User talk:Ratekreel/Archives/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ratekreel. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Review done
- @Kammill, Rajat Verma has been reviewed, you can move it. The admin has removed its protection. And thanks for your support 223.238.218.30 (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- Not a problem!
Done! I have added a citation and moved the draft to the mainspace. Since I had reviewed that draft before, I quickly checked the references for the futher verification. By the way, thank you for your contributions! If you'd like to stay, then I'd recommend you to create an account first. Thanks, –Kammill ⟨talk⟩ 15:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, I was not so active on Wikipedia before but now I am thinking of creating an account. 223.238.198.68 (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. Creating an account has its own benefits, see WP:Why create an account?–Kammill ⟨talk⟩ 17:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Kammill, I have made a draft, although I have not edited it, but when the source I was going to draft based on, I later came to know that this source is a brand post. what do I do now? 223.233.120.20 (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- Which draft? Could you point out some links! In my opinion, all you need to see is that the article you want to create notable or not? If the if the subject meets the notability policy, then you should start to find sources and go on creating it.
- However, I'm also new here! I'm requesting my tutor, Dreamy Jazz to answer your question. –Kammill ⟨talk⟩ 17:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hi IP. If you base a draft of something which later turns out to be a brand post, then you don't have to necessarily rewrite. What you could do is find sources which are reliable and independent so that you can use those to support what you wrote. You can then remove anything which you can't verify without using the brand post. If you what you wrote looks promotional or you can't support anything with reliable and independent sources, then it might be best to write it again. I'll keep an eye on this discussion, so if you have further questions I can answer too. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 21:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you both! I am talking about Draft:Jassa Dhillon. Dreamy Jazz, I will request you to remove it. 223.233.124.83 (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- Not a problem. If you want to delete it, then you may add {{db-author}} or {{db-U1}} at the top of the article. Any patrolling admin will delete it as soon as possible. –Kammill ⟨talk⟩ 03:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you both! I am talking about Draft:Jassa Dhillon. Dreamy Jazz, I will request you to remove it. 223.233.124.83 (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hi IP. If you base a draft of something which later turns out to be a brand post, then you don't have to necessarily rewrite. What you could do is find sources which are reliable and independent so that you can use those to support what you wrote. You can then remove anything which you can't verify without using the brand post. If you what you wrote looks promotional or you can't support anything with reliable and independent sources, then it might be best to write it again. I'll keep an eye on this discussion, so if you have further questions I can answer too. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 21:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- Which draft? Could you point out some links! In my opinion, all you need to see is that the article you want to create notable or not? If the if the subject meets the notability policy, then you should start to find sources and go on creating it.
- @Kammill, I have made a draft, although I have not edited it, but when the source I was going to draft based on, I later came to know that this source is a brand post. what do I do now? 223.233.120.20 (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. Creating an account has its own benefits, see WP:Why create an account?–Kammill ⟨talk⟩ 17:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, I was not so active on Wikipedia before but now I am thinking of creating an account. 223.238.198.68 (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- Not a problem!
You've got mail!
Message added 11:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Iflaq (talk) 11:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- Iflaq, I've replied! Kammill ⟨talk⟩ 13:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 12, 2021)
 Two charts from an Arabic copy of the Secretum Secretorum for determining whether a person will live or die based on the numerical value of the patient's name.
Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: Hobby • Chicken nugget Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • |
|---|
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- There is a Wikipedia app for KaiOS phones. They don't have a touch screen so readers navigate with the phone keys. There is now a simulator so you can see what it looks like.
- The reply tool and new discussion tool are now available as the "Discussion tools" beta feature in almost all wikis except German Wikipedia.
Problems
- You will be able to read but not edit twelve wikis for a short period of time on 23 March at 06:00 (UTC). This can also affect password changes, logging in to new wikis, global renames and changing or confirming emails. This could take 30 minutes but will probably be much faster.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 23 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 24 March. It will be on all wikis from 25 March (calendar).- Syntax highlighting colours will change to be easier to read. This will soon come to the first wikis. [1]
Future changes
- Flagged revisions will no longer have multiple tags like "tone" or "depth". It will also only have one tier. This was changed because very few wikis used these features and they make the tool difficult to maintain. [2][3]
Gadgets and user scripts can access variables about the current page in JavaScript. In 2015 this was moved from wg*tomw.config.wg*will soon no longer work. [4]
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
16:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Tom Aikens on a "Biographies" 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 11:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Your comment on this discussion.
Hey, Hope you are well. There is a discussion going on at WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir. Your comment will be appreciated. Check out here. Thankyou. Iflaq (talk) 11:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- Iflaq, I think you should inform India noticeboard also. –Hulged ⟨talk⟩ 13:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- Added this issue to Noticeboard for India-related topics. Thankyou. Iflaq (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 March 2021
- News and notes: A future with a for-profit subsidiary?
- Gallery: Wiki Loves Monuments
- In the media: Wikimedia LLC and disinformation in Japan
- News from the WMF: Project Rewrite: Tell the missing stories of women on Wikipedia and beyond
- Recent research: 10%-30% of Wikipedia’s contributors have subject-matter expertise
- From the archives: Google isn't responsible for Wikipedia's mistakes
- Obituary: Yoninah
- From the editor: What else can we say?
- Arbitration report: Open letter to the Board of Trustees
- Traffic report: Wanda, Meghan, Liz, Phil and Zack
This week's article for improvement (week 13, 2021)
 Rich Purnell mixed climbing a route rated M9
Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: Name • Hobby Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • |
|---|
WikiProject India's Collaborations of the month invites you
You're specially invited to join the WikiProject India's Collaboration of the month program.
The collaboration will help promote many articles to the good and featured article status, but to do so, we need your help! For further information, see the main page of the collaboration.
Sign up for this collaboration by listing your username under the participants section and regularly participating in the collaboration. If you have already signed, please ignore this message.
You can discuss this newsletter here.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.Sent by Hulged ⟨talk⟩ on behalf of WikiProject India. Thank you!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Modest flowers
 |
Thank you for what you said on Yoninah's talk, - see also Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-03-28/Obituary! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- Some very old web browsers don’t work well with the Wikimedia wikis. Some old code for browsers that used to be supported is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. [5]
- IRC recent changes feeds have been moved to a new server. Make sure all tools automatically reconnect to
irc.wikimedia.organd not to the name of any specific server. Users should also consider switching to the more modern EventStreams. [6]
Problems
- When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split. It might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. [7]
- Some translatable pages on Meta could not be edited. This was because of a bug in the translation tool. The new MediaWiki version was delayed because of problems like this. [8][9]
Changes later this week
- The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 30 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 31 March. It will be on all wikis from 1 April (calendar).
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
17:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Offical tajay2005
Hi, Hulged. I was nominating Offical tajay2005 for speedy deletion, but you moved the article into the draftspace at basically the exact same time as I submitted my edit (we were within a few seconds of each other). I was wondering what your rationale for draftifying is, because as best I can tell, there's no possible chance this could become an article in the subject's current state of notability, even if the draft were recreated to not be flagrantly in violation of WP:A7 and WP:G11 – as it currently is. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 06:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- TheTechnician27, I'm new to this area. I didn't think of A7 at the moment when I was draftifying the article. –Hulged ⟨talk⟩ 10:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – April 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).
Administrator changes
Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS
Guideline and policy news
- Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
- Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the
delete-redirectuserright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.
Technical news
- When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
- Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)
Arbitration
- A community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure is open until April 25.
MfD nomination of User:Hulged/Newsletter/List
User:Hulged/Newsletter/List, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hulged/Newsletter/List and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Hulged/Newsletter/List during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 01:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 14, 2021)
 A recreation room arranged as a children's play area in a Chicago home
Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: Mixed climbing • Name Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • |
|---|
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- Editors can collapse part of an article so you have to click on it to see it. When you click a link to a section inside collapsed content it will now expand to show the section. The browser will scroll down to the section. Previously such links didn't work unless you manually expanded the content first. [10]
Changes later this week
- The citoid API will use for example
2010-12-XXinstead of2010-12for dates with a month but no days. This is because2010-12could be confused with2010-2012instead ofDecember 2010. This is called level 1 instead of level 0 in the Extended Date/Time Format. [11] - The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 6 April. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 7 April. It will be on all wikis from 8 April (calendar).
Future changes
- PAWS can now connect to the new Wiki Replicas. Cross-database
JOINSwill no longer work from 28 April. There is a new way to connect to the databases. Until 28 April both ways to connect to the databases will work. If you think this affects you and you need help you can post on Phabricator or on Wikitech.
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
19:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
March 2021
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
Drmies and Blablubbs why I have been blocked? I had already accepted EditorThanos is my account and I didn't used that after the previous SPI. –Hulged ⟨talk⟩ 14:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- And Wahhid is yours, which was used on 9 February at a time when you were also using this account, and then there's Ulluly. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wahhid. I do not understand what purpose that mess served, by the way. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- Drmies, I had already confirmed that Wahhid and EditorThanos is me. Kammill and Kamilalibhat we're my former usernames not my accounts. I don't know anything about ulluly and Hornbill, they aren't me. –Hulged ⟨talk⟩ 15:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- "were my former usernames not my accounts" doesn't make any sense: your user name IS your account. And Ulluly and you are a perfect technical match, so that's a problem. Same with TheHornbill, whom I forgot to block with all these complications. CU, if you are responding to this unblock request, you'll see Hulged=Ulluly, and Wahhid = TheHornbill = Hulged. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- Drmies, I had already confirmed that Wahhid and EditorThanos is me. Kammill and Kamilalibhat we're my former usernames not my accounts. I don't know anything about ulluly and Hornbill, they aren't me. –Hulged ⟨talk⟩ 15:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Ratekreel/Archives (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I don't know why Ulluly and Hornbill are said that they are me, but I haven't used Wahhid and EditorThanos since previous SPI. Please unblock me.
Decline reason:
Ok, so what about User:Ollipinno, who is editing on the same IP as you, 3 minutes before you are? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 19:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Nobody would undo a checkuser block, this is not possible.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- Ymblanter, but why? –Hulged ⟨talk⟩ 16:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Ymblanter, does this mean that I will never be unblocked! –Hulged ⟨talk⟩ 16:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- Most likely, you will indeed never be unblocked, but in any case only a checkuser can unblock you. Non-checkusers do not have tools to verify these conclusions.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- Please see WP:OFFER. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- Drmies, thank you for pointing out, but I don't want to wait too much to edit. Please unblock me. I had already disclosed those accounts. Blablubbs, on Jazz's talk page, I wasn't talking about you. They were my tutor and I ask them questions regularly. I came to know about SPI when I was blocked! –Hulged ⟨talk⟩ 17:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Drmies and Jpgordon, then how can I get out of this. Is there any option for me to do. Yes, Ollipinno is mine :( –Hulged ⟨talk⟩ 03:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Your absolutely only choice is WP:OFFER. With this sequence of deception and bad behavior, you might not even be unblocked in six months, but it is your only viable option. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 04:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Jpgordon, please say clearly what do you mean. You want me to come back after 6 months and appeal unblock (without using any other account for this period of time). Right? –Hulged ⟨talk⟩ 04:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Jpgordon, what is 2nd chance here. –Hulged ⟨talk⟩ 04:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- A set of steps you can take at any time to attempt to gain back the trust of the community. The community will not consider it in this case until six months has elapsed. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 04:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Jpgordon, thanks for your help! I'll be back after 6 months with the hope that WP:OFFER will help.
You will receive a mail shortly. –Hulged ⟨talk⟩ 04:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)- Please don't. Follow the steps, and in six months make another unblock request. I won't attend to it; someone else will. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 04:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Please don't. Follow the steps, and in six months make another unblock request. I won't attend to it; someone else will. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 04:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Jpgordon, thanks for your help! I'll be back after 6 months with the hope that WP:OFFER will help.
- A set of steps you can take at any time to attempt to gain back the trust of the community. The community will not consider it in this case until six months has elapsed. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 04:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Jpgordon, I didn't appealed my block in the mail. It is my explanation of the whole scenario. –Hulged ⟨talk⟩ 05:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Rosguill, I'm much ashamed to inform you that I have been blocked for the above reasons. I saw you graded my answers at our NPP school page. I have been said to appeal my unblock 6 months later. :() –Hulged ⟨talk⟩ 17:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Ratekreel/Archives (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Please give me only one chance. It will not take much to block me if I did anything wrong again. I will never abuse again. I'm much ashamed of my deception. I don't know how I will talk to Larry (if I'm unblocked) because I had broken the promise I made with him. I believe Drmies, Blablubbs and Jpgordon are right and I accept that all this was done by me. I think this block is not necessary now because I have understood what I was blocked for. I find I can't manage to go without wiki. It has been 4 days (probably 5) since I was blocked. I assure you that I will never ever do the same thing again. Further I confirm that EditorThanos, Ulluly, Wahhid were mine accounts. Please help! Unblock me
Decline reason:
You've worked hard to demonstrate you should not be trusted. Nothing in this unblock request convinces me otherwise. I suggest not trying again befoer 2021-10-03. Yamla (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Yamla, sorry, but I think I am being punished. I have understood what I was blocked for and I have already asked your goodself to let me prove myself. I was a productive editor and I would like to continue my journey as all of you are doing. Trust me! I will never deceive again! –Hulged ⟨talk⟩ 03:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Yamla, please one more chance. –Hulged ⟨talk⟩ 07:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- I ensure you that I will never deceive again. Please help me get through this. –Hulged ⟨talk⟩ 08:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- I think you are entirely unsuited to being unblocked at this time. You worked hard to destroy the community's trust in you. I suggest you wait six months and apply, no sooner than 2021-10-06, under the terms of WP:SO. At that point, you will need to work hard to demonstrate you can be trusted again. Don't ping me further. --Yamla (talk) 09:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
A message to fellow Wikipedians
I'm blocked nowadays, but this doesn't mean that I won't come back. I will certainly appeal my unblock after a period of 6 months. I'm much ashamed of what I have done. I promise that I will never use multiple accounts again. I'll be here checking what's happening around. So, please don't consider I've gone. To make it clear, let me tell you the names of the accounts I owned:
- EditorThanos (talk · contribs) – this account was disclosed after Larry opened the SPI case against me. At that time I was unaware of WP:SOCK.
- TheHornbill (talk · contribs) – this account was not disclosed because I don't wanted to deceive the community, so I retired it.
- Ollipinno (talk · contribs) – frankly, this was created to evade the block. I promise I will follow what is written at WP:OFFER.
- Juslit (talk · contribs) – this was also created to evade the block. I promise I will follow what is written at WP:OFFER.
- Wahhid (talk · contribs) – this was also disclosed after the first SPI.
- Ulluly (talk · contribs) – Much ashamed of using it. See contributions. I misused this account while I was being renamed from Kammill to Hulged.
Till 2021-10-7, I will never create any account, I promise. –Hulged ⟨†^|k⟩ 11:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for that confession. Well done! See you in six months time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 15, 2021)
 Thai comics are comics written and produced in Thailand.
Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: Recreation room • Mixed climbing Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • |
|---|
TheWikiWizard-April 2021
Hello, Hulged! Here is the April 2021 issue of TheWikiWizard.
Wikipedia News
- MediaWiki has a new logo. Looks great, doesn't it?
- Did you get to see the April Fools DYK for the Main Page? If not, catch them here (Under April 1)
- In the Beta Features, try out "Discussion tools" it is a very useful feature for replying to talkpage messages. You will need an account to do so!
Memorials
- Pi zero has passed away. Our condolences go out for Pi zero and anyone who knew him. Thank you Pi zero for your service here at Wikimedia. We are very sorry to hear this. We will never forget your valuable contributions to Wikipedia and it's sister projects.
Humour
Tsugaru's Humour Section
- April Showers can't Bring May Flowers, if the Flowers ran away to June!
- You can't get in trouble, if you don't cause trouble!
- The May Flowers can't be flowers if they are roses!
Please find CanadianOtaku's Humour Section below
- Sadly, there was no edit war of 2021, maybe next year.
- This joke space is up for rent!
- You too can be a hacker by removing everything in an article!
- Error 410: I dropped this joke and I can't find it.
Editor's Notes
- Just a reminder that TWW is delivered between the 16th to the 20th of each month
- Like this Issue? Got Feedback? Spot a mistake? Discuss this issue here
To change your subscription, or to subscribe click Here. Enjoy this Issue and stay safe! --つがる Talk to つがる:) 🍁 23:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- This Issue was delivered to you by --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 16, 2021)
.jpg) A street performer in New York wearing a do-rag
Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: Thai comics • Recreation room Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • |
|---|
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- Email to the Wikimedia wikis are handled by groups of Wikimedia editors. These volunteer response teams now use Znuny instead of OTRS. The functions and interface remain the same. The volunteer administrators will give more details about the next steps soon. [12][13]
- If you use syntax highlighting, you can see line numbers in the 2010 and 2017 wikitext editors when editing templates. This is to make it easier to see line breaks or talk about specific lines. Line numbers will soon come to all namespaces. [14][15][16]
- Because of a technical change there could be problems with gadgets and scripts that have an edit summary area that looks similar to this one. If they look strange they should use
mw.loader.using('mediawiki.action.edit.styles')to go back to how they looked before. [17] - The latest version of MediaWiki came to the Wikimedia wikis last week. There was no Tech News issue last week.
Changes later this week
- There is no new MediaWiki version this week.
Future changes
- The user group
oversightwill be renamedsuppress. This is for technical reasons. This is the technical name. It doesn't affect what you call the editors with this user right on your wiki. This is planned to happen in two weeks. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
16:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 April 2021
- From the editor: A change is gonna come
- Disinformation report: Paid editing by a former head of state's business enterprise
- In the media: Fernando, governance, and rugby
- Opinion: The (Universal) Code of Conduct
- Op-Ed: A Little Fun Goes A Long Way
- Changing the world: The reach of protest images on Wikipedia
- Recent research: Quality of aquatic and anatomical articles
- Traffic report: The verdict is guilty, guilty, guilty
- News from Wiki Education: Encouraging professional physicists to engage in outreach on Wikipedia
This week's article for improvement (week 17, 2021)
Hello, Hulged. The article for improvement of the week is:
Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: Do-rag • Thai comics Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 03:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • |
|---|
The Signpost: 25 April 2021
- From the editor: A change is gonna come
- Disinformation report: Paid editing by a former head of state's business enterprise
- In the media: Fernando, governance, and rugby
- Opinion: The (Universal) Code of Conduct
- Op-Ed: A Little Fun Goes A Long Way
- Changing the world: The reach of protest images on Wikipedia
- Recent research: Quality of aquatic and anatomical articles
- Traffic report: The verdict is guilty, guilty, guilty
- News from Wiki Education: Encouraging professional physicists to engage in outreach on Wikipedia
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- Templates have parameters that can have specific values. It is possible to suggest values for editors with TemplateData. You can soon see them as a drop-down list in the visual editor. This is to help template users find the right values faster. [18][19][20]
Changes later this week
- The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 27 April. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 28 April. It will be on all wikis from 29 April (calendar).
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
21:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 18, 2021)
 Watches are one type of fashion accessory.
Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: Huizhou • Do-rag Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • |
|---|
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- Twinkle is a gadget on English Wikipedia. It can help with maintenance and patrolling. It can now be used on other wikis. You can get Twinkle on your wiki using the twinkle-starter GitHub repository.
Problems
- The content translation tool did not work for many articles for a little while. This was because of a bug. [21]
- Some things will not work for about a minute on 5 May. This will happen around 06:00 UTC. This will affect the content translation tool and notifications among other things. This is because of an upgrade to avoid crashes. [22]
Changes later this week
- Reference Previews will become a default feature on a number of wikis on 5 May. This is later than planned because of some changes. You can use it without using Page Previews if you want to. The earlier plan was to have the preference to use both or none. [23][24]
- The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 4 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 5 May. It will be on all wikis from 6 May (calendar).
Future changes
- The CSS classes
.error,.warningand.successdo not work for mobile readers if they have not been specifically defined on your wiki. From June they will not work for desktop readers. This can affect gadgets and templates. The classes can be defined in MediaWiki:Common.css or template styles instead. [25]
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
15:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Unblock request
Oshwah, Mz7 or any other CheckUser can you please review my unblock request with whatever action you feel appropriate. I wouldn't have pinged you but this block appeal was made 8 days ago and I didn't received any response from the CU's. Thanks, Hulged (talk) 07:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- By my count, you are banned by the community per WP:3X –
Editors who are confirmed by a CheckUser to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block that is active, for any reason, are effectively site banned by the Wikipedia community
. Indefs: [26][27][28][29], evasion one [30], evasion two [31]. --Blablubbs|talk 11:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)- Blablubbs, I wasn't really aware of WP:3X when I evaded the block using those accounts. But now I am. What should I do now? Hulged (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Your awareness of the rules doesn't really play into this especially since you did know that block evasion was illegitimate. You can ask the reviewing administrator to copy your appeal to WP:AN. --Blablubbs|talk 12:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Blablubbs, no administrator has responded yet. Should I wait or ask any admin directly. Hulged (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Your awareness of the rules doesn't really play into this especially since you did know that block evasion was illegitimate. You can ask the reviewing administrator to copy your appeal to WP:AN. --Blablubbs|talk 12:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Blablubbs, I wasn't really aware of WP:3X when I evaded the block using those accounts. But now I am. What should I do now? Hulged (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Can anyone take my unblock request to the WP:AN? Hulged (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- You're going to run into a brick wall there. You were told, "I suggest not trying until 2021-10-03"; you said, "I will certainly appeal my unblock after a period of 6 months". That was exactly two months ago. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 17:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Okay! I have hidden my block appeal now. Hulged (talk) 02:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) Honestly, at this point you should be waiting in excess of a year before you even _consider_ appealing your WP:3X community ban - the only users I've seen successfully come back from a 3X CBAN early in their careers waited multiple years to appeal. -- a they/them | argue | contribs 11:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Alfie, thanks for dropping by. It is really hard for me to see myself banned from wikipedia. I didn't knew anything about WP:3X, but still it (possibly) applies because I knew that evading block is illegitimate, as said by Blablubbs above. I will try to be honest and I will appeal after some time. Let's hope I can bear all this. Hulged (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- 3X applies whether you were aware of it or not. It is a policy designed to protect the community from repeated block evasion, and it works well. I'm going to be really blunt, here, because I've seen a number of editors stand in your shoes - feeling sorry for yourself ("It is really hard for me to see myself banned" / "Let's hope I can bear all this.") is not going to garner any sympathy, nor are non-committal statements ("I will try to be honest / I will appeal after some time", emphasis mine) going to convince an unblocking administrator that your unblock request is worth their time. You're not going to "try" to do better - you're either going to do better, or you're going to remain blocked. You are responsible for your own actions, and until your actions convince an admin that you are aware of this, you will remain blocked. -- a they/them | argue | contribs 15:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Alfie, thanks for dropping by. It is really hard for me to see myself banned from wikipedia. I didn't knew anything about WP:3X, but still it (possibly) applies because I knew that evading block is illegitimate, as said by Blablubbs above. I will try to be honest and I will appeal after some time. Let's hope I can bear all this. Hulged (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) Honestly, at this point you should be waiting in excess of a year before you even _consider_ appealing your WP:3X community ban - the only users I've seen successfully come back from a 3X CBAN early in their careers waited multiple years to appeal. -- a they/them | argue | contribs 11:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Okay! I have hidden my block appeal now. Hulged (talk) 02:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Oxford School Of Education Budgam
Hello, Hulged. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Oxford School Of Education Budgam, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Oxford School Of Education Budgam
Hello, Hulged. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Oxford School Of Education Budgam".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 19:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
UTRS 51131
UTRS appeal #51131 is closed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Deepfriedokra, I didn't know who requested that I got an email from the DeltaQuadBot but I couldn't access UTRS as I didn't knew the keys. --Hulged (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Could be a fake. We have an LTA that likes to pretend to be other users at UTRS. Next, she'll make twenty-five attempts to log in to my Wikipedia account. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Deepfriedokra, Ah. I thought it was done by Yamla to take above appeal to admins. Anyway, I hope your password is strong. --Hulged (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- I strongly suspect the UTRS request was made by our LTA and don't hold it against Hulged at all. --Yamla (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Deepfriedokra, Ah. I thought it was done by Yamla to take above appeal to admins. Anyway, I hope your password is strong. --Hulged (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Could be a fake. We have an LTA that likes to pretend to be other users at UTRS. Next, she'll make twenty-five attempts to log in to my Wikipedia account. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Unblock request
Ratekreel/Archives (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hi. Please assume good faith while reading this. I am Hulged and I am making unblock request after a good time editing on simplewiki, commonswiki, kswiki, metawiki and other non-wikimedia wikis. Few months ago, I was blocked for using the VOA's. Looking at the policies, I understand this wasn’t acceptable and that warranted a block. I understood why am I blocked and I will promise to avoid running VOA's and WP:GHBH behavior that lead to the block and I'll focus on the contents creation and AFC work (if I'll be given access again) instead. I have previously declared all the accounts that I've used before. But I would like to be as honest as I am IRL; I've created 4 other accounts – Dhonka, Majaple, Malihajan and Malliha but I haven't edited from those accounts and there have been nearly 6 months since I created these accounts. Thank you for reading. Courtesy ping to Drmies and Blablubbs as they handled my SPI case. Hulged (talk) 10:54, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
"I haven't edited from those accounts" This is a straight-forward lie. See Special:Contributions/Dhonka and Special:Contributions/Malihajan (though in this case it's just a user-space edit). Additionally, you were blocked as you are a sockpuppet of Wahhid but haven't addressed that here (though did acknowledge this in your archive). You are welcome to make a new unblock request. Given your long history of problems, I think the only path forward here is to take any future unblock request to the community. Roughly speaking, WP:UNBAN explains this. Yamla (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Hi Yamla. Good to talk to you after 6 months. Are community bans appealed at WP:AN (I don't know the appropriate noticeboard), if so will you please take above one to the AN (or the appropriate one). I did acknowledge that I am Wahhid in my talk archives and have disclosed all the accounts. Thanks! --Hulged (talk) 12:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to do so. However, please write up a new request, one that does not claim you made zero edits with the accounts. And please, provide enough information such that people don't need to go to your archive. --Yamla (talk) 12:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yamla, please proceed to take the below appeal to the appropriate noticeboard. Thank you for your willingness. Please tell me if it something still needs to be added to it. Thank you! --Hulged (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to do so. However, please write up a new request, one that does not claim you made zero edits with the accounts. And please, provide enough information such that people don't need to go to your archive. --Yamla (talk) 12:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Ratekreel/Archives (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hi. Please assume good faith while reading this. I am Hulged and I am making unblock request after a good time editing on simplewiki, commonswiki where I am autopatroller, kswiki, metawiki and other non-wikimedia wikis like Miraheze. Few months ago, I was blocked for using the VOA's. Looking at the policies, I understand this wasn’t acceptable and that warranted a block. I understood why am I blocked. I will never use multiple accounts abusively again, including using VOA accounts and WP:GHBH accounts. I'll focus on the work I used to do previously like content creation, counter vandalism and AFC work (if I'll be given access again). I have previously declared all the accounts that I've used before but for clarity's sake these are Wahhid, EditorThanos, TheHornbill, Ollipinno, Juslit, Ulluly. But I would like to be as honest as I am IRL; I've created 4 other accounts – Dhonka, Majaple, Malihajan and Malliha and there have been nearly 6 months since I created these accounts and I have made 2 edits (here and here) from these accounts. Thank you for reading. --Hulged (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I'm sorry to say, your request to have your ban lifted failed to achieve community consensus. You are free to contest your ban once six months have passed since your last attempt, no sooner than 2022-05-24. The WP:AN discussion was closed here. Yamla (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- There are some minor copyedits that you should probably make before this is copied to AN. The link to your contributions has "Special" misspelt as "Specail". I suggest that you fix that before an admin cross-posts this to AN. As I had adopted this user in the past I am not dealing with this in any admin or CU capability. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 16:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, Dreamy Jazz. --Hulged (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Furthermore, I suggest re-wording the statement
I will promise to avoid running VOA's ...
. This is because of the word "avoid". The community doesn't want to have editors say that they will try to and instead wants those appealing blocks to commit to not repeating the behavior again. In this case I would suggest something similar toI will never use multiple accounts abusively again, including using VOA accounts and WP:GHBH accounts
. The important change here is the "I will never use again" instead of "I will avoid using".From my point of view I think that you, regardless of the wording you chose, actually don't mean to abuse multiple accounts again. However, for a community member who is reviewing this unblock request they will want to see the commitments (especially as this may be the first time they interact with you on this wiki). Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 16:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)- Dreamy Jazz, I have re-worded that sentence now. Yeah, I meant to not to use the other accounts abusively again in my "wiki-life".I would like to thank you for being such a great mentor then and even now! --Hulged (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Copying over your request to WP:AN now. --Yamla (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Dreamy Jazz, I have re-worded that sentence now. Yeah, I meant to not to use the other accounts abusively again in my "wiki-life".I would like to thank you for being such a great mentor then and even now! --Hulged (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Furthermore, I suggest re-wording the statement
- Thanks, Dreamy Jazz. --Hulged (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Re: NBB
Hi Nosebagbear. Everything Maxim said is true. The first appeal was declined on the grounds on recent socking and I was told to adhere to the standard offer. I created other accounts in ending May - starting June. Yet in my June appeal, I was cought socking again although I didn't made too many contributions using those accounts and they are already revealed in my AN appeal.
Then, I started to help out on meta, simple and other wikis. I appealed in August mainly because I though my behavior has changed and I can be eligible to be unblocked under WP:Standard offer#Variations but that appeal was declined again. Two months later (in October), I made another appeal (this too on the grounds of WP:SO#Variations) but they didn't replied and I thought they might be busy with the ACE2021. So, I headed over to AN with my appeal. I was operating in good faith and I never meant to behave in IDHT attitude or being disruptive. I was just hoping for the best of Wikipedia. Though for the future reference, I will surely avoid the IDHT/disruptive behavior. --Hulged (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Re: Tide rolls
Hello Tide rolls, I respect your view. I can understand your love towards the protection and administration of encyclopaedia. But believe me, I have changed. I don't need a policy to believe that VOA's are bad. I have also developed the love towards the development of Wikipedia. As Dreamy Jazz said, I can be more beneficial to Wikipedia than harm it given my contributions on other wikis. I would also see this as the last chance, if I am unbanned. But I know that VOA's are bad even if there isn't/wasn't any policy. That can be observed, by the statement that I haven't evaded the ban or created any other accounts nearly in past 6 months time. --Hulged (talk) 13:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Clarification
I noted that you can contest your ban no sooner than 2022-05-24. As was pointed out to me (thanks, Hobit), ARBCOM set a date that they would not hear further appeals before February 2022. I do not mean to override them (and definitely lack the authority to do so). If ARBCOM is sympathetic to your appeal, they might choose to open up discussions on WP:AN at that time (February rather than May). The date I gave was in regard to the concerns raised about you forum-shopping, but you can see from the discussion that a number of editors expressed they may look sympathetically upon an unblock at that time. If any part of this is at all unclear to you, please ask. I don't mean for there to be any confusion here. --Yamla (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yamla, do you mean I am free to appeal to ARBCOM in February 2022? (Maxim? I don't want any confusion in my next appeal!). --Hulged (talk) 07:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- I mean to say, my understanding is that ARBCOM would accept an unblock appeal at that time and I did not mean to change that. So, yes, I believe you are. I suggest you might have more luck with any appeal if you wait until May, but I am not trying to prevent you from appealing to ARBCOM in February. --Yamla (talk) 10:48, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hobit and Yamla, thanks! I'll wait for the Maxim's response. If ArbCom would also like me to wait until May, I'll consider that otherwise. --Hulged (talk)
- What I would recommend is to drop the appeals for another six months, which puts us into late May 2022. The nature of the sockpuppetry at the time is such that there is an expectation (perhaps unwritten) that the sockmaster disengage from Wikipedia for a considerable amount of time. You first appealed right after getting blocked, and in these cases it would be almost unheard of for anyone to reverse a valid block so quickly. We asked you to stay away for some time—6 months. I don't understand why it has been so difficult for you to stay away for 6 months at a time. Your emails to us were disingenuous, particularly with regards to the cool-off time between appeals. Demonstrating that you can respect our community norms, which includes actually disengaging from English Wikipedia for some time, would go a long way towards a successful appeal in the future. Maxim(talk) 14:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Maxim, I'll return in May then. Thanks for the response! --Hulged (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- What I would recommend is to drop the appeals for another six months, which puts us into late May 2022. The nature of the sockpuppetry at the time is such that there is an expectation (perhaps unwritten) that the sockmaster disengage from Wikipedia for a considerable amount of time. You first appealed right after getting blocked, and in these cases it would be almost unheard of for anyone to reverse a valid block so quickly. We asked you to stay away for some time—6 months. I don't understand why it has been so difficult for you to stay away for 6 months at a time. Your emails to us were disingenuous, particularly with regards to the cool-off time between appeals. Demonstrating that you can respect our community norms, which includes actually disengaging from English Wikipedia for some time, would go a long way towards a successful appeal in the future. Maxim(talk) 14:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hobit and Yamla, thanks! I'll wait for the Maxim's response. If ArbCom would also like me to wait until May, I'll consider that otherwise. --Hulged (talk)
- I mean to say, my understanding is that ARBCOM would accept an unblock appeal at that time and I did not mean to change that. So, yes, I believe you are. I suggest you might have more luck with any appeal if you wait until May, but I am not trying to prevent you from appealing to ARBCOM in February. --Yamla (talk) 10:48, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
UTRS 51131
UTRS appeal #51131 is closed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Deepfriedokra, I didn't know who requested that I got an email from the DeltaQuadBot but I couldn't access UTRS as I didn't knew the keys. --Hulged (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Could be a fake. We have an LTA that likes to pretend to be other users at UTRS. Next, she'll make twenty-five attempts to log in to my Wikipedia account. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Deepfriedokra, Ah. I thought it was done by Yamla to take above appeal to admins. Anyway, I hope your password is strong. --Hulged (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- I strongly suspect the UTRS request was made by our LTA and don't hold it against Hulged at all. --Yamla (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Deepfriedokra, Ah. I thought it was done by Yamla to take above appeal to admins. Anyway, I hope your password is strong. --Hulged (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Could be a fake. We have an LTA that likes to pretend to be other users at UTRS. Next, she'll make twenty-five attempts to log in to my Wikipedia account. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Unblock request
Ratekreel/Archives (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hi. Please assume good faith while reading this. I am Hulged and I am making unblock request after a good time editing on simplewiki, commonswiki, kswiki, metawiki and other non-wikimedia wikis. Few months ago, I was blocked for using the VOA's. Looking at the policies, I understand this wasn’t acceptable and that warranted a block. I understood why am I blocked and I will promise to avoid running VOA's and WP:GHBH behavior that lead to the block and I'll focus on the contents creation and AFC work (if I'll be given access again) instead. I have previously declared all the accounts that I've used before. But I would like to be as honest as I am IRL; I've created 4 other accounts – Dhonka, Majaple, Malihajan and Malliha but I haven't edited from those accounts and there have been nearly 6 months since I created these accounts. Thank you for reading. Courtesy ping to Drmies and Blablubbs as they handled my SPI case. Hulged (talk) 10:54, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
"I haven't edited from those accounts" This is a straight-forward lie. See Special:Contributions/Dhonka and Special:Contributions/Malihajan (though in this case it's just a user-space edit). Additionally, you were blocked as you are a sockpuppet of Wahhid but haven't addressed that here (though did acknowledge this in your archive). You are welcome to make a new unblock request. Given your long history of problems, I think the only path forward here is to take any future unblock request to the community. Roughly speaking, WP:UNBAN explains this. Yamla (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Hi Yamla. Good to talk to you after 6 months. Are community bans appealed at WP:AN (I don't know the appropriate noticeboard), if so will you please take above one to the AN (or the appropriate one). I did acknowledge that I am Wahhid in my talk archives and have disclosed all the accounts. Thanks! --Hulged (talk) 12:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to do so. However, please write up a new request, one that does not claim you made zero edits with the accounts. And please, provide enough information such that people don't need to go to your archive. --Yamla (talk) 12:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yamla, please proceed to take the below appeal to the appropriate noticeboard. Thank you for your willingness. Please tell me if it something still needs to be added to it. Thank you! --Hulged (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to do so. However, please write up a new request, one that does not claim you made zero edits with the accounts. And please, provide enough information such that people don't need to go to your archive. --Yamla (talk) 12:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Ratekreel/Archives (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hi. Please assume good faith while reading this. I am Hulged and I am making unblock request after a good time editing on simplewiki, commonswiki where I am autopatroller, kswiki, metawiki and other non-wikimedia wikis like Miraheze. Few months ago, I was blocked for using the VOA's. Looking at the policies, I understand this wasn’t acceptable and that warranted a block. I understood why am I blocked. I will never use multiple accounts abusively again, including using VOA accounts and WP:GHBH accounts. I'll focus on the work I used to do previously like content creation, counter vandalism and AFC work (if I'll be given access again). I have previously declared all the accounts that I've used before but for clarity's sake these are Wahhid, EditorThanos, TheHornbill, Ollipinno, Juslit, Ulluly. But I would like to be as honest as I am IRL; I've created 4 other accounts – Dhonka, Majaple, Malihajan and Malliha and there have been nearly 6 months since I created these accounts and I have made 2 edits (here and here) from these accounts. Thank you for reading. --Hulged (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I'm sorry to say, your request to have your ban lifted failed to achieve community consensus. You are free to contest your ban once six months have passed since your last attempt, no sooner than 2022-05-24. The WP:AN discussion was closed here. Yamla (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- There are some minor copyedits that you should probably make before this is copied to AN. The link to your contributions has "Special" misspelt as "Specail". I suggest that you fix that before an admin cross-posts this to AN. As I had adopted this user in the past I am not dealing with this in any admin or CU capability. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 16:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, Dreamy Jazz. --Hulged (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Furthermore, I suggest re-wording the statement
I will promise to avoid running VOA's ...
. This is because of the word "avoid". The community doesn't want to have editors say that they will try to and instead wants those appealing blocks to commit to not repeating the behavior again. In this case I would suggest something similar toI will never use multiple accounts abusively again, including using VOA accounts and WP:GHBH accounts
. The important change here is the "I will never use again" instead of "I will avoid using".From my point of view I think that you, regardless of the wording you chose, actually don't mean to abuse multiple accounts again. However, for a community member who is reviewing this unblock request they will want to see the commitments (especially as this may be the first time they interact with you on this wiki). Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 16:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)- Dreamy Jazz, I have re-worded that sentence now. Yeah, I meant to not to use the other accounts abusively again in my "wiki-life".I would like to thank you for being such a great mentor then and even now! --Hulged (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Copying over your request to WP:AN now. --Yamla (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Dreamy Jazz, I have re-worded that sentence now. Yeah, I meant to not to use the other accounts abusively again in my "wiki-life".I would like to thank you for being such a great mentor then and even now! --Hulged (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Furthermore, I suggest re-wording the statement
- Thanks, Dreamy Jazz. --Hulged (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Re: NBB
Hi Nosebagbear. Everything Maxim said is true. The first appeal was declined on the grounds on recent socking and I was told to adhere to the standard offer. I created other accounts in ending May - starting June. Yet in my June appeal, I was cought socking again although I didn't made too many contributions using those accounts and they are already revealed in my AN appeal.
Then, I started to help out on meta, simple and other wikis. I appealed in August mainly because I though my behavior has changed and I can be eligible to be unblocked under WP:Standard offer#Variations but that appeal was declined again. Two months later (in October), I made another appeal (this too on the grounds of WP:SO#Variations) but they didn't replied and I thought they might be busy with the ACE2021. So, I headed over to AN with my appeal. I was operating in good faith and I never meant to behave in IDHT attitude or being disruptive. I was just hoping for the best of Wikipedia. Though for the future reference, I will surely avoid the IDHT/disruptive behavior. --Hulged (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Re: Tide rolls
Hello Tide rolls, I respect your view. I can understand your love towards the protection and administration of encyclopaedia. But believe me, I have changed. I don't need a policy to believe that VOA's are bad. I have also developed the love towards the development of Wikipedia. As Dreamy Jazz said, I can be more beneficial to Wikipedia than harm it given my contributions on other wikis. I would also see this as the last chance, if I am unbanned. But I know that VOA's are bad even if there isn't/wasn't any policy. That can be observed, by the statement that I haven't evaded the ban or created any other accounts nearly in past 6 months time. --Hulged (talk) 13:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Clarification
I noted that you can contest your ban no sooner than 2022-05-24. As was pointed out to me (thanks, Hobit), ARBCOM set a date that they would not hear further appeals before February 2022. I do not mean to override them (and definitely lack the authority to do so). If ARBCOM is sympathetic to your appeal, they might choose to open up discussions on WP:AN at that time (February rather than May). The date I gave was in regard to the concerns raised about you forum-shopping, but you can see from the discussion that a number of editors expressed they may look sympathetically upon an unblock at that time. If any part of this is at all unclear to you, please ask. I don't mean for there to be any confusion here. --Yamla (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yamla, do you mean I am free to appeal to ARBCOM in February 2022? (Maxim? I don't want any confusion in my next appeal!). --Hulged (talk) 07:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- I mean to say, my understanding is that ARBCOM would accept an unblock appeal at that time and I did not mean to change that. So, yes, I believe you are. I suggest you might have more luck with any appeal if you wait until May, but I am not trying to prevent you from appealing to ARBCOM in February. --Yamla (talk) 10:48, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hobit and Yamla, thanks! I'll wait for the Maxim's response. If ArbCom would also like me to wait until May, I'll consider that otherwise. --Hulged (talk)
- What I would recommend is to drop the appeals for another six months, which puts us into late May 2022. The nature of the sockpuppetry at the time is such that there is an expectation (perhaps unwritten) that the sockmaster disengage from Wikipedia for a considerable amount of time. You first appealed right after getting blocked, and in these cases it would be almost unheard of for anyone to reverse a valid block so quickly. We asked you to stay away for some time—6 months. I don't understand why it has been so difficult for you to stay away for 6 months at a time. Your emails to us were disingenuous, particularly with regards to the cool-off time between appeals. Demonstrating that you can respect our community norms, which includes actually disengaging from English Wikipedia for some time, would go a long way towards a successful appeal in the future. Maxim(talk) 14:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Maxim, I'll return in May then. Thanks for the response! --Hulged (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- What I would recommend is to drop the appeals for another six months, which puts us into late May 2022. The nature of the sockpuppetry at the time is such that there is an expectation (perhaps unwritten) that the sockmaster disengage from Wikipedia for a considerable amount of time. You first appealed right after getting blocked, and in these cases it would be almost unheard of for anyone to reverse a valid block so quickly. We asked you to stay away for some time—6 months. I don't understand why it has been so difficult for you to stay away for 6 months at a time. Your emails to us were disingenuous, particularly with regards to the cool-off time between appeals. Demonstrating that you can respect our community norms, which includes actually disengaging from English Wikipedia for some time, would go a long way towards a successful appeal in the future. Maxim(talk) 14:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hobit and Yamla, thanks! I'll wait for the Maxim's response. If ArbCom would also like me to wait until May, I'll consider that otherwise. --Hulged (talk)
- I mean to say, my understanding is that ARBCOM would accept an unblock appeal at that time and I did not mean to change that. So, yes, I believe you are. I suggest you might have more luck with any appeal if you wait until May, but I am not trying to prevent you from appealing to ARBCOM in February. --Yamla (talk) 10:48, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
UTRS 51131
UTRS appeal #51131 is closed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Deepfriedokra, I didn't know who requested that I got an email from the DeltaQuadBot but I couldn't access UTRS as I didn't knew the keys. --Hulged (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Could be a fake. We have an LTA that likes to pretend to be other users at UTRS. Next, she'll make twenty-five attempts to log in to my Wikipedia account. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Deepfriedokra, Ah. I thought it was done by Yamla to take above appeal to admins. Anyway, I hope your password is strong. --Hulged (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- I strongly suspect the UTRS request was made by our LTA and don't hold it against Hulged at all. --Yamla (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Deepfriedokra, Ah. I thought it was done by Yamla to take above appeal to admins. Anyway, I hope your password is strong. --Hulged (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Could be a fake. We have an LTA that likes to pretend to be other users at UTRS. Next, she'll make twenty-five attempts to log in to my Wikipedia account. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Unblock request
Ratekreel/Archives (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hi. Please assume good faith while reading this. I am Hulged and I am making unblock request after a good time editing on simplewiki, commonswiki, kswiki, metawiki and other non-wikimedia wikis. Few months ago, I was blocked for using the VOA's. Looking at the policies, I understand this wasn’t acceptable and that warranted a block. I understood why am I blocked and I will promise to avoid running VOA's and WP:GHBH behavior that lead to the block and I'll focus on the contents creation and AFC work (if I'll be given access again) instead. I have previously declared all the accounts that I've used before. But I would like to be as honest as I am IRL; I've created 4 other accounts – Dhonka, Majaple, Malihajan and Malliha but I haven't edited from those accounts and there have been nearly 6 months since I created these accounts. Thank you for reading. Courtesy ping to Drmies and Blablubbs as they handled my SPI case. Hulged (talk) 10:54, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
"I haven't edited from those accounts" This is a straight-forward lie. See Special:Contributions/Dhonka and Special:Contributions/Malihajan (though in this case it's just a user-space edit). Additionally, you were blocked as you are a sockpuppet of Wahhid but haven't addressed that here (though did acknowledge this in your archive). You are welcome to make a new unblock request. Given your long history of problems, I think the only path forward here is to take any future unblock request to the community. Roughly speaking, WP:UNBAN explains this. Yamla (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Hi Yamla. Good to talk to you after 6 months. Are community bans appealed at WP:AN (I don't know the appropriate noticeboard), if so will you please take above one to the AN (or the appropriate one). I did acknowledge that I am Wahhid in my talk archives and have disclosed all the accounts. Thanks! --Hulged (talk) 12:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to do so. However, please write up a new request, one that does not claim you made zero edits with the accounts. And please, provide enough information such that people don't need to go to your archive. --Yamla (talk) 12:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yamla, please proceed to take the below appeal to the appropriate noticeboard. Thank you for your willingness. Please tell me if it something still needs to be added to it. Thank you! --Hulged (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to do so. However, please write up a new request, one that does not claim you made zero edits with the accounts. And please, provide enough information such that people don't need to go to your archive. --Yamla (talk) 12:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Ratekreel/Archives (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hi. Please assume good faith while reading this. I am Hulged and I am making unblock request after a good time editing on simplewiki, commonswiki where I am autopatroller, kswiki, metawiki and other non-wikimedia wikis like Miraheze. Few months ago, I was blocked for using the VOA's. Looking at the policies, I understand this wasn’t acceptable and that warranted a block. I understood why am I blocked. I will never use multiple accounts abusively again, including using VOA accounts and WP:GHBH accounts. I'll focus on the work I used to do previously like content creation, counter vandalism and AFC work (if I'll be given access again). I have previously declared all the accounts that I've used before but for clarity's sake these are Wahhid, EditorThanos, TheHornbill, Ollipinno, Juslit, Ulluly. But I would like to be as honest as I am IRL; I've created 4 other accounts – Dhonka, Majaple, Malihajan and Malliha and there have been nearly 6 months since I created these accounts and I have made 2 edits (here and here) from these accounts. Thank you for reading. --Hulged (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I'm sorry to say, your request to have your ban lifted failed to achieve community consensus. You are free to contest your ban once six months have passed since your last attempt, no sooner than 2022-05-24. The WP:AN discussion was closed here. Yamla (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- There are some minor copyedits that you should probably make before this is copied to AN. The link to your contributions has "Special" misspelt as "Specail". I suggest that you fix that before an admin cross-posts this to AN. As I had adopted this user in the past I am not dealing with this in any admin or CU capability. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 16:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, Dreamy Jazz. --Hulged (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Furthermore, I suggest re-wording the statement
I will promise to avoid running VOA's ...
. This is because of the word "avoid". The community doesn't want to have editors say that they will try to and instead wants those appealing blocks to commit to not repeating the behavior again. In this case I would suggest something similar toI will never use multiple accounts abusively again, including using VOA accounts and WP:GHBH accounts
. The important change here is the "I will never use again" instead of "I will avoid using".From my point of view I think that you, regardless of the wording you chose, actually don't mean to abuse multiple accounts again. However, for a community member who is reviewing this unblock request they will want to see the commitments (especially as this may be the first time they interact with you on this wiki). Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 16:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)- Dreamy Jazz, I have re-worded that sentence now. Yeah, I meant to not to use the other accounts abusively again in my "wiki-life".I would like to thank you for being such a great mentor then and even now! --Hulged (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Copying over your request to WP:AN now. --Yamla (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Dreamy Jazz, I have re-worded that sentence now. Yeah, I meant to not to use the other accounts abusively again in my "wiki-life".I would like to thank you for being such a great mentor then and even now! --Hulged (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Furthermore, I suggest re-wording the statement
- Thanks, Dreamy Jazz. --Hulged (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Re: NBB
Hi Nosebagbear. Everything Maxim said is true. The first appeal was declined on the grounds on recent socking and I was told to adhere to the standard offer. I created other accounts in ending May - starting June. Yet in my June appeal, I was cought socking again although I didn't made too many contributions using those accounts and they are already revealed in my AN appeal.
Then, I started to help out on meta, simple and other wikis. I appealed in August mainly because I though my behavior has changed and I can be eligible to be unblocked under WP:Standard offer#Variations but that appeal was declined again. Two months later (in October), I made another appeal (this too on the grounds of WP:SO#Variations) but they didn't replied and I thought they might be busy with the ACE2021. So, I headed over to AN with my appeal. I was operating in good faith and I never meant to behave in IDHT attitude or being disruptive. I was just hoping for the best of Wikipedia. Though for the future reference, I will surely avoid the IDHT/disruptive behavior. --Hulged (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Re: Tide rolls
Hello Tide rolls, I respect your view. I can understand your love towards the protection and administration of encyclopaedia. But believe me, I have changed. I don't need a policy to believe that VOA's are bad. I have also developed the love towards the development of Wikipedia. As Dreamy Jazz said, I can be more beneficial to Wikipedia than harm it given my contributions on other wikis. I would also see this as the last chance, if I am unbanned. But I know that VOA's are bad even if there isn't/wasn't any policy. That can be observed, by the statement that I haven't evaded the ban or created any other accounts nearly in past 6 months time. --Hulged (talk) 13:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)