm no friend of Fram, but in this case I agree: this wasn't the first time that I found Geo Swan's BLPs to be falling short. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

GeoSwan: The deleting admin has declined your request, you have your answer. KillerChihuahua 23:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Problem redirect creation

Could you take a look at the activities of Awikivisitor20122018 (talk · contribs) with regard to creating nonsense redirects? I’ve been nominating them for CSD (thanks for the help there). S/he’s not taking the hints [3] [4]. Toddst1 (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I've left a 3RR warning while I look at this in more detail. KillerChihuahua 16:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Thnaks! Toddst1 (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Try to engage the editor during their block - not to the point of harassment, but a simple "can we discuss this?" kind of thing on their talk page. They may be immune to clue, but we can at least try. If the behavior begins again after the block expires, take it to AN3 again, and mention that this is a repeat visitor to that page. (with a link) Good luck. KillerChihuahua 17:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

 On user page Toddst1 (talk) 13:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Geo_Swan & Fram

I thought I would give you a heads up that Geo_Swan hasn't dropped the Fram obsession: User_talk:Geo_Swan/BLPs_started_2011-02_to_2012-08 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.112.220 (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Bit between the teeth, sigh. Thank you for letting me know. KillerChihuahua 12:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Categories for deletion

Hi. Any idea how to nominate more than one category for deletion? Ruwaym is trying to nationalize every pre-modern figure, as seen here [5]. I did try to look it up at this [6] but it's so horribly written. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I may be late in answering, if so I'm sorry - I edit when I can, which is irregular. I have no idea how to do it "correctly" but I know you can do it by nominating one category, then editing and adding all other categories in a list beneath, in the same entry on CFD. Be sure they are all inarguably the same issue. KillerChihuahua 12:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Ah, looks like they're gone now, good. Again, I apologise if you expected a rapid response - I'm an intermittent admin only. KillerChihuahua 12:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:16th-century Lebanese poets

Hello, KillerChihuahua,

In the future, if you come across an empty category, please just tag with a CSD C1 tag, do not delete it. Then, empty categories sit for 7 days in Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion. If, after a week, the category is still empty, then it is deleted. If it is no longer empty after 7 days, then the tag is removed.

This is the process now because it gives category creators time, after creating a category, to find appropriate pages for it. Also, sometimes categories are emptied out-of-process and this week gives other editors time to discover what the issue is and recategorize articles. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Eh, my error. Would you like me to undelete? Easily done. KillerChihuahua 17:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

HaroldDunlop unblock request

Hi KC, I noticed you put the unblock request at User_talk:HaroldDunlop on hold a little under two weeks ago. It looks like discussion died off around the 19th. Are you still considering unblocking? SQL^{Query me!} 02:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The blocking admin responded, and Harold's had plenty of time to answer my question and has failed completely to do so satisfactorily. I've changed OnHold to Declined. He can re-request if he wants. KillerChihuahua 12:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that was basically my plan - but I didn't want to step on your toes if you were still considering an unblock. SQL^{Query me!} 17:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

No worries - FYI, I know I'm only here intermittently, so in the future, if you feel something needs handling/doing and I'm not around, feel free to just do it. I'd appreciate a courtesy note here on my talk page, but if it's obvious what you've done and why, that isn't necessary if you haven't the time or inclination. KillerChihuahua 19:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Administrator changes

Barkeep49

Beetstra • KillerChihuahua • Kusma

Arcadian • Extraordinary Machine • Xeno

JamesBWatson → JBW

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

CheckUser changes

Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Oversight changes

Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

• As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

• The 2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place October 4th to 10th.
• The arbitration case regarding Fram was closed. While there will be a local RfC focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.

Miscellaneous

• The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Clint Pulver

Hi KillerChihuahua. You recently deleted a page that I created Clint Pulver. Is it possible to get that page put onto the talk page or onto my sandbox? I got some good feedback on the Articles for Deletion page and would like to improve the article and resubmit. - tbc32 (talk) 014:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

It's possible, but the reason the article was tagged was lack of evidence of notability. Have you evidence (via reliable sources) that he is notable? You can improve a CV 'til the cows come home, but it's still a CV unless there's notability. KillerChihuahua 12:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I believe there is considerable evidence that he meets notability requirements for WP:ENT for both point #1 "Has significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" and #3 "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." For point #1 he has played a significant role in several films listed in IMdB. He also has a featured "special" on a new platform (Drybar) and two audio CDs. I'll clean up the article to make this more clear. To point #3 his background as a professional drummer and as the founder of a University drumline group (the Green Man group) make his contribution as an entertainer unique. Tyler (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

A university band member isn't notable. A University band that was written up in Rolling Stone, now that would be notable. My ex husband has over a dozen cd's; he's not the least bit notable, as he'd tell you himself. Did the cd's hit any charts, for playing, or sales? Was he in the credits for any of those films, and if so was he a tiny minor part or a major part? KillerChihuahua 12:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, he was in the credits for all of those films and played a major role in four the five. The one that he didn't play a major role featured Jack Black and Jon Heder (see: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm7655040/)(talk) Tyler (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Spambots

Hi KillerChihuahua, I noticed the recent discussion you were involved in on Cahk’s talk page. He’s right: those accounts are spambots, and they’re eligible for blocks with TPA revoked with no warning. It’s just a script that runs to spam links, not a human being, so warnings don’t do anything. If we decline to block here, someone can just go over to m:SRG and they’d be globally blocked on request. Not a criticism of you since many AIV patrolling admins don’t recognize them, but I did want to reach out about it for the future . TonyBallioni (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

And yet that's NOT what the AIV instrucstions state. If they're not obvious spambots, they get a warning. Err on the side of civility, always. Or one day you'll cheerfully block what appears to be a bot, but is actually a person who otherwise would have become one of our best contributors, but instead will spend the next 20 or 30 years talking about what assholes Wikipedians are. Seriously, it takes about 5 seconds to slap that warning on the uTalk page. Do it. Unless the user is painfully, astonishingly, clearly obviously a bot, you take that one tiny extra step. I appreciate that you think you're teaching me here, but you're not. KillerChihuahua 11:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

These are painfully, astonishingly, clearly, and obviously spambots. Plese tone down your rhetoric when telling experienced users "we actually have policies about this shit" when you actually don't seem to understand what's going on. GMG^talk 12:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

You've been inactive for nearly 6 years, and you profess to know more about spambots than TonyBallioni, an active CheckUser, and Praxidicae, who is one of the most knowledgeable and experienced editors wrt spambots on the English Wikipedia and globally, as well as other active editors. Your actions, specifically those declining requests like Cahk's and your later doubling down and incivility, are detrimental to anti-spam efforts by wasting the time of editors and preventing them from doing their work. Please, please, extend your AGF to your fellow editors, not just the spambots. Regards, Vermont (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment: I am pretty sure that you don't actually know the scope of the problem, and your parading around telling those who are knowledgeable on these matters is very telling. I doubt that many have actioned more spambots than me, either when I was a steward, or an operator of COIBot, a current writer of global abuse filters, or managed that spam more than me. As an admin of about ten years here, and more elsewhere, all I have got to say is that it is probably time for you to get up-to-date, and that would helped by you listening. Ten years ago we had no spambots, these days we have plentiful, absolutely: they morph, they invade and the spammers take over dead domains, and they infect wikis and cause huge problems. We have a global spam black list that is enormous in size, and matched by one here. Now you arrive here telling us how to do our tasks with no understanding of the scope of the problem. Let us reflect on that. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Do such blanket insults generally help you get your way with a minimum of effort? You're a beautiful example of taking a difference of opinion and attributing it to ignorance and hubris on the part of the other party, attempting to discredit their validity by sneers and dismissal (parading? really?) Do you also ever refer to "those people" or otherwise demonize the "other" with whom you disagree? Or are you capable of acknowledging that another view, however different from your own, might not, in fact, spring from their ignorance and incompetence, but rather from a valid view which deserves attention and consideration? do you find that your heavy handed dismissal of those who believe a different approach is worth discussing as ignorant and foolish generally shuts them up? Because that approach doesn't work with me. If you have valid arguments for why your approach is better than that actually outlined by current policy, then I am willing to listen. If you have intelligent rationale for why I might be misinterpreting policy, I am willing to listen. If your only arguments involve insulting me, calling me out of touch, directly implying I lack knowledge - well then, you're part of the damn problem. KillerChihuahua 12:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

This last weekend has been particularly atrocious, with these English-language spambots on hundreds wikis, by the dozens. They are visible on abuselogs and log/spamblacklists on those wikis. They are the same spam that is here. Just the account name changes, and their patterns swing. Would you like all these potential users warned? Or are we okay just to block these? How about the spambots that got caught in the filters and didn't manage to spam this time? Would you like us to warn those spambots? Or we are just going to wait until next time?

Otherwise thanks for your feedback. No, I don't refer to "those people". No, I don't demonise others with who I do not agree. Think that you will find that it is probably furthest from the truth. Nice attempt to blame shift away from your chastising a user who identified a spambot and just wanted it blocked before it edited again.

And, no, I see no intelligent rationale for why you are ignoring the policy that is aimed at real users, the warning policy is not aimed at spambots. The rationalist within me would think that implicitly or explicitly that was reasonably obvious. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The intelligent rationale for why you are misinterpreting policy is that these are "... users acting in bad faith, whose main or only use is forbidden activity (sockpuppetry, vandalism, and so on), .." which therefore ".. do not require any warning and may be blocked immediately."   Warning is not a prerequisite. I understand your feelings regarding erring on the safe side, but policy is not on your side that editors have to be warned before being blocked. These are blatantly obvious spam accounts. "Hi! <br>My name is Clarissa and I'm a 20 years old girl from Berrambool.<br><br>Feel free to surf to my site :: [fxer.org/category/finance-news/ fxer.org]"/"Hi! <br>My name is Rosie and I'm a 23 years old boy from Vennington.<br><br>my blog :: [www.gentech.fr/sliminazer-avis/ sliminazer bewertung]"/"I'm Karine (18) from Tafolwern, Great Britain. <br>I'm learning Russian literature at a local high school and I'm just about to graduate.<br>I have a part time job in a university.<br><br>My web site cryptocompare api documentation ([cointrack.net/en/cryptocurrency-widgets cointrack.net/en/cryptocurrency-widgets])"/"My name is Ruth and I am studying Japanese Studies and Greek and Roman Culture at Reykholt / Iceland.<br><br>My webpage [sites.google.com/view/zetawhtcream/ Zeta White Cream]" .. do you see how these are WP:DUCK-level sockpuppets of each other (especially the first two, where the first one is the one you mentioned and the second one a couple of days before, note the '::' and the 'Hi! <br>My name is <name> and I'm a ## old <boy/girl> from <place><br>&l;br>'?)

Now, if that would have linked to a genuine page you would have had a point that it could, possibly, be a genuine editor. But these hundreds (or thousands) of sockpuppets all link, with nearly the style language, to either non-existent pages or clickbait. These are so obvious sockpuppets/spambots/you name it, they should not be blocked on sight, they should not be able to edit in the first place. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I can understand the spam stuff - but more importantly, I think some of the editors, here and on other talk pages (not you Dirk or Tony), have been unnecessarily aggressive and abrasive. I understand the KC has been away, and has a history of being blunt, but I don't think those are good reasons to get nasty with her. There's often a thin line between being blunt and being nasty, perhaps stepping away from that line would help improve the discussions a bit. — Ched (talk) 14:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Ched, I’m sorry, Ched, but I have to say that KC here is (still?) insisting that these were not blatantly obvious socks and blatantly obvious spambots, and is hence, in my opinion indeed incorrectly, insisting that they should be warned first and that other admins are ignoring the policies about ‘this shit’, where said policies do explicitly exclude ‘this shit’ when ittalks about warnings. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Ched I may have been strong in my opinion, however, when I am being hammered in IRC about this person's attitude and their actions by numerous volunteers! If I overstepped the politeness rating, then for that I offer my apologies.

Spambots are already volunteer killers and timeholes, and when fellow administrators want people to jump through more hoops for what we see as blindingly obvious, it is utterly frustrating.

This isn't about KC's own interactions with spambots that they discover, it is the expectations and interactions when they are responding at WP:AIV or on their user pages and telling other volunteers how they need to handle obvious spambots. It is also about deafness and blindness to current practice, and an expectation that at those places they can impose a practice that has been left behind, and imposing their interpretation of a policy that is not supported by the majority of the community. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize if you considered my comments to be harsh; my comment above was in criticism of her administrative actions, not against her. However, KillerChihuahua's reply to Billinghurst above is definitely aggressive. The response to being told that you did something wrong should not be to double down on it and insult them, and that's exactly what happened. Vermont (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all for the measured responses. I can relate to seeing some changes over time. Some things change in practice, even if we've learned that we don't have to codify every dot for every t with regards to policy and guidelines. I know that malware, spam, bots, etc have all become much more sophisticated over time; it's a vicious circle of virus vs anti-virus issue. I also have a great deal of empathy for someone who has 4, 5, 6 people showing up to find fault with something on their user page, especially if the posts get increasingly harsh. That's rough no matter who you are. Thanks again for letting me have my say. (I can't speak to the IRC issues, I gave that up years ago) — Ched (talk) 05:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC) Oh, and thank you Dirk for the excellent examples. — Ched (talk) 05:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2019

• In the media: How to use or abuse Wikipedia for fun or profit

• Special report: “Catch and Kill” on Wikipedia: Paid editing and the suppression of material on alleged sexual abuse

• In focus: The BBC looks at Chinese government editing

• Interview: Carl Miller on Wikipedia Wars

• Community view: Observations from the mainland

• Arbitration report: October actions

• Traffic report: Wrestling with a couple of teenagers, a Nobelist, and a lot of jokers

• Gallery: Wiki Loves Broadcast

• Recent research: Research at Wikimania 2019: More communication doesn't make editors more productive; Tor users doing good work; harmful content rare on English Wikipedia

• Essay: Wikipedia is in the real world

• News from the WMF: Welcome to Wikipedia! Here's what we're doing to help you stick around

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

Administrator changes

GermanJoe • Girth Summit • Kees08 • Nosebagbear

DESiegel • GB fan • MSGJ • Voice of Clam • WilyD

DeltaQuad • Fang Aili • Pakaran

Bureaucrat changes

DeltaQuad • Pakaran

Interface administrator changes

MSGJ

CheckUser changes

L235 • Mz7 • SQL • ST47

Ivanvector

DeltaQuad

Oversight changes

L235 • Mz7 • ST47 • Stwalkerster • The Blade of the Northern Lights • Xaosflux

DeltaQuad • DGG • Julia W

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC was closed with the consensus that the resysop criteria should be made stricter.

• The follow-up RfC to develop that change is now open at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2).

• A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates for the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections. The self-nomination period will close November 12, with voting running from November 19 through December 2.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2019

• From the editor: Put on your birthday best

• News and notes: How soon for the next million articles?

• In the media: You say you want a revolution

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• Arbitration report: Two requests for arbitration cases

• Traffic report: The queen and the princess meet the king and the joker

• Technology report: Reference things, sister things, stranger things

• Gallery: Winter and holidays

• Recent research: Bot census; discussions differ on Spanish and English Wikipedia; how nature's seasons affect pageviews

• Essay: Adminitis

• From the archives: WikiProject Spam, revisited

• In focus: An update on the Wikimedia Movement 2030 Strategy

• Special report: How many people edit in your favorite language? Where are they from?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).

Administrator changes

EvergreenFir • ToBeFree

Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

Beeblebrox

Deskana

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
• Following a proposal, the edit filter mailing list has been opened up to users with the Edit Filter Helper right.

Technical news

• Wikimedia projects can set a default block length for users via MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry. A new page, MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry-ip, allows the setting of a different default block length for IP editors. Neither is currently used. (T219126)

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 2 December 2018 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous

• The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2019

• From the editors: Caught with their hands in the cookie jar, again

• News and notes: What's up (and down) with administrators, articles and languages

• Special report: Are reputation management operatives scrubbing Wikipedia articles?

• In the media: "The fulfillment of the dream of humanity" or a nightmare of PR whitewashing on behalf of one-percenters?

• Discussion report: December discussions around the wiki

• Arbitration report: Announcement of 2020 Arbitration Committee

• Traffic report: Queens and aliens, exactly alike, once upon a December

• Technology report: User scripts and more

• Gallery: Holiday wishes

• Recent research: Acoustics and Wikipedia; Wiki Workshop 2019 summary

• From the archives: The 2002 Spanish fork and ads revisited (re-revisited?)

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• Op-Ed: Why we need to keep talking about Wikipedia's gender gap

• WikiProject report: Wikiproject Tree of Life: A Wikiproject report

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).

Administrator changes

Dreamy Jazz • Newslinger • Rosguill

Deor • Spartaz • Xeno

Angusmclellan • clpo13 • Edgar181 • Matthewedwards • NCurse

CheckUser changes

Bradv • Casliber • David Fuchs • Maxim • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy • Xeno

Oversight changes

Bradv • Casliber • DGG • David Fuchs • Maxim • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy • Xeno

Someguy1221

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment asks whether partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. If enabled, this functionality would allow administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces, rather than the entire site.
• A proposal asks whether admins who don't use their tools for a significant period of time (e.g. five years) should have the toolset procedurally removed.
• Following a successful RfC, a whitelist is now available for users whose redirects will be autopatrolled by a bot, removing them from the new pages patrol queue. Admins can add such users to Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist after a discussion following the guidelines at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist.

Arbitration

• The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
• Following the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Bradv, Casliber, David Fuchs, DGG, KrakatoaKatie, Maxim, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy, Worm That Turned, Xeno.

Miscellaneous

• This issue marks three full years of the Admin newsletter. Thanks for reading!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 January 2020

• From the editor: Reaching six million articles is great, but we need a moratorium

• News and notes: Six million articles on the English language Wikipedia

• Special report: The limits of volunteerism and the gatekeepers of Team Encarta

• In the media: Turkey's back up, but what's happening with Dot-org and a new visual identity?

• Arbitration report: Three cases at ArbCom

• Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2019

• Gallery: Wiki Loves Monuments 2019, we're all winners

• News from the WMF: Capacity Building: Top 5 Themes from Community Conversations

• Community view: Our most important new article since November 1, 2015

• In focus: Cryptos and bitcoins and blockchains, oh no!

• Recent research: How useful is Wikipedia for novice programmers trying to learn computing concepts?

• From the archives: A decade of The Signpost, 2005-2015

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Japan: a wikiProject Report

• Humour: Predicting the 6,000,000th article

• Obituary: Remembering Wikipedia contributor Brian Boulton

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Administrator changes

Ergo Sum • Nick Moyes • QEDK • Wugapodes

Dennis Brown

Aude • BrownHairedGirl • CALR • Jengod • John Reaves • J.smith • Kim Dent-Brown • K1Bond007 • MECU • Refdoc • RHaworth

CheckUser changes

Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
• The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

• Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
• When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [7]

Arbitration

• Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2020 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2020, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2020, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• The English Wikipedia has reached six million articles. Thank you everyone for your contributions!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 March 2020

• From the editor: The ball is in your court

• News and notes: Alexa ranking down to 13th worldwide

• Special report: More participation, more conversation, more pageviews

• In the media: Mapping IP editors, Smithsonian open-access, and coronavirus disinformation

• Discussion report: Do you prefer M or P?

• Arbitration report: Two prominent administrators removed

• By the numbers: How many actions by administrators does it take to clean up spam?

• Community view: The Incredible Invisible Woman

• In focus: History of The Signpost, 2015–2019

• Recent research: Wikipedia generates $50 billion/year consumer surplus in the US alone

• From the archives: Is Wikipedia for sale?

• Traffic report: February articles, floating in the dark

• Gallery: Feel the love

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• Op-Ed: What I learned as Wikimedia UK Communications Coordinator

• Opinion: Wikipedia is another country

• Humour: The Wilhelm scream

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

Administrator changes

Money emoji

Athaenara • DeltaQuad

Fishhead64 • Kudpung • Mikaey

Bureaucrat changes

DeltaQuad

CheckUser changes

DeltaQuad

Oversight changes

DeltaQuad

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
• A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

• Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2020 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: BRPever, Krd, Martin Urbanec, MusikAnimal, Sakretsu, Sotiale, and Tks4Fish. There are a total of seven editors that have been appointed as stewards, the most since 2014.
• The 2020 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Ajraddatz and Uzoma Ozurumba; they will serve for one year.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2020

• From the editors: The bad and the good

• News and notes: 2018 Wikipedian of the year blocked

• WikiProject report: WikiProject COVID-19: A WikiProject Report

• Special report: Wikipedia on COVID-19: what we publish and why it matters

• In the media: Blocked in Iran but still covering the big story

• Discussion report: Rethinking draft space

• Arbitration report: Unfinished business

• In focus: "I have been asked by Jeffrey Epstein …"

• Community view: Wikimedia community responds to COVID-19

• Recent research: Disease outbreak uncertainties, AfD forecasting, auto-updating Wikipedia

• From the archives: Text from Wikipedia good enough for Oxford University Press to claim as own

• Traffic report: The only thing that matters in the world

• Gallery: Visible Women on Wikipedia

• News from the WMF: Amid COVID-19, Wikimedia Foundation offers full pay for reduced hours, mobilizes all staff to work remote, and waives sick time

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

Administrator changes

Cabayi • Lee Vilenski

Boing! said Zebedee

Jonny-mt • MarkGallagher • PeaceNT

Money emoji → Moneytrees

Bureaucrat changes

SilkTork • WereSpielChequers

CheckUser changes

NativeForeigner

Oversight changes

Someguy1221

Daniel Case

Guideline and policy news

• There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

• There is a plan for new requirements for user signatures. You can give feedback.

Arbitration

• Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.

Miscellaneous

• The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2020

• News and notes: Unbiased information from Ukraine's government?

• In the media: Coronavirus, again and again

• Discussion report: Redesigning Wikipedia, bit by bit

• Featured content: Featured content returns

• Arbitration report: Two difficult cases

• Traffic report: Disease the Rhythm of the Night

• Gallery: Roy is doing fine and sending more photos

• Recent research: Trending topics across languages; auto-detecting bias

• Essay: Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing

• By the numbers: Open data and COVID-19: Wikipedia as an informational resource during the pandemic

• Opinion: Trusting Everybody to Work Together

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• Interview: Health and RfA's: An interview with Guy Macon

• In focus: Multilingual Wikipedia

• WikiProject report: The Guild of Copy Editors

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

Administrator changes

Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

Callanecc

Oversight changes

HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

• Discretionary sanctions have been authorized for all pages and edits related to COVID-19, to be logged at WP:GS/COVID19.
• Following a recent discussion on Meta-Wiki, the edit filter maintainer global group has been created.
• A request for comment has been proposed to create a new main page editor usergroup.
• A request for comment has been proposed to make the bureaucrat activity requirements more strict.

Technical news

• The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. You can review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page.
• Enterprisey created a script that will show a link to the proper Special:Undelete page when viewing a since-deleted revision, see User:Enterprisey/link-deleted-revs.

Miscellaneous

• A request for comment closed with consensus to create a Village Pump-style page for communication with the Wikimedia Foundation.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2020

• From the editor: Meltdown May?

• News and notes: 2019 Picture of the Year, 200 French paid editing accounts blocked, 10 years of Guild Copyediting

• In the media: CBS on COVID-19, Sanger on bias, false noses, and five prolific editors

• Discussion report: WMF's Universal Code of Conduct

• Special report: The sum of human knowledge? Not in one Wikipedia language edition

• Featured content: Weathering the storm

• Arbitration report: Board member likely to receive editing restriction

• Traffic report: Come on and slam, and welcome to the jam

• Op-Ed: Where Is Political Bias Taking Us?

• Gallery: Wildlife photos by the book

• News from the WMF: WMF Board announces Community Culture Statement

• Recent research: Automatic detection of covert paid editing; Wiki Workshop 2020

• Community view: Transit routes and mapping during stay-at-home order downtime

• On video: COVID-19 spurs innovations in Wikimedia video and virtual programming

• WikiProject report: Revitalizing good articles

• On the bright side: 500,000 articles in the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia

• Obituaries: Dmitrismirnov, Kattenkruid, Muidlatif, Ronhjones, Tsirel

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).

Administrator changes

CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth

Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment asks whether the Unblock Ticket Request System (UTRS) should allowed any unblock request or just private appeals.
• The Wikimedia Foundation announced that they will develop a universal code of conduct for all WMF projects. There is an open local discussion regarding the same.

Arbitration

• A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 June 2020

• News and notes: Progress at Wikipedia Library and Wikijournal of Medicine

• Community view: Community open letter on renaming

• Gallery: After the killing of George Floyd

• In the media: Part collaboration and part combat

• Discussion report: Community reacts to WMF rebranding proposals

• Featured content: Sports are returning, with a rainbow

• Arbitration report: Anti-harassment RfC and a checkuser revocation

• Traffic report: The pandemic, alleged murder, a massacre, and other deaths

• News from the WMF: We stand for racial justice

• Recent research: Wikipedia and COVID-19; automated Wikipedia-based fact-checking

• Interview: What is wrong with rebranding to "Wikipedia Foundation"?

• Humour: Cherchez une femme

• Opinion: Trying to find COI or paid editors? Just read the news

• On the bright side: For what are you grateful this month?

• In focus: Edit Loud, Edit Proud: LGBTIQ+ Wikimedians and Global Information Activism

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Black Lives Matter

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Happy...

Hey, KillerChihuahua. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society

Dear KillerChihuahua/Archive 23,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. ​

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman Retzbach on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Roman Retzbach on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).

Administrator changes

Malcolmxl5

John • TheCoffee • Tim!

Creffett → GeneralNotability

DeltaQuad → AmandaNP

CheckUser changes

Bbb23

Interface administrator changes

TonyBallioni

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is in progress to remove the T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) speedy deletion criterion.

Technical news

• Protection templates on mainspace pages are now automatically added by User:MusikBot II (BRFA).

Arbitration

• Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold an RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. The RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC and is open to comments from the community.
• The Medicine case was closed, with a remedy authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Queer erasure on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Ishirō Honda on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Renzo Gracie on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Santa Claus on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Daily Mail on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Political history of the United Kingdom (1945–present) on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Infobox song on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).

Administrator changes

Red Phoenix

Euryalus • SQL

Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

GB fan

Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

• There is an open request for comment to decide whether to increase the minimum duration a sanction discussion has to remain open (currently 24 hours).
• Speedy deletion criterion T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) has been repealed following a request for comment.
• Speedy deletion criterion X2 (pages created by the content translation tool) has been repealed following a discussion.
• There is a proposal to restrict proposed deletion to confirmed users.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 August 2020

• Special report: Wikipedia and the End of Open Collaboration?

• COI and paid editing: Some strange people edit Wikipedia for money

• News and notes: Abstract Wikipedia, a hoax, sex symbols, and a new admin

• In the media: Dog days gone bad

• Discussion report: Fox News, a flight of RfAs, and banning policy

• Featured content: Remembering Art, Valor, and Freedom

• Traffic report: Now for something completely different

• Gallery: Photos of threatened species from iNaturalist

• News from the WMF: New Chinese national security law in Hong Kong could limit the privacy of Wikipedia users

• Recent research: Receiving thanks increases retention, but not the time contributed to Wikipedia

• Essay: Not compatible with a collaborative project

• Obituaries: Hasteur and Brian McNeil

• In focus: WikiLoop DoubleCheck, reviewing edits made easy

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Infobox broadcasting network on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)