User talk:KrakatoaKatie/Archive 54
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 50 | ← | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | → | Archive 60 |
- UltraPhysicist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hello KK. This user sent me email claiming to be a sock of User:PXS1245. This may be of interest because you put the latter's SPI on hold. I disabled the ability of UltraPhysicist to send mail. If you would like the headers from their mail message let me know. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Women in Red October editathon invitation
 .jpg)  
| ||
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging
CU clarification
I don't really deal with SPI, so it's probably a lack of understanding on my part, but I'm not really getting the CU decline. If the user was blocked in February, made at least one confirmed sock which was also blocked, and there is (at least from what I can tell) pretty convincing behavioral evidence to suggest that this third account was created by the same person only several days later... I... guess I assumed you could pick up the trail as it was in February when the third account was created. GMGtalk 19:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- @GreenMeansGo: I declined CU because I have nothing to compare him to. We only keep CU data for 90 days, and if your guy's last edit was in February, running CU would be a fishing expedition. If there's a blocked sock and he's edited within the last 90 days, I can work with that. I saw no mention of it at the ANI thread (I'm pretty jet lagged, so I could have missed it in my stupor). Otherwise, it's going to be a behavioral call and I didn't get into that. The admin who blocked the sock and the master would be in a better position to evaluate it. Katietalk 19:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Edward M. Sion has been accepted
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Onel5969 TT me 04:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Edward M. Sion
So I went to approve the article, but saw that it had been deleted, due to creation by a banned user. Went to see which admin had deleted, so they could check out the version and/or if the person who created the draft was a sock of the banned user... and low and behold you were the admin... as well as the editor who created the draft. Might I ask why you went through AfC, rather than just simply creating the article? Clearly the guy's citation count passes WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 04:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- @One15969: This is an Orangemoody victim, and I sent the people who paid for the article through AFC because I wanted you guys to vet it. If you feel it merits approval, go for it with my thanks. :-) Katietalk 10:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
My talk page
Hey there, it appears that something happened on my talk page last night that caused you to strike out 12 revisions from its history, but only removed 75 bytes from it, hence leaving on it what now looks like it was deleted. Since I was literally asleep while this happend, I wondered what that was all about, and if the way the strikethrough went down like it was supposed to? Cheers! Lordtobi (✉) 06:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Lordtobi: An editor contacted Oversight asking for his IP address to be suppressed, as he had edited while logged out. Since SineBot signed his post and another editor tried to ping him (IP pings don't work, btw), I had to redact those parts and suppress everything from the IP's first edit through my redact. You're perfectly welcome to do what you did and revert back to the version before that section was added; I didn't want to simply suppress the entire section, even though I agree it made it look a little strange. Suppression often does that. :-) Katietalk 10:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Another sockpuppet of Chanakya Volume 2
Hello Katie, I was wondering whether you would be willing to take a quick view at this here.[1]-[2] - LouisAragon (talk) 09:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Academicoffee71 SPI
- Hi, thanks for doing that but for clarification was that comparing Academicoffee71 against the last Kauffner sock Whiff of greatness (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), or comparing Academicoffee71 against the last Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bobby Martnen/Archive sock Genealogizer (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)? I set up the template incorrectly thinking it was Kauffner based on the first edits but then subsequent edits all point to Bobby Martnen/Genealogizer. As per admin Courcelles comment to move the SPI out of the Kauffner folder and archive in the Bobby Martnen folder. Sorry for confusion caused by the initial template mistake. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- @In ictu oculi: Academiccoffee71 is
Unrelated to Genealogizer and it's not even close. Katietalk 13:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- Many thanks, strange. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- @In ictu oculi: Academiccoffee71 is
- Hi, thanks for doing that but for clarification was that comparing Academicoffee71 against the last Kauffner sock Whiff of greatness (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), or comparing Academicoffee71 against the last Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bobby Martnen/Archive sock Genealogizer (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)? I set up the template incorrectly thinking it was Kauffner based on the first edits but then subsequent edits all point to Bobby Martnen/Genealogizer. As per admin Courcelles comment to move the SPI out of the Kauffner folder and archive in the Bobby Martnen folder. Sorry for confusion caused by the initial template mistake. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
You did not block User:76.9.53.147 who is clearly connected to the Gregkarais accounts. Just wanted to leave you a message in case it was an oversight. Thanks. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- @World's Lamest Critic:
No comment with respect to IP address(es), and I will not publicly link any IP address with any registered account. Katietalk 11:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- I understand and I wouldn't ask you to publicly link an IP with a registered account, just to block the IP without comment. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – October 2017
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.
Please comment on Talk:List of Liberty University people
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of Liberty University people. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
CU Question
Hey Katie. Wanted to check on a CU detail. I believe I've heard CU data only goes back 3 months. I have stumbled upon two users in a slow 2+ year long edit war that I believe shows socking, but the last edit by the possible puppet was in January. Would any data be available? -- ferret (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: September 2017
| ||||||
Invitation to discuss the soon to built, Interaction Timeline
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.
Transactionalism (book) last hour of edits were deleted.
Thank you for moving and deleting the duplicate page. There was some problem I was having with my private internet access that led to the duplication from over a week ago.
My concern now is that I just added two sections and the summary of chapters and all the work and somewhere in the two edits since I finished, it is gone! Do you have any idea how I can retrieve this? Your cooperation would be appreciated. That was an hour of work! Thanks sheridanford (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- @SheridanFord: All done! :-) Katietalk 19:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks to all how helped with this! sheridanford (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
UTRS appeal
Hi Katie, could you (or another CU who watches this page) take a look at UTRS appeal 19484 as it relates to an indirect block placed by you. I've punted over to CU needed status. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 00:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: October 2017
| ||||||
Hi, you recently posted a message on my talkpage
Hi, you recently posted a message on my talkpage. Since your an admin I have a query. If a person changes their username, does that old username abrogate previous edits and interactions made by them from times past (even if they are unpalatable -meaning that if they interact with me does all their past history get discounted because they decided to get a new name) and does it mean a clear start for them? I also want to change my username due to attempted breaches of my account - having serious privacy breaches. Where would i do this?Resnjari (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- I can answer this, Resnjari, if you don't mind. Long story short, no; anything that happens at the old username is simply moved to the new username, including edits, past interactions, and any blocks and bans the old username may have had. A true clean start can only happen if you create a new account (among other criteria that must be met). See WP:UNC for more info.
- A list of venues to request a new username can be found at WP:RENAME if you really wish to do so. SkyWarrior 16:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Resnjari: It means that you refer to that editor by their current username. Some editors have to be renamed for privacy reasons, others to prevent harassment, and some because they simply want a new username. The reason doesn't matter. What matters is that you don't link them if they don't want them linked. You can know who that editor is without repeatedly calling them out on-wiki. Katietalk 16:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- Ok understood. SkyWarrior in the above reply said that the editing history of a past username and a new one are linked, one and the same. So I need to clarify on this important point in a generalised context so there is no error on my part going forward. Say in future i want to report an editor and there is a whole host of past edits under their old username that uses colourful terminology regarding me and then they do the same under their new username. In the report would i cite those past things (placing links) and noting what they said without mentioning their old username or would i be in contempt of Wikipedia policy if i did? Or would i cite only edits relating to their new account? Would i in the same report mention that the editor did those edits under a old username and leave it at that on that matter or should that bit be avoided? How would it work (as guidelines are not particularly helpful on this)?Resnjari (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Resnjari: If you'll look at the edit history of any page they've edited, you'll see all the old edits are under their new username. The software automagically moves them, so there's no reason for you to refer to that editor by their old username at all; just cite the diff like you're accustomed to doing. Leave out the part about being done under another username, because it's a) irrelevant and b) outing.
There's no problem with linking to an existing diff by User:Foo. There is a problem with linking to that diff and saying, "This diff was made when they were known as User:Oof." I hope that helps. Katietalk 01:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)- Thank you for the important advice. Much appreciated. I have one more query on this issue. Two situations. The first, if an old username is not cited, but the edits are noted in a report about the behavior of another editor. Secondly in a different context a reply is given by an editor to a report lodged against them by the filing editor. In the first context can an editor against whom the report is lodged, and in the second example can the filing editor tamper and delete examples given by the responding editor ? I ask because though i am not going to name names, there was a incident of this recently when i gave my reply to a report lodged against me by a filing editor that was thrown out by admins. Would deletion or tampering of a editor's comments by another editor be a breach of guidelines/policy in this instance?Resnjari (talk) 04:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Resnjari: If you'll look at the edit history of any page they've edited, you'll see all the old edits are under their new username. The software automagically moves them, so there's no reason for you to refer to that editor by their old username at all; just cite the diff like you're accustomed to doing. Leave out the part about being done under another username, because it's a) irrelevant and b) outing.
- Ok understood. SkyWarrior in the above reply said that the editing history of a past username and a new one are linked, one and the same. So I need to clarify on this important point in a generalised context so there is no error on my part going forward. Say in future i want to report an editor and there is a whole host of past edits under their old username that uses colourful terminology regarding me and then they do the same under their new username. In the report would i cite those past things (placing links) and noting what they said without mentioning their old username or would i be in contempt of Wikipedia policy if i did? Or would i cite only edits relating to their new account? Would i in the same report mention that the editor did those edits under a old username and leave it at that on that matter or should that bit be avoided? How would it work (as guidelines are not particularly helpful on this)?Resnjari (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Resnjari: It means that you refer to that editor by their current username. Some editors have to be renamed for privacy reasons, others to prevent harassment, and some because they simply want a new username. The reason doesn't matter. What matters is that you don't link them if they don't want them linked. You can know who that editor is without repeatedly calling them out on-wiki. Katietalk 16:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Do you mean deletion of comments in a report or on a talk page? I guess I don't understand the question, and I'm sure that's my fault instead of yours. I'm also about to leave for the weekend and won't be back until Monday. Can one of my talk page stalkers help here? Katietalk 11:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- I wrote it at night before i went to sleep. My fault on this. I'll write it as two separate examples, so it will be a bit more. In the first situation, a report about problematic behavior is lodged at one of the wiki forums against another editor and in that report there is a whole host of edits cited, though the previous username is not mentioned in the report. In that context can a editor whom the report is made against then tamper with that report of the filing editor by deleting the cited edits because they were done when they had their old username (though the old username is not cited in the report)? Or would that be breach of guidelines/policy in that instance? Second situation, a editor responds with a reply to a report lodged by a filing editor against them at one of the wiki forums where the complaint was made. In the reply of that editor, they include examples of problematic behavior that the filing editor has engaged in toward them. However because those examples relate to the filing editor when they had a previous username, can the filing editor then go and delete those examples from the reply (even though the old username was not cited/mentioned in the reply)? Or would that be breach of guidelines/policy in that instance? Reply when time permits as i want this advice from you an admin so there is no error on my part in future. Best.Resnjari (talk) 06:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Resnjari: Just my two cents - the user whose the name you have been repeatedly calling with, in violation of Wikipedia's rules, had their user name changed a long time ago, not now. If their behavior has indeed violated the rules, then why didn't you report them already? As far as I am aware, behavioral issues should be reported within a reasonable time, not after a very long time. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 09:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- On violation of rules, i am aware of that as this admin made it clear. Everyone interprets time differently, for some a few months is a long time ago, for others its recent. Anyway, I am asking an admin for important advice in a generalised context, as my comments above show with no names cited. If i ever decide to report someone at a time of my choosing (and not at the behest of others) that is when i will do so if that behavior persists in future. I want to make sure that no rules are broken on my part if this course of action is taken, hence my questions. Thank you though for following my queries from page to page.Resnjari (talk) 09:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- I think you're asking if the diffs can be deleted from the reports to the noticeboards? If there's a privacy issue, yes. Otherwise, no. Again, every edit in his contribution history has been changed so that they all attribute to the new username. If there's a problem on a talk page, like a signature that uses the old name, we can redact the signature and suppress it if he requests us to do so, but the edit itself will still be there. In other words, you can interact with him in every way, including citing diffs, except by referring to him by the old username in a comment or edit summary. Katietalk 14:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- On violation of rules, i am aware of that as this admin made it clear. Everyone interprets time differently, for some a few months is a long time ago, for others its recent. Anyway, I am asking an admin for important advice in a generalised context, as my comments above show with no names cited. If i ever decide to report someone at a time of my choosing (and not at the behest of others) that is when i will do so if that behavior persists in future. I want to make sure that no rules are broken on my part if this course of action is taken, hence my questions. Thank you though for following my queries from page to page.Resnjari (talk) 09:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Resnjari: Just my two cents - the user whose the name you have been repeatedly calling with, in violation of Wikipedia's rules, had their user name changed a long time ago, not now. If their behavior has indeed violated the rules, then why didn't you report them already? As far as I am aware, behavioral issues should be reported within a reasonable time, not after a very long time. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 09:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Linda Sarsour
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Linda Sarsour. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Sonic N800 IPs
Hey Katie. I originally took this to Bbb23 but they're on break right now. I'm not sure if there's anything we can do but you might have some ideas. Sonic N800 was blocked in January for disruptive edits to video game articles and redirects, and began socking during that block. Most of their stuff is easy to clean up, but they also prolifically use AfC/Redirects, which the AfC guys seem to happily create for him (Typically things like in-universe game references to video game articles). Since then, it's a constant battle with his ever changing IPs. They appear to all geo-locate to a Saudi Arabian mobile carrier, but none of the ranges are really consistent. Here's the set of IPs I've personally collected (Not in order of use): 176.17.86.217, 176.47.124.81, 176.47.73.105, 95.185.3.102, 62.120.98.166, 37.217.11.42, 37.125.192.205, 5.41.223.111, 109.83.174.221, 95.185.121.178. There's probably more but these are the ones I've found that were clearly in his topic areas with the same geolocate. -- ferret (talk) 11:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Ferret: Just to say I don't have time to dig into it right now, but I should be able to later this afternoon. I can tell you off the top of my head that those are pretty big ranges, but we'll see what we'll see. :-) Katietalk 15:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Ferret: 95.185.0.0/17 blocked one month; the other big range, 176.47.64.0/18, is pretty stale so I haven't done that one. You can do it if he returns on that range. The others aren't anywhere close to being in a range together, so I can't rangeblock. You'll have to play whack-a-mole with those. Katietalk 21:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Request
On August 27, you blocked Atmn for 31 hours for disruptive edits to Venkateswara Temple, Tirumala. Since then, Atmn has added the same thing to Venkateswara Temple, Tirumala a dozen times [3] and has ignored multiple warnings and attempts at discussion on their talk page [4] and the article's talk page.[5] Edward321 (talk) 14:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Edward321: I've blocked them for a week. Please notify him about edit warring (not 3RR necessarily, just edit warring), which is what I would have preferred to block for. If he persists after the block expires, and continues to edit war, let me know. Katietalk 15:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for your prompt response. I'll try Atmn's talk page again. Perhaps they will listen this time. Edward321 (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- KrakatoaKatie, @Edward321: He's back and doing the same thing again. He's also been removing sourced information from other articles. Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 09:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for your prompt response. I'll try Atmn's talk page again. Perhaps they will listen this time. Edward321 (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I see you posted a warning on Atmnn's talk page. Since then they have added the same unsupported claims to Venkateswara Temple, Tirumala three times [6] [7] [8] Atmnn has finally responded on Muon's talk page by insulting Muon and providing no evidence to support their edits. [9] Edward321 (talk) 01:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Books and Bytes - Issue 24
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 24, August-September 2017
- User Group update
- Global branches update
- Star Coordinator Award - last quarter's star coordinator: User:Csisc
- Wikimania Birds of a Feather session roundup
- Spotlight: Wiki Loves Archives
- Bytes in brief
Arabic, Kiswahili and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
November editathons from Women in Red: Join us!
| ||
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
-Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Manc1234
Greetings,
while making a pass through WP:CCI I noted that User:Manc1234 is {{checkuserblock}}ed by you, implying that they are either a sockmaster or a sockpuppet. Do they have other accounts that might have copyvio issues or that justify G5 deletion of their creations when they are suspect? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: He's Orangemoody or a really, really close copycat. I'm pretty sure we G5'd everything from the socks, maybe two or three articles, but it's possible we missed some stuff created on that main account. Katietalk 21:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
IP Range help
Hey Katie, and also pinging @Berean Hunter who has helped me with range blocks in the past. I am looking over a AIV report and history of Make Me an Egghead. This reveals a long time pattern of vandalism from IPs such as:
86.161.108.223 86.161.108.140 86.161.108.189 86.161.109.206 86.151.50.124
The new handy dandy ip-range-calc on Tools suggests 86.161.108.223/10 for a range block. The new support for range searches on contributions stops at /16 though so I cannot verify the damage. Removing the latest IP from 86.151 puts it at 86.161.108.223/23, which seems to clearly be the same user and vandalism patterns. Could you lend your expertise? -- ferret (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Ferret: We're unable to view or block IPv4 ranges larger than a /16 and IPv6 ranges larger than a /32 due to limitations in the MediaWiki software. The problem with the /23 is that it's really stale, so blocking wouldn't do much good. If it were me, I'd put PC on the article so we can still keep an eye on his new range. Katietalk 18:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
OS Reply
Hi Katie, Per our email conversation, I don't have a link to "Adjust visibility" on the filter log. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- @RickinBaltimore: Huh. I can't tell sometimes what I can see as an admin and what I can only see as an Oversighter. I'll take a look at them. :-) Katietalk 19:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – November 2017
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.
WikiCup 2017 November newsletter: Final results
The final round of the 2017 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2017 WikiCup top three finalists:
- First Place -
Adityavagarwal (submissions) - Second Place -
Vanamonde (submissions) - Third Place -
Cas Liber (submissions)
In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:
- Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a two-way tie with themselves for an astonishing five FAs in R2 and R4).
- Good Article – Adityavagarwal had 14 GAs promoted in R5.
- Featured List –
Bloom6132 (submissions) and 
1989 (submissions) both produced 2 FLs in R2 - Featured Pictures –
SounderBruce (submissions) improved an image to FP status in R5, the only FP this year. - Featured Topic –
MPJ-DK (submissions) has the only FT of the Cup in R3. - Good Topic – Four different editors created a GT in R2, R3 and R4.
- Did You Know – Adityavagarwal had 22 DYKs on the main page in R5.
- In The News – MBlaze Lightning (submissions) had 14 ITN on the main page in R2.
- Good Article Review – Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (submissions) completed 31 GARs in R1.
Over the course of the 2017 WikiCup the following content was added or improved on Wikipedia: 51 Featured Articles, 292 Good Articles, 18 Featured Lists, 1 Featured Picture, 1 Featured Topics, 4 Good Topics, around 400 Did You Knows, 75 In The News, and 442 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.
Regarding the prize vouchers - @Adityavagarwal, Vanamonde93, Casliber, Bloom6132, 1989, and SounderBruce: please send Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) an email from the email address to which you would like your Amazon voucher sent. Please include your preference of global Amazon marketplace as well. We hope to have the electronic gift cards processed and sent within a week.
We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2018 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:T-Mobile Arena
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:T-Mobile Arena. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
ANI Eyes
I mentioned you as a possible pair of eyes at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Sourcing concerns and refusal to communicate. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Please have a look at this IP again please. Your previous 1 day ban didn't seem to work since they're back to trouble again. Thanks! ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 20:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Tom.Reding: I don't know – I think this is could be a different guy. It's a dynamic BT Central IP and the subject matter is wildly different from the Randolph family. Keep an eye on it and report him if necessary, but I'm not going to block yet because I'm not certain we're dealing with the same person as last week. Katietalk 20:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- They're still not responding to additional warnings and continuing to foul up astronomy related pages, so I've reported the IP at WP:AIV. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: October 2017
| ||||||
Thank you
Thank you for your cooperation in connection with the unblock request for BS. If the user still persistently resorts to sockpuppetry and CU reveals the same, no one can help! --Muzammil (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
WikiCup 2018
So the 2017 WikiCup has come to an end. Congratulations to the winner, to the other finalists and to all those who took part. 177 contestants signed up, more than usual, but not all of them submitted entries in the first round. Were editors attracted by the cash prizes offered for the first time this year, or were these irrelevant? Do the rules and scoring need changing for the 2018 WikiCup? If you have a view on these or other matters, why not join in the WikiCup discussion about next year's contest? Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Abram Petrovich Gannibal
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Abram Petrovich Gannibal. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 11:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)