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.

You closed several AfDs discussions early today, some more than half a day early, and some which had received minimal input. Can I remind you that AfDs run for a full 7 days unless one of the accepted criteria for an early close is met. Thanks. -- Michig ( talk) 13:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Ach, my bad, sorry. Blame the "closing" filter; it shows the full log for one week ago rather than just those discussions that are old enough to be closed. If there are any that you feel were sufficiently likely to swing the other way and that should therefore be re-opened for a few more hours, please let me know. Yunshui  ^雲 _水 14:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I've had a look through. Nothing that would likely be kept I think, but be there are several regular editors who !vote delete as a matter of principle on any article that's undersourced, and some IP votes in there who could really be anyone, so I personally would be looking for more input (and better arguments) in some of those discussions before closing. -- Michig ( talk) 14:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Generally speaking I'm fairly conservative about closing AFDs, but since AFD is no longer as widely attended as it used to be I generally consider two or three unambiguous Delete or Keep !votes to be decisive if no-one arguing the other way (always assuming that the policy is being cited correctly in such !votes). AFD is backlogged most of the time as it is, so if there's a clear consensus one way or the other I don't usually waste time prying into the motivations of all of the editors involved. One expects AFD regulars to know what they are about, and IPs have the same right to be heard in deletion discussions as anyone else, so I don't discount arguments made by either regulars or IPs based on who made them (indeed, unless there's obvious socking going on, I don't concern myself much with who is !voting at all). Yunshui  ^雲 _水 14:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Could you please restore Samuel Clift. I'd like to see if I can bulk it up. Thanks! -- evrik ^{( talk)} 15:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, there's no point - it was a single, unsourced sentence; there's basically nothing worth restoring. You're more than welcome to start a new version of the page, though. Yunshui  ^雲 _水 16:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Please? -- evrik ^{( talk)} 21:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Forgive me, I'm fairly new to wikipedia. I'm struggling to identify the reasons for deletion of this page (A7, G11 etc). I went to the edit summary of the page, but couldn't find what I was looking for. I've looked at the page on Notability and it seems to me there is evidence of notability in the entry - at least in comparison with a lot of other pages on wikipedia. The page has plenty of footnotes and references, it is factual and contains no superlatives or any other vocabulary that implies promotion.

Previously a page of this name was created with the title 'Interdisciplinary Design for the Built Environment (IDBE)'. An administrator, justlettersandnumbers, redirected it to a new page with the same name but without the acronym. Unfortunately this resulted in a loss of some links, so the page was reinstated. This may have been a cause of frustration to the administrator. However at that time, September 2017, a review led to the decision to keep the page. See:

/info/en/?search=Talk:Interdisciplinary_Design_for_the_Built_Environment_(IDBE)

So I have to say that, apart from anything else, the decision now to delete the page entirely is contrary to the earlier decision.

In addition, there are explanations under the talk page of the deleted article of why it should be retained.

Alternatively if you are unhappy about the content, or feel there are facts that should be challenged, I would be happy to know them. More generally I would welcome advice about how to improve the page drawing on your expertise and experience. I would just say that I hope it is in the spirit of wikipedia for articles to be to some extent 'work in progress' such that others can contribute with new information, references and links. The page was reasonably comprehensive, but was being periodically updated when it was subject to the redirect.

With thanks Torino-Topolino ( talk) 22:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The reason for the page being returned to a redirect is the consensus at both Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interdisciplinary Design for the Built Environment and Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_1#Interdisciplinary_Design_for_the_Built_Environment_(IDBE). As far as I can tell, you are literally the only editor arguing for its inclusion as a stand-alone article. Given that pretty much every edit you have made has been to either add information about his course or add links to it elsewhere in Wikipedia I have to ask: what is your relationship to the program and the College? If you are working for the College, you have a conflict of interest and need to declare this in edits that you make on the subject. Yunshui  ^雲 _水 22:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) Torino-Topolino, just so's you know, I'm not an administrator. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 22:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I think you can probably tell that I am not very experienced at writing wikipedia pages, and not fully aware of the various roles that indiviiduals take on. Apologies to justlettersandnumbers for implying he (she) is an administrator. About the article. There are more than 31 people named in it, and I am one of them. However, I am retired and not employed by the college. What I have always hoped about wikipedia, is that it presents the opportunity for everyday people like me who have an interest in a topic and some knowledge of it, to write an evidence-based factual account of it. Others can chip in and contribute what they know, and in this way, the page might grow and improve. In this case, those who might be knowledgeable about the topic are mostly professional engineers not wikipedia article writers and are not only busy but perhaps unfamiliar with how to edit and improve the page. I haven't attempted to orchestrate others to contribute where perhaps I should have done. About the redirect - as I have argued elsewhere, surely the benefit of wikipedia with its html links is the possibility of separate pages that offer connections so that readers can navigate to whatever interest them. Redirecting eliminates that possibility. If the page could be reinstated these links could probably grow, although it's not an instant process. I recognise that as wikipedia becomes more definitive, the unscrupulous will use it to promote a particular and biased view of their topic. I would hope it is the role of self-appointed reviewerse to check this sort of bias. However, I dispute that the article in question, whoever it has been written by, demonstrates unwelcome bias. My opinion is that the article as written is simply a factual record of the programme's origins and history. If you detect bias, as opposed to a simple factual history, tell me how I should amend the article to remove it. I will happily do so. Don't know what else to add really. Torino-Topolino ( talk) 15:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by consensus, and so far, in two separate venues, a consensus has arisen that considers a redirect to be the most appropriate result for this article. You can take this up at deletion review, if you wish, but it is not me that you have to convince of anything; I simply happen to be the administrator who closed the discussion.

You also seem to have a slightly skewed idea of what Wikipedia is for; as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia operates as a tertiary source documenting what secondary and other tertiary sources have said about a subject. If the information in an article is derived from the subject of the article, that's a primary source, and Wikipedia is emphatically not a primary source. As such, we aren't really interested in what editors themselves know about a topic, we are interested in what sources they can locate. The sources that previously existed in the article were not about the subject, but were either works produced by its alumni or were entirely tangential, meaning that the article was not suitable for Wikipedia. Unless independent sources - which are not affiliated with the IDBE - write about it, it does not meet the inclusion criteria.

Furthermore, if you are an alumnus or a prior employee of the program, then you do indeed have a conflict of interest, and should therefore avoid writing about it on Wikipedia. Yunshui  ^雲 _水 16:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

As I noted above, in September 2017 and previously the article was reviewed and the result was a decision to keep the page. That now seems to have been reversed. May I also question your statement: '... we aren't really interested in what editors themselves know about a topic ...' Who exactly is the 'we' here? Is it not important to consider what readers might be interested in, rather than what seems to be a very small number of probably well-intentioned but nevertheless self-appointed reviewers? Is that what consensus means? Equally is it not desirable and indeed largely inevitable that editors want to write about something they have real knowledge of and can capture in a dispassionate way for the benefit of potential wikipedia users? You claim that the sources in the article were not about the subject - but actually some were. The course originated with a seminar at Madingley at which leading engineers, architects and academics came together to forge the syllabus. Subsequently the course was endorsed by the highly influential at the time Latham Review cited in the article. Additional sources could be added by others; as I previously said, the article is a work in progress and no doubt more exhaustive search could identify additional independent sources. Finally as I have requested already, if you can help by defining aspects of the article which you consider to be biased, subversive, promotional or in some other way unsuitable for publication, these can be amended or removed. Complete deletion on the other hand looks like censorship, and prevents future editors adding, subtracting, amending or otherwise contributing to the article such that the original initiator's contribution becomes obsolete. Maybe my view of wikipedia is skewed or at least overly idealistic. I have always regarded it as a wonderful example of the potential of the world wide web to encourage the pooling of human knowledge for the benefit of society at large. However being censored like this, without any real critique of the content of the article, has rather changed my view. Torino-Topolino ( talk) 21:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The decision in September 2017 was to keep the page as a redirect to Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership, a decision that was further cemented in the deletion discussion last week. Keep, in this instance, meant "keep the redirect", not "keep the article content".

Again, you do not have to convince me of anything; I am not the arbiter of whether or not the article should be retained or deleted. That decision was taken by the community, and can only be reversed by the community. The venue in which to make your arguments is WP:DRV; you could convince me 100% that the article should remain and I still wouldn't be able to recreate it, because my opinion does not override that of the community. Yunshui  ^雲 _水 08:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi again Yunshui. Omedetou gozaimasu and all of that stuff. I need a bit of advice on how to try and reach another editor named Ganeshprasadkp. This editor has been previously advised multiple times about uploading copyrighted images inappropriately to Wikipedia, yet they still are doing so. If you check there's user talk history, you'll see multiple warnings and other friendly posts have been left, but all they seem to be doing is blanking the page and continuing on as before. They are either citing the website chiloka.com (which appears to be a WP:UGC site [1] which does not generate any of its own original images and may even be connected to the uploader), or claiming them as "own work" (without providing any EXIF data or any other way to verify that they are; for example, a screenshot like File:Sundar-Krishna-Urs-Img.jpg). Most of the images appear to be living persons so they would fail WP:NFCC#1 as non-free, but there may be a few that are OK. Perhaps, you might try one last time explaining things to this editor since you did write User:Yunshui/Images for beginners and you might be able to help them out. If that doesn't work, then this is coming really close to a WP:IDHT or WP:CIR since the editor clearly is not getting something about copyright licensing and stronger action might then need to be taken. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 22:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I took a look, and had even composed a bit of an explanation for him... but after looking over his deleted upload history and the history of warnings on his talkpage, I fear mere explanations are not going to get the point across. I've implemented a two-week block; if these infractions continue after it expires, the next one will probably be an indef. Yunshui  ^雲 _水 10:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look. I've tried a couple of times to explain things, including at User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2018/January#Regarding an article deletion, but never had much luck. A block is unfortunate, but was perhaps unavoidable. I thought the last bunch of warnings made at the beginning of January were sufficient, but the recent spurt of uploading the past few days showed they weren't. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 13:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that Sivagopalakrishnan might be a sock per WP:QUACK based upon File:Padmapriya (old).jpg just uploaded to Commons as well as other image warnings on this editor's user talk page. I made my concerns known at c:User talk:Christian Ferrer#User:Sivagopalakrishnan, but there are probably more edits being made to Wikipedia articles for a CU/SPI request. Do you think there's anything to this and worth start an SPI over. FWIW, I don't think this is a case of post-block WP:EVADE per se since both accounts were active prior to Ganeshprasadkp being blocked; I think the person might have just been switching from one account to another to give the appearance that two seperate editors making similar improvements. If it turns out I'm seeing things where they aren't, then I'll drop the stick and just move on. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Did you beat me to VRTS ticket #  2018012310010679? I'm looking for things to suppress and I'm not finding anything. I see you've re-deleted the user's page, which implies that I didn't "miss" anything, but I just wanted to check. Primefac ( talk) 18:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't actually know there was a ticket for it until just now; I happened to have them on my watchlist for other reasons and OS'd the earlier version of the page on sight. Sorry for any accidental cross-over - didn't mean to tread on your toes! Yunshui  ^雲 _水 08:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, it's totally fine, I just went looking for un-suppressed revisions and didn't find any! Courcelles also keeps managing to do the same (whether through OTRS or just being in the right place) so I'm kinda used to it. Just seemed weird that they kept saying "you missed some, you missed some" when I hadn't! Primefac ( talk) 19:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Heh, we do seem to have races to handle the OTRS tickets anymore... Courcelles ( talk) 21:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Could you please restore Komal Rao. I am adding more references and details. Her credentials as a prominent female martial artist in India, Speaker, Actor have been ignored. Will make the changes. Thanks -- Modyyash ^{( Modyyash)}

@ Modyyash: Please put new messages at the bottom of this page, thanks. I will re-review the deleted page, but it seemed to be virtually identical to the text that was previously deleted, and the community has already established that the previous version of the page was not appropriate.

I also have to point out that if you are writing about Komal Rao in a prefessional capacity (noting the info on your userpage) you are in violation of Wikipedia's Terms of Use, and need to read and follow the paid-contribution instructions straight away to avoid being blocked. Yunshui  ^雲 _水 11:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Having now re-reviewed the page - yes, it's basically identical. There are no new sources, the text is virtually unchanged, there is no additional claim to notability that was not in the previous version. Deletion under speedy deletion criterion G4 is therefore completely warranted. As I explained in my email, if you wish to challenge the closure of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Komal Rao, the place to do so is at Deletion Review. Yunshui  ^雲 _水 11:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@ Yunshui: Point Noted on the deletion review & putting messages at the end of the page. I am a student at her academy and not doing this professionally or for exchange of money. Kindly look me up and I am not in the business of any kind of marketing. I have firsthand information about her and female martial artists in India aren't a lot many. Thanks

That's a fairly clear conflict of interest you have there. You really shouldn't be writing on Wikipedia about subjects you are personally close to. Yunshui  ^雲 _水 08:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

There are enough references I haven't written anything that is out of the ordinary or not verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modyyash ( talk • contribs) 06:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I have been doing a cleanup of the ‘Adopter’ information page for the Adopt-a-user Project, located here. During my cleanup, I've removed several long-inactive and retired users, leaving just the most recently active ones, whether they're currently available (14 users) or not currently available (24 users).

In order to provide potential adoptees with an easy location to find people, the Adopter's page needs to be up-to-date with the latest availability information. Thus:

• If you are no longer interested in being an adopter, even in the future, please remove yourself from the list, and delete any {{ adopting}} templates from your user pages.
• If you are still interested, but not currently available, please check the list to see if your details needs to be updated - especially with regards availability. (A dummy edit would show me you’ve checked and are OK with what’s currently there.)
• Feel free to add a line at the bottom of your entry to show how many adoptees you’ve previously helped. I’m sure that would be of interest to newcomers, especially when you do return.
• I have also cleaned out nearly 100 inactive editors still flagged as seeking adoption. That leaves just 18 people currently interested in being adopted.

You are receiving this message because you are listed as an adopter here.

Finally, as an editor with previous experience of adoption (unlike myself!), you might wish to respond to the (admittedly long) comments I've made here about how I think the project could be improved and got working again. I've also 'been bold' and tweaked the project pages a wee bit. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes ( talk) 01:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@ Nick Moyes: Hi Nick - regards from [another part of the UK]. I'm glad to see someone pumping a bit of life back into the Adopt-a-user program, although I think I may bow out of it myself. A few years back, Worm That Turned and I did the same sort of thing; revamped all the pages, streamlined the process, got people involved again - and it worked, for a while... Unfortunately, having adopted quite a few users during that time period, I've personally come to the conclusion that it isn't an effective system - it doesn't seem to help with editor retention (most adoptees left after a month or so) and the editors who are likely to stick around tend not to need it. Again: that's only my personal experience - anecdotal evidence is not data! - but I've become sufficiently disillusioned with the process to not want to participate any further. I'll certainly go and take a look at your ideas but... don't hold your breath for a response there from me, sorry.

There are a couple pages in my userspace which you may or may not find useful:

• Adoption school template
• List of potentially interested parties
• Invitation message for new adopters

plus a few more (anything with the prefix User:Yunshui/Overhaul or User:Yunshui/Adoption might potentially be helpful); feel free to move any that you like the look of to your own userspace or edit them in mine.

Best of luck with the project; I'm glad to see it's back in good hands! Yunshui  ^雲 _水 09:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks you very much for that offer of resources. And thanks for editing the Adopters list. I can also understand your feelings now, too. Bear in mind that I only really came to this less than a week ago to offer what skills I could there (i.e. from helping out at the Teahouse with single queries), and then found it unworkable and in the doldrums. So, it's too early to say, but I might be minded to suggest either a)complete close-down to avoid all confusion and doubt about it, or b) that the programme might work if it were simply maintained as a pool of willing/helpful editors to whom promising-looking editors could be encouraged to visit when perhaps another editor or help desk volunteers spots a promising but struggling person with genunie interest in contributing. More of a single point of contact and watchful eye, than a formal trainer. Those who volunteer here, like you have done, would then be signing up to give a little guidance/watching of another users activities, rather than developing and offering them an intensive training programme. In other words, AAU ould be more like an extended Help desk/Teahouse volunteer - not a proactive "let's go out and see who's struggling" project and train them in all of our policies. It does look to me like the "we'll come from AAU, find you, and train you" approach hasn't worked for some time - especially as we now have so many other useful help resources. You'll see Swarm has suggested I just dive in further and try to change the place to make it work. That does rather go against the grain of seeking consensus for big changes, but I'll do whatever I can in good faith to restore/retain something that is workable without requiring undue effort. (I wish I knew what tools were used to maintain and remove templates from inactive editors - it's a huge manual task. Any ideas?) Regards, Nick Moyes ( talk) 10:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Swarm echoed many of my own thoughts there. I agree that it may be time for AAU to be marked as historical and shelved, but I do like your idea of a pool of potential helpers as a replacement. Could be something as simple as a user category, perhaps with a userbox that automatically adds volunteers to it, that then gets publicised at the Teahouse and Help Desk, or in the {{ helpme}} template. That could work... Yunshui  ^雲 _水 10:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Dear User:Yunshui, Please see User talk:2600:1006:B046:E638:6DE5:AB11:85AF:40DD for a response to your denial to my unblock request. YborCityJohn ( talk) 15:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Yunshui, whenever you have time, would you mind taking a look at this IPBE request in User talk:Fitindia, if possible? I've never done IPBE before, so even though I think this is a collateral damage for an editor that I know very well from DYK, I'd like to be sure. Thanks in advance! Alex Shih ( talk) 05:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Alex. I'm not sure IPBE would be necessary here. Fitindia's ISP assigns a different IP very regularly, and none of those that they've used recently seem to be blocked. I would imagine Fitindia can probably already edit again. However, as a trusted user there's no reason they shouldn't be granted the exemption - I'm just not sure it's needed. @ Fitindia:, would you mind just double checking that you genuinely cannot currently edit (make a small change to your user page or something) - if not, please ping me or Alex on your talkpage and one of will come along and sort out an exemption for you. Yunshui  ^雲 _水 08:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Yunshui. I have just tried to edit and I can make edits but today from about 7 am to 11.30 am local Indian time I lost the ability to edit as I was trying to review a page and it said something like the IP you are using has been used by a blocked user after which I tried to edit a article I wrote the night before and it said something like blocked User:Vipul D Shah used the same IP. Yunshui am just a bit apprehensive that this might happen again and I am someone who spends a good part of the day on Wikipedia :) so if could consider granting me IPBE I would be hilly obliged. Thank you Alex for the prompt communication and thank you Yunshui for taking the time out to reply on this matter. FITINDIA 09:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Fitindia (spelled your name right that time!). Glad to hear you're able to edit again. I don't know if you're aware of just how many IPs you get bounced between by your ISP, but trust me, it's a lot... I think it's very unlikely that you'll find yourself on the same IP again, and if you do, toggling your router off and on again will probably allocate you a new IP address on the spot anyway. To be perfectly honest, having seen your technical data I don't see a pressing need for IPBE here, and we're generally loathe to grant it except in circumstances where there's really no other way for the user in question to edit.

My advice would be: wait a bit and see. If this turns out to be something that happens on a regular basis, then IPBE might well be justified (and given your longstanding tenure and excellent work on the project, I can't see anyone objecting to it). However, I suspect that you'll find this was just a one-off event, and won't find yourself crossing wires with Vipul D Shah again. Welcome back! Yunshui  ^雲 _水 09:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Yunshui, sounds good, take care and have a super day. FITINDIA 09:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
• Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

• A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has enacted a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a standardized editnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.

Hi.
I replied to your email. Category:Al-Qaeda members is the category/articles that I mentioned in that email. —usernamekiran (talk) 06:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Dutchy85 created a redirect from Confessions of the D. A. Man a 1978 TV movie to The D. A. (1971 TV series) a 1971 TV series. They are not related and there should be no redirect. It seems in February 2014 you blocked Dutchy85 for vandalism. Yet on December 2, 2017 Dutchy85 creates a bad redirect. I don't know who to contact in the history chain. Dutchy85 seems not to exist and your contact was long ago in 2014. Anyway can you remove the redirect? And was there ever an article on the TV movie Confessions of the D. A. Man? to be restored? Maybe I should not even be contacting you. Eschoryii ( talk) 21:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@ Eschoryii: I've never blocked Dutchy85; I think you may be getting confused because I deleted their userpage due to vandalism back in 2014 (it was never recreated). Your best course of action here is to discuss the redirect with Dutchy85 directly; you can do so on their talkpage or at Talk:The D.A. (1971 TV series). Yunshui  ^雲 _水 13:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey there... thanks for bringing this to my attention. I am real! :) Honestly meant no vandalism... as I understood it Confessions of the DA Man was a TV movie starring Robert Conrad as Paul Ryan... the same character that he played in the TV series the DA. I thought it was one of those cases where the 1978 movie didn't really deserve its own entry and would be better off as a direct to the TV series page... but if I'm wrong I completely apologise. Dutchy85 ( talk) 23:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

If that's the case then yeah, I'd tend to agree - and it's not as though you overwrote an existing article either; the redirect is the only thing that's ever existed under that title. Might be worth adding a line in the article about the series, or perhaps changing the target to Paul Ryan, but either way, the redirect seems to be the most obvious content for that page. Yunshui  ^雲 _水 09:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Looks cleared up to me. Thanks Eschoryii ( talk) 05:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi! Are there any pages on background of the block of user Jklmnopr? I'm curious because in January I reported a group of accounts to CheckUser ( Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stugys/Archive) and it was rejected then. -- intgr  [talk] 09:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

CU shows a very strongly likelihood that this editor is an employee writing about their employer. I originally ran the check to see if there was a connection to Zidonisvidmantas (turns out they edit from the same geographical area, but that's as far as it goes from a technical standpoint) and in doing so found evidence of another account they had registered, plus some IP editing, which seemed to indicate that they were engaged in undisclosed paid editing. Given their edit history and the crossover with other accounts, it seems likely that they are either part of a paid editing ring or that they are working in concert with other accounts created by their co-workers. Yunshui  ^雲 _水 12:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi dear Yunshui i am not the person that i wrote about. u deleted my sand box .. i want some help with writing article and by your deleting no one can help me .. i didn't publish it .. i am new here and i thought i could do any thing in my sand box for practice. now how can u help me ? Mohammad Mahdi Fakhimi ( talk) 12:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

You can use your sandbox for practice edits, or to draft suitable articles before moving them into mainspace. That isn't what you were doing, however; you were using Wikipedia to create a page about yourself, and so far, that appears to be all you're planning to do. Wikipedia neither needs nor wants an article about you in the encyclopedia, and if your only purpose here is to create an article about yourself, then you are going to be disappointed. Yunshui  ^雲 _水 14:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if you're aware, but the history at User talk:20.138.2.51 might also be relevant to your block here. Came across it in UTRS. TonyBallioni ( talk) 14:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, he's pretty much burned his bridges now, which is a shame. Yunshui  ^雲 _水 14:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Yunshui. Would you mind taking a look at User talk:Biografer#Shogi articles because the other editor seems to be rapidly moving in a driection that I would like to avoid if at all possible. There seems to be no real reason for edits such as this because there really does not seem to be any connection between the date a (maintenanace-type) template is added to an article and the access-dates of the cited sources. This is not worth edit warring over, but it might make things a lot easier if it could be clarified either way. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

At a glance, it looks as though there are three different things Biografer is doing here:

• updating dated templates to the current date
• removing external links where the same site is already used as a reference
• changing date formats

The first is a definite no-no; dated templates need to show the date on which the were originally added, for the simple reason that other editors need to to know how long the template has been present. If the issue raised by the template is fixed, it can be removed, otherwise, it should retain the date on which it was applied to the article.

The second I have some sympathy with; there isn't really any need to add an external link to an article if the same website is already used as a reference. There are exceptions; official websites are usually an acceptable EL, for example, but can often be used as sources as well. The bit of the policy you are both referring to (ELNO#15) is actually about using wikisourcing links rather than direct links; it basically means that if there is a wikisourcing tool that could be used instead of a direct link (the WP:ISBN tool mentioned in the policy is a good example) then we should use the tool instead of the direct link. It doesn't have anything to do with whether a link is already present in the article; it just specifies a preferred format for external links. EL sections, especially on bios, get overblown very quickly; I'm kind of with Biografer on this one.

Date formats, as per the MOS which you've already raised, shouldn't be changed unless there's a good reason. Biografer has pointed out that he did have a reason, and these edits weren't therefore purely cosmetic, so I'd AGF on that. However, as you've pointed out, it's not a particularly good reason - Japan uses multiple date formats without a particular preference (if we were getting picky, we should really be reformatting the dates to use nengō dating, but I don't for a moment suggest we do that!). As such, there's no good reason to change these dates (although there's not really a compelling reason to revert the ones already changed, either).

You're right; it's not worth edit warring over. I hope the above comments go a little way towards clarifying things for the two of you, though (normal caveats apply, YMMV, I am not a lawyer etc...). Yunshui  ^雲 _水 09:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look. I’m happy to concede the EL point especially since another editor I know who does lots of EL checking has pointed out the same thing. FWIW, I asked for feedback at ELN so that’s fine with me. I’m wondering though if you might post something about the other two points since these seem less ambiguous at least to me. — Marchjuly ( talk) 10:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I've mentioned Biografer above (and just did it again!) so he'll be aware of this discussion - don't want to pile on his talkpage when he already seems to feel a bit hard-done-by. Yunshui  ^雲 _水 11:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Wise advice as always. I’ve posted there as well and mentioned you and this discussion. The earth ain’t gonna stop spinning on its axis before Biografer responds and this will eventually get sorted out. Thanks again. — Marchjuly ( talk) 11:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but I have wise advice for @ Marchjuly: too. Next time, instead of edit warring with me and stuffing my talkpage with stuff that you don't know much about, better just focus on expanding articles so that they wont look as stubby. You said that you live and work in Japan? I bet that you know Japanese more then a Russian (me) here does. ;) Is that clear? Also, fyi, you don't need to ping me twice, since I received only 2 pings today, and both were from you (and both were taking me to the same discussion). So, there was no reason for a second ping no matter how important it is. ;)-- Biografer ( talk) 18:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

About the pings, pinging you on your own talk page doesn't work, and I don't believe I pinged you at all in any of our discussions. It was Yunshui (as he states above) who pinged you twice. As for the posts on your talk page, I tried to be civil and discuss things. I asked for other input about the links and when other clarified that I was wrong about them, I said as much on your talk page. As for the Japan stuff, it was not intended to be a claim that I know any more or less than you about Japan regardless of where either of live; I was just pointing out that all three date formats are used in the country and that there was no policy/guideline based reason to support that the numerical date format needs to be used in articles about Japan or shogi like you seem to be claiming. The other thing about the template dates had to do with why such templates are added to articles, what purpose the date serves, and why you do not need to update the dates. So, I guess if you're really into figuring out what I do know and don't know, then that would seem to be as follows: link use = wrong, access-date format use = right, access-date parameter name = right, template date = right. So, that's three things where I apprarently knew what I was talking about and one where I didn't. Regardless, I try to edit collaboratively and constructively with others and hopefully this does not mean we will be unable to do so from here on. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 22:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:JAPAN#Date formats. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).

Administrator changes

Lourdes†

AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V

† Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

• The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
• Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
• A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
• A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news

• CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
• The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2018 Steward elections, the following users are our new stewards: -revi, Green Giant, Rxy, There'sNoTime, علاء.

Obituaries

• Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.

Hello. Re this, it would be helpful if you added to your comment that the template should not be added by non-admins. Otherwise there will be the impression that your add shows it was right to add it. Mutliple non-admins have already said this, but the comments of non-admins carry little weight in these areas. ― Mandruss  ☎ 13:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I tend to take the opposite view, I'm afraid - admin opinions and comments should and do count no more or less than other editor's views. In this particular case there's no disagreement that the article falls under the gun control remedies, so there's no ruling that would require a semblance of "administrative authority" required. I'm not even sure I buy into the argument that the template should only be added by administrators; it is simply there to indicate that admins may impose DS on users with regards to their edits on that page, and is not an indication that an admin has actually placed the page itself under sanctions. I don't see any good reason that non-admins shouldn't be allowed to add the template. Yunshui  ^雲 _水 15:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The good reason is that many editors lack the experience and judgment to make the call, especially in edge cases. I wouldn't trust myself to make it in many cases, and I have pretty good judgment if I may say so. It wouldn't make a lot of sense to say that non-admins can add it except in edge cases, since that also requires experience and judgment. There's nothing wrong with avoiding an avoidable area of conflict. But I'll accept your response. Thanks. ― Mandruss  ☎ 15:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

many editors lack the experience and judgment to make the call you have a good point there, of course, and I do agree that avoiding unnecessary conflict is a worthwhile endeavour. Yunshui  ^雲 _水 15:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

You may wish to revoke talk page access.-- Cahk ( talk) 08:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Yup. Yunshui  ^雲 _水 17:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Niyazimi ( talk) 06:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC) halo good morning sir my editing is blocked right now please unblock me i assure you that i will not cause any damage or disruption i understand what you have been block for i will make useful contribution instead so please unblock me lets work with good faith and good intention

You were not blocked, as evidenced by the fact that you were able to post here. However, as you appear to have created this account to evade the block on User:Niyaz ibrahim, you can rest assured that you are blocked now. Yunshui  ^雲 _水 07:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Yunshui,

Md Hedayet Hossen had added so many personal information on his userpage. Ex. Address, Cell Number, Personal Details etc. Please delete this userpage. Siddiqsazzad001 (Talk) 15:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks to have been dealt with. Yunshui  ^雲 _水 07:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi! I was looking at the history of this page, created by a user you blocked as a sock on 14 August last. Three other contributors to that page seem to display somewhat similar traits ( 1, 2, 3): Those accounts were all created on 17–18 August last, all have a one-sentence "statement" on their user pages (as Carly, Molly and Tbenzinger also did), have all made numerous "Grammar edit"s (usually mistaken) – and have all edited that one article. Hope you don't mind, but I thought I'd ask your opinion before taking this to SPI – I don't have a very high success rate at that board! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 21:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I think an SPI would be worthwhile. There's enough to go on there that it would bear some scrutiny, although there's no obvious technical connection. Yunshui  ^雲 _水 07:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello,

Your account is currently configured with an education program flag. This system (the Courses system) is being deprecated. As such, your account will soon be updated to remove these no longer supported flags. For details on the changes, and how to migrate to using the replacement system (the Programs and Events Dashboard) please see Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Archive 18#NOTICE: EducationProgram extension is being deprecated.

Thank you! Sent by: xaosflux 20:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

This person has been block evading for some time, but with non-disruptive edits. However he is now reinserting the same erroneous information that led to the first block. e.g. [2] Currently using Special:Contributions/139.218.42.105, but has had a number of IPs in the 139.218.x.x range. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.49.159 ( talk) 02:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

You probably want to throw this up against the wall at SPI to see what sticks... I've had little involvement with this user other than turning off his talkpage access; I'm not familiar with his editing. Yunshui  ^雲 _水 09:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Whilst you accepted the UBLReq. at User talk:WikiDKarl, I think you've forgot to actually unblock him:) ~ Winged Blades ^Godric 13:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah ha ha, I came here to say exactly the same thing. :) -- Yamla ( talk) 13:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Whoops. Cheers chaps, got a bit distracted IRL. He's free to post his "sources" now... Yunshui  ^雲 _水 13:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Which will be a sure-fire way to get re-indeffed..... ~ Winged Blades ^Godric 13:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Could you please check here? 115.164.76.87 ( talk) 08:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Checked. Yunshui  ^雲 _水 08:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018).

Administrator changes

331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG

Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando

Guideline and policy news

• Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
• Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
• The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
• The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

Technical news

• There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

Miscellaneous

• A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
• The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.

200.82.132.120 has asked for a deletion review of Hongyuan Zha. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Cryptic 15:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Yunshui, to follow up on User_talk:Yunshui/Archive_55#Courses_Modules_are_being_deprecated, this has been completed. Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 17:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)