User talk:AmandaNP/Archives/2017

Original header shortened to fix stretched TOC: "File permission problem with File:Karen Mok (莫文蔚) at the TV show "The Singing Battle (天籁之战)" on 31 Oct 2016.jpg" ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

More information Copy from other page ...

Copy from other page

Thanks for uploading File:Karen Mok (莫文蔚) at the TV show "The Singing Battle (天籁之战)" on 31 Oct 2016.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license. If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion. If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 15:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Close

thanks, I had Christo send the required email many weeks ago and I believe it was confirmed by the one who entered the same type of comment as you did on my talk page. Can you please check and confirm? Many thanks Jaeljojo (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a ticket number I can search by? Without that, it's a needle in a haystack to find. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Amanda! I just emailed permissions-en@wikimedia.org <permissions-en@wikimedia.org> with permissions. Can you confirm receipt and remove the appropriate delete notices? Thank you! Donmike10 (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I do see your ticket #2017011710014938, for your tracking purposes. It will require more information in which I will reply to at some point today. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good, Amanda. Just keep me posted and I'll give whatever. Donmike10 (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I received your message about Jackmayphot.jpg on my talk page. A month ago, the owner of the photograph sent the permission (that's why I placed the template "OTRS pending"). The owner used the online form that was available for this purpose. Have you not received it? If not, tell me and I will tell the owner of the picture to send an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. I await your response!--Ane wiki (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I emptied the queue earlier today, and nothing has been received at that address that is tied to the image you uploaded. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your response. I will ask the owner of the photograph to re-send the permission, but this must be send to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, or to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org?. Anyway, the permission is not going to come from the account associated with the photograph, because the owner of the photograph is a third person who has not participated in the making of the article in which the photo was used. Do you need to know what that mail is? Or can you locate the permission by the name of the photograph? Thank you!--Ane wiki (talk) 07:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I go through new incoming emails daily, and while I don't process them right away, i'll often find the image and tag it with permission pending from the email. So if it is sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, then I will receive it and you'll see the tag change. If you wish to track the email, either the system will reply automatically with a ticket number, or I will post that ticket number to the image. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Please, if you can post the ticket number into the image, I will thank you :) --Ane wiki (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

seems slightly worrying? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 16:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Could explain your closure of the 5 December 2016 report in this case in a little more detail? Particularly as to why no action was taken? Given the available evidence, I genuinely don't understand how you can conclude that Antonios1994 is not a sockpuppet. Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

A sockpuppet, possibly. Antony1821, there is insufficient evidence presented to link them. Of your evidence, point 2 & 5 are valid. I am just not willing to block on those alone. You need direct connections from your SSP to previous blocked socks. That said, trying to read over your statement of the fact you think something is two different sockmasters confused me (and still does), and I thought you were claiming that this wasn't Antony. Also as you can see I ran further CUs below after, there was no crossover from that account into Antony's range(s). -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

May I ask why you consider the other points invalid, particularly point 1. The choice of username is an expression of identity. That seems important for sockpuppet investigations. From my perspective, we've got an editor, who, by their own admission, has used multiple accounts, has chosen basically the same username as a confirmed sockpuppet of a banned editor (User:Antony1994), has the same peculiar writing style as that editor, has the same general interest as that editor (Greek football), has repeated a number of particular edits made by that editor, and has repeated the disruptive behaviour, namely uploading copyrighted images, which is what got that editor blocked (see 1, 2, 3). That's too much overlap to just happen by coincidence.

All that being said, there were a number of CU checks run while this account was active, so it begs the question why was this not discovered that way? This brings me to the two masters point. My claim is that User:Platanias25 is a new sockmaster, not a sock of Antony1821, and that all subsequently blocked socks were operated by this person. Take a look at this case. CU evidence confirms that someone has used multiple accounts to conduct an edit war, so the blocks are clearly appropriate. However, CU evidence provides no link to Antonty1821 and no behavioural evidence was presented to link the two either. All subsequent socks have been blocked based either on behavioural evidence linking them to these accounts or CheckUser evidence, which goes no further back than Platanias25, since all previous accounts are stale. These socks have shown a marked change in behaviour. None of them have uploaded images, copyrighted or otherwise. There is a new interest in the finance sector. Perhaps most strikingly, these socks have moved away from editing only subjects with strong national ties to Greece. Given the lack of evidence and change behaviour, I submit that this is a different case. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The connection to the previous account of A1994 was not a connection I had made, now that I've made it, I find points 3 & 4 valid. I still reject the notion of point #1 though, because in my experience, I have editors who have pointed the finger because of similar name, and similar topic area and been completely out to lunch on the connection. So the name by itself, I don't count, and I count other cross-over behaviors separately. If you need to, chalk it up to just how I think.

That said, if I accept your notion that Platanias25 is the split, then I have to conclude that A1994 would also be a shoot off. I've looked at the CU logs, and the before and after of that SPI you mentioned, everything is still within the same smaller country, and has overlaps of ISPs, but not ranges, just like A1994 does. And we often see sock development to new articles/change topic areas as a way to throw us off as they find they are too quickly blocked in the areas they are known, but can't help to maintain some tie to them. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow up. That being said your explanation raises some other questions about how CheckUser actually works. (I appreciate I might be asking questions that you're not allowed to answer). How is it that your able to review technical evidence now, but when Platanias25 was first report the master account was stale? Given that I'm applying for clerkship that seems like something should know. Thanks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello. This IP is a disruptive and nationalist pov-pusher (cross wiki). His behavior is very similar to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EMr KnG and some other sockmasters (I forgot their usernames). Since this is not a dynamic IP, is it possible to submit a SPI case for him or check if this IP is related to a specific blocked user? --Wario-Man (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

It really does look like a dynamic IP since 1) there are no edits since yesterday and 2) edits only start the 22 Jan. That said the checkuser (and other similiar) policies prohibits me from connecting ip addresses to accounts, except in extreme cases of abuse. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I think he's EMr KnG's ip-sock. His comments and edits on Khanate of Sibir, Nogai Horde, Khanate of Bukhara and Khanate of Kokand are very similar to EMr KnG's nationalist POV-pushing. Isn't it similar to WP:DUCK cases? --Wario-Man (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: Yes, I have blocked it as such. That said, you also could be blocked for violating the sockpuppetry policy. I find it extremely inappropriate, besides hypocritical, for someone to be violating the policy they want enforced. This is your warning to cease doing so. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I saw that you deleted Stewie Speer – about time! Can I ask, did someone else nominate it as G12, or did you make that call yourself? I ask because (and you may already know this) this is just one of several articles with similar problems. Unfortunately this was all a long time ago and my mind's a near-total blank, but I think the editor is called Dunks, perhaps Dunks58, and the website is milesago. I think I suggested, some time in the late Palaeolithic, that a CCI might be needed if OTRS permission didn't come through. Do you have any thoughts on that now? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Made the call myself. I saw it in OTRS pending verification category. The user is User:Dunks58. I'm not aware of the other articles, so I'm not sure if a CCI is needed. I don't remember seeing other OTRS tickets, either, but if needed I can dig. So let me know how I can help. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that. I'll go ahead and make the CCI request, as was discussed only last year at Talk:Split Enz#Copyright violation (I'd thought it was ages ago). It seems that a request to Dunks58 for a clearer statement of permission went unanswered (Ticket #2016081910002945). Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi @DeltaQuad: Thank you so much for helping me create my signature, you're the bomb! ActiveListener95|(˥ǝʇs Ɔɥɐʇ) 06:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

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

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

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

Obituaries

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

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Tried again, this time I didn't get past OAuth but got: Notice: A session had already been started - ignoring session_start() in /usr/UTRSgit/utrs/public_html/src/oauth.php on line 198

Notice: Undefined index: password in /usr/UTRSgit/utrs/public_html/src/userObject.php on line 68

Fatal error: Uncaught exception 'UTRSDatabaseException' with message 'A database error occured when attempting to process your request:
array ( 0 => '23000', 1 => 1062, 2 => 'Duplicate entry \'dougweller@gmail.com\' for key \'email\' ', )' in /usr/UTRSgit/utrs/public_html/src/userObject.php:110 Stack trace: #0 /usr/UTRSgit/utrs/public_html/src/userObject.php(81): UTRSUser->insert() #1 /usr/UTRSgit/utrs/public_html/login.php(187): UTRSUser->__construct(Array, false, Array) #2 {main} thrown in /usr/UTRSgit/utrs/public_html/src/userObject.php on line 110

Doug Weller talk 21:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I thought it was strange that the first edit by a user (contributions) was to apply a block notice. I also found it weird that they welcomed themself. Not sure if this has anything to do with those blocks (Oshwah has also blocked 2602:306:36d5:5690::/64), but I thought I'd draw your attention to it, because you might have some insight. Best Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 01:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey, could you take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chrisanthi Likousi?

I opened an SPI when I saw that a new account was obviously a sock of a recently blocked account, but didn't notice that the "main account" had also been CU-blocked as a member of a massive sockfarm, and the only way I was able to find out who the actual sockmaster was was by checking "What links here" on the "master's" user page.

The new account is almost certainly also a sock of Ψάλ, but I don't know how to merge the two SPIs, or even if that would be the appropriate action.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Hijiri88,

You can't merge SPI reports. I believe that they can be merged, moved etc by CheckUsers, Clerks etc if they deem that necessary. I hope this helps.--5 albert square (talk) 14:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

What is the purpose of Template:Sock-copyvio, and what is the correct use of the first positional parameter? There is no documentation. The template is used on the strangely-named Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Commons:Category:Sockpuppets of Principe Enthony Stark, where the effect is to put the category inside itself. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Redrose64: It was very much a hacked attempt to modify {{sock}} for the situation at hand. It's to notify and group users that have been tagged with the group and identify who the original master was. In this case, there was no English Wikipedia account with the same name as the globally known sockmaster, so that's why I redirected it to the commons category. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, but did it need to use such a convoluted category name, or even put the category inside itself? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 01:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Did it need to, not really, it was just convenient on a day where I had CU requests for over 12 hours with 119 individual checks (not requests). -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree the category name should be simplified. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I've fixed the issue. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, AmandaNP. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 04:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

GAB^gab 04:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, my periodic search for naturalnews.com links brought me to this article, which brought me to this AfD that was submitted by a soldier in a sockpuppet army. The idea of a pay-or-your-article-gets-deleted protection racket, alleged by the connected editor, is interesting. I looked at some of the sockpuppet army's activities, and the claim seems at least plausible. Many of the socks, as new accounts, just add references to articles and/or submit AfDs. Since you are familiar with the SPI, did anything stick out to you? The connected editor offered to submit evidence about the protection scheme. Since we are talking about a potential crime (I think?), should I suggest to the editor that he contact WMF directly? Or would it be more suitable if arbcom, or you individually, reviewed the evidence and, if needed, communicated with WMF? Manul ~ talk 20:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Manul: I don't know if Delta will agree, but from my perspective, this would need to go to one of the Foundation's channels, possibly legal, for them to have the relevant authorities look into it. This is just the two cents of a less experienced / less knowledgable editor, but I'm pretty sure that when your issue passes the 'crime' threshold, you are beyond the 'content' matters normally handled by Arbs. MM (HURRRR?) ^(Hmmmmm.) 17:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Arbcom doesn't just handle formal arbitration cases; it also looks at cases involving private information whose details cannot be discussed publicly. The people in this "protection" business (if it exists) could claim that they are simply offering a service to clients while helping Wikipedia cull articles on non-notable topics. It may not be a crime after all, but just another paid-editing problem. (@MM: FYI, pings only work if there is a signature in the same edit.) Manul ~ talk 18:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I see @Manul: My bad. I'll shut up and leave it for DQ to cover. MM (HURRRR?) ^(Hmmmmm.) 18:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• If you believe that a crime has been committed, I'd point you directly to the WMF Legal Team. As for the original case, I was requested to do a third opinion on a checkuser and assist. So I don't have much details about the original issues either. Obviously proper education of people that they do not need to pay for anything on Wikipedia and the blocking of editors intending to disrupt the encyclopedia are always best practices in these cases. If you wish I can notify the originating CUs. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you think it's long enough? It's been crapping on us since the beginning of December. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 07:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jpgordon: My block was only to stop the immediate issues with the range so we could get some rest. I wasn't planning on a regular length block on the range to begin with due to excessive collateral. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The article Colmar – Meyenheim Air Base you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Colmar – Meyenheim Air Base for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CycloneIsaac -- CycloneIsaac (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi DQ,

I accidentally submitted a request for an ACC account. If you could remove it, that would be great!

Thanks, TJH2018talk 21:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@TJH2018: Your request to join ACC has been rejected per your request. Happy editing, FastLizard4 (talk•contribs) 22:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

... being asked here. No opinion and don't care myself, but since they are asking for your opinion as the blocking admin, relaying. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've replied at their talkpage, but I won't be replying to their further queries. They have been a major timesink and refute every accusation till the end even when provided direct evidence. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

You seem to have removed other editors’ comments, in your last edit to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis/Proposed decision.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 09:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. I have restored. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi. My IP is 96.231.153.129; I really don't care about making this public information. From my understanding, you believe that Nickusa1 and I are the same individual given that we edit from the same IP, which is shared by 4 people in 1 house. Can you please tell me what other evidence you're basing this accusation on? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm asking you this because if my IP is not indefinitely hard blocked, there's a high likelihood that my roommate is going to do something stupid again once the block expires; this means I'm going to have to deal with more suspicion of sockpuppetry in the future. This needs to be resolved now so that I don't need to continue dealing with accusations of sockpuppetry when a block of my IP is warranted. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

CC: Seppi333 Hi DQ. Thanks for your communication earlier. Like Seppi I'm concerned to resolve this situation so as to remove any doubt, as far as that is possible. This is not a time sensitive issue since the IP is blocked until late next month. But I would like to figure out a way to proceed that as far as practicable will protect Seppi from any future taint by his roommates potential actions. Indefinite blocks of IPs are pretty much not done, but I was thinking of possibly a long term block of at least a year. Anyway, I gather you are busier than a one legged man in an Olympic track meet so no rush. Just ping both of us when you get time to respond. Thanks again. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, lets take a step back here for a minute. To be clear, in my communication from Ad Orientem, I used the wording "from a checkusers perspective, they are almost confirmed" and in my first email only asked for information. I have not at any point made the accusation that you were a sock of the vandal. Once I was done chatting with Ad Orientem, my next step was to contact you, but I hadn't had a chance to get that far. The reason I contacted Ad Orientem first, was in case there was a privacy concern, then I wouldn't of had to contact or worry you at all. I hadn't had a chance to reply to Ad Orientem's second email till now, which since it's here, I will reply here.

So now on to the issue at hand. Normally for checkusers, using the same IP is confirmed enough in itself. It's not absolute though. There is something that distinguishes you separately from them at the moment, so I'm not accusing you of being the same person, but that's only my opinion. Your home IP has already changed and appears to change frequenly enough. Your roommate has also started socking too (see Kickusa (talk · contribs)). There is nothing anyone can do to completely prevent you from receiving an allegation, and therefore increased scrutiny. Since your edit count is so high, benefit of the doubt is usually given first, so you will likely be contacted before sanctions. That will give you the chance to explain and point here. Just make sure you know the sockpuppetry policy, and maintain a link to this discussion. I think that's the best advice I can give. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Amanda, thanks for your response which helps clear things up. From what I am seeing it doesn't sound like there is very much more we can do. I am just going to leave the IP block exemption in place until Seppi changes his domicile. Thanks again... -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. You're right, my IP address does appear to be changing. Almost all of my edits from 2013-January 2015 were made from a static IP that was based in Chapel Hill, NC. I'm editing from 108.51.16.164 when logged out now. In any event, what you've proposed sounds reasonable given the circumstances. I suppose that I could at least provide my new IP address every time it changes so that you or others can monitor it (although, since you are a checkuser, you probably could also just as easily look this up based upon what IP address I'm using when I make a series of edits^[1] to an article). I have no alternative accounts and I very very rarely make edits while logged out, so even hard blocking the IP that I edit from would have no effect on my ability to edit Wikipedia so long as my account retains the IP block exempt user right.

^[1] If I make a single edit during an individual editing session, it's possible that I made that edit from from my iPhone. I seldom make back-to-back edits from a mobile device because of how long it takes me to type on them relative to editing from my laptop, which I leave at home.
It really irritates me that my roommate is putting me in this situation, so I have no reservations about regularly providing updates on my current IP address if you think it would be prudent to place short-term (i.e., perhaps 1 week? I don't know the frequency at which my IP changes, but I could monitor this) hard blocks on my current IP address. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The best thing to do about your roommate is not to speak with them about the issue, for the same reason that WP:DENY exists. They will eventually get tired of it. I'm not opposed if you want to drop me an email a week or less and keep me updated, I can look through and block anything that needs to be blocked if that's what you wish. You can just drop me an email. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Providing regular updates on my current IP so that the use of my home network to edit Wikipedia can be monitored or preemptively blocked is really the only thing that I can think of doing which would demonstrate that I'm not engaging in sockpuppetry with multiple accounts. I think it would be reasonable for me to plan on checking my IP address every day or two and informing you when it changes for at least the next two months. If my roommate creates new accounts from any IP address that I'm assigned to during that time, edits while logged out from that IP (I'll make sure not to perform any edits while logged out), or an account other than my user account edits from my current IP, please let me know. I'll continue to do this so long as my roommate is editing Wikipedia. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

My IP address is still 108.51.16.164 as of right now. I'll update you again in about 1 week if it's the same, or sooner if it changes. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Still the same. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm seeing no issues since February 26. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Still the same. The single edit by that IP from today was me. I'll update you again about two weeks from now unless my IP changes again before then. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: New IP address: 71.126.177.176. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

If there have been no further issues, I think it's more than likely that my roommate has lost interest in continuing to edit Wikipedia for now.

@Ad Orientem: I'm moving to another US state at the end of the month. While I would prefer to keep the IP block exempt user right to avoid situations like this in the future, I'm informing you about this because you consented to giving me that user right only as long as I was living at my current address. Requesting adminship would technically do the same thing for me as that user right, but I just don't want the added responsibilities at the moment. Nonetheless, I'm completely okay with it if you feel the need to remove it come May 1st.

@DQ: Because of my upcoming move, this situation shouldn't be a potential issue for much longer. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 13:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Rangeblock_with_talk_page_access_revoked, wherein I note I upgraded one of your rangeblocks to restrict talk page access, and indicate admins may wish to undo my change. --Yamla (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Replied. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13

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

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Quartier Colonel Dio you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks. I'll look into your recommendations this week. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

...why your bot didn't pick up these two? --QEDK (愛) 19:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@QEDK: The first one I can't explain to well. My suspicion is that an API query timed out on some username (due to high replication lag). Currently there is no build-in Exception handler to either recheck or proceed to the next one, it just terminates the entire run, and continues fresh when it restarts. The second one is not blacklisted, so that would be no fault of the bot's. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't personally mind that it didn't pick them up but was a bit curious concerning they were blatantly bad. Also, was "pussy" dropped from the blacklist due to false-positives or something? --QEDK (愛) 16:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Your welcome to take a look and see. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Before I went and screwed up, we had a concensus that a desire to use VPN shouldn't be a barrier to being granted an IPBE. That consensus still remains. What we lack is agreement on what the new policy should look like. My attempt at drafting a new policy failed miserably and has been withdrawn (with apologies). I was thinking that perhaps you could draft the new policy instead.--*Kat* (talk) 09:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

While I appreciate the fact that you have faith in my abilities, this is not for me to draft. I'm still of the opinion that the old interpretation is the best way to go. So for me to write the new policy would not only give the appearance that I am trying to skew things to my version of how I want it, but also gives the notion that I want the policy changed in the first place. I don't. I'm absolutely willing to guide you through any draft you wish to make, and provide one on one feedback before you take it to a consensus seeking venue. I think that would do you a better service than having me trying to force my way against consensus. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if your UTRS bot is updating CAT:RFU. Or it may just be laggy?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

DQ moved servers. She asked me what to add to cron and I forgot about the script for that function to the cron. Whoops.--v/r - TP 22:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

It's down. I had enabled it on the new server, and I did have it working, but an error that came up setting back up (which tells me jack **** about what the issue is) came up within minutes of completing the transfer. Therefore until I have time to waist in that sinkhole again, it will have to wait. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I did a bit of investigating, it looks like the UTRSBot OAuth credentials crapped out or got lost to an older version. Since I don't remember having access to it, I switched it over to my bot for now. It's still generating some pretty warning errors, but nonetheless it works. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I can get you some OAuth credentials if you need them but UTRSBot's password is in that config file.--v/r - TP 12:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The article Quartier Colonel Dio you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Quartier Colonel Dio for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 05:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, AmandaNP. You have new messages at XPrintGirl's talk page.
Message added 14:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vanjagenije (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi DQ, I noticed that a couple of months back you indeffed Byronmolina87 as part of a CU block. I don't know if this was a sockpuppetry thing or what, but I believe he kept editing here as an IP (the 64.237.* Puerto Rico IPs) and he is obviously back as ByronMolina. I could indef him as a sock, but I'd feel better about it if I knew what master he was a sock of. May I trouble you take a look at this, please? There might be other socks as far as I know. Thanks and regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The two accounts are Unrelated, since i've said that, I can't say much more on policy grounds. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, AmandaNP. You have new messages at Erictleung's talk page.
Message added 18:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vanjagenije (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, AmandaNP. You have new messages at Talk:Quartier Colonel Dio.
Message added 23:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 23:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The article Quartier Colonel Dio you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Quartier Colonel Dio for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 05:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

TheDJ

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

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

User:DeltaQuad, it has been pointed out to me the New Guidelines (in the section "Motion: ARBPIA" near the bottom of the page). The key part is the sentence underlined in black. Question: Is this to imply that all new edits made since 26 December 2016 in Palestine-Israel articles can be deleted by editors, and they can challenge the editors who put them there in the first place, without the first editors restoring their edits until a new consensus has been reached? If so, you open the door for "abusive editing," that is to say, the new guidelines allow editors to freely delete areas in articles based on their sole judgment and conviction and which edits had earlier been agreed upon by consensus, and that such changes will remain in force until such a time that a new consensus can be reached. As you see, this can be problematic. Second Question: Do the new guidelines also apply to reverts made in articles where a consensus had already been reached before 26 December 2016, or do they only apply to reverts made after 26 December 2016? To avoid future problems arising from this new edict, can I make this one suggestion, namely, that the new guidelines in Palestine-Israel articles be amended to read with this addition: "Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense, or where abuses arise over reverts made in an article where a consensus had already been reached before or after the edict of 26 December 2016 took effect, such editors make themselves liable to disciplinary actions, including blocking."Davidbena (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, AmandaNP. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-- Dane ^talk 04:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:ARWelcome has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

For the last while, I've been unable to login to UTRS. After I click on the English Wikipedia link, it brings up the OA Auth page but without the usual dialog to click on Allow. Thanks for any help.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• DeltaQuad, see the recent thread on the utrs-admins mailing list where others reported the issue. TParis seemed to believe it was because the users weren't logged in with "remember me" enabled on enwiki? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello! I'm looking for some feedback on User talk:Roseohioresident as you are the blocking admin for the IP range block. --Yamla (talk) 13:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Administrator changes

Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim

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

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Miscellaneous

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

What Quack is doing (again) since he came out of his topic ban is outrageous and as Zvi Zig puts it, slanderous. Please take a look at Talk:Electronic cigarette (which is just the most recent example). Thanks.--TMCk (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your amazing work so far, in all fields!! So, I would like to ask you If you would like to be nominated for 'crat. Either ways I wish you all the best. Keep up the amazing work! --Kostas20142 (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, AmandaNP. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 13:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Yunshui ^雲_水 13:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey there, I noticed earlier today you restored this user's email and talk access, which had been revoked by Boing! said Zebedee for off-wiki harassment and disingenuous unblock requests. Did you mean to do that? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Not by any means...I don't think my eyes caught it in the script. Fixed. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn

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

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Miscellaneous

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

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

Administrator changes

Happyme22 • Dragons flight

Zad68

Guideline and policy news

• The RFC discussion regarding WP:OUTING and WMF essay about paid editing and outing (see more at the ArbCom noticeboard archives) is now archived. Milieus #3 and #4 received support; so did concrete proposal #1.

Technical news

• Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding ?fuzzy=1 to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.
• A new bot will automatically revision delete unused file versions from files in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old.

Miscellaneous

• A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
• A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
• Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.

It is unknown to me if you have ever heard of this incident but I currently am part of a community driven wiki farm called "Miraheze". We provide free wikis to anyone who actually uses them and everything is community drive. I work as a feature request processor and help with wiki creation as well. We have had the problem in the past with a user called Lawrence Prairies who I see has been globally locked here on English Wikipedia as well. He goes by the names of Amanda and DeltaQuad. In one of our archived discussions about Prairies your name was mentioned as being associated with the account. Could you please inform me have you any knowledge of this account or ever had.

Note: This is not official correspondence between Miraheze or your account. It is purely my curiosity and intent to investigate this matter. Please keep all communication strictly between me and you.

{{SUBST:User:Jeermud/signature}} 23:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Little tigery kitten wishing you all the best. Mreow!

Drmies (talk) 11:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 ^{(first RfA to reach WP:300)}

Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

• Following a series of discussions around new pages patrol, the WMF is helping implement a controlled autoconfirmed article creation trial as a research experiment, similar to the one proposed in 2011. You can learn more about the research plan at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial. The exact start date of the experiment has yet to be determined.
• A new speedy deletion criterion, regarding articles created as a result undisclosed paid editing, is currently being discussed (permalink).
• An RfC (permalink) is currently open that proposes expanding WP:G13 to include all drafts, even if they weren't submitted through Articles for Creation.

Technical news

• LoginNotify should soon be deployed to the English Wikipedia. This will notify users when there are suspicious login attempts on their account.
• The new version of XTools is nearing an official release. This suite of tools includes administrator statistics, an improved edit counter, among other tools that may benefit administrators. You can report issues on Phabricator and provide general feedback at mw:Talk:XTools.

New socks has been found, can you please reopen and look at the new socks listed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeniseJZ. Sundartripathi (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, could you please have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bazaan? The ping to you from that page does not appear to have worked and the SPI has been stuck on "more info req." for a while now even though a new case has been filed. Your request for clarification wrt Farabi1994 also appears to have been addressed. Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

Nakon • Scott

Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

• ACTRIAL, a research experiment that restricts article creation to autoconfirmed users, will begin on September 7. It will run for six months. You can learn more about the research specifics at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial, while Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial is probably the best venue for general discussion.
• Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.

Technical news

• You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
• Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
• In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

• Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.

Hi, I'm User:Mautpreller, member of the German arbcom (see de:Wikipedia:Schiedsgericht). I was told that you blocked user:Meister und Margarita indefinitely on English-speaking wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User:Meister+und+Margarita). Since we work upon a case where this user is concerned, I'd like to get information as to why this block was enforced. I gather that this is not public information because you referred to oversight. But could you inform us, as far as this is possible and permitted, via arbcomde-l(at)lists.wikimedia.org? This is a closed mailing list and only accessible to arbcom members.--Mautpreller (talk) 09:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem

Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful proposal to create it, a new user right called "edit filter helper" is now assignable and revocable by administrators. The right allows non-administrators to view the details of private edit filters, but not to edit them.
• Following a discussion about mass-application of ECP and how the need for logging and other details of an evolving consensus may have been missed by some administrators, a rough guide to extended confirmed protection has been written. This information page describes how the extended-confirmed aspects of the protection policy are currently being applied by administrators.

Technical news

• You can now search for IP ranges at Special:Contributions. Some log pages and Special:DeletedContributions are not yet supported. Wildcards (e.g. 192.168.0.*) are also not supported, but the popular contribsrange gadget will continue to work.

Arbitration

• Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
• A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

I am asking regarding this page: User:Meister und Margarita/Memorial, which belongs to a user you indeffed for oversight reasons. Is there anything related to the block in the page so it should be removed or deleted, or has it already been inspected for violations, or may I move it to my Userspace and finish it? I asked the admin who locked the User's talk page and was directed to you as the blocking admin. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 02:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @L3X1: You're good; the page is clear. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)}  If you reply here, please ping me by using {{re|Ks0stm}} in your reply.  06:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Checkusers and Checkuser clerks,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input about building the Interaction Timeline feature.

We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you use similar tools such as the Editor Interaction Analyser and User compare report during sockpuppet investigations.

You can leave comments on the on wiki discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

Hey, can you pop over to User talk:CampKohler and add some input to the discussion? There's an unblock request which needs some additional information. Thanks! --Jayron32 01:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Thanks. I had checked into it initially but forgot about it. Kind of a good thing though as I found new data since I last checked it that helped. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93

Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is creating an "Interaction Timeline" tool that intends to assist administrators in resolving user conduct disputes. Feedback on the concept may be posted on the talk page.
• A new function is now available to edit filter managers that will make it easier to look for multiple strings containing spoofed text.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors will be invited to submit candidate statements for the 2017 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 12 until November 21. Voting will begin on November 27 and last until December 10.
• Following a request for comment, Ritchie333, Yunshui and Ymblanter will serve as the Electoral Commission for the 2017 ArbCom Elections.

Obituaries

• The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.

Hello, AmandaNP. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 13:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

—MBlaze Lightning ^T 13:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi DeltaQuad, Have you seen my email yet? —MBL ^Talk 11:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

Joe Roe

JzG

Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news

• Wikimedians are now invited to vote on the proposals in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey on Meta Wiki until 10 December 2017. In particular, there is a section of the survey regarding new tools for administrators and for anti-harassment.
• A new function is available to edit filter managers which can be used to store matches from regular expressions.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is open until Sunday 23:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC). There are 12 candidates running for 8 vacant seats.

Miscellaneous

• Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
• The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.