User talk:MBisanz/Archive 22

This is an archive of past discussions with User:MBisanz. 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.

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

The article HoeBowl has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation has invited the various Wikimedia communities, including the English Wikipedia, to participate in a consultation on improving communication methods within the Wikimedia projects. As such, a request for comment has been created at Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019. You are invited to express your views in the discussion. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Since now Universe is indexed by both SCOPUS and Clarivate Analytics (former Thomson Reuters), would it be possible to recreate its page? Thank you for your kind attention. Best regards. Redwheel (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Hoebowllogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

Guideline and policy news

• The RfC on administrator activity requirements failed to reach consensus for any proposal.
• Following discussions at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Administrators, an earlier change to the restoration of adminship policy was reverted. If requested, bureaucrats will not restore administrator permissions removed due to inactivity if there have been five years without a logged administrator action; this "five year rule" does not apply to permissions removed voluntarily.

Technical news

• A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
  • paid-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
  • checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2019 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Base, Einsbor, Jon Kolbert, Schniggendiller, and Wim b.

---

Thanks for uploading File:Nationalfuelgas-1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Have a very happy birthday on your special day!
Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Wondered why you closed the discussion for redirection of Maxillary crest and gave redirect to Maxilla - there was one voice for Maxilla and two for Nasal septum.? As it was there was no mention of Maxillary crest on the page and since have added it as a See also item. ? Best --Iztwoz (talk) 10:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for the oversight. I have retargeted it. MBisanz ^talk 21:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).

Technical news

• In Special:Preferences under "Appearance" → "Advanced options", there is now an option to show a confirmation prompt when clicking on a rollback link.
• The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Please see meta:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019 to provide your input on this idea.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee clarified that the General 1RR prohibition for Palestine-Israel articles may only be enforced on pages with the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} edit notice.

Miscellaneous

• Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
• As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.

---

I've opened a bureaucrat chat for a current RfA. Your input would be most appreciated at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RexxS/Bureaucrat chat. Best regards, Maxim_(talk) 22:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:21, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I observe you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enterprise marketing management result delete in the middle of of a 7 day relisting as opened by Jo-Jo_Eumerus (talk · contribs). Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 April 14 for Kst this might seem to be abuse of a !supervote. While I was the nom. for this I actually thought DGG's on this occasion was awful/concerning saying EMM (software) was the same as Marketing!. This decision is to a degree inconsistent with the recent result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marketing operations management (2nd nomination) as closed by Jovanmilic97 with redirect/merge by Mark viking & Redditaddict69. Its hard for me to see why this should not be referred to WP:DRV.Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Djm-leighpark and think this discussion should be reopened. I've had issues with DGG's nominations and votes in the past, leaving a paragraph-long message on his talk page on at least one occasion (if not, more). ––Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I should perhaps have said it was essentially the same asf Marketing software. . The article reads "EMM consists of other marketing software categories such as Web Analytics, Campaign Management, Digital Asset Management, Web Content Management, Marketing Resource Management, Marketing Dashboards, Lead Management, Event-driven Marketing, Predictive Modeling and more. " and " Depending on the variable combinations of solutions, EMM can mean several different things to specific brands and industries. Enterprise Marketing Management allows for corporations to put in place a baseline of their operations that will allow them to begin evolution towards a holistic solution that incorporates customer experience, expectation and brand value associated with Marketing Technologies" I have no objection to draftification is you want to write a more focussd article along the liines of the sentence "The benefit of using an EMM suite rather than a variety of point solutions " to make it clear that its tthe combination, not something different. DGG ( talk ) 16:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@DGG .. Thinking about this during the day I wonder if actually meant Marketing performance measurement (MPM) which is the last of the four stoogies MRM, MOM, EMM and MPM which some claim to be actually vendor marketing re-brandings of the same basic software suite type (and some puffery around it). Basically your entry raised my eyebrows at the time but no-one else seem to challenge it and I appreciate your explanation and the time you have given to make it. I conject it may be Mark Viking who might be immediately interested in the draftification option. My concern here is that AfD process was not followed per due norms and I await response from the closer on that matter and dependending on that response I may consider raising at DRV and at present I am heavily minded it is a DRV matter. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark rather that DRV now, it might make sense to have a better version to try to establish consensus about. It is not unusual that even when there is basis for an article, there can be a negative decision influenced on the poor quality or confusing nature of the article. DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@DGG Thankyou for your interesting response and I am on-boarding this. I had had and currently have complex interactions. I myself will not make a further response here for the next nine hours or so until after 05:00 UTC of the morrow.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

There are two separate points here. One is the process and conduct of the closure of the DRV. The other is the fate and status of the article. In terms of the latter DGG's views and my own may be at good faith variance but this talk page may not be the place for that either, neither might mine the bottom of which is more like WWIII at the moment and DGG's it likely to be pretty peppered as well at a guess. And DGG is right while DRV is about the procedure is not best place for article status that would be a third return to AfD for this article! But I think this is something for Redditaddict69 and Mark viking to decide on.

In terms of the issues with the close having given the closer 24 hours to respond ... and I appreciate and accept there are WP:AGF reasons, I will now examine non rigorously the closure with reference to WP:DRVPURPOSE and to a degree Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 April 14(kst):

• DRVPURPOSE:

• (1): DRV may be used if Interpretation of consensus was incorrect (2maybe). Due to minimal participation, the redirect from an associated article at AfD (and how to interpret that) and the fact DGG's reasoning did not particularly intersect with the (my) nom. reasoning a no-consensus close was in order .... or at a minimum the the result is delete needed an explanationand it is the failure to give such an explanation that is the issue.
• (2): DRV may not be used to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early); (2maynot): HOWEVER this was 3 days into a relist from Jovanmilic97. (I had mistakenly thought that was by an admin.). However an admin overruling the relist in this circumstance should do so quickly or let the relist run as people may be preparing and refining arguments that they may wish to offer only towards the end of the 7 days.

 ::* ( I note in preparing this Jovanmilic97 is not an admin ... I thought he was previously. I would immediately and strongly objected to a second relist not being performed by an admin for the reasons above). I am now minded Jovanmilic97 should likely be WP:TROUTed especially as no helpful analysis was provided for the relist.

• In all events the second relist is generally to be avoided ... the relist by a non admin simply stops experienced admin's deliberating and making a reasoned close call closure.

• (3): DRV may be user if substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion ... (5maybe). Was this abuse of a !Supervote? ... it could be argued probably correctly this is simply a rework of point (1) above. But Marketing seems an opinionated area on Wikipedia with these marketing neologisms being much hated, and I cynically think of marketeers as the people who would sell me the Emperor's old clothes and organise ringing me up weekly telling me they've heard I've been involved in a car accident. So the problem is when an early terminated close call decision is not explained by a closer there is concerns they may have exercise a !supervote rather than contributing to the discussion.

I would have preferred having a response from the closer before writing that. And its the second time my nom. of the article has been disrupted so I am very not happy. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• POSSIBLE SUBSTANTIAL ERROR BY ME: *** Jovanmilic97 has claimed he has not been involved above. I need to WP:AGF on that as I don't have time to check it so I shall currently strike that section. I will eat the WP:TROUT myself. thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• Following a kind and understanding correction by Jovanmilic97 I am led to understand the second re-lister was Randykitty and the third was Jo-Jo Eumerus. In some ways this is worse because a an admin's 7 day re-list was cut short seemly without explanation. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• Not MBisanz but I am fairly sure that a discussion can be closed as soon as 168 hours have lapsed from its opening, not 168 from the last relist. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• Sidenote: I believe XFDcloser now shows red if the discussion has not run 168 hours and I wonder if that happened here?Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I will be responding later today. MBisanz ^talk 15:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion ran for more than 168 hours, and thus was closeable under the policy if a closer could ascertain consensus from both the comments made and the absence of rebuttal (see also, Jo-Jo's comment above). I do not see the relevance of the Kst discussion or how the section of the policy related to initial listings applies to relisting, particularly those that have has no comments in two weeks. I also note that the close was made solely on DJM's points related to neologism and point of view and DGG's point related to duplicativnessm, not my views (or lack thereof) on the topic. MBisanz ^talk 19:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@MBisanz Thankyou for your comments, they are very relevant for people attempting to re-create the article and similar articles. Per WP:RELIST you were entitled to close early if consensus was determined though general practice would have been to let run for 7 days. The closer of the related discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marketing operations management (2nd nomination) just 3 days before with a redirect to this article is perhaps a reason why this should have been let run longer as cirumstances are changed ... albeit no-one explicitly mentioned that result on this AfD. Perhaps the biggest issue here was lack of explanation of decisions and it may likely be I am not the only one. Please be aware I remain minded to bring this to DRV as there may (or may not) be points to discuss and outcomes that relate to improvements to process. That presentation may be delayed in the light of DGG's comments above and I would like people (and certainly not myself) who have possible intent to re-create the article to have the opportunity to take the lead on the way forward first before presentation at DRV. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I usually don't get involved with post AfD drama (in fact in 7 years of AfD participation, this may be my first), but yes, this was a bad close. I provided two textbook sources dedicated to EMM showing notability. DGG's rebuttal at AfD showed a fundamental confusion between marketing and the topic EMM, which is software. His clarification above is still confused--EMM is a type of marketing software, but that is beside the point. That quantum mechanics is a type of physics is not a valid reason for deleting quantum mechanics. The main question is, "Is EMM, as a type of marketing software, independently notable?", and the textbooks, about EMM specifically, establish that. As a consequence, there isn't any valid policy based reason for dismissing the textbook sources.

I didn't rebut DGG's criticism at the time because it was so obviously flawed--if the argument shows fundamental confusion about the topic of marketing vs marketing software, then obviously the assertion of duplication of topics is very suspect. Editors do get confused or make mistakes, however, and to badger them about it would be cruel, lack class, and be against the desire to avoid battleground behavior. Much better is to let each recommendation stand on its own merits and let a closer make a careful judgment. Perhaps my error was in expecting a closer to know, or learn, enough about a topic to see through prima facie flawed recommendations. If that was the case here, then a DRV by more knowledgeable editors may be prudent. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that response Mark viking. To a degree I am led by responses here. I was nearly minded to try to pull a further discussion to explore alternatives I think from my sanity's sake of a shall I shan't when shall I how shall I I'll raise the DRV now (it will take a little prep) rather than waiting to help clear the air. Its also the case things are fresher in my mind currently. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment concluded that creating pages in the portal namespace should be restricted to autoconfirmed users.
• Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Technical news

• XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

• In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
• Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous

• A request for comment is currently open to amend the community sanctions procedure to exclude non XfD or CSD deletions.
• A proposal to remove pre-2009 indefinite IP blocks is currently open for discussion.

---

sei coglionazzo!!! lo sai che sei un coglione!! 20:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to request this userright. Let me know. Enigma^msg 16:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

What for? Did a quick review of your recent contibs and I'm not seeing any significant counter-vandalism activity. -FASTILY 23:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to abstain from making a decision. I see there are circumstances in play that I am not fully informed on, nor do I have the time to get up to speed on them. MBisanz ^talk 02:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Enterprise marketing management. 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. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I used that template correctly: the discussion is on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 May 2. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I found it. MBisanz ^talk 20:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I am pleased to note that discussion was closed and also pleased you received no rebuke. I think circumstances surrounding that AfD are somewhat complex and I'm not sure how anyone fresh to it could have picked up some finer points. Best wishes. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

There's an article I have written, regarding a 1995 TV special based on the Peter and the Wolf composition. Can you review it? NickBlamp (talk) 12:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).

Administrator changes

Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
• An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
• An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

• The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
• Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous

• The previously discussed unblocking of IP addresses indefinitely-blocked before 2009 was approved and has taken place.
• The 2019 talk pages consultation produced a report for Phase 1 and has entered Phase 2.

---

Hello. You are the Admin who closed the deletion review about the academic journal Universe by deciding to cancel its article. I am asking you to recreate it since it is now listed both by Scopus and Clarivate Analytics, and it has received its Impact Factor. Thank you.Redwheel (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).

Administrator changes

28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam¹ • Flyguy649 • Fram² • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe

¹Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

²Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment seeking to alleviate pressures on the request an account (ACC) process proposes either raising the account creation limit for extended confirmed editors or granting the account creator permission on request to new ACC tool users.

• In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

• The scope of CSD criterion G8 has been tightened such that the only redirects that it now applies to are those which target non-existent pages.
• The scope of CSD criterion G14 has been expanded slightly to include orphan "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).
• A request for comment seeks to determine whether Wikipedia:Office actions should be a policy page or an information page.

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous

• In February 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) changed its office actions policy to include temporary and project-specific bans. The WMF exercised this new ability for the first time on the English Wikipedia on 10 June 2019 to temporarily ban and desysop Fram. This action has resulted in significant community discussion, a request for arbitration (permalink), and, either directly or indirectly, the resignations of numerous administrators and functionaries. The WMF Board of Trustees is aware of the situation, and discussions continue on a statement and a way forward. The Arbitration Committee has sent an open letter to the WMF Board.

---

Hi MBisanz. I saw your close at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 June 20#File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg and have no problem with it. However, I do think it might be better to leave the {{Oldffdfull}} template for the older FFD discussion at the top of File talk:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg and add a separate template for the newer FFD result. This seems to be the convention when it comes to multiple XFD discussion, but there isn’t really an equivalent to {{Old AFD multi}} for file pages. Maybe {{article history}} could be used instead as stated in WP:TALKLEAD. If you think this isn’t necessary, then that’s fine; files don’t often get FFD multiple times so there’s not lots of precedent specifically for files, at least not as much as there might be for other namespaces. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the talk page. I agree with how you tweaked it. MBisanz ^talk 03:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for going ahead and being bold; I wasn't sure if this post just got lost in the shuffle. Anyway, I'm a little concerned about the first sentence of the {{Old XfD multi}} template since the file which was discussed was technically not nominated for deletion. I did ask about that at Template talk:Old XfD multi#Wording of first sentence of "Old XfD multi", so perhaps the template will be tweaked to take FFD discussion more into account. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I've opened a bureaucrat chat for a current RfA. Your input would be most appreciated at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam 2/Bureaucrat chat. Primefac (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Wondering if you meant to close this as a delete. I did some work on the article and I see no consensus in the AfD. Lightburst (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I had intended that as a delete. The subsequent commenters had the benefit of your work and did not see a case to retain. MBisanz ^talk 23:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the page Wikipedia:Office actions has been changed from a policy page to an information page.
• A request for comment (permalink) is in progress regarding the administrator inactivity policy.

Arbitration

• Editors may now use the template {{Ds/aware}} to indicate that they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for a topic area, so it is unnecessary to alert them.

Miscellaneous

• Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
• The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

  Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

---

Bots Newsletter, August 2019

Greetings! Here is the 7th issue of the Bots Newsletter, a lot happened since last year's newsletter! You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding/removing your name from this list. Highlights for this newsletter include: ARBCOM Nothing of note happened. Just like we like it. BAG Several (1 + 12 = 13) users have been retired/resigned from the BAG due to inactivity, per our new activity requirements (discussion). BAG members are expected to be active on Wikipedia to have their finger on the pulse of the community. After two years without any bot-related activity (such as posting on bot-related pages, posting on a bot's talk page, or operating a bot), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice. Retired members can re-apply for BAG membership as normal if they wish to rejoin the BAG. Two BAG members retired Madman (talk · contribs) retired. BU Rob13 (talk · contribs) vanished and retired. Three new BAG members have been voted in, welcome to the BAG! Primefac (talk · contribs) joined on 2018-12-12 (RfBAG). Primefac operates PrimeBOT (talk · contribs) which does a plethora of tasks. TheSandDoctor (talk · contribs) joined on 2019-01-21 (RfBAG). TheSandDoctor operates several bots including DeprecatedFixerBot (talk · contribs). Enterprisey (talk · contribs) joined on 2019-08-07 (RfBAG). Enterprisey operates EnterpriseyBot (talk · contribs), which does a plethora of tasks, RemindMeBot (talk · contribs) which posts reminders, and codes several scripts. We thank former members for their service and wish Madman a happy retirement. We note that Madman and BU Rob13 were not inactive and could resume their BAG positions if they so wished, should their retirements happens to be temporary. BOTDICT Two new entries feature in the bots dictionary Editor-hostile wikitext – describes wikitext structuring that is editor hostile, even if it renders correctly Spectrum of usefulness – describes how tasks are deemed useful or not BOTPOL Activity requirements: BAG members now have an activity requirement. The requirements are very light, one only needs to be involved in a bot-related area at some point within the last two years. For purpose of meeting these requirements, discussing a bot-related matter anywhere on Wikipedia counts, as does operating a bot (RFC). Copyvio flag: Bot accounts may be additionally marked by a bureaucrat upon BAG request as being in the "copyviobot" user group on Wikipedia. This flag allows using the API to add metadata to edits for use in the New pages feed (discussion). There is currently 1 bot using this functionality. Mass creation: The restriction on mass-creation (semi-automated or automated) was extended from articles, to all content-pages. There are subtleties, but content here broadly means whatever a reader could land on when browsing the mainspace in normal circumstances (e.g. Mainspace, Books, most Categories, Portals, ...). There is also a warning that WP:MEATBOT still applies in other areas (e.g. Redirects, Wikipedia namespace, Help, maintenance categories, ...) not explicitely covered by WP:MASSCREATION. BOTREQs and BRFAs As of writing, we have... 20 active BOTREQs, please help if you can! 14 open BRFAs and 1 BRFA in need of BAG attention (see live status). In 2018, 96 bot task were approved. An AWB search shows approximately 29 were withdrawn/expired, and 6 were denied. Since the start of 2019, 97 bot task were approved. Logs show 15 were withdrawn/expired, and 15 were denied. 10 inactive bots have been deflagged (see discussion). 5 other bots have been deflagged per operator requests or similar (see discussion). New things All bot-related discussion pages now have a centralized and searchable archive box (see discussion). Discussions are searchable per noticeboard, or globally. {{Bot}} now supports |status=expired (see discussion). This led to the deletion of Category:Indefinitely blocked Wikipedia bots as useless (see discussion). WP:BOTREQ now mentions WP:SCRIPTREQ and WP:AWBTASKS as alternatives to bot requests. The bot creation guide now mentions bot flags, and two new languages Awk and MATLAB. Other minor tweaks have been made. AAlertBot has received major code updates. In particular, WP:AALERTS will now report splits, mergers, and AFC submissions. Citation bot has received several updates (User talk:Citation bot/Archive 10/11/12/13/14/15/16/17). In particular, the bot stopped the automated removal of |publisher= from {{cite journal}}, and stopped the automated addition of CiteSeerX links, and now uses OAuth to authenticate those who make requests of the bot. Other discussions These are some of the discussions that happened / are still happening since the last Bots Newsletter. Many are stale, but some are still active. Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard/Archive 12#Adminbots requests page Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard/Archive 12#Double-redirect tagging (2019) Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard/Archive 12#Long and Winding Road to Parsoid Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard/Archive 13#Bot-like user scripts Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard/Archive 13#WP:URLREQ Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard/Archive 13#Wikipedia:Bots/Status Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group#Minimum edits Wikipedia talk:Bot policy#Minor update to WP:BOTISSUE Wikipedia talk:Bot policy#Semi-automated Portal creation Wikipedia talk:Bot policy#Clarification on "Bots operated by multiple users" Wikipedia talk:Bot policy#Bots triggered by multiple users Wikipedia talk:Bots#How to use Special:ApiFeatureUsage See also the latest discussions at the bot noticeboard. Thank you! edited by: Headbomb 17:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC) (You can subscribe or unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding or removing your name from this list.)

You may want to know that the article you have AfDed, Panama Red (musician) has been WP:REFUNDed. Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. MBisanz ^talk 21:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

Administrator changes

Bradv • Chetsford • Izno

Floquenbeam • Lectonar

DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

• Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
• The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Miscellaneous

• A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.

---

@MBisanz The Music Group Fatty Koo was deleted in November of 2016 on the grounds that the music group was not a charting group and only had a group website. For starters the individual who filed this motion has been permanently banned from the Wikipedia. According to billboard.com, Fatty Koo peaked at #64 on the billboard top 100 charts in 2005. https://www.billboard.com/music/fatty-koo On Wikipedia, Fatty Koo is listed on music producer Toby Gad's page as well as R&B Pop Star Miguel's page. They are also on wiki sites such as: Music of Ohio and List of Keys to the City in the United States; Fatty Koo earned the Key to the City of Columbus, OH on May 26, 2005. Please restore this page and allow for proper updates to be made to the band wiki page to reflect their musical achievements. (Briqmedia (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC))

I'm sorry, but you will need to submit a request to WP:AFC or WP:RFU to have the article restored. MBisanz ^talk 03:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

• As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

• The 2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place October 4th to 10th.
• The arbitration case regarding Fram was closed. While there will be a local RfC focus on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.

Miscellaneous

• The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

---

Hi Mbisanz. Was wondering if you'd mind taking a look at this IP edit? You closed Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 June 20# File:Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg as keeping the file in Brazilian Football Confederation and adding it to Brazil national football team. However, after the IP's edit, the file is now orphaned and will end up being deleted per WP:F5 if it's not used somewhere within five days. The IP seems to have made the edit in good faith, but there is no non-free use rationale provided for the national team article which means that the file will likely be removed by a bot or human file reviewer per WP:NFCCE/WP:NFCC#10c.

Just a little background, the first FFD regarding the older files non-free use resulted in a consensus to remove it from the team article; that was overturned by the second FFD, which is fine. However, it's not clear how any of this applies to the new file File:Cbf brazil logo.png uploaded in August. At first it was only added to the article about the confederation so no files were orphaned; now that the IP has added it to the team article as well, the older which was discussed at FFD is going to be deleted. The files look similar but there is a different coloring scheme and the new file is technically uploaded as a separate file (not as an updated version); so, I'm not sure whether the FFD you closed applies to it. There has been quite a bit of contentious discussion regarding not only this, but similar national team badge file use over the years which still hasn't really been resolved. I'm not trying to resolve that here, and your FFD close seemed to resolve the Brazil file's issues. The IP's well-meaning edit, however, may have unintentionally re-opened that particular can of worms. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

If the new image looks similar, then I would suggest applying the same outcome from the earlier FFD to the new image. MBisanz ^talk 03:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look. The only differences (in my opinion) are some of the coloring, the size of the border of the inner shield, and the size of the letters "CBF"; for the most part, it's essentially the same badge. Do you think it would be acceptable to add the {{Oldffdfull}} template you added to the file talk page of the no longer used version to the file talk page of the newer version? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that seems fine. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 10:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi again MBisanz. The older version was deleted per WP:F5, but the newer version (File:Cbf brazil logo.png) keeps getting removed by a bot because whomever is adding it to Brazil national football team keeps forgetting to add the corresponding non-free use rationale to the file's page. I could add {{Missing rationale2}} to Talk:Brazil national football team, but that won't stop the bot from removing the file. So, I was wondering if you could transfer the non-free use rationale for the team's article from the deleted old version's page to the new version's page. That should resolve the WP:NFCC#10c issue and still be in accordance with your FFD close. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with doing the transfer, but what exactly do you need me to edit to stop it? MBisanz ^talk 02:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://bestencyclopedia.com/John_Mark_Dougan was put up for deletion rather hastily in my opinion. Could you point out the steps I can take to appeal that decision. Also there is a policy somewhere (I don't remember where) in which I can request the delete article. Could you send me the delete article please? Thank you in advance. :) Moscowdreams (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion&diff=921090653&oldid=920898164 Moscowdreams (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• It seems to me that Moscowdreams already has a copy of the deleted content on their userpage. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks MBisanz ^talk 02:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC was closed with the consensus that the resysop criteria should be made stricter.

• The follow-up RfC to develop that change is now open at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2).

• A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates for the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections. The self-nomination period will close November 12, with voting running from November 19 through December 2.

---

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kasumi Suzuki. 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. lullabying (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed you closed the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kasumi Suzuki. Since then I have attempted to restore the article by adding more lead roles backed up by sources at this edit, but my edits so far have been reverted. Would it be possible to restore this article? lullabying (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC) :You would need to pursue restoration at WP:DRV. MBisanz ^talk 03:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Is the protection at User:MBisanz/Arbcom needed now? See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#User:MBisanz/Arbcom. Johnuniq (talk) 08:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I have no objection to reducing it. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 03:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to [email protected], so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at [email protected].

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).

Administrator changes

EvergreenFir • ToBeFree

Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

Beeblebrox

Deskana

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
• Following a proposal, the edit filter mailing list has been opened up to users with the Edit Filter Helper right.

Technical news

• Wikimedia projects can set a default block length for users via MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry. A new page, MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry-ip, allows the setting of a different default block length for IP editors. Neither is currently used. (T219126)

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 2 December 2018 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous

• The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment asks whether partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. If enabled, this functionality would allow administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces, rather than the entire site.
• A proposal asks whether admins who don't use their tools for a significant period of time (e.g. five years) should have the toolset procedurally removed.
• Following a successful RfC, a whitelist is now available for users whose redirects will be autopatrolled by a bot, removing them from the new pages patrol queue. Admins can add such users to Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist after a discussion following the guidelines at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist.

Arbitration

• The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
• Following the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Bradv, Casliber, David Fuchs, DGG, KrakatoaKatie, Maxim, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy, Worm That Turned, Xeno.

Miscellaneous

• This issue marks three full years of the Admin newsletter. Thanks for reading!

---

Hello, would you be the admin who deleted the Zotronic page in 2016?

Deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zotonic

If so I would like to propose its undeletion. How should I proceed?  tav 

Please see WP:AFC or WP:DRV. MBisanz ^talk 17:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, MBisanz! Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. And for all the help you've thrown my way over the years. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Would you consider a WP:DRAFTIFY for Buru (legendary creature)? You recently relisted the Afd. There are some keep votes but they are very reluctant. I probably could have saved everyone some time by just arguing for this from the start of that Afd, and it seems a better option. Thanks.—eric 16:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I would've been fine with this outcome, but see it has already been done. MBisanz ^talk 17:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

2600:6C4E:580:A:3D45:956F:8F4A:D67B has asked for a deletion review of Now That's What I Call Music! 51 (UK series). 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 12:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mbisanz. I'm really sorry for not responding to your last post in this thread before it got archived. I'm not sure why I didn't, and only remembered the discussion because of a recent edit to the new file's page. Anyway to answer your question, there should be a {{non-free use rationale logo}} template on the deleted file's page for it's use in Brazil national football team. If you can copy-and-paste that rationale onto the new file's page or post the details of it somewhere for me to do, then I would be grateful. I don't remember what the older rationale said exactly so I'm a bit leery about creating one from scratch myself and leaving something important out. If, however, a simple standard template type rationale would suffice in this case, then I can do that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

No worries. The old rationale was: "to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the entity in question.". MBisanz ^talk 13:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Would you mind keeping a watch on File:Cbf brazil logo.png and Brazil women's national football team? Per our previous discussion about this file, I went ahead and added a non-free use rationale for the men's team with this edit per the most recent FFD discussion, but there was really no consensus established in favor of the file's use in the women's team article. In fact, there were specifically some arguments against using the 5-star logo in that article made in Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 69#Request for comment: Clarification of WP:NFC#UUI #17 with regards to football.. If the consensus implicitly extends to the women's team than fine, but the first FFD about the file's use didn't extend to any of the individual teams and the second FFD only ended up allowing the file's use in the national association's and men's team's articles; so, it would seem that the original FFD consensus would still apply to the other national team articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually, someone uploaded the svg version File:Brazilian Football Confederation logo.svg as a replacement for File:Cbf brazil logo.png and then added the svg version to the association, men's and women's articles. I don't know which format is better, but the only real difference is a slightly different shade of blue; so, essentially the two files are the same and both versions aren't needed. The png is now orphaned which means it will eventually be deleted per F5; so, like before, once the png file is gone, it's corresponding file talk page will also be deleted and there'll be no record of the previous FFD's about this file's use on the newly created svg's file talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
• The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

• Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
• When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title.

Arbitration

• Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2020 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2020, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2020, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• The English Wikipedia has reached six million articles. Thank you everyone for your contributions!

---

I would like to have Leila George restored. As you where the closer of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leila George I've come to ask you to do it. Since the closure of the afd Mortal Engines has been released and been reviewed widely. George has also since had a significant role in The Kid. That's multiple significant roles. She has also got more coverage for GNG such as and . These things directly address the concerns of that afd. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

That sounds fine. I have no objection to restoration. MBisanz ^talk 22:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Can I ask you to do it or should I take it to DRV with your endorsement? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

You can do DRV or WP: REFUND. MBisanz ^talk 01:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I've opened a bureaucrat chat for the current RfA. Your input would be most appreciated at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Money emoji/Bureaucrat chat. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi There,

I am reaching out on behalf of HotNewHipHop. Our Wikipedia page was recently deleted and we are wondering if there was an explanation as to why? We noticed that the page still exists at least in some form, at the link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HotNewHipHop&redirect=no. However, there is very little information and most of it is inaccurate. We were hoping to know if there is any way we could get our full page restored? If not, what is the best way to create a page and sustain it, in the future?

Thank you for taking the time to process our request. We look forward to hearing from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.159.94 (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

If you could possibly give an opinion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Money_emoji/Bureaucrat_chat (asap), that would be just lovely. Thank you! And if not, no worries. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
• A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

• Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2020 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: BRPever, Krd, Martin Urbanec, MusikAnimal, Sakretsu, Sotiale, and Tks4Fish. There are a total of seven editors that have been appointed as stewards, the most since 2014.
• The 2020 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Ajraddatz and Uzoma Ozurumba; they will serve for one year.

---

I would like to question your close of the AfD discussion for Adept Press. Per WP:CLOSEAFD, Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments. I believe that policy-based arguments were made for Merge and Keep as well as Delete, and I don't see anything except a "tally of votes" favoring Delete. Most similar cases that I have seen have been closed as Merge or No Consensus. Is there any particular reason for the close you made in this case? Newimpartial (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The delete comments appeared to critically analyze the sources, which was not as clear from the keeps. I don't object to the merger of sourced material (I can message you the content), but it did not seem like a supported outcome. MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

As required I am informing you that I have take the previously discussed Leila George article that was deleted after this afd to DRV, link Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 March 17. Thanks for your earlier replies which I have linked at the DRV. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Guideline and policy news

• There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

• There is a plan for new requirements for user signatures. You can give feedback.

Arbitration

• Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.

Miscellaneous

• The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.

---

Thanks for uploading File:Young Love Issue 1 (Crestwood-Prize).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

We have 3 Keep voices, with a slew of supporting references, and the only person arguing for deletion is the nominator, who has himself expressed doubt in the guideline he is ostensibly using. How is this not a clear Keep? --GRuban (talk) 18:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

The prior admin had relisted it and no comments had occurred, so I was hesitant to assume I saw greater clarity than s/he did. MBisanz ^talk 18:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Would you mind moving the deleted page to my userspace for improvements? 108.253.190.74 (talk) 13:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Moved to User talk:108.253.190.74/Nemesysco. MBisanz ^talk 18:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi there! You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meteor Mission II in 2016 as a redirect since there was no demonstration of notability. I found one review and added it to the article today and then restored the redirect, and then User:Dgpop found another review for it. Do you have any objections to me restoring the article so that it can be worked on? BOZ (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

No objection. MBisanz ^talk 23:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

Callanecc

Oversight changes

HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

• Discretionary sanctions have been authorized for all pages and edits related to COVID-19, to be logged at WP:GS/COVID19.
• Following a recent discussion on Meta-Wiki, the edit filter maintainer global group has been created.
• A request for comment has been proposed to create a new main page editor usergroup.
• A request for comment has been proposed to make the bureaucrat activity requirements more strict.

Technical news

• The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. You can review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page.
• Enterprisey created a script that will show a link to the proper Special:Undelete page when viewing a since-deleted revision, see User:Enterprisey/link-deleted-revs.

Miscellaneous

• A request for comment closed with consensus to create a Village Pump-style page for communication with the Wikimedia Foundation.

---

Hello, could you put this article in my userspace so I can work on improving it? — AMK152 ^{(t • c)} 22:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done at User:AMK152/Kenneth Armstrong. MBisanz ^talk 02:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth

Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment asks whether the Unblock Ticket Request System (UTRS) should allowed any unblock request or just private appeals.
• The Wikimedia Foundation announced that they will develop a universal code of conduct for all WMF projects. There is an open local discussion regarding the same.

Arbitration

• A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.

---

Hey there, MBisanz! I'm Windyshadow32, a new member of the sadly inactive Wikiproject Shopping Centers. I am trying to revive this project to highlight the unique stories of malls across the country and the world especially as we lose more and more of them. Undoubtedly, we will lose shopping malls due to the challenges we face at this moment. Your account was listed as involved in the project, and I would like to know if you would like to help revive it! I can't take on this massive project without you! Please let me know if you'd be willing to help; I really appreciate it!

Windyshadow32 (talk) 06:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on User:(Automated conversion) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Blocked user, not a maintenance script

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. –User456541 14:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is in progress to remove the T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) speedy deletion criterion.

Technical news

• Protection templates on mainspace pages are now automatically added by User:MusikBot II (BRFA).

Arbitration

• Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold an RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. The RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC and is open to comments from the community.
• The Medicine case was closed, with a remedy authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles.

---

Dear MBisanz/Archive 22,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. ​

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 11:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Why a 10 years page with a lot of contributions was deleted without any reason? Davidasher (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear MBisanz/Archive 22,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. ​

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 11:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

Red Phoenix

Euryalus • SQL

Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

GB fan

Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

• There is an open request for comment to decide whether to increase the minimum duration a sanction discussion has to remain open (currently 24 hours).
• Speedy deletion criterion T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) has been repealed following a request for comment.
• Speedy deletion criterion X2 (pages created by the content translation tool) has been repealed following a discussion.
• There is a proposal to restrict proposed deletion to confirmed users.

---

Thanks for uploading File:WSPA logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Wishing MBisanz a very happy bureaucratship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Shambling. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 19#Shambling until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 03:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Why a 10 years page with a lot of contributions was deleted without any reason? Davidasher (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

There was a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Guido Pietroni that explains the reason. Are you requesting the article be restored? MBisanz ^talk 15:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Wow, MBisanz...11 years! Congratulations for your bureaucratship anniversary. I can't believe how long ago it was when you became one! Acalamari 10:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I missed it, but congratz! :) ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 23:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

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.

---

I've submitted a deletion review for Checkmarx. It was many years ago but looks like you were the protecting administrator, so I wanted to ping you in case you were interested in reviewing. Cheers. Metromemo (talk) 21:43, 9 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.

---

Hi, hope all is well. While I feel that The Hatch should have been deleted, a closure of 'soft delete' is, imo, inappropriate here. Per WP:NPASR, to evaluate an AFD discussion as an expired PROD, it should have "no one opposing deletion". That is not the case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hatch. Best wishes, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing it out. I will remember it going forward. MBisanz ^talk 02:44, 26 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).

---

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Kellogg.

I'd like to request userification. I had concerns with the nomination. The nomination seems to claim Kellogg having more famous namesakes, who we haven't covered, as a justification for deletion. That is nonsense. If all the namesakes are notable then we should consider starting articles on them, as well.

I was concerned that the nomination didn't mention that Kellogg had been an instructor at the Art Center College of Design. That is not enough to measure up to ACADEMIC, but it was a significant notability factor.

I started a draft of a new version, at User:Geo Swan/David Kellogg v2.0. I looked at old versions of the article, at mirror sites. Of course I have no idea how long agao the mirror sites made those copies. They seem to be seriously under-referenced, and to have ignored Kellogg's long history of successful direction of commercials

But someone did go to the trouble of documenting his filmography, and I would prefer to avoid unnecessarily duplicating that.

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 05:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• I figured you were on a break, so I requested userification at DRV. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 12:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for not responding more promptly, but I see that others have attended to it. MBisanz ^talk 23:46, 15 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) 01:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

Interface administrator changes

Izno

Guideline and policy news

• There is a request for comment in progress to either remove T3 (duplicated and hardcoded instances) as a speedy deletion criterion or eliminate its seven-day waiting period.

Technical news

• Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 7 December 2020 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

---

	Happy New Year!
	Hello MBisanz: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

sir previously at 2018 you delete an article about Ahmed AlNeaimy who made a tool for iOS jailbreaking he made that tool to help any ios user to make the following : Some of the benefits of this tool are to treat problems by entering the file system and keeping a backup copy of them. Experimenting with applications designed by new developers before handing them over to Apple, with the ability to install iPhone applications on iPod and iPads, localization of foreign programs, and many other services that were not easy to obtain

the article if you accept will be like the following

Ahmed AlNeaimy , an Iraqi software engineer, succeeded in developing a new online tool that enables users to jailbreak their devices using the Pangu tool developed by the PanGu team, without connecting to a computer. This is a JailbreakMe-like tool that works completely in Safari. An added bonus of this method is that unlike Pangu's desktop tool, you don't have to enter your Apple ID during the jailbreak process. This method is called breaking the iOS or jailbreak. It is mentioned that the method is legal and used in many countries of the world and helps users to create an OS. It is mentioned that Ahmed is a specialist in information technology and mobile phone applications and has made many contributions in these areas. Some of the benefits of this tool are to treat many problems by entering the file system and keeping a backup copy of them. Experimenting with applications designed by new developers before handing them over to Apple, with the ability to install iPhone applications on the iPod and iPad, activating the forbidden bluetooth feature in Apple products, so that the jailbreak can be used to transfer different files from one iPhone to another. Localization of non-foreign programs, and many other services that were not easy to obtain

here are some links that may make the article legal ] ] ] ]

Thank you so much i hope I will recive a good news ّّّّHesham Hussain (talk) 05:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Please submit this to WP:AFC so that it can be reviewed by another person. Thanks MBisanz ^talk 03:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I trust you on such matters. I don't think this model was ever notable. Send it to AfD? Bearian (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it should go to AFD. MBisanz ^talk 03:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Guideline and policy news

• Speedy deletion criterion T3 (duplication and hardcoded instances) has been repealed following a request for comment.

Technical news

• You can now put pages on your watchlist for a limited period of time.

Arbitration

• By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
• Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.

---

Sorry to be a pain, but I feel maybe your close here should be reviewed per the out-come of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Status of "List of international goals scored by X" lists. Also I think a merge would not be a good idea per the data limit of the article. I don't think a lot of the editors have truly reviewed the articles, how it's going to be merged, what's the whole article looks like, etc. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 10:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

No hard feelings about a DRV. I saw the comments on the article size limit, but to me that is more of an editing decision, not a retention decision. *Something* can be cut, either from the core article or the content being merged into it. MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Nathaniel Curtis. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 10#Nathaniel Curtis until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi MBisanz,

In September 2020 the mentioned article (also NMIS and Open-AudIT) were deleted due to notoriety issues. I have looked over the guidelines for a company/organization and believe I have sufficient sources for Opmantek to be notable. What is the process to either rewrite the original or create a new article that isn't 'Obviously promotional' and from an independent perspective? SorryIamDrinking (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I would recommend submitting it to WP:AFC. MBisanz ^talk 16:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, this was just deleted at AfD, and I believe I have sufficient sources substantiating the label's notability. Could you please userfy the deleted article? Thanks Chubbles (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I moved it to User:Chubbles/Thick Records. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 16:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Chubbles (talk) 13:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I've restored the page - if you have a chance could you also restore the talk page as well? Thanks Chubbles (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Re: this edit, don't you agree that since this is an index of articles, the Chef Anil entry should have been removed entirely and not just delinked? Geschichte (talk) 07:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Arbitration

• The standard discretionary sanctions authorized for American Politics were amended by motion to cover post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people, replacing the 1932 cutoff.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2021 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2021, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2021, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Wikipedia has now been around for 20 years, and recently saw its billionth edit!

---

ThatIPEditor ^{Talk · Contribs} 06:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

TJMSmith

Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

Interface administrator changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
• A request for comment is in progress to remove F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a, which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
• A request for comment seeks to grant page movers the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at Wikipedia:Page mover/delete-redirect.
• A request for comment asks if sysops may place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
• There is a discussion in progress concerning automatic protection of each day's featured article with Pending Changes protection.

Technical news

• When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
• When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
• There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).

Arbitration

• By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
• The Kurds and Kurdistan case was closed, authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2021 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AmandaNP, Operator873, Stanglavine, Teles, and Wiki13.

---

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:NZ-Currency. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 11#Template:NZ-Currency until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
• Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.

Technical news

• When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
• Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)

Arbitration

• A community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure is open until April 25.

---

you are now a Vanguard Editor you have completed all the requirements to be a Vanguard Editor Congratulations 🎊👏 Young Brown Boy (talk) 07:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Help:Glossary, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Help:Glossary and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Help:Glossary during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

Enchanter • Carlossuarez46

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, consensus was found that third party appeals are allowed but discouraged.
• The 2021 Desysop Policy RfC was closed with no consensus. Consensus was found in a previous RfC for a community based desysop procedure, though the procedure proposed in the 2021 RfC did not gain consensus.

Technical news

• The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.

Arbitration

• The community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.

---

Hi MBisanz. Would you mind taking a look at Tom Brier? You deleted it a few years ago per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Brier, but it's been recreated. I'm not sure if WP:G4 applies here since I can't see the older version, but it still (at least on the surface) seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. The editor who recreated the article here might mean well, but also might be connected to Brier in some way given this info they originally incorporated into their sandbox draft before recreating the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I defer to F&W's deletion decision. MBisanz ^talk 02:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless

Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)

Guideline and policy news

• Consensus was reached to deprecate Wikipedia:Editor assistance.
• Following a Request for Comment the Book namespace was deprecated.

Technical news

• Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.

Arbitration

• After a Clarification request, the Arbitration Committee modified Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case. This means sourcing expectations are a discretionary sanction instead of being present on all articles. It also details using the talk page or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to discuss disputed sources.

---

There was an AFD in which you were the deleting admin.

I was wondering if you could restore the history of the article to the new version?    BlackAmerican (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Restored at Khalil Rountree Jr.. MBisanz ^talk 19:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

None of the keep !votes at the AfD provided any valid policy-based reason for keeping the article. I would appreciate if the discussion was relisted for further input instead of being closed as such. Thanks. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

It appears to be a content dispute, not a policy issue. Given that all of the other commenters supported keeping the content separate, I am not inclined to reopen it. Of course, the content still could be merged or retitled without going through an AFD. MBisanz ^talk 19:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I've now properly reorganised the content into Burmese–Siamese War (1767–1775) per Sodacan's suggestion in the AfD, so the disputed article is now entirely redundant. It's not a useful redirect, since no such war covering the claimed year range exists, and there is no need to retain the history, since the merge was done from the Taksin article. Do you have specific suggestions on what to do with the article? If not, I'll open a deletion review. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I do not have specific suggestions. I would have redirected it, but if you feel strongly opposed to leaving a redirect, then RFD or DRV would be the best option. MBisanz ^talk 14:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I've redirected the page for now, and will follow-up later. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Please use the {{help me}} template appropriately. The {{help me}} template is for help in using Wikipedia, not for unrelated issues. If you would like to ask such a question, replace the code {{help me-inappropriate}} on this page with {{help me}} to reactivate the help request. Alternatively, you can also ask your question at the Teahouse, the help desk, or join Wikipedia's Live Help IRC channel to get real-time assistance.

How do I post a question on the talk page of the Two-State Solution entry? Is that Talk page locked, too? Nutmeg39 (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Nutmeg39: Hi! You don't need the {{Help me}} template when you are asking someone a question on their talk page. It is generally used to get people to come to your talk page to answer a question. But to answer your original question, yes, that talk page is extended protected by KrakatoaKatie. SamStrongTalks (talk) 01:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

(@SamStrongTalks:) So there is no way to suggest an edit to a page where the page and its talk page are locked?

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

Guideline and policy news

• Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
• An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.

Technical news

• IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.

Arbitration

• The community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.

---

Hello, hope all is well. Are you able to comment at an open BN thread? –xeno^talk 02:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for missing this. MBisanz ^talk 23:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.

Technical news

• Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)

Arbitration

• Following an amendment request, the committee has clarified that the Talk page exception to the 500/30 rule in remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case does not apply to requested move discussions.

Miscellaneous

• You can vote for candidates in the 2021 Board of Trustees elections from 4 August to 17 August. Four community elected seats are up for election.

---

The National Conference Center, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

Jake Wartenberg

Emperor • Viridian Bovary

Ashleyyoursmile → Viridian Bovary

Guideline and policy news

• Feedback is requested on the Universal Code of Conduct enforcement draft by the Universal Code of Conduct Phase 2 drafting committee.
• A RfC is open on whether to allow administrators to use extended confirmed protection on high-risk templates.
• A discussion is open to decide when, if ever, should discord logs be eligible for removal when posted onwiki (including whether to oversight them)
• A RfC on the next steps after the trial of pending changes on TFAs has resulted in a 30 day trial of automatic semi protection for TFAs.

Technical news

• The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is in progress to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. Comments and new proposals are welcome.

Miscellaneous

• The 2021 RfA review is now open for comments.

---

Can you please userfy this article that was deleted. . He recently passed away and I believe that more information concerning him has come out. Thank you

BlackAmerican (talk) 07:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Now at User:BlackAmerican/Harold Sharp. MBisanz ^talk 17:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I know that there wasn't much that you could've done differently, but still it grates to see an article kept at AfD that has not a single reference apart from the subject's own website... --Randykitty (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree; tough outcome. MBisanz ^talk 17:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)