User talk:Fish and karate

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33

	Typo Barnstar
	Oh please don't take my yak page access away! Sorry, just couldn't resist; that typo is hysterical! I know you corrected it seconds later. Sometimes our fingers do the most hysterical things :) --Hammersoft (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Never edit on a phone without checking you haven’t made an autocorrect rotor. Fish+Karate 17:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment, because I otherwise often find myself agreeing with you. Attention-seeking is a dangerous label, surely? It's semantic valency ranges from teachers who must attract the attention of distracted students (the political reflex is making a stand when no one else will: like a (Jewish: it matters in this context) mentor of mine who stopped a tradition of humiliating new boys in a Protestant prestigious college back in the 30s by stepping in to protest the custom one day. His authority came from his known gentleness of character, his excellence at sports and intellectual brilliance. I'm sure some of the bullies would have quipped: 'Ah fuck him, always grandstanding on 'ethics' to get attention), down to those who will do anything to catch the public eye.Those who are in the limelight and exercise executive powers invisible to most of us, often deride critics as trying to grab people's attention, something they themselves base their careers on. When, from within the Republican party ranks, Justin Amash took a stand against Trump, it was summarily dismissed as attention-seeking. In sum, almost every act act lends itself to interpretation as drawing attention, from a baby crying, a newspaper boy's street shouting, a farmer's alerting neighbours to an incipient bushfire, to a victim of robbery yelling 'thief', whatever the distinct and singular impulses that lead to it (unknown to us generally), can be put down as 'attention-seeking'. So I don't think one should attribute that motive to anyone unless there is a sustained prior record of exhibitionism. Regards Nishidani (talk) 12:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nishidani, I will have to re-read this a couple of times, give me a few minutes. Fish+Karate 12:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, unlike in private work, I don't review and make stylistic revisions to what I write off the top of my head, and readers have good reason to complain. Sorry. Just, as usual, too pressed for time to be concise. No need to reply. We're all busy, or enjoying well-deserved holidays. CheersNishidani (talk) 12:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the page Wikipedia:Office actions has been changed from a policy page to an information page.
• A request for comment (permalink) is in progress regarding the administrator inactivity policy.

Arbitration

• Editors may now use the template {{Ds/aware}} to indicate that they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for a topic area, so it is unnecessary to alert them.

Miscellaneous

• Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
• The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

  Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

---

Hi this mobile IP address 182.18.177.106 and 115.97.181.112 is vandalizing the page by adding "Telugu cinema is ranked second based on box office ranking" there is no such thing as ranking in Indian cinema article. It is sheer pluff and fan pov. The editor is using abusive language in mobile edit summaries. Please do the needful temporary semi protection and pls block the IP.Rvls (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rvls: the IP address has been blocked and there has been no vandalism in 6 hours. If it resumes please let me know or go back to RFPP. Thanks, Fish+Karate 14:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to the note you left me about improper rollback use, just wanted to clarify a few things. First, I noticed in my RPP request (which I made using Twinkle), I selected the wrong item from the dropdown. Instead of vandalism, I intended to choose "disruptive editing". It may have seemed like a content dispute on the surface, but a closer look reveals a bit more.

• diff 1
• diff 2
• diff 3

All three edits are from the same IP range with the last octet changing, and it's quite clear they are ignoring/deleting the hidden text in the process (the act of deleting and even rephrasing in one case is a clear indication they see it). The first two diffs were immediately reverted by another editor, and I walked in on the third. Second, I realize my rollback's edit summary could have been better. In hindsight, labeling my revert as "rvv" was incorrect. A more appropriate edit summary would have been "rv disruptive edit" or even better:

"This field is for the model, not the type. See Template:Infobox roller coaster and this article's talk page for more info"

...and followed that up with posting an explanation on the talk page. I'm usually pretty good about that, especially in situations that look like possible misunderstandings by the offending IP (this one didn't at first, but I see it now). Thank you for bringing it to my attention. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GoneIn60: No problem. Bear in mind the IP editor in question is trying to help improve the article. I get that they may not be doing it in the right way, and the edit they want to make may not actually improve the article, but they're not doing this to spite you, and just undoing their edits without a reasonable explanation isn't going to help them learn how to edit better. Save the "rvv" stuff for actual vandal edits, not good faith editing that just happens to be of low quality. Fish+Karate 12:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the advice, and yes, this was an anomaly and not a common occurrence. I usually follow the necessary protocols to try to reach out and explain before assuming the disruptive behavior is intentional. I think when you grow accustomed to seeing how it pans out 9 out of 10 times (i.e. the tendency for IPs to ignore you right up until they're blocked), a lax in good judgement is bound to occur from time to time. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

Bradv • Chetsford • Izno

Floquenbeam • Lectonar

DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

• Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
• The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Miscellaneous

• A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.

---

Thanks for your closing summary about deleting the Infoshops template. To be honest, I was expecting this to be closed as no consensus, and I'm a bit confused by your reasoning about there being a majority since there were three Keeps, three Deletes and a Weak Delete which said "but I don't see anything problematic with keeping them either." I said keep and I didn't see very much to reply to in terms of an argument for deletion, just various statements which fail WP:NOTDUPE. Further, I haven't seen any suggestions on how to improve the template, which is a wasted opportunity.

I'd also like more clarity here if possible on why any template needs to pass all five criteria, since the policy states: "Good templates generally follow some of these guidelines." Indeed, the reason people were mentioning other templates is because very few templates do satisfy all five criteria and I'm not sure how else that could be demonstrated.

Regarding 3 (The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent) - well I think they do and the relevant literature eg Atton, Dodge, Lacey and Munson on Infoshop does link these projects together. Further, there are networks in existence for example the UK social centre network, there's reliable sources for that at Self-managed social centres in the United Kingdom.

Regarding 5, (If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the 'See also' sections of the articles) well no you probably wouldn't link all the projects in a See also section, there's too many, but you would link the ones in the same country then the navbox provides a useful navigation to other projects. I don't know how many navboxes this guideline is actually true of? It's certainly not true of the other template on the mother page ... which somehow manages to link Radical cheerleading and Somatherapy.

I also see some procedural irregularities here but that can be mentioned at review if necessary. Thanks for any answer, I see a note at the top of this page saying you aren't around much so I'll move forward if I don't hear back from you in a week or so. Mujinga (talk) 10:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mujinga: Hi, thanks for your in-depth comments, I will respond on Monday or Tuesday if that’s ok. I’m a bit hectic this weekend. Fish+Karate 18:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mujinga:, I've had chance to read your comment properly and have taken the time to go back and re-look at my close of this deletion discussion. I do remain happy that I weighted the strength of the arguments reasonably and such a closure was within the realms of administrator judgement. Much of the information you give above was not presented at the TFD discussion, this isn't the place to remake the argument, if you want to take this to DRV - while I would imagine my decision would be upheld - I'd have no objections, it is important that the decisions we all make on Wikipedia are held to account when required. If there are procedural irregularities please let me know what these are so I can address them; I don't frequently close TFD discussions, I was helping out clearing some backlog from WP:RFCL, and this discussion had been awaiting closure for quite some time. Thank you also for immediately undoing your inappropriate use of the rollback tool ([1]). Fish+Karate 08:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer, unfortunately I was asking clarity on your decision not whether you were happy with it. Let me try again. As I understand it, you deleted this template since you found the arguments that it "failed" criteria 3 and 5 compelling, which would (I'm guessing here) mean that it "passes" criteria 1,2 and 4. Since "Good templates generally follow some of these guidelines" perhaps you can see now why I am asking for clarity, since more guidelines were being followed than not (I'm still not convinced by the "fails"). This would be useful to know since I make navboxes myself and now I am genuinely confused on what makes a good template, since 3 seems pretty subjective (thanks to "reasonable") and a hard reading of 5 would delete almost all templates. Mujinga (talk) 10:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments that it failed criterion 3 and criterion 5 were compelling. This does not mean it therefore passed criteria 1, 2 and/or 4, that is not meant to be implied; I just looked at the arguments provided and assessed a close based on those. Any inferences about the template outside of the points mentioned in my closing comment were not intentional, I just closed the discussion based on the contents of the discussion. I didn't assess the template myself, the role of the closer is to gauge consensus based on policy, not to impose their own view. Fish+Karate 10:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the further answer, sadly I'm starting to see how this works now. Mujinga (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I spotted you closing a few RFCs, and I was wondering if you could be an uninvolved admin to give my proposed close of an RFC a once-over? The RFC in question is Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal_to_add_suicidal_disclaimer_at_Suicide, and my proposed close, and the rationale, is at User:Steven_Crossin/RFC_close#Summary/Close. Have considered the close for some time, but I'd just like a second opinion if you wouldn't mind? Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 08:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Steven Crossin: Sure, I'll have a look now. Fish+Karate 09:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Steven Crossin: I think your closure is an accurate summation of the discussions as it stands. There's a consensus to do something but not what that something is, and the Doc James line is probably the least-opposed option. While I'm not 100% sure the discussion has fully drawn to a close yet, it's definitely tailing off (only a handful of comments in the past 3 days, and all of them in the 'discussion' section). I think the close is fine to implement, very well done for being willing to pick it up. Fish+Karate 09:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply and taking the time to review my proposed close. Yeah, that was my overall thoughts, agreement to do something, no rock solid consensus on what to do, but Doc James version is the preferred by most considering the objections. I decided to close this one because, well, someone's gotta. If I can give a reasoned close in line with consensus, why shouldn't I, I figure. But wanted a 2nd opinion first on this one, just in case. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Infoshops. 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. Mujinga (talk) 12:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

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

Miscellaneous

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

---

Hello, Fish and karate,

You can not move a category like you would move an article because each page in the category needs to be reassigned or it still appears in the original category that is now a redirect. That is why we let the bots handle this in CfD because it is such a chore to do this manually, especially if there are dozens of pages in the old category to reassign. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Thanks Liz. I don’t usually do CFDs and thought from the guidance that the bot would automatically fix the category redirects, as this isn’t the case could you let me know how I get the bot to sort it, or point me in the right direction? Thanks. Fish+Karate 18:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Use WP:CFD/W which is the bots instruction page. If you need help post in the NAC section and some of the regular usually help out quite quickly. --Trialpears (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They all appear to have been sorted (thanks to Mfb and Spiderjerky for doing all the moves). Liz, do the old empty categories need to be deleted or should they be left as redirects? Fish+Karate 08:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just was wondering why you template protected {{merging}}, it is by no means a high risk template with currently just one actual use at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters added in 2018. Would you mind unprotecting or semi protecting it instead? --Trialpears (talk) 22:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It would have been due to a request at RFPP. Perhaps it was used more back then? Fish+Karate 07:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please adjust the page protection settings on the following pages. As discussed at there is clear community consensus that ECP should not apply for "high risk templates" and nothing under WP:ECP supports such protection to this/these template(s) (example: "by request" is insufficient).

• Template:Merging‎

Thank you. Buffs (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dropped to semi protection. Fish+Karate 08:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering whether disregarding any !votes by banned users is accepted practice when closing a discussion as you did at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 22#"Manned" renaming. While it's a no-brainer when socking is involved I don't find it obvious that it's appropriate when an experienced editor gets banned for harrasment/incivility which was the case here. The !vote was well considered and cast in good faith which doesn't change because of a block. This is by no means intended as a gotcha moment; I'm just trying to learn more and become a better closer. I believe I would have closed it in the same way, but more from giving less weight to the no need comment since it didn't express any reason why the status quo was preferable to the proposal from giving higher weight to the support side supported by GNL, RfC and consistency while the strongest argument from the opposition was COMMONNAME. --Trialpears (talk) 06:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The banned user's vote was part but not all of the rationale for the closure, I did also reference the consistency/precedent set. Discounting a banned (not temporarily blocked - indefinitely banned for serious harassment and abuse) user's votes (obviously assuming the vote was made before they were banned) is fairly common practice, and I see no problem in taking away their right to have a say in proceedings on Wikipedia, they did that themselves through their actions. Fish+Karate 08:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, I haven't encountered this situation before and was uncertain how it's handled in practice. I agree that there's no problem with taking away their right to influence the discussion, but the potential problem would be in taking away a !vote that is just as likely to reflect the greater community opinion as any other. Sorry to bother you so much recently, but this was quite helpful for me. --Trialpears (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Always happy to answer questions as best I can. Never apologise for asking! Fish+Karate 18:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Guideline and policy news

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

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

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

Arbitration

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

---

Karate withdrew from ArbCom candidacy? Sad! Enough good candidates now, really? Darwinfish is considering running together with evil twin, two in one slot. For balance good/evil! darwin^fish 18:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Hi boss. Naturally if you run you will have my goat vote. Fish+Karate 18:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, regardless of how often we agree or disagree about stuff, thanks for volunteering; I know it came from an honorable desire to help. Trust me, you'll be happy you withdrew.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fish+Karate! I was curious if you had any questions or feedback on my requested updates to History at Mayo Clinic. If you still have some time and interest in the topic, I would really appreciate your feedback. Just a reminder that I have a COI: I'm here on behalf of Mayo Clinic. Best! Audrey at Mayo Clinic (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Audrey at Mayo Clinic: Hi Audrey, just to note I have not forgotten about you, it’s just been a bit hectic. I will try and look at this ASAP for you. Regards, Fish+Karate 21:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem! I completely understand. Thank you! Audrey at Mayo Clinic (talk) 02:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fish+Karate! An editor did come around to fix a recent erroneous edit to the History section of the Mayo Clinic article, but they did not consider my requested updates to update the entire section. I know you're busy, so I don't mean to pester you, but I'm more than happy to answer any questions you might have on my draft. Thank you! Audrey at Mayo Clinic (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fish and karate, I would like to thank you for the time and work invested into User:Fish_and_karate/ACE19, resulting in a very helpful guide for the upcoming elections. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so too.... ! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both! Fish+Karate 21:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

EvergreenFir • ToBeFree

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

CheckUser changes

Beeblebrox

Deskana

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

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

Miscellaneous

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

---

	Nice to meet you ~
	Thanks ~ Texas Longhorns football ~mitch~ (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mitchellhobbs: Cheers Mitch, nice to meet you too. Fish+Karate 11:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering why you decided to template-protect the template documentation page Template:Supplement/doc. The vandalism seems to come only from unregistered users, and the documentation is not heavily transcluded. The parent {{Supplement}} is only semi-protected, and it seems like semi-protection would be a better idea for the documentation page too. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was requested at RFPP. Changed per your polite suggestion. Fish+Karate 00:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	Time To Spread A Little Happy Holiday Cheer!!
	I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about this digitized version: *it doesn't need water *won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required.
	Have a very Merry Christmas - Happy Hanukkah‼️ and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉

Precious

Two years!

I will be away until early January, messages may remain unread until then. Have a happy holidays and new year. Fish+Karate 13:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you have a good break, and wishing a very happy holiday to you and yours.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Fish and karate, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

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

Guideline and policy news

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

Arbitration

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

Miscellaneous

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

---

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

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

• Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
• When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [2]

Arbitration

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

Miscellaneous

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

---

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

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Miscellaneous

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

---

Hi, F&K - I would very much appreciate your input regarding how best to find the closed cases that were filed at ARCA & ARBCOM in the past, including denied cases. Surely there must be an easy, user-friendly index somewhere, right? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:33, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Atsme: I would start with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases, but this will only cover actual cases, not denied ones. Arbitration pages are not indexed by Google or other search engines, so that wouldn't be of any help either. Internal Wikipedia search doesn't cover page histories. You would probably have to trawl through the exceptionally lengthy history of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. Denied case requests are not easy to find, presumably by design. Fish+Karate 15:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fish and karate! I see you are of the main editors on the steak and blowjob article.While i think this has no place here i can only respect others that think otherwise. At the other hand, Cake and Cunnilngus is a real day too , mostly in Europe with many reliable sources about, it's getting bigger and it worths an article as the real equivelant to S&B day of course.To my surprise , i see there is not a page still after years .. It is bigger and more real than S&B was when created here. I cant beleive no one has ever created it yet , i would but it is difficult for me,may be it's time to create it ? What's your point of view on this ? Georgeof1001 (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide reliable sources for this being a thing and not just some nonsense whataboutery, and we can look at it together. What fun! Fish+Karate 10:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a matter of will.I mean Metro.uk was reliable enough to support S&B day , but later they posted about C&C day and they were not reliable suddenly.. YourTango is just a blog , still is on S&B day page . I assume when you say , provide, you mean to create the article I believe , otherwise how can i provide them ? I am new here and obviously don't know how to ..

Thanks for your help, i really like to see Wiki being more reliable, ( have pages with ALL facts, and not by preference ) and not to leave some belive it biased or even sexism. Thanks again F&K , if we could make Wiki better , that would make Mr.Miyagi happy ! Georgeof1001 (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi George, nice to put a name to an IP number. I would be happy to help create the page. You can copy and paste links to reliable sources here, if you like. Or you can go to User:Georgeof1001/Cake and Cunnilingus Day and create a page there in your user space, it doesn't need to look like a finished page, just jot down your links for now and it can be worked on there. Again, I would be delighted to help if we can find some reliable sources for it being a thing. Fish+Karate 13:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fish and karate, thanks again, I have already sent an email to you with some links, for sure I am going to need help Georgeof1001 (talk) 22:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have put the links on User:Georgeof1001/Cake and Cunnilingus Day, as a start. I am quite busy at the moment with work due to the Coronavirus outbreak so it may be a few days or longer before I am able to help further. Fish+Karate 14:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Neil, i am trying but i am also confused whether a source is reliable or not,news websites,portals, other like Metro.uk e.g. My wording might also be not decent and haven't figure how to create the page yet, still it would be nice to be there on April 14 despite the bad mood we all have due to the known situation.I know you are extremely busy for the time being but if you find some free time , please take a look at User:Georgeof1001/Cake and Cunnilingus Day Georgeof1001 (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fish and Karate hello again!I hope everything's ok.I would appreciate if you could take a look in my page.I am about to create the article but still have some questions concerning the 'how to'.I 've found many other links but i think they are not necessary to.As you stated, this is going to be fun.This is what i have gathered from other people too. Please , help! Georgeof1001 (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

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

Miscellaneous

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

---

• "Two editors I have mutual IBANs with because they harassed me can flagrantly violate said bans and neither ArbCom nor the admin corps will lift a finger."
• "A bunch of filthy, repulsive degenerates who have no place describing themselves as Wikipedians (let alone "inclusionists" -- something a number of them do) decided to target me for on- and off-site harassment for whatever reason. They have been at it for about two years. I contacted ArbCom. I contacted about a half-dozen non-ArbCom admins off-wiki. I have opened a number of ANI threads and SPIs. Nothing has been done beyond a couple of emails saying "Yeah, that sucks, but there's nothing we can do." I got sick of it in January 2019 and left the project, before deciding shortly thereafter that I was "letting them win" by doing so. I came back for a year or so, things got even worse ... and over the last week or so I realized that attempting to put up with this nonsense was just a waste of my time. The editors who know the most about the matter are Andrew Davidson, redacted, Floquenbeam, GoldenRing, redacted, TonyBallioni, Bbb23, Kudpung, Cullen328, Swarm, Favre1fan93, Adamstom.97, JoshuSasori (and his many socks), and Martinthewriter." (January 2019 was when the IBAN situation took place)

I'm not exactly sure why I'm being attacked. The only time I ever broached the edges of the IBAN was when I asked you a question about its parameters a full year ago. All I know is that the IBAN was implemented partly to keep me from being attacked randomly like this (which, beforehand, was a regular occurrence).

The only thing I can think of that "flagrantly violate said bans and neither ArbCom nor the admin corps will lift a finger" might be referring to is this discussion at WT:AN, where I mentioned Darkknight2149 v. Hijiri88 and Curly Turkey and another unrelated ANI thread in a discussion about whether ANI headers should be neutral. It was only brought up in the context of there being a consensus for neutral headers in a past discussion. No one from that discussion was mentioned except for Drmies, and it was only brought up over this ([3], [4], [5], [6]) and this ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]). I am already dealing with another conflict as it is. The last thing I need is for this debacle to make a comeback, especially considering this. DarkKnight2149 06:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just let it go. You’re not named anyway. Fish+Karate 19:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. It was heavily implied with the redacteds, but if you feel this isn't worth action, I trust your judgment. DarkKnight2149 20:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fish and karate! Regarding WP:SPIDER, the thing that sets my teeth on edge a little more than the official lunacy box is the lack of a descriptive nutshell, which denies readers who might not be in the mood for wading through a bunch of silliness the option to just get the point and move on. If you have ideas for potential changes to it, I'd be interested (the current nutshell is completely redundant to the title, so it's not as though anything is being lost, and a rewrite could allow other jokes to be added to it).

Regarding my comments about WP:OWN, the wholesale reverting of minor edits without substantive explanation ("clean up aftermath of silly people"), insinuation of authorship ("check the history"), and pulling rank ("The page has been on Wikipedia for probably twice as long as you have. You can trust me on this.") all came across as textbook WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Perhaps I just need to commit to AGF more stubbornly, but the other editor is experienced enough to know what they're doing and what impression their comments give. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

Callanecc

Oversight changes

HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Miscellaneous

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

---

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

Administrator changes

CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth

Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

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

Arbitration

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

---

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect BeritaSatu Medan and O Channel Medan. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 29#BeritaSatu Medan and O Channel Medan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. -ArdiPras95 (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

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

---

Given that keep was a minority opinion I think a closing statement is needed in order to close it as keep. Could you add one? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 09:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies as I am sleepy and didn't notice that the username was wrong. Sorry. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 09:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No probs. Fish+Karate<

Hi, there's a user Fish end karete (talk · contribs) who seems to be impersonating you. If that should have been you after all, could you briefly confirm? Thanks, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Future Perfect at Sunrise:, can confirm it is not me. Maybe a South African impersonator? Fish+Karate 13:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

Red Phoenix

Euryalus • SQL

Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

GB fan

Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

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

---

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Castle Grayskull is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Castle Grayskull until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

Eddie891

Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
• A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors must or should use the articles for creation process.
• A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2020 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
• An open request for comment asks whether active Arbitrators may serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or Ombudsman commission.

---

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Chandler (profession, candles). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 3#Chandler (profession, candles) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fish and karate

User talk:Fish and karate/Archive 31 is in a whole lot of content categories, contrary to WP:USERNOCAT: Category:1998 films, Category:1998 romantic comedy films, Category:American films, Category:American films based on plays, Category:American romantic comedy films etc.

I tracked this down it transcluding the article You've got mail (about a film), which was presumably intended to be a trasclusion of Template:You've got mail.

Please can you fix this? I'd do it myself, but the page is protected. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Fish+Karate 21:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

Ajpolino • LuK3

Jackmcbarn

Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM

There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely 1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created.

Technical news

• The filter log now provides links to view diffs of deleted revisions (phab:T261630).

Arbitration

• The 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place from September 27th to October 7th.
• Following a request for comment, sitting Committee members may not serve on either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee. The Arbitration Committee passed a motion implementing those results into their procedures.

Miscellaneous

• The Universal Code of Conduct draft is open for community review and comment until October 6th, 2020.
• Office actions may now be appealed to the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee.

---