User talk:Yamla/Archive 26

How do I restore the page you deleted

There's this page S.M.A.R.T. Chase, due to the violation of WP:PAID, you deleted it. I'm wondering whether you can restore the page and what infomation I should add or change. User:Swnheams(talk)21:12,27 March 2017(UTC)

I believe it would be inappropriate to restore it due to the violations of WP:PAID and WP:COI. If you are unrelated to Bliss Media and to the accounts involved in that page and you wish to create that article, you are certainly welcome to do so. If you disagree, you may follow the procedures in WP:RfU. --Yamla (talk) 13:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Then could you provide me the information in the deleted page S.M.A.R.T. Chase, so I could start a new one. User:Swnheams(talk) 22:01, 29 March 2017(UTC)

First, I need to know what, if any, your relationship is to Bliss Media and to the other accounts involved in editing that page. --Yamla (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm of no relations to Bliss Media, and they don't pay me at all to edit the page. I'm simply a fan of Orlando, and would like to help editing this page.User:Swnheams(talk) 11:03, 5 April 2017(UTC)

I second User:Swnheams's request. I think you should at least peruse or let others take a look at the content of the writing in the deleted page. Why don't we just edit out any writing that seems promotional? Deleting the whole page seems a bit overboard and unfair to Orlando Bloom, who now has a struggling career in the film business. Rewriting the whole page seems a bit inefficient and too much work. I think a new article in Elle UK has briefly touched upon the new name of the movie. What would you say? Thanks. I am of no relation to Bliss Media either.Supermansaga (talk) 11:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

After careful consideration, I'm going to insist on WP:RfU. That page was written by a marketing company and I believe it would be inappropriate to simply restore it. And unfortunately, I cannot restore only parts of it as this would screw up the (required) attribution. In any case, there's basically nothing worth salvaging there. And specifically, there's no reason not to just recreate the page. --Yamla (talk) 11:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok. I'll try WP:RfU. It seems to me that Bliss Media is a legitimate movie production company competing with the six major Hollywood studios, not just being a marketing company vandalizing on Wikipedia. The fact that you mentioned attribution already seems to me that the writing wasn't so bad and being one-way shameless marketing. It appears it might be worth salvaging. Have you read that Elle UK article after all? Thanks.Supermansaga (talk) 11:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Turns out, Supermansaga (talk · contribs) was yet another sockpuppet account for Bliss Media to inappropriately spam Wikipedia. That page should almost certainly be deleted once again. --Yamla (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I have received an off-wiki request to revisit the block of the editor who wrote the 2017 version of Bliss. Looking at the earlier extremely promotional and exaggerated version deleted by AfD, and the 2017 version that you deleted, I do not think the 2017 version promotional. Could you restore it ,and unblock Supermann. I know that he socked in frustration, but that's possible a response to the ptroblem with the article. His other editors seem ok. DGG ( talk ) 22:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

That user engaged in undisclosed paid editing and lied about it, multiple times. The article was originally deleted as part of an AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bliss Media Ltd. Now, I'm happy to unblock the user if, but only if, they have read and understood WP:PAID and WP:COI and agree to abide by that. I suggest specifically they'd have to disclose their conflict of interest and agree not to edit any article directly if the article is related to Bliss Media, broadly construed. They'd be very welcome to suggest changes on the article's discussion page, of course, so long as they disclose their conflict of interest. On those grounds, I'd be willing to undelete the article on Bliss Media. You are free to immediately return their talk page access to discuss these terms (though note another admin revoked TPA). Note that my statements here indicate what circumstances I think are appropriate for unblocking the user; you are welcome to disagree with these. --Yamla (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I'vespoken to him, and he has agreed. If you would unblock his talk page access, he can say so directly. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Done, Supermann (talk · contribs) now has access to his talk page. --Yamla (talk) 11:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again. Now is it safe for me to request undeletion of the Bliss Media page? My version is definitely entirely different from that propaganda deleted by MBisanz back on February 16, 2016. It is simple and short and primarily shows filmography. Same as the Thomas Price (actor) page. It must have been entirely different from the version deleted by Cirt back on April 20, 2010. Please undelete it and take out any puffery. If you look at my edits from yesterday, you know my world view is way bigger than Bliss Media. Supermann (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. That would be a violation of the terms of your unblock and I'm honestly stunned you brought this up. --Yamla (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I thought this is no different from me making suggestions on the talk page which you allowed. And I had brought it up in my prior declaration. I thought you knew of it, but just forgot. That is why I sent this reminder and I am equally stunned by your reaction. I wouldn't have brought it up, had DGG not seen the content of the previously deleted Bliss Media page. But he is busy right now and doesn't think the undeletion is a priority. Anyways, I won't push my luck further. Supermann (talk) 18:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

The goal is to ensure you have interests outside of Bliss Media; that'll back up your claim that you don't actually have a conflict of interest, and therefore should indeed be allowed to edit Bliss Media and related topics. --Yamla (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Even after undeletion, I won't be making direct edits on them for six months other than making suggestions on talk page. Isn't that in compliance with your unblock terms, too? I care for those three pages because they are created by me from scratch. Over the past ten years, I have usually added sentences, if not paragraphs, in other edits, but never created new pages. I definitely have interests outside of Bliss Media, if the past two days' contributions and IP addresses don't seem obvious enough to fit into my 10-year narrative. Please keep observing. Thx. Supermann (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

The problem is, you are asking for those edits to be restored. Practically speaking, that's the same as redoing those edits yourself. So no. Please keep editing pages unrelated to Bliss Media. --Yamla (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

If you say so. Pls enjoy this new page Film censorship in China that I just created and am working on. Supermann (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hope you have been well. You got a chance to read the film censorship article? Any possibility that I might get a parole like OJ did, based on IP addresses and contributions? You had said you would be willing to undelete back on 22:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC). I'll continue to stay away from the undeleted article. Many thanks. Supermann (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Seems like it's safe to say Merry Christmas instead of happy holidays here! Is it safe to request the undeletion of those Bliss Media-related pages or do I have to wait till the lifting of the film topic ban on me? Many thanks! Supermann (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Yamla: given my refrainment so far, i.e. not even on the talk pages and any other film-related topics, is it possible to undelete those three pages? I'll continue to refrain. Many thanks and happy new year! Supermann (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Supermann:, let me look into this. If you haven't heard back from me by January 1, please ping me again. If I remember correctly, you are eligible to ask for a total removal of your topic ban right around now, so it is indeed plausible for you to get those three pages undeleted. Give me a bit of time to check, though. --Yamla (talk) 13:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@Yamla: Happy 2018! I suspect I am not yet eligible? I just hope they could be undeleted so that other more experienced editors could take a stab at them by following various policies and MoS. Even if undeleted, I will continue to obey the movie topic ban imposed in Aug 2017 until the end of Aug 2018, if not later due to my fulltime job commitment in public accounting. Many thanks! Supermann (talk) 06:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Yamla: Could you pls provide an update? Many thanks. Hope you have a great weekend. Supermann (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh my goodness! I'm looking into this right now. Sorry, various real-life issues kept me unexpectedly busy. --Yamla (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Yamla: Thank you so much for your kindness. I highly appreciate it. I believe I have patched my Windows 10 with the Meltdown fix thru normal update. The other two are (1) Bliss Media's CEO Wei Han's own page at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wei_Han&action=edit&redlink=1 and (2) actor Thomas Price (actor) at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Price_(actor)&action=edit&redlink=1. He has appeared in some movies now, but just don't have his own page. The whole misunderstanding started when I claimed to be his agent, when I am not, in order to lift restriction on one of the movies' cast editing. Can't even remember which one. I am just such a small potato on this earth. Supermann (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Yamla:. Hope you have been well. Following up on the other two pages here. Pls see their links slightly above. Many thanks. Supermann (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Yamla:, don't want to disturb your weekend and I know you are busy with other folks. Just want to hear from you a bit. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Done both. And thanks for keeping on reminding me, it's hard to stay on top of all of my messages. :) --Yamla (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much! It's worth the wait and do it the right way. And I'll continue to obey the movie topic bans! Supermann (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello there! Hope you have been well. I was wondering if you happen to know when my movie topic ban will be lifted. I think I have observed it the right way. Many thanks and hope you have a great Labor Day weekend.Supermann (talk) 02:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

According to this, the topic ban was for one year starting on 11 August, 2017. That means it is no longer in effect. Please be very sure to reread the topic ban; if you edit in the same way again, the topic ban would likely be imposed again. However, I do not think you would edit in the same way again, so I think this won't be a concern. --Yamla (talk) 10:51, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I need your help

Hi! can you please check out this Florian Munteanu case. I've seen plenty of pages here on Wikipedia with actors who played a single role in a movie. I don't understand why some people complain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4F8:1C17:404A:0:0:0:1 (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

This has already been answered there. --Yamla (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I need your help please

Today I added verbage to the Ray Reach Wikipedia page. I copied this verbage from an earlier version of the Ray Reach article, NOT from any external website. However, I was reprimanded for adding "... sentences from another website without permission." I repeat, the verbage I added came from an earlier version of the Ray Reach page, NOT from another website outside of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9004:A0C:A800:1CC6:C726:35B9:5CF (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

You can't do that without attribution. Just as importantly, though, the consensus seems to be that the article isn't improved with this additional content. I take no position on that (with the exception that you introduced some errors, in your edit). You should discuss your desire to readd that content, on the article's discussion page. If you are in any way related to the blocked user, Allenstone (talk · contribs) (and I'm not saying you are, only that there's a slight possibility), note that you aren't permitted to edit until that account is unblocked. --Yamla (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually, you have 100% overlap with that blocked user. As such, I'm going to go ahead and block you for violating WP:EVADE. --Yamla (talk) 20:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Revdel

It's no good putting a revdel on this edit if the text concerned is visible in subsequent versions. You need to revdel all edits between then and the one where the text was removed, exclusive of that final edit. Ideally it would have been caught and shot before anybody else had posted to that page. But if it really is a copyvio, WP:CRD item 1 applies and revdel of the subsequent edits is probably too drastic. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Very good point. It really is a copyright violation, but I do think revdel of the subsequent edits is too drastic. Any objections to me taking no action here? --Yamla (talk) 20:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Yamla. 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 20:56, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Mikewong331

Hi Yalma, thanks for your message. Apologies that I missed the citations - I read it somewhere however couldn't remember where. I am going to find it now. Will also read up on referencing for beginners tutorial. Thanks for the info. --Mikewong331 (talk) 1 Dec 2018. —Preceding undated comment added 21:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

RHB100 not blocked

• RHB100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Dear Yamla

You sat I am not blocked. Several months ago, some type of action was taken against me in connection with the Global Positioning System article. If this was not a block what would it be called and where is the guide to attempting to get this removed? 00:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)RHB100 (talk)

Your block log is available here. Your last block was in early 2015. I'm not sure what you are referring to. --Yamla (talk) 11:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)Looking at their talk page, I think RHB100 is talking about the voluntary restriction they accepted back in 2015 after an AN3 report (permalink). EdJohnston was the admin that implemented it. ~ GB fan 11:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (talk page watcher) @RHB100: There's talk of a GPS related topic ban here. I haven't read the entire thread but it looks like it could be what you're asking about. -- Longhair\^talk 11:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Having briefly scanned the above threads and having looked at RHB100 (talk · contribs)'s edit history, I believe the topic ban is indeed still in effect. Honestly, I think it would be inappropriate to lift the topic ban at this time; I think you need a history of productive edits elsewhere. Once you have that, you could follow WP:UNBAN to get your topic ban lifted. The community would want to see you explain specifically why we could trust that your future edits around GPS would be substantially different from your previous edits. That is, you'd have to provide reason that the topic ban is no longer necessary. --Yamla (talk) 12:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

To satisfy the 3RR complaint in 2015, User:RHB100 accepted a voluntary restriction that they would wait for consensus before making further edits at Global Positioning System. If they want to unilaterally withdraw from that agreement, I think I would go ahead with an indefinite block of their account, keeping in mind all their conflicts with other editors since 2010. If they want to argue that the editing restriction is no longer required, they could make an argument to that effect at WP:Administrators noticeboard and find out what the consensus is there. Note that that what they accepted in 2015 is only a *consensus requirement* for GPS edits, not a complete topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 15:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I do not have an interest in editing the GPS article. I would like to point out what I as a Licensed Professional Engineer find to be errors and incorrectly written sections of the GPS Article on the GPS talk page. Am I as a Licensed Professional Engineer permitted to point out Article errors and such on the GPS Talk page? RHB100 (talk) 01:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

The path forward is explained above. Again, I don't recommend it at this point. You want to build up a solid history of productive edits outside of that topic area, first. --Yamla (talk) 10:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Having RHB100's talk page on my watch list, and looking at his recent edits, I notice that, the day after this recommendation, user RHB100 made this edit. - DVdm (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I made that edit, DVdm, and I am proud of it. One reason I am able to make such quality edits is because I am a licensed professional engineer with advanced engineering degrees from both the University of Arkansas and UCLA. This makes me better qualified than about 99% of the editors on Wikipedia. Qualifications do matter. Those of us who have worked hard to earn advanced engineering degrees should be proud. We are better qualified than those without licenses and advanced engineering degrees who have decided to edit Wikipedia just for fun. The editor who wrote the section, Spheres, in the Global Positioning System Article shows the terrible damage that unqualified editors can do. Tell me, DVdm, what are your qualifications and what do you question about the edit that I a licensed Professional Engineer made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RHB100 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:EXPERT is on-point here. --Yamla (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

It is important to keep junk science such as that contained in the section, Spheres, of the Global Positioning System Article off of Wikipedia. This is junk science in this section, Spheres. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RHB100 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I believe RHB100 is correct here. I'm not an engineer, but I believe three satellites narrow your position down to two points and you need a fourth to get a unique position. Furthermore, RHB100's edit was to the article's talk page which, I believe is explicitly not covered by the topic ban. On the other hand, the almost singular focus on GPS does mean it's unlikely a topic ban would be overturned at this point in time. --Yamla (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

RHB100, please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.

RHB100, you seem to have short memory. Refreshers at Talk:Global_Positioning_System/Archive_7#Bancroft_method_made_even_more_neutral,_current_reference_retained,_new_may_be_added and WP:Wikiquette assistance/archive94#RHB100. - DVdm (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2018

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

Administrator changes

Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz

Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike

Interface administrator changes

Deryck Chan

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
• A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
• A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.

Technical news

• Administrators and bureaucrats can no longer unblock themselves unless they placed the block initially. This change has been implemented globally. See also this ongoing village pump discussion (permalink).
• To complement the aforementioned change, blocked administrators will soon have the ability to block the administrator that placed their block to mitigate the possibility of a compromised administrator account blocking all other active administrators.
• Since deployment of Partial blocks on Test Wikipedia, several bugs were identified. Most of them are now fixed. Administrators are encouraged to test the new deployment and report new bugs on Phabricator or leave feedback on the Project's talk page. You can request administrator access on the Test Wiki here.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 3 December 2018. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous

• In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
• Wikipedia policy requires administrators to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Obituaries

• Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (Raymond Arritt) passed away on 14 November 2018. Boris joined Wikipedia as Raymond arritt on 8 May 2006 and was an administrator from 30 July 2007 to 2 June 2008.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your autoblock unblock, it is most appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbionJack (talk • contribs) 20:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

AlbionJack

You unblocked AlbionJack respectively removed the autoblock. To me circumstantial evidence indicates that the autoblock was working as intended:

• They ran into an autoblock triggered by an account not active for several months. That's an unlikely coincidence.
• They show interest in similar topic areas as other socks of the same sock farm, e.g. [1] vs. [2].

I had intended to decline the unblock request when I saw you had accepted it. Thoughts? Should we give some WP:ROPE? Huon (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I stupidly checked only the contributions of TheCreaTorPonic and didn't see any overlap. Had I checked Zentsura, I certainly would not have unblocked. I think the IP address combined with the similarity in editing is sufficient to reblock directly as a sockpuppet. I mean, I'm not opposed to WP:ROPE or to requesting an SPI, but... I'm not sure it's necessary here. --Yamla (talk) 21:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Yamla. 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Vermont (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Yamla. 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 13:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, come on...

One of my faults is that I find it difficult to speak (or on Wikipedia write) concisely. I might have spent several sentences rather poorly trying to express what you expressed much better in three words at User talk:Darennn. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah ha ha, I'm happy that amused you. In my professional life, I'm much too wordy and I'm actively trying to reign that in a bit. :) --Yamla (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

	Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
	Hi Yamla, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy and Prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your help and thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia,    –Davey2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 14:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

	Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!
	Hope you enjoy the Christmas eve with the ones you love and step into the new year with lots of happiness and good health. Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year! GSS (talk

Question

Hello! and Seasons Greetings; I noticed you blocked User:Video game task for vandalism. Probably a good move, They were a very "raw" editor, I was trying (2 weeks ago) to help them get an article into WP, some (to me ridiculous) video game that I will never ever play. That's ok, I will never use a Grease gun (tool) either but I created that article 13 or 14 years ago regardless. Anyways... If you un-delete that article, I'll finish the copy edit and resubmit it. The parts that were coherent were mine, I left enough "meat on the bone" for VGT to polish it up a bit himself. Too bad they didn't listen to my advice about editing that Hanan Tarq article. (For what it's worth, I have a feeling the editor was an Ethiopian living in Sweden. So English was a possible third language for them.) When I help new editors with their projects I try not to obliterate their own work with my own writing as much as I can. Thanks for your consideration. Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, they are blocked because they are FrenchPeople, evading their block. They were spamming at least three separate video game articles. I'm happy to undelete one of them for you to work on, if you wish. There's Raging Thunder 2, Granny Smith, and Air Attack 2. Which are you interested in? --Yamla (talk) 14:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

The article I was helping them with was Raging Thunder II. I think the last thing it needed was a link to a commercial site removed and some copy editing on the rough copy. Cheers! Hamster Sandwich (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Raging Thunder 2 restored. Happy editing! --Yamla (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings! I thought I'd mention that someone else deleted that article. I'm more than good with that because- quite frankly- I couldn't be arsed. We gave it the "old college try" though. All the best! Hamster Sandwich (talk) 18:55, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Animals

I took the Italian national animal source from the Italian Wiki side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.172.52.167 (talk) 07:00, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

That's not acceptable. See WP:RS. --Yamla (talk) 12:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced edits

Yamla, please can you explain what you are talking about. I have made one previous edit to the Rajneesh page, I added some text from an FBI testimony to the page, and provided a citation to the source. LAst time, I have added my own text and part of an interview , with another reliable source. Then, someone has removed my edit and told me that it violates copyright. However, I am familiar with the creators and editors of the website magazine, where I took the interview from , and they have a policy of not asking for copyright, and that their content is free to share with anyone. Should I qoute the name of the website on my edit? And the author of the article? Thanks. Eternity5090 (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are confused about. If you look at this edit of yours, it's not sourced at all. You provided no citation with that edit. You even admitted that: "I had forgotten to add the link to the interview with John Shelfer at the bottom of my last edit." All further answers you seek are explained at WP:RS and WP:CITE. --Yamla (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year 2019 !

You are a great woman. Thanks. Cgx8253.

Thanks. I'm male, though. Happy New Year to you, too! --Yamla (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism question

Since you were just reverting vandals/socks at ANI, I thought I'd ask you how the vandals were getting around the semi protection? I do a lot of counter-vandalism work, but I have never before seen rapid-fire vandalism continue after an article is semi'd. Thanks Tornado chaser (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

There's a decent chance the accounts are compromised. Hristina Gilliam, for example, was created in 2016. That one bypassed the semi-protection, which requires the account be at least four days old (check) and have made at least ten edits (yeap, deleted edits to the user's talk page). The ten edits are just garbage edits, but they still count. --Yamla (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019

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

Administrator changes

Galobtter

Orangemike

BorgQueen • Davidruben • Ocee • Revolving Bugbear • Theda • There'sNoTime • Timc • Tijuana Brass • Tristessa de St Ange

Bureaucrat changes

Addshore

CheckUser changes

Joe Roe • SilkTork

Euryalus • Newyorkbrad • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

AGK • Joe Roe • SilkTork

Euryalus • Newyorkbrad • There'sNoTime

Guideline and policy news

• There are a number of new or changed speedy deletion criteria, each previously part of WP:CSD#G6:

1. G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
2. R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
3. G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.

• The Wikimedia Foundation now requires all interface administrators to enable two-factor authentication.
• Members of the Bot Approvals Group (BAG) are now subject to an activity requirement. After two years without any bot-related activity (e.g. operating a bot, posting on a bot-related talk page), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice.

Technical news

• Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:

1. At least 8 characters in length
2. Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
3. Different from their username

User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.

• Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
• {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

Arbitration

• Following the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: AGK, Courcelles, GorillaWarfare, Joe Roe, Mkdw, SilkTork.

Miscellaneous

• Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
• Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Honesthao

Hello, Yamla. I'm a bit confused by this unblock decline. As Dlohcierekim pointed out, they were removing a PROD tag (mine), not an AFD or CSD tag. I'm obviously not attached to the article, and I don't have a huge amount of hope for this user, but the decline reason doesn't make sense to me. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I was confused too. The AfD tag was added later by user who removed ProD tag the final time. The blocked user was blocked for removing the ProD tag. I guess blocking admin did not reply to my ping.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

You are both correct. I apologised to the editor on their talk page. As pointed out, I was looking at the current deletion notice on that article, not the deletion notice this user removed. That, and a lack of caffeine, is what caused the confusion. I didn't choose to lift the block but did offer my apologies to the user. --Yamla (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello

What you stop messaging me or you will get your last ever message. HSBC account number is 4598 (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

This is incoherent. I don't understand what you are saying. Is this a death threat? --Yamla (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Mann Gulch article

Take a look at the Mann Gulch fire edit war that is unfolding. Perhaps you can contribute constructively. --67.132.160.2 (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any edit war unfolding there. --Yamla (talk) 12:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Yamla. 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.SQL^{Query me!} 19:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

BJSelavka...

I noticed that you have dealt with a few "BJSelavkaSxxx" accounts. It may be a good idea to pre-emptively revoke TPA for a bunch of obvious sleepers, some blocked, some not. —Wasell^(T) 15:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Betour13

Some of your reverts of the above user restore test/vandalism/disruptive edits that were dealt with by the above account (examples: 1, 2, 3). I understand that they are a sock, but surely we shouldn't be restoring vandalism in favour of removing their contributions? 72 (talk) 13:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

It's reasonable to just bulk-revert. See WP:RBI which, I want to be clear, is an essay rather than policy. By definition, every edit from a sockpuppeteer evading their block is inappropriate, so it's reasonable to revert. This makes it clear to the user that we don't want any of their contributions, not until their original account is unblocked. Again, though, this is an essay rather than policy. You are very welcome to reinstate any of the edits if you wish. Indeed, it would be perfectly appropriate for you to do so. --Yamla (talk) 13:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, but it's pretty disappointing that it becomes the job of other editors to notice if/when there is vandalism, and subsequently having to go through each and every edit themselves to revert simply because it's easier in the first place to bulk revert regardless of the content of the edits. Some of this is blatantly bad stuff... 72 (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

True. If you have a better idea of a way to disincentivise sockpuppeteers, I'm interested to hear. I mean that very honestly. This is a tough line to walk. We want people to think it's pointless, setting up sockpuppet accounts to evade a block. It goes badly if we allow some edits but disallow others, this strongly encourages future sockpuppetry. But as you point out, the cost is that good edits get reverted, then someone needs to review them. For a sockpuppeteer with hundreds of edits violating WP:EVADE and WP:SOCK, it's unreasonable to put that review burden on a single person, but ideally we'd like a way to reduce the cost to the project. There's no perfect solution here but I'm very interested to hear your thoughts on a better balance. --Yamla (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

That's a good point, but if the main or only purpose of a sock is to revert genuine vandalism, the disruption is in the sockpuppetry itself and not in the content of their edits. It simply isn't possible to have the best of both worlds where the encyclopaedia is both free from vandalism and contributions such as these. Though it is vague, #4 of WP:ROLLBACKUSE acknowledges this limitation. Unless a bad edit was made very recently (i.e. spotted on RecentChanges/Huggle etc.), patrollers of vandalism rely on an IP or new account being the last editor to a page to alert them to possible vandalism. When the last editor is one with tens of thousands of edits and advanced user rights this becomes much harder, not to mention when that edit is a rollback of a blocked account – it doesn't look like it is restoring vandalism. Disincentivising sockpuppeteers is one thing, but minimising their disruption to the mainspace, the face of Wikipedia to those uninvolved in its editing, should be the priority. I'm not sure we'll ever be able to significantly reduce sockpuppetry, it's a natural consequence of an openly editable website. This limitation of WP:RBI could easily be used as a way of gaming the system if your true intention is to vandalise, rather than just to evade a previous block. Although, as you say, WP:RBI is an essay, it only directly refers to dealing with "vandalism on Wikipedia", and refers specifically to edits – "Revert the vandalism on the page, so it appears in its pre-vandalised state". That wouldn't support your actions. As per WP:EVADE – an editor should "take care not to" revert sock edits that restore content in violation of core policies such as WP:BLP. I think the latter "editors...take complete responsibility for the content" should apply to both those reverting as well as reinstating, as the current wording seemingly wouldn't apply to this edit as the content was originally added by the IP vandal, so not restoring content by the sock. If this is indeed the current accepted interpretation, that is very strange and should be updated. As for WP:ROLLBACKUSE, point #4 is far too vague – it seems to acknowledge this very issue but doesn't solve it – bulk-reverting using the standard rollback edit summary causes a lot of confusion (example ​). 72 (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Is your position that there should be no bulk-reverts of sockpuppet accounts? Or is your position that the responsibility falls on the person doing the reverts (thereby practically guaranteeing it'll never happen)? Because tone doesn't come through well in written communications, please note that I'm asking you a question here and not implying anything at all. These would be reasonable positions to take. If your position is one of these two, do you have any specific suggestions for disincentivising sockpuppeteers? Again, just a question. Quite possibly, the answer is "no", and that would be reasonable. My bigger concern is actually around the sockpuppet accounts that introduce subtle vandalism. We've seen a number of these. The edit looks reasonable on its face, but taken in bulk, you see that a substantial proportion are introducing false information. That wasn't the case here, mind you, and any general rule you suggest I follow, doesn't necessarily need to apply. I'm honestly struggling to figure out the best path forward here and frankly, your arguments are pretty compelling. I just... really don't want to encourage sockpuppeteers, and I worry by letting their edits stand, that's exactly what I'll be doing. --Yamla (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure, and the answer is a "no". I originally left you a message because I'd seen your edits and wanted to contact you before reverting as you are an established editor as well as an admin dealing with a sockpuppet: it was highly likely that you knew something I'd didn't about the user. So I didn't intend to come here with a "position", only afterwards I was surprised that it appeared you felt it was more important to disincentivise a sockpuppet than to revert a vandalised revision of a page (which likely wouldn't be spotted for a while). Be it a rollback of a sock or not, if someone adds vandalism to a page, and especially a BLP violation in the instance above, I don't think it's unreasonable for them to be held accountable for that. Of course, reverting normal edits per WP:BANREVERT is completely acceptable, it does not hurt the project in any way as if the sock never made the edit. However, in the instance that a sock has reverted genuine vandalism, it does hurt the project, and I'm surprised that is not seen to be as much of a big deal as I think it is. As I said, I didn't mean for this to become a wall of text, just a query. 72 (talk) 13:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) FWIW, I agree with Yamla's interpretation here , and policy does allow for reversion of socks en masse currently (see WP:BANREVERT). ArbCom might change that in the GiantSnowman case, but I think it'd be a particularly bad way to interpret the rollback policy, but that's their choice on how they want to interpret it.
  That being said, on this particular sockmaster, I wouldn't personally mass rollback: his MO is creating good-hand/bad-hand accounts and reverting the vandalism of the bad ones with the good ones and talking to himself, to the point where the mass rollback script poses a significant risk of actually causing damage. Also, just a general thanks to Yamla for all the work he does in the unblock area . One of the areas of Wikipedia where one person does a significant part of the heavy lifting in an unsung manner. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed template move

Would you have any objection to me moving {{Stale block}} to {{Decline stale}}? I think it would be a better name as it's a reason for declining, not blocking. Or can you suggest an alternative? O Still Small Voice of Clam 17:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I fully support this move and have been annoyed at myself for the original naming. I just couldn't figure out a better naming, but you hit it right on the head. Far better! --Yamla (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done! O Still Small Voice of Clam 18:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

My block

Hi, i wanted to leave you a message to thank you. Even if you declined my unblock request, you said encouraging words to me and avoided dismissive remarks like another admin did on my talk, no need to elaborate further on who is or not a "good admin". Wish you a great rest of your day. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:14, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019

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

Administrator changes

Enterprisey • JJMC89

BorgQueen

Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes

Enterprisey

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
• Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
• A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news

• A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)