User talk:Stifle

Thank you for visiting my talk page. Please read my Frequently Asked Questions, which may answer your question. If your issue is something that any administrator or user could answer, consider asking at a relevant noticeboard, as this will help you get quicker service. Please note that I consider my deletion decisions carefully and do not change them based on talk page requests.

• Older archives
• Archive: 2012
• Archive: 2013
• Archive: 2014
• Archive: January to June 2015
• Archive: July 2015 to 2018
• Archive: 2019
• Archive: 2020-21

I consider all my AFD closures carefully and I rarely change them based on talk page requests. If you object to any of my AFD closures please refer to Wikipedia:Deletion review. I waive all requirements to discuss with me prior to doing so.

• Please reply to me here if possible.
• If your message is about an AFD or other discussion that you want me to (re)contribute to, I will generally not reply other than by checking the page and adding a comment.
• I will normally reply here and use {{talkback}} to notify you that I've done so.
• Please don't leave your email address. My email address is user.stiflegmail.com and you can contact me there if you have a request that needs to be answered privately. However, if you email me with a request that is not private, I will respond on your talk page.
  • Exception: if you are requesting the text of a deleted article, then make sure your preferences include a valid, confirmed email address, as I will email the article to you at that address (only).

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

Guideline and policy news

• Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

• Additionally, consensus for proposal 6C of the 2021 RfA review has led to the creation of an administrative action review process. The purpose of this process will be to review individual administrator actions and individual actions taken by users holding advanced permissions.

Arbitration

• Following the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Cabayi, Donald Albury, Enterprisey, Izno, Opabinia regalis, Worm That Turned, Wugapodes.

Miscellaneous

• The functionaries email list (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.

---

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Template:PoolGuy has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I will ask you this outside of COIN. What was the reason for the self-reporting to COIN? You moved User:Stifle/Charity Bank in 2020 and everything seemed static. --SVTCobra 15:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My boss randomly asked me how the article was going and I looked back in the email chain from 2020, saw that nothing had happened, refreshed myself on the rules for paid editing to see if I could brief a colleague on how to start the ball rolling again, and then realised I was in breach of the admin rules. Charity Bank has high ethical standards so I felt that it was necessary to own up. Stifle (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are definitely WP:PE besides the WP:COI. While Alex may be right in COIN, you just said it was an assignment in your job. Nevertheless, Google's AI is thwarting me in searching for news on your bank. How small is it? Is online only? What is the AUM and how many employees? --SVTCobra 15:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charity Bank has assets of approximately a quarter of a billion GBP. It has very limited online operations, mainly operating in person and by telephone. There are 50-60 employees. Stifle (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I expecting to hear it was all online. BTW, I'd feel better if you let me take it into draftspace before editing. --SVTCobra 16:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed to that as a concept, but I don't want to start the 6-month clock running until I know that someone is going to actually start editing it :) Stifle (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I leave it to you. --SVTCobra 16:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

Guideline and policy news

• The Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines have been published for consideration. Voting to ratify this guideline is planned to take place 7 March to 21 March. Comments can be made on the talk page.

Technical news

• The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
• The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration

• Community input is requested on several motions aimed at addressing discretionary sanctions that are no longer needed or overly broad.
• The Arbitration Committee has published a generalised comment regarding successful appeals of sanctions that it can review (such as checkuser blocks).
• A motion related to the Antisemitism in Poland case was passed following a declined case request.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2022 Steward elections will begin on 07 February 2022, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2022, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Voting in the 2022 Community Wishlist Survey is open until 11 February 2022.

---

Hi @Stifle:, I am pleased to present my views infront of you. I personally requested you to moved back to this article to Ahmedabad IPL Team. Thank you! Fade258 (talk) 11:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Move protection is not an endorsement of the current page version; it is in place to stop people moving the page back and forth pointlessly. Stifle (talk) 12:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thank you ! Fade258 (talk) 12:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

how are you doing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.153.230.222 (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stifle. I opened this CfD[1] some time. Although everyone voiced support, it hasn't been closed/implemented yet. Would you be willing to take a look? Thanks, - LouisAragon (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm out of practice with CFDs; try WP:ANRFC. Stifle (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File talk:Aardakh 1944.jpg, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/File talk:Aardakh 1944.jpg and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of File talk:Aardakh 1944.jpg during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Alaexis_¿question? 12:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Stifle,

You know, my recent experiences at Deletion Review confirm to me what I have suspected about CSD G4, articles tagged and sitting in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as pages previously deleted via deletion discussion can sit there for days before there is an admin who will take action on them. It's one of the most neglected speedy deletion categories. Other CSD categories get regularly cleared out throughout the day but articles sit in this one for hours and days. There are too many potential minefields and being taken to Deletion review over what you thought was a fair decision is not a pleasant experience even when one is honest, open and forthcoming with responses.

I believe in transparency and admin accountability. But I think I'll join the other admins who avoid evaluating pages tagged CSD G4 because our judgment calls will just bring us to Deletion review. None of my other deletions on articles in other CSD categories, PRODs or AFDs have been questioned at DR so I guess I'm a decent admin but not a good judge of what qualifies as a legitimate CSD G4 tagging.

It would be helpful if you worked into your editing schedule a review of articles tagged CSD G4. They could use some attention from an admin who apparently has a keener sense of what qualifies as recreated page and is eligible for deletion and what doesn't. We could use the extra help! Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try to go there from time to time. Stifle (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great, Stifle.

And there is a shortage of admins closing AFDs, an admin activity which I had little experience with until January. But every time I check the deletion pages (AFDs, TFDs, RFDs, CFDs), there are plenty of discussions to close. I don't know what happened to the admins who used to do this because I see the same 4 or 5 admins closing all of the discussions. And I think for the project, it would be healthier to see a lot of admins closing a few discussions each rather than a handful closing most of them. But after my experience at Deletion Review, I'm reluctant to close any discussion that might be controversial. I understand about admin accountability but it is no fun to get called to Deletion Review for what you thought was a straight-forward decision and get scrutinized. I guess that possibility just comes with the job. Take care. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we just have insufficient admins nowadays. Stifle (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Brett Perlmutter. 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. Ksoze1 (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Stifle,

Just letting you know (respectfully) that I am requesting a deletion review of your closure of Brett Perlmutter's deletion nomination. I do believe consensus was reached, as the only account arguing to keep the page was the creator of the account themself, who has made few other edits to wikipedia other than that page. When accounting for that, consensus appeared to be for deletion, with the possible merging of select data into another page.

I requested the review without consulting you first based on you stating in your talk page that this was your preference. Thank you for your continued excellent work as an admin! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksoze1 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).

Guideline and policy news

• A RfC is open to change the wording of revision deletion criterion 1 to remove the sentence relating to non-infringing contributions.
• A RfC is open to discuss prohibiting draftification of articles over 90 days old.

Technical news

• The deployment of the reply tool as an opt-out feature, as announced in last month's newsletter, has been delayed to 7 March. Feedback and comments are being welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project. (T296645)
• Special:Nuke will now allow the selection of standard deletion reasons to be used when mass-deleting pages. This was a Community Wishlist Survey request from 2022. (T25020)
• The ability to undelete the talk page when undeleting a page using Special:Undelete or the API will be added soon. This change was requested in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey. (T295389)

Arbitration

• Several unused discretionary sanctions and article probation remedies have been rescinded. This follows the community feedback from the 2021 Discretionary Sanctions review.

Miscellaneous

• The 2022 appointees for the Ombuds commission are Érico, Faendalimas, Galahad, Infinite0694, Mykola7, Olugold, Udehb and Zabe as regular members and Ameisenigel and JJMC89 as advisory members.
• Following the 2022 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AntiCompositeNumber, BRPever, Hasley, TheresNoTime, and Vermont.
• The 2022 Community Wishlist Survey results have been published alongside the ranking of prioritized proposals.

---

Happy adminship anniversary! Hi Stifle! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy 14th anniversary of your successful request for adminship. Enjoy this special day! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Care you explain how is this a keep given that there was no consensus that the topic is notable, most of the keep arguments simply said "it's notable", and nobody refuted the idea that the article violates NOT and REALWORLD (aside from special pleading)? Avilich (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no possibility that this deletion discussion could reasonably have been closed any other way, based on the number and weight of arguments. Feel free to go to DRV. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no consensus? A substantial number of participants felt that the sourcing was inadequate, or that the NOT policy was not being complied with (which would have invalidated notability concerns), and none of the arguments against that were well addressed (unless you think pure headcounts should be decisive). The only way you can say that it couldn't have been closed any other way is if you pretend these participants don't exist. Avilich (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you would be satisfied with no-consensus I'm open to considering amending to that, but obviously the article will still be kept. Or you could consider merging it, an option I explicitly mentioned as possible in my closure. Stifle (talk) 14:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you can amend it to no consensus, I'll call it a day. I mention this because, despite your explicit mention of the possibility of a merger, one editor in the talk page is already taking notability for granted based on the 'keep' closure, ignoring your subsequent comments, and some people can be stubborn with this. A 'no consensus' would eliminate confusion and, strictly speaking, be more accurate. Avilich (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done. Have a good day. Stifle (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Avilich (talk) 14:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider a similar move to "no consensus" at this AfD? Your closure says that the references "have been adequately debated" but in reality, not a single argument showing why the references fail was responded to - can't describe that as a debate. On another day its possible this might have been closed with the reason that the "weight" of argument favours Delete. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• In this case, I don't think I will. There is only the nominator and one other person supporting deletion, and the comments indicate that people have taken policy into account in making them. It is not for me as closer to determine that contributors have interpreted and applied policy wrongly; I can only discount them if their comments are clearly inconsistent.
  I note you were in favour of a redirect, and my closure doesn't prevent that. Stifle (talk) 12:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, thanks for considering at least. I don't agree when you say that "comments indicate that people have taken policy into account" in relation to Keep !votes. Only the last Keep !vote references any guidelines. But it was a poor AfD in any case so no probs with your decision, just asked if a No Consensus might be more appropriate. Thanks again. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. - car chasm (talk) 05:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—University of Windsor Students' Alliance—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. RoyalObserver (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open proposing a change to the minimum activity requirements for administrators.

Technical news

• Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
• When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)

Arbitration

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Opening of proceedings has been updated to reflect current practice following a motion.
• A arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has been closed.
• A arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been opened.

Miscellaneous

• Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines has closed, and the results were that 56.98% of voters supported the guidelines. The results of this vote mean the Wikimedia Foundation Board will now review the guidelines.

---

Hi Stifle. Does this ring a bell? — Marchjuly (talk) 10:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. Rather odd. Already been reverted by someone else, but a very strange first edit. Stifle (talk) 11:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it was just a weird one-time thing. It did seem odd for that new account to show up out of the blue and single out two of your comments though. Sometimes that can indicate someone holding a grudge for some previous interaction, but it could also just be random in that someone simply didn't like what you posted. Oh well, Ob La Di Ob La Da. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Dear Stifle, The original concern about this article was that it was "An essentially unsourced article about an ordinary person who apparently has an article because he holds a long-extinct (indeed, by now fictitious) title of nobility." I added multiple references to this article from sources such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Detroit Free Press. The subject of this article clearly meets Wikipedia:Notability. Please reconsider your decision for whih you have provided no explanation. Noel S McFerran (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very happy with my closure, which reflected that the discussion was, with the exception of your view, unanimous. "Explanations" or closing statements are not a requirement and are only customary where there is some special reason for not following the apparent majority. Stifle (talk) 08:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dream Games. 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. H5r2n (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You made national news for deleting Rosemont Seneca Partners. 2603:6000:9341:1033:D96F:CDA8:CC82:ECD4 (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How amusing. Stifle (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@2603:6000:9341:1033:D96F:CDA8:CC82:ECD4 174.247.253.198 (talk) 09:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you, can you take another look at this? You closing comment appears to indicate you mean this to have a different outcome. Thank you. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yup that's a misclick. Reclosing as delete. Stifle (talk) 11:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2022).

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, a change has been made to the administrators inactivity policy. Under the new policy, if an administrator has not made at least 100 edits over a period of 5 years they may be desysopped for inactivity.
• Following a discussion on the bureaucrat's noticeboard, a change has been made to the bureaucrats inactivity policy.

Technical news

• The ability to undelete the associated talk page when undeleting a page has been added. This was the 11th wish of the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey.
• A public status system for WMF wikis has been created. It is located at https://www.wikimediastatus.net/ and is hosted separately to WMF wikis so in the case of an outage it will remain viewable.

Arbitration

• Remedy 2 of the St Christopher case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to place a ban on single-purpose accounts who were disruptively editing on the article St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages from those pages.

---

In case you hadn't seen it, this AfD closure of yours has been taken to DRV; see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 May 18. Regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of future or partially complete Interstates in North Carolina. 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. DiscoA340 (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review is a venue to handle cases where deletion review has not been properly followed. It is not a venue to merely express a disagreement with or objection to the outcome of a properly-closed deletion discussion.

— Stifle (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Palosirkka (talk • contribs) 12:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They don't. The place to express a disagreement with a deletion nomination is at that deletion nomination. If it goes against you, you don't get a second bite at the cherry. Stifle (talk) 13:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2022).

Guideline and policy news

• Several areas of improvement collated from community member votes have been identified in the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines. The areas of improvement have been sent back for review and you are invited to provide input on these areas.

Technical news

• Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
• The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.

Arbitration

• Remedy 2 of the Rachel Marsden case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to delete or reduce to a stub, together with their talk pages, articles related to Rachel Marsden when they violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy.
• An arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been closed.

---

You have previously blocked User:Commonedits for “disruptive and tendentious editing, incivility, making frivolous deletion nominations, and generally leaving a trail of mess behind you for people to clean up” Their recent appalling personal attacks in edit summaries warrant a further block in my opinion, details here [2], here [3] and here [4] Thank you for taking a look. Theroadislong (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Already blocked for 1 month by Cullen328. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit: by "they should resile from closing the discussion", did you mean to say something like "refrain"? isaacl (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant "resile", to recoil/recede or step back from their plan to close. "Refrain" is equivalent in meaning for the purpose of the proposal, though. Stifle (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. isaacl (talk) 20:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stifle, thanks for knocking out the RPP request re Stavros Halkias. There is a discussion on the talk page, but the IP/SPA does not participate in it. If RPP isn't the way to go about resolving this, could you suggest a better set of next steps? Thank you, Brycehughes (talk) 17:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm happy to full-protect it for a week if you think that would be of use, but semi-protecting is basically saying "IP editor is wrong, go away". Stifle (talk) 08:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is that the IP/SPA has found YouTube clips of the guy saying controversial things and then used those as a source to say, "Halkias' use of slurs and reliance on offensive humor (on topics including LGBTQ+ issues, the intellectually disabled, victims of child molestation, and terrorism) have long been a hallmark of the program's material." Fine, I have no skin in this game. But it's clearly OR on a BLP article and so far as I know should be removed pretty quickly. You can see now that many editors have thought the same thing and that the edit history is a right mess (even since I wrote this on your talk page and went to sleep the battle has continued). It has been brought up on the talk page. The IP/SPA has not engaged on the talk page. So given that dispute resolution requires two to tango, I'm not really sure what the process should be here other than what I've done historically, which is saying "IP editor is wrong, go away" via RPP, outside of asking an admin, which I'm doing. Brycehughes (talk) 10:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Are we looking at the same page? There's been one (1) edit since you first wrote your message to me. I don't personally think this is a policy breach, but I am not perfect and not always right, so you could file a request at WP:BLPN if you'd like other views. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You're right, I lazily glanced at the history and saw a revert cycle – I guess it was since I had last bothered to look at it. Sounds like the next step would be WP:BLPN (which I didn't know existed). Thanks for the help. Brycehughes (talk) 10:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Well someone at BLPN just did a RPP request. Massive shrug. Brycehughes (talk) 11:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed you recently placed {{uw-3rr}} on Schläger4's talk page, telling them they are edit warring on the page War in Afghanistan (2001–2021). I've checked the user's edits and they seem to be reverts of obvious vandalism, an exemption to the 3rr, meaning that warning template was placed incorrectly. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me • contribs) 09:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oops, looks like an oversight. Thanks for flagging. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say thank u for protecting the stadium tour page. There is probably a lot of people who want to read about it but can’t because of douchebags like the people who vandalize pages. But thanks to u now people can read it without worrying about random douchebags putting wrong information on it.

Ytzesza (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply] 

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2022).

Technical news

• user_global_editcount is a new variable that can be used in abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users. (T130439)

Arbitration

• An arbitration case regarding conduct in deletion-related editing has been opened.

Miscellaneous

• The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.

---

I've read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, which clearly distinguishes between stubs that have the potential to become fleshed out articles and dictionary entries not suited for Wikipedia. Most editors in the deletion discussion argue that it's the former, based on reliable sources that significantly cover the topic. I don't see where that guideline encourages the deletion of stubs about notable topics that initially resemble dictionary entries. Could you quote from the policy or guideline that are you relying on to outweigh the majority support of !keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Authoritarian enclave? (t · c) buidhe 16:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I share Buidhe's view. How does WP:NEXIST not apply here? Your close appears to treat notability as being judged on the state of the article. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• As explained in my talk page header and notice, I consider all my deletion decisions carefully and do not change them based on talk page requests. I am more than happy to restore as a draft if either of you wish to improve the article, but at the moment it breaches WP:NOT, a policy, and arguments that say it doesn't are to be given less weight. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Stifle my apologies, I missed the waiver note. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jason Perry (politician). 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. Trimfrim20 (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you missed an important point in the closure of the AfD as keep: all Keep !votes came from editors WP:CANVASSED from the Polish Wikipedia. On the other hand, all legitimate participants !voted for Delete. I think therefore the consensus was clearly for deletion. Tercer (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Łukaszyk–Karmowski metric. 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. XOR'easter (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Authoritarian enclave. 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. Goldsztajn (talk) 00:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Stifle I would like to thank you for keeping the article I nominated -- Artemsil. I decided that if it was created by a blocked user (@MER-C blocked them) it should be removed. But later I read carefully the guidelines and didn't find such a reason. I've already asked to withdraw my AfD nominations because of the same reason. What would you suggest to do? How to withdraw those nominations? I feel silly a littlbe bit. Молдовський винний погріб (talk) 12:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No need to feel silly. You can withdraw by simply writing on the AFD discussion page that you'd like to withdraw the nomination, and someone will come by and tidy it up for you. We do normally delete contributions of banned users (see WP:BAN) but a ban is different to a block. Stifle (talk) 13:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Editor making rapid, nonsense !votes at AfD and refusing to accept new sports SNG. Thank you. StAnselm (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2022).

Administrator changes

Valereee

Anthony Appleyard (deceased) • Capitalistroadster • Samsara

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
• An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.

Technical news

• The Wikimania 2022 Hackathon will take place virtually from 11 August to 14 August.
• Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)

Arbitration

• The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

• You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
• Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
• Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
• An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.

Technical news

• The impact report on the effects of disabling IP editing on the Persian (Farsi) Wikipedia has been released.
• The WMF is looking into making a Private Incident Reporting System (PIRS) system to improve the reporting of harmful incidents through easier and safer reporting. You can leave comments on the talk page by answering the questions provided. Users who have faced harmful situations are also invited to join a PIRS interview to share the experience. To sign up please email Madalina Ana.

Arbitration

• An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
• The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

• The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
• Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, consensus was found that if the rationale for a block depends on information that is not available to all administrators, that information should be sent to the Arbitration Committee, a checkuser or an oversighter for action (as applicable, per ArbCom's recent updated guidance) instead of the administrator making the block.
• Following an RfC, consensus has been found that, in the context of politics and science, the reliability of FoxNews.com is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use.
• Community comment on the revised Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines is requested until 8 October.

Technical news

• The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.

Arbitration

• Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case will be rescinded 1 November following a motion.
• A modification to the deletion RfC remedy in the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been made to reaffirm the independence of the RfC and allow the moderators to split the RfC in two.
• The second phase of the 2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review closes 3 October.

Miscellaneous

• An administrator's account was recently compromised. Administrators are encouraged to check that their passwords are secure, and reminded that ArbCom reserves the right to not restore adminship in cases of poor account security. You can also use two-factor authentication (2FA) to provide an extra level of security.
• Self-nominations for the electoral commission for the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections open 2 October and close 8 October.
• You are invited to comment on candidates in the 2022 CUOS appointments process.
• An RfC is open to discuss whether to make Vector 2022 the default skin on desktop.
• Tech tip: You can do a fuzzy search of all deleted page titles at Special:Undelete.

---

Hey, Stifle. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day! Hi Stifle! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stifle, I have undeleted King Kamehameha I Day, which you deleted in accordance with WP:CSD#G5. I think this was deleted by mistake because Jasonagastrich moved Kamehameha Day to its current title, which shows him as the author of the resulting redirect. As a result, you landed on King Kamehameha I Day and deleted it. Neither are eligible for speedy deletion, though. ✗plicit 11:54, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing my mess. Stifle (talk) 12:39, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also restored Category:Grocery stores in Hawaii. CSD G5 doesn't apply to either occupied categories or transcluded templates which can be nominated for deletion (at CFD or TFD) instead (see WP:BANREVERT). But I wasn't exactly sure if this editor was a sockpuppet, there is no tag on his User page and it's not mentioned in the block notice. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:37, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He's not a sockpuppet, in the sense that he isn't trying to hide the fact that he's using other accounts, he's just a banned user who re-registered. Stifle (talk) 08:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for considering about me. Forgive me for this time. There are some problem in my mobile.I am trying to fix them. Rojer Aurther (talk) 08:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make me regret giving you a chance. Please try to edit from a computer sometimes; the mobile app and website have a lot of deficiencies. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2022).

Guideline and policy news

• The article creation at scale RfC opened on 3 October and will be open until at least 2 November.
• An RfC is open to discuss having open requests for adminship automatically placed on hold after the seven-day period has elapsed, pending closure or other action by a bureaucrat.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 13 November 2022 until 22 November 2022 to stand in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections.
• The arbitration case request titled Athaenara has been resolved by motion.
• The arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block has entered the proposed decision stage.
• AmandaNP, Mz7 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2022 Arbitration Committee Elections. Xaosflux and Dr vulpes are reserve commissioners.

Miscellaneous

• The 2022 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of two new CheckUsers.
• You can add yourself to the centralised page listing time zones of administrators.
• Tech tip: Wikimarkup in a block summary is parsed in the notice that the blockee sees. You can use templates with custom options to specify situations like {{rangeblock|create=yes}} or {{uw-ublock|contains profanity}}.

---

That looked like something that for sure should have been relisted: one redirect !vote, one keep stating sigcov, and no other comments. Would you be willing to relist, or should I take this to deletion review? BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was enough contribution for me to be comfortable closing the debate, and my decision not to relist it was informed by the rubric outlined at WP:RELIST.

If you feel the article should be restored as a full article, it's open to you to undo the redirect if you expand it sufficiently.

If you feel the article should have been deleted rather than redirected, you are welcome to list at DRV if you wish, though I rather doubt that will get anywhere.

Or is it something else? Stifle (talk) 09:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for merging this entry into "Ad Astra". IMO, The distinction between the two phrases is not enough to justify two separate articles. It should be clearly identified as a distinct variant in the merged article and I am sure you will do it.

It may be too late to comment on the merge itself but what I have to add is more appropriate to the merge process itself. Specifically, I wanted to bring to your attention the link to "Ad Astra per aspera" in the Apollo_1 article which should be updated to reflect the merge when it happens.

The plaque for "the crew of Apollo 1" is seen in Armageddon (1998 film).^[1] The "Dedicated to the living memory of the crew of the Apollo 1" plaque is quoted at the end of Wayne Hale's Requiem for the NASA Space Shuttle program.^[2]

NASA The plaque image already appears in the Apollo_1 article but you may want to consider preserving it (with the link back to the crew of Apollo 1) in the new merged page. Many people who are too young to remember the Apollo 1 themselves still associate the phrase with space exploration having been inspired by or exposed to it through Armageddon (1998 film), notable Engineers like Wayne Hale or newer sci-Fi films like Ad_Astra_(film). Annette Maon (talk) 09:49, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is something you would need to take forward on the article talk page. I will not be performing the merger. Stifle (talk) 12:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first time dealing with a merge. Which article talk page should I post my comments on? Is there some way for me to know who is doing the merge before it is finalized? I do not log in very often and I only got notified of the Merge decision after discussion was closed for discussion. At this stage, I am not sure what the appropriate/relevant talk page would be. Annette Maon (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would be Talk:Ad astra (phrase). I do not know who will be performing the merge, but they should read that page before doing so.

Unfortunately I'm not in a position to provide you with general one-to-one assistance, but try Wikipedia:Help desk if you need more help. Stifle (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pro forma notification re: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Long_stale_DRV although I don't think it's actually required in this case. We're all on the same page. Have a great day Star Mississippi 20:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).

Guideline and policy news

• Consensus has been found in an RfC to automatically place RfAs on hold after one week.
• The article creation at scale RfC has been closed.
• An RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign has been closed.

Technical news

• A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)

Arbitration

• Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 12, 2022 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
• The proposed decision for the 2021-22 review of the discretionary sanctions system is open.
• The arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block has been closed.
• The arbitration case Stephen has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 1 December 2022.
• A motion has modified the procedures for contacting an admin facing Level 2 desysop.

Miscellaneous

• Tech tip: A single IPv6 connection usually has access to a "subnet" of 18 quintillion IPs. Add /64 to the end of an IP in Special:Contributions to see all of a subnet's edits, and consider blocking the whole subnet rather than an IP that may change within a minute.

---

Quick question, when you declined the speedy deletion did you see the note on the Talk page? Although there are multi editors aside from the cited Museeritrean2514, the other two biggest editors were also blocked as sockpuppets or meatpuppets of Museeritrean2514 (those three alone are responsible for 76% of the article), and some of the other editors even though they weren't blocked as socks were described as "suspicious" in the SPI. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 13:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't look at talk pages on speedy deletion review normally unless there's a dispute or other flag.

CSD:G5 requires that the article have "no substantial edits by others". 22% of the article being by non-problematic users passes the "substantial" mark for me and as such if you wish for the article to be deleted, you'll need to either delete it under your own authority, use PROD or AFD. Stifle (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 02:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 16:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I saw your AFD closing statement in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia in 1917–1921 and I now see your talk page notice suggesting to go to deletion review, and I'm not going to ask you to change the result here. I wanted to ask if it is possible to place the article on deletion review again, given that it was already reopened per deletion review. Support to keep that just amounts to "I see lots of footnotes so it must be well sourced" ignored all of the issues pointed out in the AFD on how most of the citations were either unreliable or said something different from the text in the article. I had hoped for an actual discussion of how much the article content [doesn't] correlate with the sources. Dallavid (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing stopping you from listing on DRV again, but I expect it would just result in another 3 weeks of arguments and entrenched positions becoming even more so. In my personal opinion a better alternative would be to try to discuss and improve the article for a few months on the talk page, and if unable to resolve notability concerns, list in AFD again later this year.

Good luck. Stifle (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of a fallacy I noticed some users argue after the AFD was reopened was that the article shouldn't be deleted for having unreliable sources because it would be better to replace them with reliable sources instead. The problem is that reliable sources for this subject don't exist. Some time after opening the AFD, I decided to take a look at the genocide denialist McCarthy source "The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims 1821-1922" out of curiosity to see how immediately obvious it's unreliability should've been. And I discovered that, although Olympian removed the McCarthy citations after him being a genocide denier was pointed out, the entire article was still heavily based on McCarthy's claims, specifically from pages 208 to 221. --Dallavid (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2022).

Guideline and policy news

• Speedy deletion criterion A5 (transwikied articles) has been repealed following an unopposed proposal.

Arbitration

• Following the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, CaptainEek, GeneralNotability, Guerillero, L235, Moneytrees, Primefac, SilkTork.
• The 2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review has concluded with many changes to the discretionary sanctions procedure including a change of the name to "contentious topics". The changes are being implemented over the coming month.
• The arbitration case Stephen has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
• Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2023).

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the administrator policy now requires that prior written consent be gained from the Arbitration Committee to mark a block as only appealable to the committee.
• Following a community discussion, consensus has been found to impose the extended-confirmed restriction over the topic areas of Armenia and Azerbaijan and Kurds and Kurdistan.

Technical news

• The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Wikipedia.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 24 February 2023.
• In December, the contentious topics procedure was adopted which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period. There is a detailed summary of the changes and administrator instructions for the new procedure. The arbitration clerk team are taking suggestions, concerns, and unresolved questions about this new system at their noticeboard.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2023 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
• Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.

---