This page is a chronological archive of past discussions from User talk:Ks0stm for the period January 2017 to June 2017. In order to preserve the record of past discussions, the contents of this page should be preserved in their current form. Please do not make new edits to this page. If you wish to make new comments or re-open an old discussion thread, please do so on the User talk:Ks0stm page. If necessary, copy the relevant discussion thread to the User talk:Ks0stm page and then add your comments there.

Hi !
I hereby request the Edit Filter Manager permission in order to be able to view private filters here which would help me at my homewikis (maithili & nepali wiki) edit filter works as well as it would give me the ability to assist other users with editfilter problems. Additional, I'm Administrator of maithili and nepali wikipedia. Also, Rollbacker and Pending Changes Reviewer here on enwiki. I always respect the local communities and their decisions and won't try to override them. Thanks for your consideration.
I wish you and your family a great new year, full of happiness, joyful. Have a great time dear. — TBhagat ( talk) 08:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi Ks0stm. Contemplating taking Urban developers to AfD, could I ask you to have a look at Urban Developers and see if it's the same company? If it is, would you please copy-paste the code from the latest live revision of Urban Developers into Sam Sailor/Temp/Urban Developers or email it to me. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 19:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Sam Sailor: My apologies! I got started doing this, got distracted, and didn't get back to it until now, by which time it seems to have been taken care of. Sorry about that! Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 00:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Ah, no problem at all, we all need a day off now and again, and BethNaught looked it up for me. Best, — Sam Sailor 00:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Excuse me. I am lead writer for the Signpost's "Arbitration Report" and am wondering if you would be interested in answering some interviews questions as a newly elected Arbitrator. The questions will be asked through email, unless answering them here would be a more suitable choice. GamerPro64 20:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC) reply

@ GamerPro64: I'd be happy to take a look at your questions via email. Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 02:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC) reply

GamerPro64 03:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC) reply

You placed an unblock request at User talk:Copenhagen Plant Science Centre on hold on 9 December, and it is still on hold. I suggest it is time to go back and review it. Also, you attempted to ping another editor in the "unblock on hold" template, but pings inside such templates don't work. I guess you probably also thought that the "unblock on hold" template would automatically ping the blocking administrator, since you didn't inform him that you were putting the request on hold pending a response from him, but that too is not the case. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 17:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Since you have made several edits since I posted the above message, and many hours have gone by since then, I shall work on the assumption that you do not intend to reply, and I shall decide how to close the request myself. My apologies in advance if that assumption was mistaken, and you were going to come back to it later, but I feel it is past time this matter was dealt with. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 20:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC) reply

@ JamesBWatson: No worries! I've been pretty busy in the transition into the school semester and didn't have much time to take a look at it. Most of my wiki time lately has been of the fly-by variety. Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 00:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Linguist ^talk| contribs 16:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC) reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. ( T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. ( T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks very much for all your help on SPI. Not to overwhelm your workload, but this is an interesting case involving an account whose technical data is set to expire imminently, and I'd very much appreciate your help. Sorry to rush you.

Thanks again,

GAB ^gab 16:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC) reply

User:Fireguy0123456789 is abusing his talk page. CLCStudent ( talk) 18:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Handled. Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 18:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC) reply

I wanted to request creation of a page on Victor Mochere, a renown Kenyan Author, blogger, scholar, influencer and entrepreneur but apparently you have protected it from creation. I would like to request you to allow the page be created. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DennisMbaro ( talk • contribs) 08:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC) reply

I forget the name of this LTA, but would rather not create a formal SPI per WP:DENY anyway. You recently blocked a couple socks, and I think GorillaFanfare and ChkUser account from a few days ago are the same vandal as well. Sro23 ( talk) 03:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Sro23: I forget the name of the LTA too, for what it's worth. Either way,  Confirmed both to today's batch, as well as World Wikian account ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki). Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 03:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC) reply

I believe Singapore edit boy, Garbage in garbage out and Create account(s) are also the same vandal. Sro23 ( talk) 04:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Not sure about the first two, but the last one definitely. I've tied the IPs as best I can for now. Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 04:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC) reply

I think High speed IP account, also. Sro23 ( talk) 04:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Split to new section for archiving purposes. Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 20:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

I have discovered a vandalism edit that contains a person's phone number and Snapchat. Is this RD worthy? If so, how do I proceed without drawing new public attention to the now-buried revision? — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 04:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC) reply

( talk page stalker) Oversight worthy. Please pass it on via the methods listed there, as i'm very close to going to bed. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC) reply

You archived Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hanlyh before any action was taken against the master. The CU was inconclusive because of the use of proxies but, as I commented, the behavioural evidence against the master was pretty conclusive. I just wanted to check the archiving without any action against the master was intentional and not an oversight. Thanks, Cabayi ( talk) 11:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC) reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).

Administrator changes

Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13

Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

Guideline and policy news

• A recent RfC has redefined how articles on schools are evaluated at AfD. Specifically, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
• AfDs that receive little participation should now be closed like an expired proposed deletion, following a deletion process RfC.
• Defender, HakanIST, Matiia and Sjoerddebruin are our newest stewards, following the 2017 steward elections.
• The 2017 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Góngora, Krd, Lankiveil, Richwales and Vogone. They will serve for approximately 1 year.

Technical news

• A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
• Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
• A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.

---

And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. It would have been 5 points, but when a late entrant was permitted to join the contest in February, a promise was made that his inclusion would not result in the exclusion of any other competitor. To achieve this, the six entrants that had the lowest positive score of 4 points have been added to the 64 people who otherwise would have qualified. As a result, some of the groups have nine contestants rather than eight. Our top four scorers in round 1 were:

• Cas Liber, last year's winner, led the field with two featured articles on birds and a total score of 674.
• Iry-Hor, a WikiCup newcomer, came next with a featured article, a good article and a tally of 282 bonus points for a score of 517. All these points came from the article Nyuserre Ini, an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh,
• 1989, another WikiCup newcomer, was in joint third place at 240. 1989 has claimed points for two featured lists and one good article relating to anime and comedy series, all of which were awarded bonus points.
• Peacemaker67 shared third place with five good articles and thirteen good article reviews, mostly on naval vessels. He is also new to the competition.

The largest number of DYKs have been submitted by Vivvt and The C of E, who each claimed for seven, and MBlaze Lightning achieved eight articles at ITN. Carbrera and Peacemaker67 each claimed for five GAs and Krishna Chaitanya Velaga was well out in front for GARs, having reviewed 32. No featured pictures, featured topics or good topics yet, but we have achieved three featured articles and a splendid total of fifty good articles.

So, on to the second round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply

{{Cu-endorse}} ->  Endorsed by a checkuser. Thanks, GAB ^gab 22:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC) reply

@ GeneralizationsAreBad: Thanks! I just used the script, and for whatever reason it spat out "clerk endorsed" instead. Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 07:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC) reply

1 year back i was created some articles, my articles stayed up to 6 months. In the middle way i filed 3rr case on one editor. Then this editor with help of 2 administrators created false Afd discussions and closed the discussions through wrong way (Bad Nac and irregular closures). They deleted my articles. What can i do now? My articles have good sources...only the above editors against my articles...
I think for good purpose can open second alternate account. This is my second alternate account today i was created. If i edit with my first account the above editors immediately revert this...so at essential movement i am using this account...
Please advise me
Thanq
Edrtfyguh ( talk) 11:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Just noting for the record that Edrtfyguh has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Nsmutte. No reply necessary. Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 20:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Isn't it a bit counterproductive to configure semi-protection and pending changes protection at the same time? I would have expected either one or the other. If the page is semi-protected, then the people (largely IPs) who would be allowed to edit under the condition that their edits be reviewed via pending changes won't even be able to do that. Master of Time  (talk) 07:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Master of Time: Not necessarily. The way I set it up the page is semi-protected until March 30, which will hopefully dissuade the IPs making the change. On March 30 the semi-protection will automatically "downgrade" to pending changes, which will last until June 16, preventing the IPs from altering the version visible to readers if they come back and change the rating again after the semi-protection expires. Basically, so long as the pending changes protection is longer than the semi-protection it will take over when the semi-protection expires, albeit being redundant until that point. I just set both up at the same time so that someone doesn't have to remember to come back and set the pending changes when the semi-protection expires. (I note that my reasoning was long enough that the expiry for pending changes was cut off in the page history to where this all wasn't clear from that, but you can find it in the page logs, specifically the pending changes log.) Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 19:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Ah, thanks for the clarification. I didn't notice that you set a separate expiry date for the semi-protection. Thanks for the detailed response. Master of Time  (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello, can you please delete this page. Thanks-- Alaa :)..! 08:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Thanks (Materialscientist) deleted it!-- Alaa :)..! 08:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

My apologies; I'm slow sometimes. =P Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 08:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Noah Kastin ( talk) 01:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Noah Kastin: No problem! Just doing my job. =) Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 02:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply

I think High speed IP account, also. Sro23 ( talk) 04:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Moved into this section for archiving purposes.

Checking  In progress. Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 20:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Sro23:

•  Confirmed:
  • Oshwanker inject CRAZY GLUE in Ks0stm keyboard caused DAMAGE ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Ks0stm and Godzilla Warfare was LAZIEST ChkUsers ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • High speed IP account ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Ks0stm GOT dumped by Wikipedia ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Godzilla Warfare is laziest Chkuser ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Godzilla Warfair got DIVORCED Molly Whyte ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Blocked two IPs, as well. All accounts have been globally locked. Piece of cake. Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 21:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

How about ProxyConfig.exe? Sro23 ( talk) 01:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC) reply

* Confirmed:

• • Ks0stm is LAZIEST ChkUser ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Oshwanker GOT NO SOCIAL LIFE because he monitors NewUserPatrol script ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit my own talk page ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Neoclassical sock ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Shutdown.exe -r -f ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Oshwanker POURED honey into Ks0stm petrol tank ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Password is Wikian ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Oshwanker WASTES ALL HIS SPARE TIME monitoring NewUserPatrol script ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Tertiary purpose account ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Choose my account name ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Metropolitan transport ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Metropolitan Transport Group ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Spare backup account ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • ProxyConfig.exe ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • The 5 pillars of WP ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • WP Edit Filter ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Allyson Wunderland ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • TeleBears and InfoBears ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Secondary sleeper account ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • 1-800-PICK-UPS ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • My CloudDrive account ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • NSLOOKUP.EXE ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • New editor ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Happy Wikipedian ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• @ Sro23: Blocked a range and a few of the accounts above. Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 04:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC) reply

And Wiki script editor, New VIP account, Commodore 64 user and Server-side scripting account? Sheesh, this person doesn't ever get tired or take a break. Sro23 ( talk) 23:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Another new account(s): Ks0stm caused HEADCRASH on Wiki RAID array server created at

17:52 GMT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.140.109.186 ( talk) 17:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

• Ks0stm, Arturo Quinnlan and Special use account are part of the same joke as Ks0stm caused HEADCRASH on Wiki RAID array server. See my recent block log for a few that I blocked earlier, from another IP. Drmies ( talk) 01:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

An article that you have edited-- Pawnee, Kansas--has been proposed for merging into First Territorial Capitol of Kansas. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. RM2KX ( talk) 01:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello, I saw that the article Militant Minority was deleted for not meeting the notability standards. However, the book article had citation to 2 reliable book reviews, which is enough per WP:NBOOK. Please check it? Thanks, -- Skr15081997 ( talk) 11:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Skr15081997: I've restored the article, since this counts as you contesting the PROD. Any future deletion nominations will have to go through AfD. Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 21:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).

Administrator changes

TheDJ

Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
• The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
• An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
• After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

• After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
• Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.

---

So it appears that the editor in question was a sockpuppet of a blocked or banned user as well as being a vandal. Robert McClenon ( talk) 07:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2013 El Reno tornado you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CycloneIsaac -- CycloneIsaac ( talk) 00:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Cyclonebiskit: ^ Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 00:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply

—delivered by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 on 01:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC) reply

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	👍 Creeperparty568 ~ Cool Guy ( talk) 21:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC) reply

The article 2013 El Reno tornado you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:2013 El Reno tornado for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CycloneIsaac -- CycloneIsaac ( talk) 04:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello how are you? My name is Andrea, I am a user of a software (Freemake Video Downloader), and I wanted to make its page on Wikipedia. But when I went to do it, I found that it had already been done but the page was deleted. I have experience in Wikipedia and I know how to do it neutral, what do you recommend?, I could prepare the article in the sandbox for you to look at?, or do you want me to upload it directly? Or (a third option) upload it as Draft and submit to be reviewed?-- Ane wiki ( talk) 17:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Ane wiki: I can do you one better. Since the article was deleted via PROD, it can be restored upon request. Accordingly, you can find the article at Freemake Video Downloader. I recommend that you improve the article, particularly by fixing the three things I tagged the top of the article with. If you need any help with improving the article, feel free to ask either me or in the English Wikipedia IRC help channel. Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 19:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Great! Yes, it needs several changes. I'll fix it over the weekend. Thank you!-- Ane wiki ( talk) 21:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello! I already edited the article, please check it and tell me if you would make any changes. In the section that I now call "Criticism" I tried to leave previous concepts, but only based on the most reliable pages, it is ok?. Also, I would like to add the software details to this link: /info/en/?search=Comparison_of_download_managers, do you think it is correct? Thank you!-- Ane wiki ( talk) 06:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC) reply

to jerk you around on the indef/siteban thing. thanks for taking it with good humor. Jytdog ( talk) 19:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Jytdog: No worries; I didn't really care much either way, though the way it is now is what my original intent was. Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 19:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC) reply

I have closed the AN discussion. Jennepicfoundation is now site-banned per community consensus, so I have removed her talk page access too. De728631 ( talk) 16:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC) reply

You added IPBE to this account under the justification that it might be hit by an autoblock. (And I would guess other accounts as well.) Is there still a need for IPBE? -- Izno ( talk) 17:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Izno: I don't see any reason you still need it, though I can't completely rule it out in the future. I've removed it for now; if you get caught in a rangeblock in the future ping me and I'll take a look again. Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 13:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC) reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Auth0RiTy ^{Contact me} 20:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi there. I'm glad you took prompt action against User:Hsingh1488 for a series of purely vandalistic edits, but I would suggest an indef would not be out of place, purely due to the quite blatant neo-nazi username, and the targets this editor chooses, i.e The Holocaust, and Black Lives Matter, Adolf Hitler. Please see Nazi symbolism#Continued use by neo-Nazi groups. I would strongly suspect the user is not WP:HERE. Regards, Irondome ( talk) 19:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC) reply

I would also draw your attention to WP:Username policy, of which you are no doubt aware. After the 60 hr block expires, what action do you propose to take? Regards, Irondome ( talk) 01:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Just saw your message on the SPI page. Is there anything I need to do? -- Skamecrazy123 ( talk) 20:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Skamecrazy123: Not that I'm aware of, but then I'm not horribly familiar with how to handle globally banned users' socks. I'm fairly certain that such suspected socks should at the very least be reported to the Community Advocacy team via cawikimedia.org, though. Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 20:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Fixed ping. Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 20:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello! I already edited the article, please check it and tell me if you would make any changes. In the section that I now call "Criticism" I tried to leave previous concepts, but only based on the most reliable pages, it is ok?. Also, I would like to add the software details to this link: /info/en/?search=Comparison_of_download_managers, do you think it is correct? Thank you!-- Ane wiki ( talk) 22:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi Ks0stm. I get an alert saying "Hardblocking range used by this user". What does it mean? Does it change something to me? Pamputt ( talk) 08:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your prompt action on my request for blockage removal. I suggest that the Procseebot is too narrowly programmed with false positives and needs tweaking.

I did indeed edit from a hotel in Indonesia while traveling last week. However, I travel several times a year in this country and have never been procseebot-ted before.

Of more relevance is the need for white listing: 1. As you noted, I am now back at home using the same IP address as usual. I don't know if the blockage occurred after I logged out while editing from the hotel, but I first saw it when logging in from home after my trip. This suggests that the bot is incapable of reversing itself when the normal linkage of user/IP is re-established. Perhaps a second bot is needed to clean up procseebot false positives or transient blockages? 2. A subtler form of white listing would be to program the procseebot to ignore flagging when an edit is clearly (say 99.99% probability) being made by the authentic user despite the variance in IP address. AFAIK, the only edit I made while traveling last week was an UNDO of a revert. Isn't it highly likely that the authentic user is the one who would make an UNDO?

Thanks again for your attention to this matter and I hope procseebot can be refined for the benefit of all. Martindo ( talk) 21:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Martindo: You'll want to direct this to User:Slakr, since he operates User:ProcseeBot. Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 12:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC) reply

The article 2013 El Reno tornado you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2013 El Reno tornado for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CycloneIsaac -- CycloneIsaac ( talk) 22:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Cyclonebiskit: ^ Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 12:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi, can you shed some light on this (I'm putting the case on hold)? If you prefer, you can e-mail me. Thanks.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Bbb23: If I haven't gotten back to this by three days from now ping me again; I've been rather busy and need to get it all together again. Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 12:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC) reply

I'm back.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 14:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Bbb23: Replied via email. Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 15:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Thanks, that was helpful.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 21:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the clarification without automatic banning. I have ceased editing and requested Mediation officially. I don't see how consensus can be reached via Talk if people insist on declaring Hispanic to be a race on the basis of everyone-knows-it-is-true without providing any sources or debate other than their own POV. Martindo ( talk) 01:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Martindo: No problem, though I probably would have just started an RfC versus skipping straight to mediation. Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 12:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Frankly, I'm unfamiliar with dispute resolution and disappointed that the Arb response essentially ignored my request. In fact, the people who denied my edit are taking a stance contrary to Hispanic#Definitions_in_the_United_States which clearly explains that Hispanic is an ethnic category not a racial one. Shouldn't WP be consistent across pages wherever possible? Martindo ( talk) 14:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Martindo: Well, to start off with, the Mediation Committee and the Arbitration Committee are two different bodies; MedCom handles content disputes, while ArbCom handles user conduct issues. However, both are intended to be last-resort processes for dispute/conduct issues: With both, you are expected to have exhausted all previous measures of dispute resolution before resorting to those methods. With the Arbitration Committee, an issue is not usually accepted for arbitration until the community has tried and failed to resolve user conduct issues through multiple means. For the Mediation Committee (which is the one you'd want in this situation), users are expected to have attempted (and failed) to settle the content dispute via WP:3O, WP:RFC, and/or WP:DRN before bringing the issue to the Mediation Committee. If I were you, I would recommend filing an RfC or DRN over the matter, the instructions for doing so can be found at WP:RFC or WP:DRN. Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 14:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC) reply

The second round of the competition has now closed, with just under 100 points being required to qualify for round 3. YellowEvan just scraped into the next round with 98 points but we have to say goodbye to the thirty or so competitors who didn't achieve this threshold; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Our top scorers in round 2 were:

• Cas Liber, led the field with five featured articles, four on birds and one on astronomy, and a total score of 2049, half of which came from bonus points.
• 1989 was in second place with 826 points, 466 of which were bonus points. 1989 has claimed points mostly relating to anime and Japanese-related articles.
• Peacemaker67 took third place with two FAs, one GA and seven GARs, mostly on naval vessels or military personnel, scoring 543 points.
• Other contestants who scored over 400 points were Freikorp, Carbrera, and Czar. Of course all these points are now wiped out and the 32 remaining contestants start again from zero in round 3.

Vivvt submitted the largest number of DYKs (30), and MBlaze Lightning achieved 13 articles at ITN. Carbrera claimed for 11 GAs and Argento Surfer performed the most GARs, having reviewed 11. So far we have achieved 38 featured articles and a splendid 132 good articles. Commendably, 279 GARs have been achieved so far, more than double the number of GAs.

So, on to the third round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello, Ks0stm. The result of this discussion was to allow your username. The discussion has now been closed. If you would like to see what concerns were raised, you can find a link to the discussion in the archive. You do not need to change your username. Thank you. — CYBERPOWER ( Around) 22:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).

Administrator changes

Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim

Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
• Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.

Technical news

• You can now see a list of all autoblocks at Special:AutoblockList.
• There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
• Administrators, bureaucrats and stewards can now set an expiry date when granting user rights. ( discuss, permalink)

Miscellaneous

• Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.

---

Slightly puzzled by this edit. Our practice has long been that we don't have empty categories... AusLondonder ( talk) 23:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC) reply

@ AusLondonder: Maybe I'm different, but I don't see the point of deleting it now only to recreate it by the end of the year at the latest. To me it's like if we deleted Category:Tornadoes of 2017 on December 27th, 2016...there's no point, cause you know it will be populated at some time in the near to medium term future. As it is I'm pretty sure I can come up with an article to create and/or put in that category anyway, if needed. Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 12:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Thanks for erring on the side of sanity this evening. I feel bad for all the troubled caused. I hope you and Bbb23 don't think that I filed that SPI in bad faith. The edit timings were uncanny, along with the general tendency towards aggressively removing material and challenging sources. I am pretty meticulous and don't make accusations lightly.

In fact I've bitten my lip about some pretty outrageous stuff whilst lurking over the last few months. The one thing that made me return was the recent dumping of plainly libellous material into a Jewish politician's BLP. If it hadn't been for that, I probably would have let the SPI slide too.

I feel there has been a general decline in the quality of editing and the level of debate on Wikipedia in even just the last year or so. I'm also rattled by the idea that I could so easily have been connected to my wife's account, which I don't wish to disclose (it was never abusively used). It's actually made me much less inclined to edit Wikipedia, and I feel I have made the right decision to retire now, although I may occasionally log in to monitor my watchlist, and reserve the right make a WP:Clean start at a later date.

Thanks, (1)AnotherNewAccount ( talk) 02:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

(1)AnotherNewAccount ( talk · contribs) I'm more than a little miffed that you'd accuse me of, through a sockpuppet, "dumping plainly libellous material into a Jewish politician's BLP." I have been involved in my share of contentious editing issues but that's not something I would ever do, and I hope the clear result on the SPI will make that clear to you as well. I appreciate your apology on the SPI and I won't hold any hard feelings. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 03:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

@ NorthBySouthBaranof: Since I evidently didn't make it clear enough, I am happy to clarify that the BLP incident to which I referred was an entirely seperate incident which you had nothing to do with. Also, while I do express disappointment with Wikipedia's editing environment, I am happy to clarify that it is not your "contentious editing" specifically that has made me feel this way. In fact, I did notice and very much appreciate in particular your quality work on articles related to Alaska, which has vastly improved that aspect of the project. I also appreciate the absence of hard feelings. Good luck! (1)AnotherNewAccount ( talk) 04:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wildlife SOS, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Encroachment ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Rhealopez168: This was meant for you, I think, but got delivered to me because the edit adding the link was RevDel'd and I was the first editor after that edit. JaGa, can you confirm? Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 23:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Could you now restore this page now that the actual album is now out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuigiYoshiU ( talk • contribs) 19:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply

It's been released but has not received any coverage in reliable sources (not even a review in AllMusic). It will sell enough to make the Billboard albums chart in next week's issue. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ^{Talk to me} 23:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi Ks. Check your email. Need a response very quickly (24 hours). ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 03:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi Ks0stm, thanks for renaming my user account about a couple weeks ago. I'm contacting you because I noticed that I couldn't access AWB since my new username is not on the check page (my previous one was). I'm aware that this is automatically resolved every once in a while by a bot, but looking at the history of the page, it seems that the bot has clerked the page twice (2 + 9 May 2017) since my rename including renaming another user, but my old username has not been changed. Could you do this manually, since the page is fully protected? Thanks — 72 _{talk / contribs} 15:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply

 Done Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 02:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Thanks! — 72 _{talk / contribs} 09:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC) reply

can you remove the sanctions placed on this article? United States presidential election, 2020

thankx Crewcamel ( talk) 18:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Crewcamel: I can have a look later this evening, but in the meantime: why do you feel that discretionary sanctions are no longer necessary on the article? Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 20:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Ks0stm: the sanctions were on due to incidents of vandalism but i believe that issue is behind us. As of late only a select few editors are even making changes to the article so i think the sanctions are discouraging new editors from joining. In my opinion our page desperately needs some uninvolved opinions. Crewcamel ( talk) 21:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Crewcamel: The discretionary sanctions were put into place in order to tamp down on edit warring and enforce the building of consensus for controversial additions, subtractions, or changes to he article. This worked well on United States presidential election, 2016, and since the 2020 article started to see some disruption, I added the 1RR/consensus required restriction to help keep a lid on it. I'm not so sure it would be a good idea to remove them. Any lull in activity at the present is likely to erode as we get closer to the 2018 midterm elections and the 2020 election after that, and I'd rather have the restrictions in place to prevent disruption than have to hurriedly replace them after disruption resumes. If uninvolved opinions are lacking, I highly recommend soliciting a third opinion, filing requests for comment, or, if a dispute becomes entrenched, seeing outside opinions on the dispute resolution noticeboard. I'm open to persuasion, but I really think that that would be a better way to get outside input than removing restrictions that are likely preventing the article from being a hostile place to edit. Also, FYI, I have oversighted your IP address from your logged-out edit here. In the future, if you accidentally edit while logged out, you may privately request removal of the IP address. Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 21:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC) reply

On 16 May 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2013 El Reno tornado, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the 2.6-mile (4.2 km) wide 2013 El Reno tornado, which was rated EF3, is the widest tornado ever recorded in the United States? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2013 El Reno tornado. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter ( talk) 03:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello Ks0stm! Warned editor here :P. Anyways, quick question if you wish or are willing to acknowledge for me. I'm trying to archive at least discussions (1–60) from my current talk page to User talk:Adog104/Archive 1, which includes an Arbcom discretionary sanction notice, since the total page exceeds 100,000 bytes. In trying to save the archive page with the 60 discussions still located on my talk page, I was met with this notice. Can I just remove the discussions from my talk page first and then save them on the archive page, do I have to leave the notice on my talk page, or am I just over-complicating this seemingly simple notice and there is just a simple work-around? Thanks. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 00:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Adog104: Sorry I'm slow replying; been pretty busy lately. Don't worry about the abuse filter triggering; when it gives you the warning, just hit save page again and it should let the edit go through. No one should think twice about it since you're just creating a talk archive. Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 14:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Alright thank you, and its fine! :D Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 14:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Hey, Ks0stm. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Mz7 ( talk) 02:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC) reply

You deleted my article on the VRV streaming service. I don't believe this is fair, because I see less notable streaming services having their own article. I know the article wasn't written perfectly - I'll admit it was vaguely advertise-like, but instead of deleting the article it could have been revised and improved upon. I believe it does fit the notability guidelines. There were multiple articles that bracket the streaming service with no article to be found. I was just trying to fill in the gaps as I see them. Please reconsider your deletion.

Mr Ernie ( talk) 18:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Possible sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry: (Removed)edits of a banned long-term abuser [1] [2] and edits of the user [3] [4]. 185.197.72.214 ( talk) 11:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Come on 185.197.72.214, are you serious? I've took that from here. I'm ready to discuss that here. Beshogur ( talk) 12:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC) reply

This was already discussed by various users like user:Florian Blaschke many times. And i wonder why did you choose the Kurgan hypothesis but not Kurgan to add this content regarding "etymology", despite the Kurgan is more appropriate for it? Is it because you realised that these additions were from a banned sock? 185.197.72.214 ( talk) 12:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Can't you ask this civilized? Why this agression. And stop calling me a sockpuppet. Beshogur ( talk) 12:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC) reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).

Administrator changes

Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn

ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC proposing an off-wiki LTA database has been closed. The proposal was broadly supported, with further discussion required regarding what to do with the existing LTA database and defining access requirements. Such a tool/database formed part of the Community health initiative's successful grant proposal.
• Some clarifications have been made to the community banning and unblocking policies that effectively sync them with current practice. Specifically, the community has reached a consensus that when blocking a user at WP:AN or WP:ANI, it is considered a "community sanction", and administrators cannot unblock unilaterally if the user has not successfully appealed the sanction to the community.
• An RfC regarding the bot policy has closed with changes to the section describing restrictions on cosmetic changes.

Technical news

• Users will soon be able to blacklist specific users from sending them notifications.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2017 elections, the new members of the Board of Trustees include Raystorm, Pundit and Doc James. They will serve three-year terms.

---

At User:LillHas/SupaStarLT I weighed the 6 or 7 (depending on which you count) self serving links against the skeleton content that includes nothing independant of the artist. I considered it link spam. Legacypac ( talk) 03:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Legacypac: After a second look, with a touch of IAR I've deleted it G13. Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 03:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Legacypac ( talk) 03:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Halo friend, thank your for editing in Aman (album), please, I need upload cover file of the article, file link MyriamTzz ( talk) 04:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC) reply

@ MyriamTzz: Hi! Files for upload is where you can request that it be uploaded. If you need any help with that process feel free to ask. Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 04:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Ks0stm: Could you please help? This user 112.198.73.9 ( talk · contribs) continues to add messages to my talk page without any proof and insists that I'm the same user as 73.94.24.81 ( talk · contribs), I don't know how I can be that user when they geolocate to the United States. I've begun ignoring their messages on Materialscientist ( talk · contribs)'s and Xdeluna ( talk · contribs)'s page but it's becoming annoying continuously seeing their "sockpuppet" templates popping up as messages whenever I click on a Wikipedia page. ( 121.219.136.184 ( talk) 08:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)) reply

I believe 121.219.136.184 is the real disruptive user here as the IP has 3 sockpuppets ( 96.48.254.221, 46.237.104.190, 191.205.214.6) that were recently blocked for disruptive editing for posting harsh accusations and same messages on admin users. - 112.198.73.9 ( talk) 08:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC) reply

More IP sockpuppets by 121.219.136.184 (like 121.214.41.156, 211.227.124.93, 73.94.24.81, etc.) are playing around and ruining my talk page as the same person is still trying to block me. - 112.198.73.9 ( talk) 09:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC) reply

121.219.136.184 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) is in Austraila and not on a proxy so far as I can tell, which makes it unlikely they are Bertrand101. 112.198.73.9 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) is in the Philippines, but is unlikely for behavioral reasons. I've blocked 96.48.254.221, 46.237.104.190, and 191.205.214.6 six months each as likely open/anonymizing proxies, but that's as much as I can say. Now, all y'all need to lay off of each other, or I may hand out DISRUPT blocks all around. 112.198.73.9, if you have any other IPs you are concerned may be proxies, I'll take a look, but 121.219.136.184 does not appear to be one of them. Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 21:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC) reply

On May 1 you posted this notice on the Talk page. I assume you also created the editnotice on the article page at the same time. I have shied away from enforcement of arbitration sanctions because I find them increasingly more complex unless you are an administrator who does it frequently. However, in this case I'm speaking as an ordinary editor. I don't see anything in the American politics sanctions that impose a general 1RR rule or consensus - just the latest standard discretionary sanctions. What am I missing? This concerns me because that article gets a lot of disruptive edits, and if I have to worry about such rules in undoing that disruption, I'll take it off my watchlist. Even worse, I'll have to worry about the rules, whether posted or not, on any article related to American politics post-1932, which, even though I don't edit very many, covers a lot of articles. Anyway, lucky you, you're an arbitrator. I'm confident you can explain this to me. -- Bbb23 ( talk) 16:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Bbb23: With the post-1932 American Politics, there are no topic wide restrictions, so far as I am aware, but under the discretionary sanctions admins have the ability to place restrictions on editors or pages. What I placed on the Supreme Court page were page restrictions. As a general rule, admins have a fair amount of leeway as to what page restrictions they can place. I tend to use the {{ 2016 US Election AE}} template, which places the page under 1RR/consensus required. Basically, it limits users to one revert per 24 hours on the page (with the exception of reverting clear vandalism), and restricts editors from re-adding material that has been challenged by reversion (basically, if someone makes an edit, and someone else reverts it, the original editor can't revert the revert without consensus). If either of these restrictions (but especially the 1RR over the same material) are breached by an editor who has been alerted to the discretionary sanctions with the template {{ Alert|ap}}, they may be blocked by any uninvolved admin as an arbitration enforcement action or have a request for enforcement filed on them. If they're blocked, then the blocking admin needs to log the block at WP:DSLOG/2017. Hopefully that clears some things up. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 21:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC) reply

And having just had a look at the page, I've blocked 2601:401:C503:63C6:0:0:0:0/64 ( block range · block log ( global) · WHOIS (partial)) one week for violation of the consensus required part of the restrictions. Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 21:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the detailed explanation. I even get it.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello Ks0stm. Regarding your proposal for renaming. Though you could have a kind of argument for renaming, the new title does not come trippingly off the tongue: "Template:Post-1932 American politics discretionary sanctions/1RR consensus required ". How about (instead) a change in what the sanction says? Recall that you and your Arbcom colleagues got rid of the consensus requirement for ARBPIA editing on 19 May. In my opinion their change is an improvement and will make AEs easier to close. It is much easier to know whether someone reverted again within 24 hours than to decide if the person managed to obtain consensus before reverting again. What would you think of doing the same for the AP sanctions? Make the reverter wait 24 hours rather than wait for consensus? It would take another AE but some people might support it. My impression is that the current AP sanction wording is mostly the creation of User:Coffee so AE ought to be able to change it. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 20:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC) reply

@ EdJohnston: My thought was that it works something like this: User A makes an edit. User B reverts it. "Consensus required" prevents User A from reverting User B's revert. Basically, the consensus required restriction gives the advantage to the status quo, because it prevents User A from coming along and unilaterally getting their way just because their one revert will be after User B's one revert. It forces consensus to be developed for the article to change, rather than for the article to stay the same, at least when it comes to any controversial change. It also prevents User C from coming along and reverting User B's revert. This can be quite helpful in preventing "revert wars" with several editors making one revert each. The 1RR, on the other hand, I've found is more useful for when an editor reverts multiple different edits on the same page within 24 hours. I've also found that in practice oftentimes editors blocked have violated both 1RR and consensus required, usually by being User A or User C and reverting more than once.

As for the proposed template name, I totally agree with you that it's a bit of a mouthful. I'm not really sure how to improve that and still have a fully descriptive name, however. My thought was that there could be redirects like {{ AP 1RR-CR page restrictions}} that are less of a mouthful, but with my suggestion for the actual template name since it's more descriptive and easier to search for in the event you don't know where to find it. Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 21:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello. I saw your closure at Wikipedia talk:Harassment#RfC: Harassment of non-editors. I'm not here to disagree with the outcome; well, I agree that there may have been consensus. I just wonder whether you can summarize the "Oppose" arguments without changing the outcome, i.e. expand your rationale. Thank you. -- George Ho ( talk) 23:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC) reply

@ George Ho: Brevity has always been a characteristic of my writing (sometimes to a fault), but I'm sure I can squeak out a sentence or two about the arguments presented. Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 23:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Okay. -- George Ho ( talk) 23:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC) reply

	Messaged me through wikipedia!
	Thank you for actually messaging , I was very, very surprised. Plus, you seem very nice. AlisaWartooth27 ( talk) 23:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi User:Ks0stm, sorry if I'm asking the wrong person but do you know if this source [5], is reliable to be used on a song article? It explicitly calls " Wild Thoughts" R&B so I'd like to use it if possible. What do you think? -- Theo Mandela ( talk) 22:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Theo Mandela: Sorry for the delayed reply; I've been very busy in real life the last month or so. I'm afraid I'm not one who usually edits song articles; you would probably get a more informed response at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs or the reliable sources noticeboard. Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 15:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC) reply

No worries, thanks for getting back to me, I'll ask the RS noticeboard.-- Theo Mandela ( talk) 15:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Persistent edit warring by IPs https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Nam_Joo-hyuk&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.243.213.111 ( talk) 02:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Already protected by administrator Ad Orientem. Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 15:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC) reply

The third round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 288 points being required to qualify for round 4. It was a hotly competitive round with all but four of the contestants exceeding the 106 points that was necessary to proceed to round 4 last year. Coemgenus and Freikorp tied on 288, and both have been allowed to proceed, so round 4 now has one pool of eight competitors and one of nine.

Round 3 saw the achievement of a 26-topic Featured topic by MPJ-DK as well as 5 featured lists and 13 featured articles. PanagiotisZois and SounderBruce achieved their first ever featured articles. Carbrera led the GA score with 10, Tachs achieved 17 DYKs and MBlaze Lightning 10 In the news items. There were 167 DYKs, 93 GARs and 82 GAs overall, this last figure being higher than the number of GAs in round 2, when twice as many people were taking part. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 4, we say goodbye to the fifteen or so competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 05:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello, if you might remember, you granted IPBE (which will expire on 23:57 4 November 2017) for Prinsipe Ybarro on 4 May 2017. The said user requested global IPBE in meta, which may at first seems legit (because the user has IPBE here), but if you will look closely, their IP address is an "open proxy" (which Prinsipe believes it is not open), which is in a range globally and meta blocked by Masti and tlwiki blocked by WayKurat. I ask you to reconsider your decision because the IPBE you placed is only to prevent a legitimate and established user to be affected by a block of an IP address/range they are using, not to use open proxies (unless you permitted them to use open proxies and Tor). I don't think of any reason for them to use open proxies or any anonymity tool like Tor at all while editing Wikipedia. Sure, probably to safeguard their privacy, but they live in the Philippines, and it is not the United States where the NSA monitors all the data of the citizens, nor China where they block access to Chinese Wikipedia. Furthermore, martial law and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is declared only in the Mindanao group of islands, not (yet) the whole Philippines. Thanks, Poyekhali ( talk) 07:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Poyekhali: I apologize for the delay replying; I've been exceptionally busy the last month or so. All user rights were removed July 6 by BU Rob13, and the account is globally locked. Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 15:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Poyekhali: Just FYI that I've archived this section; if you need to reply feel free to re-add it to my talk page. Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)}  If you reply here, please ping me by using {{ re|Ks0stm}} in your reply.  15:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC) reply