This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The problem this time is that article talk pages are erroneously added to the Passed or Failed DYK nominations categories. For example, see Category:Passed DYK nominations from May 2020 or Category:Failed DYK nominations from May 2020, which should only contain nom templates. The relevant page is {{ DYK top}}. No rush. And if digging through all of those noincludes and includeonlys gives you a headache, I could ask someone else to look at it.... MANdARAX •  XAЯAbИAM 23:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll take a look when I can. A heatwave and power shortage have been causing internet problems for the last few days, so not sure when I'll be able to get around to it. — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Just preventing the bot from archiving. (And if you prefer that I ask someone else, just lemme know.) MANdARAX •  XAЯAbИAM 18:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@ Mandarax: SD0001 got there before I did. Because of how the template works, I'm now realizing I probably should have rushed this: we'll need to go through those categories and manually implement the change. It's probably a good AWB task, so I'll draft something to post at WP:AWBREQ to get sorted out. In the meantime, do you happen to know when this problem would have started? My guess is when WugBot started transcluding noms to talk pages in June 2019, but you might have a better sense of the scope. Lastly, sorry about the delay, it's been a hectic few weeks in meat space between the heatwave, moving, and the semester starting so this completely slipped my mind. But never feel bad about poking me; I know I can be forgetful and appreciate the reminders. — Wug· a·po·des​ 20:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I lied, it was easier to write a bot script. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/WugBot 5. — Wug· a·po·des​ 22:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to you and SD0001. As for when it started.... Before the bot began transcluding, a very small number of people manually added them, so it would be any that closed after this June 2019 edit. The earliest I found, after a cursory investigation, were in February 2019. I had planned on AWB-ing the relevant pages when this was taken care of, but I guess you've saved me from having to do that. No problem about the delay. It's certainly not an urgent matter, and I didn't want to nag you, but I saw it was about time for the thread to get archived. Thanks again, MANdARAX •  XAЯAbИAM 23:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I took a look at the BRFA. Your plan to avoid "collisions" doesn't account for the fact that the category dates are based on the date of nomination, whereas the issue arises when a nom is promoted or rejected. The earliest active noms are currently from July, so collisions could occur for July and August as well as September. MANdARAX •  XAЯAbИAM 22:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I used AWB to take care of everything from July and August (and there was nothing from September to fix). If you'd like, I could do the rest, too. It may be faster than waiting for bot approval. MANdARAX •  XAЯAbИAM 01:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) I know next to nothing about the syntax issue here, but this bug came to my attention because you, Mandarax, popped up in multiple places on my watchlist; and while you have my thanks for fixing this, I wonder if it would be better to wait for bot approval just so you're not flooding the watchlist of anyone who would make a stink about it. Vanamonde ( Talk) 02:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I didn't think it would be much of an issue, since each of those closed nom templates is likely to have just one or two watchers at most. I just processed those two months to avoid difficulties for the bot, and I'm fine waiting for the bot to complete the task. MANdARAX •  XAЯAbИAM 06:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Still no hurry.... Just wondering if you've put the bot task on hold.... MANdARAX •  XAЯAbИAM 01:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Gah, not on hold, I'm just forgetful. The test is running now. Feel free to look over Special:Contributions/WugBot to make sure it hasn't messed anything up. — Wug· a·po·des​ 01:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I checked a few random ones, and they seemed fine. A reminder for the full run: as I noted above, I took care of the most recent ones, so the bot can skip July 2020 and later. (If the code listed on the bot request page is current, it just skips September and later.) MANdARAX •  XAЯAbИAM 02:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. The linked code is pretty accurate, but I added a check to make sure the bot didn't apply the fix to pages that already were fixed so even if it runs on July and August, nothing should break. — Wug· a·po·des​ 02:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

21:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

Ajpolino • LuK3

Jackmcbarn

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

There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

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

Miscellaneous

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

16:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I'm a little new to wiki and still not sure how to use this site, but I use it to try learn new things and help add reliable information, in the case where I see something which doesn't need to be there, I'll challenge it, but I'm often too scared, because I still don't know how to use this site, I love editing wiki and trying to help other editor, but I often don't know whats going to get me into trouble, I've tried to seek help before, but I still haven't gotten any response back, I have so many questions like, what if I report someone for sock puppeting and I'm wrong, will I get into any trouble? What if I report someone for abuse editing and I'm wrong, will I get into any trouble? Is there somewhere I can ask to see if I'm doing the right thing? I'd love help on all these questions and if you don't wanna help, thats fine, but could you try help point me in the right direction? And if there is anything I can do, I'll try my best, thank you in advance :) -- Toby Mitches ( talk) 01:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@ Toby Mitches: thanks for asking, and I'm sorry you feel scared. The encyclopedia is big and complex which can be intimidating, but we're all here because, like you, we enjoy helping others learn new things. As administrators, our first goal is to meatball:LimitDamage, not punish people. We know mistakes will happen; a few months ago I made a change that accidentally stopped updates to Wikipedia's software for a few hours and I'm still around, so do your best and carry a fishing net.

• if I report someone for sock puppeting and I'm wrong, will I get into any trouble Probably not. If you keep doing it and keep being wrong, someone will probably ask you to stop. As long as you're making good-faith reports with evidence, you shouldn't have any problems.
• if I report someone for abuse editing and I'm wrong, will I get into any trouble? Probably not, though this one is trickier. We have WP:BOOMERANG which says that we review the whole situation, not just the reported editor, and while it seems scary at first it's actually to protect people. Looking at all sides incentivizes not escalating, since everyone will want to be seen as the side not doing bad stuff. If you show that you've been trying to deescalate and improve, people will usually cut you some slack. Everyone has off days, so as long as it looks like you're trying to solve the problem rather than continuing the drama,
• Is there somewhere I can ask to see if I'm doing the right thing? The Teahouse has a lot of knowledgeable people and they all watch that page because they like helping new editors. Administrative pages like SPI and AN also have talk pages, and just like articles you can have meta-discussions there. Asking on user talk pages is also a good strategy, though some people are faster at replying than others. We're all volunteers, so questions don't always get the fastest responses.

Hopefully that helps, but let me know if you have other questions. — Wug· a·po·des​ 02:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding, I was pretty scared when I saw the warning but than you removed it, thank you for understanding me, also I'll try stick up for myself a little more and I'll avoid going anywhere near Wikipedia's software, but I'm now unsure about what to do next, I think I'll try to discuss things with Vamlos a little more and than report him for sock puppetting, next I wanna clean up the mess in the interracial marriage wiki page, should I just simply remove the information and see if anyone stops me than discuss it with them on the talk? Or should I make a post about it somewhere? Or should I wait for the admins to do something? Should I make another post on the Teahouse? Also if go back and change what I edited will I still get into trouble if I than report someone for abuse reporting? I'm still kinda confused -- Toby Mitches ( talk) 04:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@ Toby Mitches: should I wait for the admins to do something? Yes, I think that's the best choice. Multiple admins are aware of the situation, so I don't think you need to worry yourself over it. If you really want to edit that page, I think you should wait a few weeks and focus your efforts on other pages. As Liz mentions, there's been a lot of conflict the last few weeks, and it's probably better to stay out of it. Resolving disputes is easier if there are fewer people involved. If you think your concerns are time sensitive, you can always email an administrator or checkuser with the evidence/request and ask that they handle it for you. — Wug· a·po·des​ 05:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Yea, think I'll take a break off wiki for a good couple weeks and see what happens, good luck to all of you guys -- Toby Mitches ( talk) 05:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Just a note, Wug·, but this article has been the site of a lot of conflict over the past couple of weeks. This is not just a newbie editor running into a unintentional conflict with a random editor. I'm not saying that Toby is responsible for the article talk page disruption that has moved on to noticeboards (as it predates his participation on the article) but just a head's up, this editor chose to dive into a dispute. I've already advised one of the participants to move on to edit other articles but it didn't seem to have much of an impact. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I've already advised one of the participants to move on to edit other articles Yes, this is perhaps the best advice for the given dispute. I got caught up on the specific questions. American politics and race are two very...heated...topics, and you will probably have more fun if you get started on a page with less conflict. — Wug· a·po·des​ 03:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Originally I didn't want to be apart of this debate, I just saw something wrong with the interracial marriage wiki and thought it was best to do something, I was even going to plan to get an admin to do my work for me, but no one replied to my statement on the teahouse, also it is true, I'm not a newbie editor, I actually have some skill when it comes to editing, but outside from that, I'm pretty lose, like, I started the Eritrean Australians wiki page, probably my proudest accomplishment, but when it comes to sock puppetting, abuse reporting, vandalism and others, I would often try to avoid these subjects as I'm new to these topics and don't really know how to act or what to say as I'm uneducated on these matters, however, I've done enough damage, sorry for the mess I've made, and good luck to all that have to review the case, again I'm sorry -- Toby Mitches ( talk) 04:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I feel I am being mobbed. I was upset because I felt I was wrongly accused of soapboxing and spamming. I also felt that words were poorly used against me. I filed a complaint with an administrator already. Regardless, an administrator who is not part of my communications is already passing judgement against me and even telling me that I may not be able to use wikipedia again because they feel I am being too sensitive. I just wish that Drmies, would stay away from contacting me. I recognize that I may not win in any complaints I have posted. However the root of my complaint was a lack of civility and my deep fear of mobbing. The fact that Drmies simply messaged me telling me that I am wrong, even though I never made any contact with them, is unjust. Whatever judgement being passed upon me from the administration I complained to would be accepted. However, I feel that total strangers who are not part of my complaint such as Drmies, should not contact me especially when they make little effort to understand my perspective. Waferpedia ( talk) 01:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@ Waferpedia: I understand your concern and how it can feel to get a warning template when you think you've done nothing wrong. Every administrator started out where you are now. Editors try our best to assume good faith and not drive off new contributors, but that is a two-way street. You need to assume that others are acting in good faith as well. Editors in that discussion were trying to educate you about our community norms. While you're free to argue about our policies, they have been developed over years by hundreds of editors so you will receive significant pushback if you challenge them. The heart of the matter is that, if you repeatedly violate our policies after being warned, you will be blocked until you demonstrate that you can follow them. You may not appreciate how Drmies phrased it, but that is the stark reality. Fundamentally we are the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, so anyone is welcome to participate in a public discussion even if they are a total stranger. Looking into the situation, here are my suggestions: (1) find and edit articles you like that are not related to the 2020 US presidential election---it is not a good place to start your editing career, (2) understand that criticism is feedback and you should learn from it rather than becoming defensive, (3) learn strategies to handle stressful on-wiki situations so that you can continue to contribute even when you run into people you don't like. — Wug· a·po·des​ 01:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Using words like spammer and soapboxing are just as hurtful as any profanity. The offline world is suffering from over policing and police brutality. Whatever mistakes I have made did not warrant me getting threatened or being invalidated. The online world also needs to examine how mistakes are handled. Getting accused of being a spammer or soapboxing are severe statements which could lead to me facing punishment. I was threatened by Drmies regarding a situation which he was not part of. MASEM was able to explain things in a civil way. Drmies used a veiled threat towards me by telling me my "tenure could be cut short." De-escalation tactics could have been used by Drmies, and all the others who had contacted me. The people who had found fault with my mistaken links derived pleasure from humiliating me because they found an easy target and an excuse to torment me because they thought I was a spammer. This is the same type of situation people fear from law enforcement in the offline world. Many people in the offline world get humiliated by law enforcement over petty offenses. Whatever petty offenses I mistakenly did were not deserving of a group of people invalidating me with weaponized language. Waferpedia ( talk) 04:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Waferpedia, if you continue to harass Smuckola, Drmies, myself, and other editors who took the time to leave you constrictive criticism on your talk page, you will find yourself blocked from editing. You're going around to admins that you seem to think will be sympathetic and are drawing more and more people into the situation. Even though everyone is telling you the same thing—that there is nothing inappropriate about the criticism of your external links—you are continuing with this ridiculous behavior. Comparing me and others to abusive police who terrorize and murder people is absolutely unacceptable and extremely immature and petty. Frankly, it's already blockable conduct and I will immediately take you to WP:ANI if you make any sort of personal attack again. ―  Tartan357 ^{( Talk)} 10:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Tartan357 Please just do it and let's get it over with please. We are way way way past the point of a zero-repentance anti-repentent anti-learning WP:CIR WP:NOTHERE WP:NPA WP:ASPERSIONS WP:DROPTHESTICK WP:ICANTHEARYOU WP:CANVAS WP:HOUND WP:BOOMERANG troll. He already stalked me once and you. At first I didn't recognize your username and I was worried to look up whether there was any chance that you weren't experienced enough to know that you were being victimized by projection, and whether you know that you don't have to respond to attacks and trolling. A newer user wouldn't know that and would have gotten blasted. This person has professed a 100% fanatically antiencyclopedic and anti-collegiate stance, having stomped onto a privately owned website and railroaded over all the published policies and personal guidance, and unilaterally dictated to all of us and to Wikipedia itself what Wikipedia is and is not according to personal feelings. The end. Please file it if you would be so kind. — Smuckola (talk) 18:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Smuckola, I completely agree but am a bit busy at the moment and won't be able to file an ANI report today. I wouldn't object to you doing so. Personally, I don't let this kind of behavior get under my skin because I think we can all tell how ridiculous it is, but something should still be done about it, of course. ―  Tartan357 ^{( Talk)} 21:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@ Tartan357 and Smuckola: I recommend you take your own advice and WP:DROPTHESTICK for a moment. By my count, five administrators are aware of the situation, and if it called for a block I would bet one of us would have done so by now. Waferpedia has not edited mainspace since your warnings, and the only pressing issue is an interpersonal dispute that you could easily resolve by ignoring Wafer. Remember that Please do not bite the newcomers is a behavioral guideline and Assume good faith is a policy; calling a new editor who is clearly confused and upset a "troll" or a "stalker" is not helpful in de-escalating the situation and is also a violation of our policies and guidelines. Posting on your talk page in response to a post you left on theirs is not stalking, and it's certainly not wikihounding. Being naive, confused, or sensitive is not the same as being a "troll" and the assumption of bad faith is astonishing. Go do something else. — Wug· a·po·des​ 21:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Wugapodes, I have no desire to continue this on my own, but I reserve the right to respond to posts at new talk pages containing personal attacks against me. The claim that we left warnings because we "derived pleasure from humiliating [Waferpedia] because [we] found an easy target and an excuse to torment" is patently offensive and cannot possibly have been made in good faith. ―  Tartan357 ^{( Talk)} 22:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@ Tartan357: As I said, five administrators are aware of the situation and are working on it. Stop making our jobs harder by continuing to add to the drama. I have no desire to continue this on my own Great, then you should have no problem taking my advice and not continue this childish spat. If you and Smuckola want to keep riling each other up against my advice, do it on your own talk pages, but nothing good is coming from this thread. I recommend you take the same advice I gave Wafer and disengage. — Wug· a·po·des​ 22:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Your input would likely be useful here. Thanks. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 00:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Wugapodes, thank you for volunteering at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020/Electoral Commission. While not required unless you are selected, I suggest you start the confidentiality agreement with WMF right away. The directions to do so are here: meta:Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign. The reason why is that should you be selected for EC, the appointment will be on hold until this gets completed and is reflected on the list here: meta:meta:ID. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 23:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done thanks for the heads up! — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the protection on my talk page. The stuff from the germaine vandal is getting old. Best regards, - - Bédévore ^{[knock knock]} 21:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, you are receiving this message because you have either contributed to Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests in the past six months or are an active editor listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/verified users. I have started a discussion regarding the project's current status at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject on open proxies#Reboot, you are invited to participate in the discussion. If you are not interested in the project, no action is required on your part; this is a one-time notification and you will not receive any further messages. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 14:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC) (on behalf of User:GeneralNotability)

15:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Can user:165.139.234.2 please be blocked ASAP for at least 4 years due to their block history. CLCStudent ( talk) 00:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done @ CLCStudent: I went with 3 years instead of 4 since I'm not sure continuing to escalate the length will be effective. If you think 3 years isn't long enough I'd prefer to indef instead and force an unblock request since this IP seems highly stable. — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Can user:108.168.28.195 please be blocked ASAP. CLCStudent ( talk) 00:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your help on this! Based on this articles' history, we will likely have to seek an "IP Block" for the article G. Capo ( talk) 20:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@ G. Capo: No problem. I applied semi-protection which prevents edits from IP editors and registered editors with fewer than 10 edits and 4 days tenure. That will last until the 23rd, and hopefully it resolves the problem. If not let me or another administrator know and we can make the protection last longer. — Wug· a·po·des​ 22:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Wugapodes...unfortunately the old problem (above) concerning this topic has reemerged. Another editor thankfully reverted the edits. Any assistance on this would be greatly appreciated. G. Capo ( talk) 22:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@ G. Capo: I protected the page for a month. Thanks for bringing this up. — Wug· a·po·des​ 22:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Much appreciated. G. Capo ( talk) 21:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Before you protected this page you should have reversed the disorganized and unsourced edit that was made. That section of the article is looking like a mess at the moment. Also can you please protect Anka's page permanently? Edit warring about his ancestry has taken place for a long time now and it has been discussed extensively in his talk page as you can see but still disruptive users choose not to go to the talk page to discuss and choose to edit war Chris O' Hare ( talk) 14:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@ Chris O' Hare: Thanks for bringing this up. I looked again and I think I misinterpreted the timeline, so I've modified the protection. I think you're right that it's a longer-term issue, so I'll modify it to 3 months of semi-protection. The disruption is not enough to protect permanently, but if problems persist after a few months let me or another sysop know know and I'll protect it again. — Wug· a·po·des​ 21:33, 15 October 2020 (UT

Thanks for your collaboration. I reverted the disruptive edit but it seems like my reversal took away the protection you added. Im not sure why this happened. Can you please add the protection again? Sorry for the inconvenience. Chris O' Hare ( talk) 21:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok another administrator just added back. But I noticed the protection is until October 18th, meaning 3 days not 3 months as you mentioned you intended the protection to be. Chris O' Hare ( talk) 21:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@ Chris O' Hare: Ugh, I need more coffee. Sorry for messing this up so many times. Everything should be correct now. — Wug· a·po·des​ 21:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Since you've been active regarding to issues with IPs on AN, I'm looking for your help in this issue I recently brought up here. Thank you, SMB9 9thx my edits 09:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Wugapodes. Thank you for volunteering to be an election commissioner for the 2020 Arbitration Committee Election. Following the community RfC, you have been selected as a reserve election commissioner! In the event of a vacancy, you will be automatically promoted to the election commission. Your continued assistance with the election is still welcome, and you may volunteer as a community coordinator if you would like. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know (and thanks to everyone who participated in the RfC)! Hopefully things go smoothly and I won't be needed. — Wug· a·po·des​ 20:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

16:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm surprised not to have found this in your talk archives, but how do you pronounce your username? I've been reading it in my head as (approximately) /ˌwʌɡ.ɑˈpəʊdz/ but then I thought that actually you might use a pronunciation more like /ˌwʌɡ.ɑ.pəʊˈdiːz/? Thryduulf ( talk) 01:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

( talk page watcher) I for one subvocalize it as /wəˈɡæpədiːz/, following the maximally pedantic pronunciation of octopodes. Nardog ( talk) 01:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I can't read these pronunciation languages but isn't it WUG-a-podes, like it's spelled? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Am I the only one who always assumed it was pronounced /ˈvʊɡəpʌdɛʃ/? ;-) Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 03:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@ Thryduulf: I like to leave it intentionally vague because then I get to hear a variety of pronunciations! Looking at yours, I've used both, but I think your second transcription is closest to my most frequent pronunciation: [ˌwʌɡ.ə.ˈpəʊ.deːs]. It's a mispronunciation of the Greek plural (as Nardog points out) in a word that misanalyzed the Greek plural ("octo+pod+es" → "octo+podes" through juncture loss). — Wug· a·po·des​ 19:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Thryduulf, pot/kettle? Threedoolf? (I can't get my head round those funny IPA squiggles I'm afraid...) GirthSummit _(blether) 19:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@ Wugapodes: thank you, and yes the variety even on just this thread is interesting :)

@ Girth Summit: I do have the IPA transcription of how I pronounce my username on my Wiktinary user page - /ˈθɹiːd.(ʍ)ʌlf/ (I have no idea if this is how the Anglo Saxons would have pronounced it). Appoximated in English orthography it's roughly THREED-ulf or optionally THREED-hwulf if you have the voiceless W sound (/hw/ or /ʍ/) found in accents without the wine-whine merger. Think of it as the word "three" with a d on the end followed by "wolf" with the "w" optional, the stress is on the first syllable. Thryduulf ( talk) 20:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Thryduulf, thank you for explaining how little I understand about pronunciation! And for the explanation - I'll try to get the little voice in my head to remember that for next time I come across your username. :) GirthSummit _(blether) 21:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

What the heck have I stumbled into now? —valereee ( talk) 23:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

17:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

October

Today's DYK is a song, Singt dem Herrn ein neues Lied (Kempf), a call to see and praise wonders daily and let nobody deny that, written in World War II, - a good recipe for peace, it seems. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry this is dragging out. I've got some personal matters that are taking a lot of my time. I'm still trying to get to the bottom of this so please bear with me. E Eng 16:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@ EEng: Absolutely no rush! It's a hard time for everyone, so I understand that you need to take care of yourself first. — Wug· a·po·des​ 20:50, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes John M Wolfson Bduke • Nilfanion • Philosopher • Rspeer • Yunshui Interface administrator changes Ragesoss TonyBallioni

CheckUser changes EdJohnston • Oshwah • Yamla Yunshui Oversight changes Anarchyte Yunshui

Guideline and policy news

• Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.

Technical news

• Sysops will once again be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to interface administrators when that group was introduced.
• Twinkle's block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a discretionary sanctions block and/or template.
• Sysops will be able to use Special:CreateLocalAccount to create a local account for a global user that is prevented from auto-creation locally (such as by a filter or range block). Administrators that are not sure if such a creation is appropriate should contact a checkuser.

Arbitration

• The 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections process has begun. Eligible editors will be able to nominate themselves as candidates from November 8 through November 17. The voting period will run from November 23 through December 6.
• The Anti-harassment RfC has concluded with a summary of the feedback provided.

Miscellaneous

• A reminder that standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. ( American Politics 2 Arbitration case).

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for renaming 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war! Excutient ( talk) 03:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Can you please protect Joseph Safra's, his father's Jacob Safra and his brothers' Edmond Safra and Moise Safra pages permanently like you did with Paul Anka's on October 15th? IP users and newly registered users created accounts continue to change to their nationality from Lebanese to Syrian or to Syrian Lebanese even after primary sources have been provided both on his page and his talk page that clearly state he is Lebanese by nationality just like his father not Syrian nor both. His father was born in Aleppo but his documentation proves he had Lebanese nationality not Syrian.

Because only someone whose father is Lebanese can obtain nationality, Joseph Safra's grandfather had to be Lebanese as well as per the Lebanese law so the Syrian ancestry of the Safra family has not really been proven by official documentation and there are reliable sources that say the family is originally a sephardic family from Northern Lebanon, not Syria. All of that is explained in the Talk Page. A note was added a while ago on the respective part of his wikibio about not changing his ancestry and pointing to Talk Page for evidence/sources/discussion but the note is being constantly disregarded. Chris O' Hare ( talk) 15:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

16:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The 2020 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round going down to the wire. Our new Champion is Lee Vilenski ( submissions), the runner-up last year, who was closely followed by Gog the Mild ( submissions). In the final round, Lee achieved 4 FAs and 30 GAs, mostly on cue sport topics, while Gog achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on important battles and wars, which earned him a high number of bonus points. The Rambling Man ( submissions) was in third place with 4 FAs and 8 GAs on football topics, with Epicgenius ( submissions) close behind with 19 GAs and 16 DYK's, his interest being the buildings of New York.

The other finalists were Hog Farm ( submissions), HaEr48 ( submissions), Harrias ( submissions) and Bloom6132 ( submissions). The final round was very productive, and besides 15 FAs, contestants achieved 75 FAC reviews, 88 GAs and 108 GAN reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.

• Gog the Mild ( submissions) wins the featured article prize, for a total of 14 FAs during the course of the competition.
• Bloom6132 ( submissions) win the featured list prize, for 5 FLs in round 4.
• Rhododendrites ( submissions) wins the featured picture prize, for 3 FPs in round 3 and 5 overall.
• Lee Vilenski ( submissions) wins the featured article reviewer prize, for 23 FAC reviews in round 5.
• Epicgenius ( submissions) wins the good article prize, for 45 GAs in round 2 and 113 overall.
• MPJ-DK ( submissions) wins the topic prize, for 33 articles in good topics in round 2.
• The Rambling Man ( submissions) wins the good article reviewer prize, for 100 good article reviews in round 2.
• Epicgenius ( submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 22 Did you know articles in round 4 and 94 overall.
• Bloom6132 ( submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 63 In the news articles in round 4 and 136 overall.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2021 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! 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, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 11:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	I saw some of your recent edits, specifically the people that you have given ranks to, and you have done a lot. Helpthepeople9 ( talk) 15:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Wugapodes, is there a reason why Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of the Saw hasn't been moved from the DYK Nominations page to the Approved page? I had just manually moved Template:Did you know nominations/William E. Miller (Medal of Honor) from Nominations to Approved before I found this one, but since it also hasn't moved, I thought I'd leave it in place so you can look into why it hasn't moved. Please let me know what you find. Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 18:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

They both had File:Symbol_confirmed.svg. I changed the underscore to a space in the unmoved one; let's see if the bot takes care of it now. MANdARAX •  XAЯAbИAM 18:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

It did. MANdARAX •  XAЯAbИAM 19:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh, weird, I thought I'd fixed that before. I've updated the code now so that it should recognize the underscore variant. — Wug· a·po·des​ 20:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)