Archives

November 2019 & earlier December 2019–February 2020 March–May 2020 June–August 2020 September–November 2020 December 2020–February 2021 March–May 2021 June–August 2021 September–November 2021 December 2021–February 2022 March–May 2022 June–August 2022 September–November 2022 December 2022–February 2023 March–May 2023 June–August 2023 September–November 2023 December 2023–February 2024 March–May 2024 June–August 2024

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

Administrator changes

Eddie891

Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

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

Arbitration

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

---

Please excuse me, I have no idea how to use this system. Yesterday I set up an account and it got blocked by Red Phoenix. I didn't see anywhere on the site when setting up the account the guidance on how the name should be formed. After the block I set up another account in what I hope is an acceptable name.

All I woanted to do was add some current pictures to the page for the International Bomber Command Centre as the ones there were over 5 years old and showed the place whilst under construction. Every image that I have tried to add comes up saying I don't have permission to use them but they are my photos. I don't understand what I am doing wrong. Some of the images may have been used, by me on media stories in the past, but I won all the rights. I have tried to find out how do get over this but the information is confusing.

I thought the point was to make Wiki up to date, relevant, etc and the images that were on there were neither of those things.

Please help Nicky at IBCC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:61B9:DB00:29DF:50FA:B018:8402 (talk) 08:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Nicky, thank you for reaching out. Please ensure that you are logged in for all future editing so that your edits are associated to your username and not your IP address. Additionally, please ensure that you read the conflict of interest guideline and the "plain and simple" conflict of interest guide. It appears that you have a close connection or other relationship with the IBCC, such as employment. Writing an article about a topic with which you have an external relationship is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia because the topic deals with something you would be too closely connected with. With regards to IBCC, you have a conflict of interest ("COI"). Editors with a conflict of interest in a topic area often unintentionally edit against some of our core content policies through no fault of their own. For example, you might unconsciously over-embellish your organization, or perhaps omit verifiable facts that may be negative or controversial—this would violate our neutral point of view policy. Alternatively, you might inadvertently add details that haven't been published in reliable sources—a violation of verifiability and no original research. For these reasons, I would strongly recommend you avoid editing the article about your organization and instead suggest edits to editors on the talk page. If you are being paid or compensated for your Wikipedia editing, you must declare this on your user page—see Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Thank you. Mz7 (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

--Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For your assistance with SPI, socks, vandals, and spammers during this difficult time. Wear it with pride. ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 01:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

15:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Koronerman, uncuthair and sawiper looks like eruthelord, please look into it. Thank you Mamallarnarashimavarman (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Eruthelord is deleting my comments on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/EruTheLord plz stop him. 2409:4072:6D8C:A9FA:8586:FBA7:E2B1:DB8A (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

16:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Eruthelord(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/EruTheLord) is back as

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Harpypawl and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Scalerebel and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bonecipro 2409:4072:292:BF2A:7635:1236:40CA:3449 (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

When will the page need to be semi protected? 4thfile4thrank (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

4thfile4thrank, I just blocked 2600:1702:49E0:6120::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) the IP address range that was targeting that article, so I think that should be sufficient to prevent further vandalism for now. Mz7 (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to disturb you, but can you please revdel their copyvios? I also request closing the SPI. Sorry if this is a short message. Thanks, SMB99thx my edits 08:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

SMB99thx, I did the revdel. Will need some time to look through the SPI. Mz7 (talk) 17:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

21:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for dealing with this. I'm afraid I got the wrong master and I've apologised to MRRaja001. Fortunately, there's no hard feelings. It was obvious that Dhina wasn't a new member because he wasn't finding his way around, he was throwing his weight around. Anyway, right result via the wrong route. Thanks again and all the best. Keep safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

Thanks for granting me pending changes reviewer! I have one question. On the policy pages regarding the user right it gives the impression that the substance of the edit doesn't matter so long as it isn't libelous, vandalism, or a copyvio. I have reviewed a grand total of 2 edits using 'normal' editing techniques. This means that even if the edit is not libelous, vandalism, copyvio, etc., if it is unhelpful I reject it. Can I use it as I normally would/have been, or should I be more lenient? Thanks! Giraffer ^munch 07:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Giraffer: Yep, I would simply review pending changes as I would normally react to the edit. I think the relevant section here is WP:RPC#Acceptable edits:

You should treat the edits as you would habitually, following the appropriate policies and guidelines. It is not necessary for you to ensure compliance with the content policies on neutral point of view, verifiability and original research before accepting, but of course you are free to uphold them as you would normally with any edit you happen to notice.

Even if the edit is not libelous, vandalism, or a copyvio, you may still revert the edits if you would have reverted them anyway if you had noticed them in any other context. I would just be mindful of WP:BITE and WP:PRESERVE; if it's possible to fix the edit rather than remove it, then we should try to fix it. Mz7 (talk) 07:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Giraffer ^munch 10:35, 26 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.

---

Someone may need TPA revoked: Special:Diff/981424750. Thanks. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 12:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1:  Done. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

16:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

hi this is user is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Biblegunk sock puppet account of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bonecipro please once check his contributions Jeevan naidu (talk) 11:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jeevan naidu:  Confirmed.  Blocked and tagged. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

thank you for immediate response Mz7. Jeevan naidu (talk) 08:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I was wondering if I can get access restored. I acknowledge that I should slow down, thus I will refrain from doing repeated automated tasks as before. For now, I will refrain to using typos. Starzoner (talk) 13:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Starzoner. I had noticed your request at WP:PERM/AWB and was planning to comment, but I noticed that you withdrew your request. Do you still wish to pursue this request? If so, do you think you could briefly provide a few examples of typos that you intend to fix with AWB? Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 20:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I had intended to use the full suite of typos that it provides, and just use them through the COVID-19 pages. Starzoner (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Starzoner:  Done. Please see my comments here for my thoughts and future guidance. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

15:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Mz7. Thank you for volunteering to be an election commissioner for the 2020 Arbitration Committee Election. Following the community RfC, you have been appointed as an election commissioner! While you have certain responsibilities - you are not in this alone, along with the other appointed commissioners other community members have volunteers to assist as coordinators. Best of luck with the election this year. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Safford Unified School District v. Redding 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 Buidhe -- Buidhe (talk) 06:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm here with a query and it is that : Can a Wikipedia editor charge us with sanctions if we do not follow the guidelines and repeat the same mistake over and over?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Von de leorde (talk • contribs) 06:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Von de leorde. To be clear, only Wikipedia administrators may impose discretionary sanctions on editors, and they may only do this within the specific topic areas listed at WP:DSTOPICS (biographies of living or recently deceased people, such as Sushant Singh Rajput, is one such topic). With that in mind, yes, an administrator can sanction an editor if they fail to carefully follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, perhaps by repeating the same mistake multiple times. I hope this answers your question. Mz7 (talk) 06:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a billion. That poses a threat to me also so I have decided to stop editing Wikipedias at least till I'm done with my school years. Will miss you and never return to make any mistake in future again. Von de leorde (talk) 09:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

To be honest i enjoyed editing and learnt many things. Thank you for your guidelines. Von de leorde (talk) 11:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey Mz9. Could you please take another look at user:TVOLD3? The username fits the criteria for the LTA account above, and this[26] edit was made three hours ago by an account that was confirmed by a sock of THCNVN. Thanks. Beryllium Sphere (talk) 04:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually that edit was made by me. t was the edit I was undoing that was by a now-blocked LTA. Meters (talk) 04:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I mean the edit by CongHoaLienBangJtalia. Beryllium Sphere (talk) 07:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

 Check declined by a checkuser. Because the TVOLD3 account has not edited at all since it was created in April 2020, it is  Stale. Mz7 (talk) 01:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

16:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The article Safford Unified School District v. Redding you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Safford Unified School District v. Redding for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Buidhe -- Buidhe (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

You may also want to block User:DaniThinCats as well. Firestar464 (talk) 03:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Firestar464. Because that account has not been edited since January, I don't think we need to block it at this time. Additionally, the username may fall under the "Dani at XYZ Company" exception to WP:ISU, so it may not be a strict violation of the username policy (although I wouldn't fault any editor that thinks differently). Mz7 (talk) 03:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mz&: This account was previously paid to edit until someone told the owner of the account to stop. Firestar464 (talk) 04:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Firestar464, I did notice that they were given a paid editing warning and stopped editing afterwards. Because the account has been abandoned for almost 9 months, I am disinclined to block it. In general, accounts that have not edited for a long time rarely need to be blocked; see also WP:PREVENTATIVE. Mz7 (talk) 04:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Hiya. Can I just check the rationale behind only revdelling certain entries here? Are the remaining entries less severe than the edit summaries which have been redacted? I would have thought we'd redact all the abusive entries. Cheers, Darren-M talk 19:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Darren-M. So, I was not the one who revdelled those edits—see also WP:ANI#User TemplatePeterBaldwin for context. The redacted edit summaries are indeed the same as the ones that haven't been redacted yet. While I would not fault any administrator who might decide to redact those edits under WP:RD3, I am personally disinclined to because I think they're more-or-less "common vandalism". Mz7 (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Mz7, Cheers, I (lazily) assumed if you'd blocked you'd also revdelled without checking. Thanks for the ANI pointer. Best, Darren-M talk 20:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Just suppose someone opened a complaint about a paid-editing sock operation and filed a copy of a pitch they received, to OTRS. The person writing to them was offering to create a Wikipedia article on them. Perhaps what happened was, the recipient of the pitch emailed a steward and it wound up in a OTRS paid-editing queue for checkuser attention. If this solicitation is a common pattern, it probably needs to get publicized on the wiki, so others can keep an eye out. Maybe at WP:COIN. Am I right that paid editors don't deserve the full protection of the privacy policy? So anyone handling this would be in the clear if they made sure that whoever *forwarded* the report to us didn't have their personal details shown? The original solicitation email, offering paid article creation, contains some words that show up elsewhere in Google searches. The words appear even on Wikipedia itself at this link. So I could post the contents of the paid-editing proposal at WP:COIN, removing headers and signatures? Thanks for any advice, EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston, thanks so much for volunteering to tackle that paid-editing queue. I think your question goes to the heart of the conflict between paid editing and WP:OUTING, and you'll have to forgive me for saying I'm not 100% sure. I think good context to look back to is 2017, when WMF Legal made a statement on the question that seemed to favor transparency, but shortly after the statement was released, ArbCom made a counter-statement that favored privacy. The current view seems to be that the outing policy does take precedence over COI investigations (quoting WP:COI). I am inclined to say that it would be OK to quote the solicitation email as long as personally identifiable details are omitted, but out of caution I would post your question to the functionaries-en list, where other functionaries more experienced with responding to paid editing might be able to weigh in. Mz7 (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Arbcom's counter-statement from 2017 does seem to narrow the range of permitted investigation of off-wiki activity. I wonder if most of these issues could be avoided just by saying 'We have reports about an off-wiki firm which states it has done paid editing of this set of WP articles.' Individual editors could then review the edit history of those articles to look for anything suspicious. Any blocks issued would then be due to the on-wiki visible behavior (and possibly to sockpuppetry, if that was involved). So we'd be using the off-wiki information only to get a list of articles to check. Do you think that would be acceptable? Certainly I don't want to try persuading Arbcom to reconsider their 2017 statement, and I don't want to do any blocks that say they are based on private information (I.e. there would be no visible grounds provided for the block). In my opinion Arbcom should be the one to do private-information blocks, if any are needed. EdJohnston (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Yeah, I would agree that "we have received concerns about paid-editing on XYZ article" would be okay. As far as private-information blocks go, the paid queue was originally set up as a checkuser queue because a few years ago it was thought that most paid editing schemes involved sockpuppetry, e.g. WP:LTA/OM. Nowadays, we know a lot of paid editors are actually independent freelancers, against whom the CheckUser tool is relatively ineffective. The relevant question is whether checkusers are allowed to make blocks based on private information submitted to the paid editing queue, even if we don't actually use the CheckUser tool. I think this is an open question that may need further discussion; the relevant policy seems to be WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE. I think the uncertainty here is a large part of why the OTRS queue is chronically backlogged. Mz7 (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, what I've looked at suggests this particular one is a small-time operation. Many of the suspicious-looking accounts are still red-linked. A one-size-fits all remedy might be just to put EC protection for a few months on any articles we believe to be targetted. EdJohnston (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

17:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi there Mz7! ! I sincerely hope you've been doing well, and I hope you and your loved ones have been safe and coping well amidst the pandemic! It has been a few months and I was wondering if my sanction could be lifted. I'm not sure if now is the appropriate but time to ask for an appeal to be lifted but I just wanted to make sure if it would be okay. It has been several months now since my sanction was applied and during this timeframe, I have engaged in proper behaviour and etiquette on Wikipedia by fully abiding by the community guidelines and regulations. I fully refrained from edit-warring with any users and I tried my utmost best to collaborate with fellow members of the Wikipedia community.

I completely understand that it may be difficult for you to trust me as I have caused disruptions in the past. I understand your concerns and hesitance in lifting the ban. Your concerns are completely valid, and I want to assure you that I understand your concerns. I deeply regret having caused all those disruptions. I will be sure to carefully cooperate with others to not repeat the same mistakes. When I make contributions to Wikipedia, I will think thrice before publishing the edit, and I will never edit war with others. If someone reverts my edit, I will not edit war with them. There is a reason for talk pages and edit warring does nothing productive for the community. I want to be able to engage in civil discourse with others on topics of my interest, such as modern US politics. I want to collaborate with others to make this website a better place. I want to be able to give my insights, but I also want to take in the insights of others. I want to be able to prove that I am capable of learning from my mistakes and capable of doing better. I recognize that my actions were wrong and harmful. It is my fault and my fault alone. I will not give any excuses for my wrongful actions because there is no excuse for disruptive actions on Wikipedia or not knowing the rules. I have received several warnings before, it was my own fault that I disrespected the rules. Not familiarizing myself with the rules is not an excuse.

I believe my topic ban should be lifted as I believe that I deserve a second chance as it was my first ban on Wikipedia. I want to personally pledge and promise to you that I will never, ever, use a second sockpuppet account again for disruptive purposes. I promise I will never edit war or remove sourced material with out clear summary. I understand that I need consensus from others. If things do not go my way, I have to understand that's OK. I understand that things will not always go my way, and that is perfectly normal and okay - it's not the end of the world. It's okay if others don't agree with me as everyone has different views and stances on various subjects. The most important and crucial thing is to respect everyone and their perspectives. I have to respect the contributions and inputs of others. It's not just about me, wikipedia is a community-driven platform. I cannot just go on about edit warring with others like I own the place, - if everyone did that Wikipedia would be a disruptive mess. Wikipedia is for everyone and I have to respect the insights of others, not just my own. Thanks to preventative measures meant to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia, Wikipedia can be the wonderful place it is today. During my ban, I read over the Wikipedia guidelines very carefully again. I pledge to carefully abide by all of these guidelines. You can trust me in that I will not edit war or abusively use a second sockpuppet account since I recognize that disruptive edits won't help anyone and goes against the community-driven based ideals of Wikipedia.

Once again, I deeply regret the disruptive damage I previously have caused before on Wikipedia. I want to reassure you that I have learned my lesson since then. I fully understand if you believe it still has been too short of a timeframe for you to trust me again and I fully will respect any decision you will make. In writing this, I have no intention at all of troubling you or giving you any hard time. I am so sorry if this is currently an inappropriate time to be asking or if I am being bothersome. Thank you so much for your time, and sorry for any inconveniences. I hope you have yourself an excellent day!~ All the very best, Sincerely Yeungkahchun (talk) 00:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Yeungkahchun: I still think it is too soon, as it has only been two months since you were unblocked for disruptive editing in this topic area. I would return perhaps in January with an explanation of the kind of edits you intend to make if the ban is lifted. Mz7 (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, just wondering if it is acceptable to request perms such as pending changes for an alt account such as this one when my main account already has it? I read the rules for requests, alts are only mentioned for confirmed and ecp. Thanks Terasail II^[Talk] 22:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Terasail. That's fine by me as long as the connection between the accounts is clearly and publicly indicated, and you have a legitimate reason for using multiple accounts. The only rule I am aware of is you're not allowed to have multiple accounts with administrator rights (except for admin bot accounts). Mz7 (talk) 23:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Mz7, you mean that I shouldn't have an alternative account with admin perms? oops. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am here to let you know that I understand my mistake with the BLP. If you have any more mistakes that I made please let me know, thank you. I will work towards not making that same error again. InterestGather (talk) 09:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Will you please block 114.4.0.0/16 (talk · contribs) since IPs on this range have been persistently harassing and vandalizing pages I edited and my talk pages for months. Not only in enwiki but also across several wikis like idwiki and commonswiki. Its sisters, 120.188.0.0/17 (talk · contribs) and 114.5.0.0/17 (talk · contribs) (also 114.5.0.0/16 (talk · contribs) on ENWIKI) are now globally blocked for this exact reason. Thanks. Flix11 (talk) 04:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Flix11, I placed a 1-week range block on 114.4.220.0/22 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). Right now, I think this is the best I can do in order to limit collateral damage—these are very dynamic ranges, and blocking them could conceivably block many unrelated users. Mz7 (talk) 05:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you! Firestar464 (talk) 05:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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).

---

16:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

15:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

He is my friend he is blocked for 2-3 months isn't that enough? Packshaul (talk) 19:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi. This SPI case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PapazaTaklaAttıranİmam is closed by you. But another suspected sockpuppet just appeared. Should I submit a new report before the previous report becomes archived? --Wario-Man (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Wario-Man. Yes, you may submit a new report before a previous report gets archived. I'll take a look at this account later today when I get more free time. Mz7 (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: Based on CU information, I think it is  Unlikely that Shakshak31 is the same user as Yiğit Han Kerim. Mz7 (talk) 19:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Another editor has submitted this SPI and it seems the suspected user is related to another account. --Wario-Man (talk) 05:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mz7 - I saw your note about a dearth of candidates at AN. WP:SOFIXIT popped into my head - you'd have my support, if you had the time and inclination. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 13:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, thanks for your message! Fortunately, my response is quite easy : this year, I am serving as a member of the Electoral Commission, which disqualifies me from putting my name in the hat. Mz7 (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Mz7, ah - I'd overlooked that, fair enough. Kevin suggested that I run, but I feel like I don't have the experience at this point, plus I've got too much on my plate IRL at the moment to be able to commit. Hope you get some more takers in the next couple of days. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 16:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

15:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

103.144.175.38 4thfile4thrank {talk} :? 02:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Mz7 (talk) 02:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

It is really frustrating since I wrote the article in ~2003 and have been the source for 100% of the material in this article, and I feel like you are suppressing handicap information which is discriminatory. Where am I going to find a reputable source that talks about my father's stammering? Other than the word of one or more of his students? His wife - my mother - is deceased. I feel like this will cause me to start a new article outside of wikipedia to deal with wikipedia's failings. SystemBuilder (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

And you are ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT that personal correspondence is not admissable for a biographical article. In many cases, personal correspondence is 90% of the sourcing used for ANY biography of any sort. SystemBuilder (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi SystemBuilder, I am sorry for the frustration, but I want to make sure our policies are clear. Perhaps personal correspondence would be appropriate for a biography published in a newspaper or a book about the subject, but not Wikipedia. As an encyclopedia, we only publish information that reliable sources have already published, so that our readers are able to go and verify that what is written has appeared in such a published source. If your father's condition does not appear in any such published source, then under our policies I'm afraid it simply cannot appear in Wikipedia. I wasn't aware before now that you were the son of the article subject; I would also like to make you aware of our conflict of interest guideline. In summary: we strongly discourage editors from editing articles related to their family members, as this may introduce a conflict of interest and lead to situations like this one where information is added that cannot be verified in any published, reliable source. Mz7 (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/38.18.118.10 4thfile4thrank {talk} :? 03:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

 Already done Mz7 (talk) 03:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ponyo#Should_this_be_revdelled_under_RD2? 4thfile4thrank {talk} :? 03:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

4thfile4thrank, I have suppressed this material in accordance with the oversight policy. In the future, as Ravensfire suggested in the discussion that you linked, in the interest of privacy it would be a good idea to report these kinds of serious BLP violations on IRC rather than on-wiki. Even if you don't have an IRC client, you can usually access web-based IRC by clicking the green "connect" button here: #wikipedia-en-revdel ^connect. In egregious cases where material is potentially libelous, as it was here, you may also contact the oversight team privately by following the instructions at WP:RFO. I hope this information is helpful. Let me know if you have any questions. Mz7 (talk) 04:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mz7: How do I know if edits other than obvious personal info need suppression? There are many levels of less-serious BLP-violations. 4thfile4thrank {talk} :? 04:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@4thfile4thrank: This is always a matter of judgment, and there aren't always clear-cut rules. As general advice, if you find an edit that accuses a specifically identifiable living individual of a serious crime without sources or justification, that would be something that I would report to oversight as potentially libelous. The content would have to be more egregious than merely "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material". If you are ever unsure, you may err on the side of requesting oversight. Mz7 (talk) 04:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

	The Padlock Barnstar
	Thank you for protecting the article Myles Turner and dealing with the vandals, you deserve this barnstar! Jerm (talk) 06:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Back again here. If he's going to keep using his (likely) real name or some variety of it, well... (master was Rowde). Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 02:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Eagleash:  Blocked and tagged. Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 09:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Eagleash (talk) 09:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

17:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

On the Q&A pages, followup stuff is supposed to be refactored to talk page. Is this something I should do myself, or wait for ElectCom people to do it?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish:  Done, thanks for the heads up. In the future, I would wait for ElectCom to do it. Mz7 (talk) 01:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Orca-dorka. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

PS: I thank you and GeneralNotability for your swift and thoughtful action on ... a particular mess. I know you have to be studiously neutral in the WP:ELECTCOM work, and also not over-reach (e.g. clobber candidates' honest responses to even disingenuous questions). The solution was well-done, and even I felt compelled and happy to answer the cleaned up question.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

--HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

While I'm not sure what these people are (and the IP range 210.14.96/20) at first that edited Arakan-related articles (and I have battled against them for months), I just found out that these people are no other than persistent sockpuppeteer/LTA Si Thu Moe Min. Please consider checking them out. SMB99thx my edits! 12:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Looks like this was already handled at the SPI. Mz7 (talk) 21:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

17:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)