Jump to content

User talk:Nick/Archive21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on Wikimedia Commons.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NotASpy (cloak currently @user/notaspy) on Libre.Chat


Must be nice

[edit]

Having so little talk page activity that you can get away with archiving everything once a year in one go... Primefac (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

[edit]

Happy New Year!

Hello Nick: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great New Year! Cheers, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Hello and Happy New Year!

[edit]

Hi! The undersigned user account is not compromised in any manner. I am solely using the account for the last eight years but actively using it after my unblock in Sept 2020 only.Thanks and regardsRV (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year 2021 !
User:Nick, Wish you and your family a very Happy and prosperous New Year! best regardsRV (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021

[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
  • Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PERM/R

[edit]

Hi Nick, your input would be welcome regarding JJPMaster's request. :) Thanks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Gagan Gupta

[edit]

You have recently deleted Gagan Gupta citing WP:G11. I don't think this is appropriate. Myself and two other editors disputed the speedy deletion request, and the article's creator edited the article thoroughly to remove bias. They also requested comments and assistance on the article's talk page (which they didn't get). I think this shows that they weren't interested solely in promoting the subject, and were acting in good faith. Furthermore, I recall the article included several notable publications as sources, which establishes a plausible claim of notability. I kindly ask that you restore the article. If you still believe it should be deleted, please submit it to AfD. Thanks.

(Note: this is unrelated to our discussion at Talk:Fabrice Amedeo. I was already involved with both articles prior to that.) --Un assiolo (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Un assiolo: No. Nick (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Gagan Gupta

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gagan Gupta. 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. Un assiolo (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh.

[edit]

She began doing it as soon as the partial block was implemented. What a gross willful violation. -- ferret (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And has since responded asking if she can still edit talk pages. WP:IDHT. CUPIDICAE💕 22:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A cheeseburger for you!

[edit]
Ignore the buns, lettuce and patty - you deserve the cheese! EvanTaylor1289 (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).

Administrator changes

added TJMSmith
removed Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

Interface administrator changes

added AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
  • When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
  • There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fast on the block trigger on TruthPR?

[edit]

TruthPR, a new editor was asked if there was a paid or COI situation with the SG article. Minutes later, stated is SG. Minutes after that, you initiated an indefinite block. The editor's editing aside, shouldn't there have been time to provide the standard warning to cease editing until declaring paid, rather than the block? David notMD (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD: The indefinite block was the safest course of action here. The account claims to be Scott Gardenhour, which would require a block pending verification to prevent impersonation, additionally the username will need to be changed if the account is confirmed to Scott Gardenhour, it's also incumbent on the user to comply with our Terms of Use when starting to edit, we don't need to provide time for them to comply when they have begun to edit. The block is indefinite, not permanent, there's an unblock request and subject to confirmation via OTRS and a renaming to a username that isn't potentially deceptive to other editors, I'll unblock myself (and I'm happy for others to unblock when those issues are resolved). Nick (talk) 09:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I was just trying to see it from TruthPR's (Scott's?) perspective - a newbie trying to improve an existing article about himself, with the unintended consequence of the article now at AfD, and the block. David notMD (talk) 09:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick, I made a couple of requests for further clarification from you on the TruthPR talk page but knowing you probably have a pretty full plate. I am anxious to resolve this matter with as much clarity as possible so I don't make anymore mistakes bringing more negative attention to the Article. I have pasted the questions below and will look for your response on the TruthPR Talk page: Hi Nick, Thanks for getting back to me. Should I state why I created TruthPR which was to correct vandalism done by another user? Should the list of productions be of past productions? Also, does the "Marked for deletion" remain permanent? Hi Nick, In addition to my previous request for further clarification on the COI, can you please advise on how I need to pass relevant source information to David notMD? Thanks again for your assistance. TruthPR (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC) Hi Nick, I was informed my article was taken down. I made numerous requests to you for clarification so I could comply however they went unanswered. I have been nothing but show a willingness to correct the issue through a respectful dialogue in a process that makes one feel like a criminal even though they did nothing wrong. Can you advise on where I go from here to get the article reinstated? Thank you.Blackrockhwy66 (talk) 01:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Blackrockhwy66: your rename took longer than I expected, but to answer your questions - the deletion discussion which was taking place when I blocked you Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Gardenhour was closed as "redirect" so the article about you hasn't been deleted - it still exists (sort of) at Scott Gardenhour but the community (what little of it was interested, admittedly) decided that the article about you, on its own, wasn't sufficient to remain on Wikipedia, but that people searching for you on Wikipedia should find some information, accordingly your page now redirects to The Institute (company). You may be able to generate discussion at Talk:Scott Gardenhour about rebuilding an article about you, but it will require discussion and isn't something you should do on your own. Nick (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick, Thanks for getting back to me. I didn't send David the things you requested because I wanted to be sure I didn't make mistakes that would further penalize me which is why I asked for clarifications. That's why I waited. This is all very odd to me as I don't know how the article got created, yet once it was there and sentences were broken up that made no grammatical sense making me look illiterate, at least publicly, I was mortified tried to correct it. Any advice you can give for generating the discussion would be much appreciated. Thanks again, ScottBlackrockhwy66 (talk) 01:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Blackrockwhy66: my suggestion would be that you create a new Draft article (at Draft:Scott Gardenhour) and work on it there. Draft articles enjoy a degree of protection from deletion and other editors will assist you in creating something that may be acceptable in the main 'public' part of the encyclopedia. Nick (talk) 09:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. All the best, ScottBlackrockhwy66 (talk) 23:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking over BLP

[edit]

Hi

I feel that you have made incorrect decisions in regards to edits around Alexander Zaytsev (businessman). I do not believe I have violated WP:BLP because the discussion did not suggest anything illegal. Your questions on my talk page indicate moreover that you do not know yourself what was meant by my edits on the talk page. I used the terms "wallet" and "politically exposed person" interchangeably and neither suggest anything illegal. I offered the explanation of "politically exposed person" before you asked for a further explanation but then later pretend not to understand.

Apologies, I seem to have copy+pasted the incorrect url to the discussion. It was not supposed to be a US senate report but a general World Bank report.

Moreover your conduct has not been professional, you gave me little chance to respond to your question, a very short time, and the ban you've meted out is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.

If you do not respond here to explain your reasoning I will go through an appeal channel. If you (bizarrely) believe that this is too sensitive to be discussed here you can indicate so and I will go through arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. --Jabbi (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jabbi: I disagree - the tone and nature of your comments violated BLP and the fact you don't see that or understand it is why I felt I was left with no option but to ban you from editing BLPs for a year. You are, of course, welcome to appeal the sanction via the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard. If/when you appeal, please remember to mention that I was not the only administrator concerned about your editing; Barkeep49 asked you to confirm you would stop making edits in violation of the BLP, a request you are yet to answer, I note. Nick (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick: Those are very ambiguous accusations. I will go through an appeal. I responded to Barkeep49 here, just one more thing you've not understood. Banning should not be done without proper process, you did not discuss what exactly you found problematic until after having banned me. You gave me very short time to respond to your question. Is this your final answer? --Jabbi (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jabbi: My final answer is that you're welcome to appeal the BLP topic ban. Nick (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick: I would thank you but I don't think you've done anything useful here. --Jabbi (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nick, the sequence of events 3 days ago was quite fast for me and I was a little curt and impolite. I see that you are a very active admin and seem in general to do a good job. I still maintain that a year long ban is disproportionate, especially as I noticed the discussion about your revoking of rights of another user where there is a very clear intent. You asked what I meant by my use of the term wallet but did not give me a chance to explain. I have now discussed this in more detail in the noticeboard and I kindly ask you to give your opinion there. --Jabbi (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jabbi: I think, in light of the fact you've made edits to the noticeboard which have been deleted in the last few minutes, I would now have no alternative to suggest that an uninvolved adminstrator examines whether it is now necessary to block you from editing entirely. I'm too involved however to make such a recommendation, so will refrain from doing so. I would urge you to please now walk away from the discussion and to use the discussions here and at the noticeboard to recalibrate your viewpoint on BLP. Nick (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabbi (talk • contribs) 00:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why my rights were removed ?

[edit]
I've not been entirely uninvolved in the discussion, but perhaps I can close it anyway, because that's the only productive step left to take here. Drama drama. C’est la vie. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dear Nick, it was very painful to see that most of the permissions were removed after decline at here for something that was resolved and was reviewed before granting some of the permission. For your reference, I am enclosing links to block discussion. See block1 and block2. I am an active new page patroller (you can verify from my contributions) and AfC reviewer (See User:Amkgp/CSD log and AfD log also), an active page mover (especially use it in draftify of undersourced new articles), an active pending changes reviewer and file mover (in fact yesterday I helped to reduce a backlog and you can see permission was granted and a brief discussion took place User_talk:Wugapodes/Archive_17#Permissions already). Beside these I used to help at WP:DYK in making prep sets. I have also helped to promote Mahadevi Varma and Sidney Hill to GA status. I am also a WP:TEA host and help editors when ever I am able to help. I also help in copyright cleanup at commons when I get a chance. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Amkgp. I was really socked to see that I was stripped off most privileges that I earned after spending long time here in en-wiki through positive contributions and trust only. I kindly request you to please restore all the removed rights, so that I can contribute as I was doing. Thank you. — Amkgp 💬 04:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How can I become an untrusted user now? Does getting blocked earlier and rectifying thereafter or asking permission based on contributions/improvements makes one untrusted? But at-least restore the flags because I contribute there with permissions very seriously and with responsibility. Thank you — Amkgp 💬 05:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Amkgp: I'm aware of the block discussions - that's why I consider you to be lacking in the level of trusted and competency needed to hold these permissions. You lost all of the trust you earned when you were caught abusing multiple accounts, for which Tony blocked you, and the previous copyright issues are another significant concern. Your permissions should have been removed at those poinst, but at the absolute minimum, you need to demonstrate to myself and the wider community why you can again be trusted to again hold these permissions. You are welcome to request their return at the relevant Requests for Permissions pages, explaining in detail about your block history, and allowing discussion about these permissions, but I do not think it appropriate for you to continue to hold them without that discussion, and I do not think it's appropriate for you to have any advanced permissions weeks after coming off a block for abusing multiple accounts and copyright violations - if you were a new account, we would want to see some level of trust build up, given the way you destroyed the previous trust we had in you, I would also expect a lengthy period of several months editing, and confirmation perhaps from checkusers that there is not repeated violations regarding the abuse of multiple accounts, before I'd be truly happy for you to hold all of these permissions. I am sure you can understand the risk in someone previously blocked for abusing multiple accounts in being able to patrol pages and such, whilst I'm also sure you can understand the risk of someone with demonstrable failures in copyright understanding to be working in the File namespace. Nick (talk) 08:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Amkgp: Thank you for explaining your rationale behind your action. — Amkgp 💬 09:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can I expect you to be active after several months? Otherwise, asking for so many permissions via WP:PERM will look WP:HATSHOP to anyone. One lines within 20% WP:COPYVIO threshold is generally allowed. — Amkgp 💬 10:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The CU block was imposed because I posted some constructive request at WP:AN without logging. It was a honest mistake which I had rectified immediately thereafter. — Amkgp 💬 10:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Till date I have never abused here in any form and I am serious regarding my editing. — Amkgp 💬 10:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Amkgp: That isn't actually true, is it. You were logging out and posting to WP:AN about backlogs at WP:PERM every single time you were requesting permissions at WP:PERM. You were warned not to log out and make anonymous edits by ST47 before Tony blocked you, and he presumably considers your behaviour so serious he informed you that a repeated occurrence would likely be met with an indefinite block. This is all coming after you were warned that your repeated requests for permissions was disruptive. You had ample opportunity to explain to me why you can be trusted with those permissions and that I've made a mistake, and all I've seen is a series of messages informing me that asking for permissions again will be seen as hat collecting and that a bot will stop you from doing something at the permissions page. You remain free to explain to me why you are sufficiently trustworthy to have your permissions reinstated. I am genuinely open to the possibility I've been unduly harsh on you. Nick (talk) 14:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nick, I can say that a year back when I did not have much editing experience I asked for multiple permission at a time. There people accused me of hat-collecting, which was true that time as I was never able to demonstrate the need and use of the tools, and lacked required experience
Since requests sometimes remain pending for long time, and I thought posting as an IP would be neutral as I felt it would be conflict of interest to ask at WP:AN (which I later after going WP:PROJSOCK I learnt that I was doing wrong and admitted my fault).Also, I misunderstood the IP editing as I found {{userbox ::::::::| border-c = #CCCCCC ::::::::| id = IP ::::::::| id-c = #CCCCCC ::::::::| info = This user strongly supports IP editing, even if he does not do so himself. ::::::::| info-c = white ::::::::}} at many userpages and thought its allowed.
You can check my contributions I have always used all the tools for betterment of Wikipedia project and will be using for good only. I have never misused my tools for any kind of gains till date. That,s all I can say. I applied for autopatrolled as I thought I can reduce the workload of NPP as I can feel myself patrolling new pages sine I translate a lot of notable articles from other Wikipedia. — Amkgp 💬 14:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Request for comments

[edit]

I would like to invite admins and editors with whom I have worked closely or have interacted earlier during my 3+ years of editing. I kindly request for your valuable comments and a second opinion regarding whether I am subject to lack of WP:COMPETENCE, faith and trust here. Also, whether I should get back the removed permissions executed by Nick. Please let me allow to continue in this thread.

I know nothing about the background to this and the reasoning behind the removal of any advanced permissions, but am dismayed by the actions, which give the impression of being punitive rather than preventative. I have been associated with Amgkp at DYK, especially his activities in building prep sets, and have always found him to be helpful, reliable and competent. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A loss of trust is, arguably, always a kind of punishment by the previously-trusting group. Regarding permissions, I mostly deal with rollback, and could have argued for you to keep that permission – but it's still there. I'd say all of these usergroups, even extended confirmation, are based on trust. I trust you to deal with obvious vandalism correctly. And I wrote this before noticing that it was me who granted the permission in the first place. 🙂 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cwmhiraeth: I removed those permissions I considered directly relevant to the blocks for abusing multiple accounts and copyright violations. I left their rollback permission, as like ToBeFree, I do trust them to deal with obvious vandalism correctly, and their track record there is not in question. I'm perhaps being overly strict here and if I am, I do apologise, but I don't believe someone who has only just come off a block for abusing multiple accounts should hold permissions that do require an enhanced level of trust, when they have damaged or destroyed the trust they previously held to receive those permissions, nor do I believe someone who has previously been blocked for copyright violations should be handling media issues. If you believe they should have some or all of those permissions restored, I'm happy for you to do so though, as you're much more closely involved with them than I am. Nick (talk) 10:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nick Cwmhiraeth and ToBeFree, I would like to emphasize that I was not blocked for abusing multiple accounts. I was CU blocked because I posted a request at WP:AN without logging per WP:PROJSOCK. If I was a threat to editing I would have been stripped off all the rights, not selectively as you did. There was no concern from either Oshwah or TonyBallioni. Coming to copyvio block was done inappropriately. Firstly I was never warned and secondly for cases that detect 10-15% copyvio on Earwig copyvio tools. one liners and quoted text are generally allowed. For your information, I was unblocked within hours and the blocking admin has pinned As the blocking admin, I'm confident that Amkgp understands copyright and will not violate it in the future- and it would be inappropriate to bring the block into an unrelated dispute. Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI! 18:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC) in his/her talk page. See proof here — Amkgp 💬 12:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I use all of the tools regularly when I edit here. None of them were requested for showpiece by me. I don't understand when you say I do trust them to deal with obvious vandalism correctly and accuse me of untrusted user and has lost all trust and faith from the community! Well as far I know Rollback is the most sensitive tool and is given to trusted users only. I believe that removal of all the permissions was inappropriate that has enabled not get them back atleast for 6 months as one gets flagged by musikbot at WP:PERM when requested if the rights have been revoked. My only fault is that I was honest and clean in my actions. — Amkgp 💬 12:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nick also regarding media I never misused the tool. You can see the file mover request granted by Wugapodes and also see the discussion User_talk:Wugapodes/Archive_17#Permissions. Not only that it was reviewed by Alexis Jazz It was totally unfair from you side to remove most of the tools as I regularly use them. If you want I should not be editing or you did not like that I have so many hard earned permission. Do let me know. I would leave the space. Till then I will wait for others to share their opinion. — Amkgp 💬 12:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Schazjmd: since he/she was critical regarding my actions as pending changes reviewer as one can see here. Thank you. — Amkgp 💬 12:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I can understand the frustration, but the usual steps are "discuss with the administrator, ask for review at WP:AN/WP:ANI if unsatisfied". Canvassing a large number of potentially favorable users or involved administrators to the administrator's talk page is not part of this procedure. It is problematic because it creates an incorrectly biased impression of a protesting group against the administrator in a situation that requires neutral, uninvolved feedback. Please drop the stick or go to WP:AN. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ToBeFree, I am only asking editors who have reviewed, granted permission with links/proofs. I am not going any further tagging editors and currently going through a healthy discussion with the revoking admin. Sure, if I find the answers unsatisfactory I will look at the other options or retire from here. Thank you — Amkgp 💬 14:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Amkgp: I certainly don't wish for you to retire, but equally, I will not be blackmailed into restoring your user permissions. If I do restore your permissions, it will be after you have demonstrated an appropriate level of trust. Nick (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nick, It is not blackmail, I said what I felt only and I do not accuse anyone of the above statement. — Amkgp 💬 14:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nick please let me know where you feel I am untrusted. I have never misused Wikipedia be it here or at commons. — Amkgp 💬 15:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with ToBeFree. While I can empathize with Amkgp feeling dismayed in this situation, the next step after attempting to discuss with Nick should be an AN thread. signed, Rosguill talk 16:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that canvassing editors/admins to this page is not productive nor would it be productive to ping them to AN which is indeed where this discussion should go if Nick and Amkgp are unable to come to a resolution. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Amkgp: why are you modifying comments that you left several hours ago? It seems the only reason for this edit is to generate a new notification. Nick (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, I did a mistake by adding 'Yes'. I wanted to be clear in my statement that I am not blackmailing and I feel of retiring + removed the trailing part because I replied at two places. Edited to remove confusion if any — Amkgp 💬 19:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Amkgp: could you explain this edit please. Nick (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nick, I wrote an article King Ludwig Oak which I nominated for GA, but since I got totally upset and thought that I might have to leave editing here. I wrote in anticipation so that I might address the review before retiring. Immediately I removed the trailing part also as I thought its an incorrect accusation immediately thereafter. See the following edit. I am removing the post. — Amkgp 💬 19:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nick I could find that I seek help from you earlier at two occasions. one at User_talk:Nick/Archive20#Possible_image_WP:COPYVIO_of_File:Bon_Poly.jpg and other at (http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Dilip_Ghosh_Signature.jpg&action=history). You helped because you trusted. I have nothing to say anymore. — Amkgp 💬 19:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notice of noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--— Amkgp 💬 20:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All the drama doesn't make me very cheerful, and I can understand the reasoning for removing new page reviewer and pending changes reviewer rights due to the copyright issues. Removal of the page mover right was already considerably more of a stretch, but I have found no justification for the removal of the file mover right. If the removal of these rights was done in lieu of a block it would be merely punitive, so I'd guess that wasn't it. If it was done a bit hastily (I could follow what your train of thought might have been if in a hurry), I'd suggest correcting that. If there was in fact a good reason why Amkgp could no longer be trusted as a page and/or file mover, I'd be interested to hear it as I wasn't able to find any justification myself. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained my rationale in the section above and to avoid further upset to Amkgp, I don't wish to continually repeat my concerns as they clearly caused upset. Nick (talk) 10:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete

[edit]
@Nick, I came to know after making Draft:Mann Ki Awaaz Pratigya 2 that there are already articles on Wikipedia. Since the name of the article is slightly different, I could not do much - Mann Kee Awaaz Pratigya 2. I will request you to delete this draft. 223.238.219.17 (talk) 05:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Primefac (talk) 13:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Primefac 223.238.219.129 (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).

Administrator changes

removed 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-redirect userright, 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

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting

[edit]

tune. Not sure *I* could whistle it, but still interesting. — Ched (talk) 07:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).

Administrator changes

removed Enchanter • Carlossuarez46

Interface administrator changes

removed Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).

Administrator changes

added Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless
removed Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

[edit]
Precious
Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
  • An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.

Technical news

  • IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Category:Terrorists

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Terrorists. 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. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting input

[edit]

Your input would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Appeal of BLP ban for Jabbi. Thank you. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 12:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.

Technical news

  • Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).

Administrator changes

readded Jake Wartenberg
removed Emperor • Viridian Bovary
renamed Ashleyyoursmile → Viridian Bovary

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thanks

[edit]

At least one person saw it! --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
  • Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
  • The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.

Miscellaneous

  • Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
  • The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vote guide

[edit]

Hello Nick,

FYI, I removed the link to your voter guide from Template:ACE2021 that you added earlier. It doesn't appear to actually be a voter guide as best I can tell. If you feel strongly about this, feel free to put it back and raise it as a point of discussion, but I'd personally argue you should only do so if it has some advice in it - otherwise people could link whatever in the voter guide lists (political screeds, Black Friday sale discount coupons, etc.). "The advice is that there is no advice" seems a little too meta. SnowFire (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowFire: I've reverted you. My voter guide has relevant advice in it for the Arbitration Committee elections - my advice that voters do their own research on candidates is the most relevant advice given by any voter guide. It's also clearly not a political screed, a Black Friday sale discount coupon or whatever else your bullshit above is talking about. If you want it removed, raise discussion elsewhere as I'm somewhat disinterested in and disheartened by your nonsense. Nick (talk) 15:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would also note that Nick's guide also appeared last year without incident. Primefac (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2021).

Administrator changes

removed A Train • Berean Hunter • Epbr123 • GermanJoe • Sanchom • Mysid

Technical news

  • Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
  • The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)

Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

[edit]

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nick/Archive21&oldid=1063323766"