Open main menu

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.

Contents

Sushil432Edit

Hello, I am interested in hearing any comments you have about Sushil432's unblock request(formerly Susthesurfer). I have some thoughts already but want to hear from you to see if I am right. Thanks 331dot (talk) 10:14, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@331dot: I would have no problem with an unblock. I would suggest that they take WP:ADVENTURE and use WP:FIRST for any article creation. A firm warning that anything like a sniff of promotional editing would result in an immediate reblock might be appropriate. Just Chilling (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year!Edit

 

Happy New Year!

Hello Just Chilling: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great New Year! Cheers, 5 albert square (talk) 23:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Happy New Year, Just Chilling!Edit

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.


23650Edit

Hey!

Sorry, clicked the "quick comment" box in error.-- 5 albert square (talk) 18:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019Edit

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

  Guideline and policy news

  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}}.

  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

  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.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

please undo your protection of a redirectEdit

I agree that the consensus of the AFD was to redirect Fructus Tower to the corresponding list-article. But it is unprecedented as far as I know and it was not a consensus decision that the redirect should be protected for administrators only. Honestly I expect that no one is going to restore and develop a separate article, but protection would interfere with potential future legitimate development of the topic by some future innocent party using sources we don't happen to know about yet. You can have it on your watchlist, but I believe it is not proper to protect it. Would you please unprotect it, or give your opinion on the right forum to review this decision. I have participated in a few thousand AFDs, many involving decisions to redirect, and I do believe this is not normal practice. In general, IMO, undue protection sets up obstacles for future development, and I know of no edit-warring or whatever to justify special treatment here.

Like, for AFDs where the outcome is delete, a simple deletion is performed, and almost never is a "salting" done (which would prevent recreation of the article). It is almost always immediately the case that a new article could be created by anyone (which they should only do if they have substantial more to add, because they can see that in fact an AFD occured and they should jolly well consider the AFD discussion), and that is a good thing, not a problem.

The same also applies for your protecting Fructus Plaza. The combo of your actions with these and your edit(s) in the List of tallest buildings in Romania article actually would make it hard for a future editor to find the previous version of article, because they would not know of "Fructus Tower" having been the name of the article. It would be better for the record if the new Fructus Plaza article/redirect were deleted, then to move the Fructus Tower article to Fructus Plaza (and would exist as a redirect to the row in the list-article). And for none of these to be protected. Could you make those changes please?

Also, your edit summaries such as "Protected "Fructus Plaza": Redirect created as a result of an AFD" are not up to the standard... I believe the edit summary should specifically link to the AFD itself, i.e. to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fructus Tower. Thank you for stepping in to help. I am guessing you might not have done a lot of this type of work yet. I do believe the guidelines for closing AFDs specify that wikilinking should be done in the edit summary. It helps future editors find their way.

Sincerely, --Doncram (talk) 09:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Pages unprotected. Just Chilling (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Good enough, thanks. I made a further edit at each of the two redirects to link more clearly to the AFD. Thanks. --Doncram (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Unban discussion for ThepoliticsexpertEdit

Notice of noticeboard discussionEdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The specific link is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Unban_request_for_Thepoliticsexpert. Yamla (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019Edit

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

  Administrator changes

  EnterpriseyJJMC89
  BorgQueen
  Harro5Jenks24GraftR. 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.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

User:01leeteoEdit

Hi,

Could you please take a look at this user for me?

Here are their contributions.

Up until this edit their contributions are OK. Then about 3 minutes after he made that edit, they made this one which looks a little odd with the spelling issues. Then about 20 minutes later, this edit was made followed by this one.

I've asked them to explain their edits, and just got an unsigned response saying that they are true. However, Lorraine Kelly was not born in 1929 and DJ Nihal was not born in 1921.

I'm wondering if this is a compromised account. Could you please look at the contributions and give me your opinion?-- 5 albert square (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@5 albert square: Hi, I have been out most of today and I am travelling tomorrow until evening. From my initial look I can see your concerns. I want to take some time on this to study the edits and I will get back to you late tomorrow night. Just Chilling (talk) 00:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I just think it's a bit odd, normally this editor from what I can see tends to edit articles about events in the United Kingdom, their first nonsense edit is to such an article but then they're suddenly editing articles about UK television programmes and their broadcasters and vandalising them - a good job the Lorraine Kelly page is on my watchlist! I've challenged them again on their talk page again. Very strange.-- 5 albert square (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@5 albert square: I have indeffed them. Either their account is compromised or they have decided to embark on agenda-driven vandalism. Just Chilling (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I was considering doing that myself earlier considering the responses I'm getting are very strange. What threw me before though was the fact that they made a perfectly sensible edit and then barely a couple of minutes later they vandalised the article they previously edited OK and even created.-- 5 albert square (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversaryEdit

Precious
 
Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

UTRS QuestionEdit

Hey Just Chilling! Did you mean to move this appeal to the CU queue? I don't see anything for a CU to do there.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ponyo: Hi, they are subject to a CU block so I can't amend it without consulting CU. My question on the uTRS appeal was "This block has now less than a week to run - can I convert it to anon-only, please?" I acknowledge I did bury the question a bit.;-) Just Chilling (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Ah, gotcha. I've made a note on the ticket.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

UTRS 24158Edit

I wonder if the third account will make an appeal?

Felt like I was starring in Groundhog Day when I looked at the second appeal!  -- 5 albert square (talk) 00:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@5 albert square: Yes, it will be interesting to see what they do next! Meanwhile, good catch! :-)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019Edit

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

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

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

  Arbitration

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

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

AfD City West HousingEdit

Hi Just Chilling.

I refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City West Housing. Would you consider withdrawing? I note you state that you could not find anything except in relation Salford? It seems possible to me google has outsmarted you and filtered to your country/location?

Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

VoucherCodes DeletionEdit

Hi Just Chilling

On 25th March, you moved the page VoucherCodes to Draft:VoucherCodes citing the reason as "NO chance of surviving an AFD without independent RS". Could you explain this a little further please? (Apologies, I'm still relatively new to this so would be good to get a better understanding).

I know the page has been removed before for unambiguous promotion, however I edited the copy heavily to move to a more neutral voice and removed any promotional material. I understand that the page is focused on one particular brand, however a competitor of ours (MyVoucherCodes) has a page incredibly similar to ours and seems to be allowed to remain with no issue.

Thanks TaylorJ1294 (talk)) 10:07, 3 April (BST) —Preceding undated comment added 09:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019Edit

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

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

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

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

UTRS requests not clearingEdit

Hi, just noticed that a UTRS request (24644) that you closed yesterday did not automatically update (clear) on this side. It's not isolated to that request; 24651 appears to have the same issue. Do you know anything about the mechanism that closes them? OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie: Hi, thanks for this timely prompt. UTRS requests not closing has been an ongoing issue for some time. By this note I am pinging @TParis:to see if they can offer any update, please? Just Chilling (talk) 23:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
This is the first I've heard of it. But UTRSBot appears to be down too.-v/r - TP 09:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

UTRSEdit

Hello, you just denied UTRS ticket #24775 and I just wished to clarify some details as to why it's an issue - the primary being my work environment mandates the usage of a VPN. I do not know the requirements of IPBE as well as an UTRS admin but I believe that is a just cause, atleast with respect to IPBEs for one particular rangeblock. Turning off the VPN automatically means I cannot login to the work environment and going between Wikipedia and work (both of which are on-and-off things) makes it a repetitive and time-consuming process between losing connection while an IP address is allocated and then further if it's on and I get hit by an autoblock. It's hard enough as it is but it's not my choice, and while you reduced my UTRS rationale to "you can just switch off your VPN", I would like it if you imagined doing that for an entire day. I will not contest this if you say that there's no need for it, as I cannot provide a more compelling reason, to you or any other administrator. Thanks a lot for reviewing it either way. --qedk (t c) 16:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

If editing without using a VPN is onerous due to your work environment, then that would meet the "demonstrates a need" requirement for IPBE (the requirement for "genuine and exceptional need" was relaxed after an RfC in June of 2018). You certainly meet the "trusted user" requirement.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
@QEDK: I am persuaded; IPBE granted. Just Chilling (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for re-reviewing my request. --qedk (t c) 15:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for everything you do! ♥Edit

Wishing Just Chilling a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Coffeesweet (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

UTRS questionEdit

Is there a reason why you reserve the new UTRS appeals in batches as opposed to just the one you are currently reviewing? There are many times I log in to UTRS as appeals show as outstanding at CAT:RFU only to find you've reserved them all, sometimes up to hours before. I feel like I've asked you this previously but I can't remember your reasoning. While you do the lion's share at UTRS, which is hugely appreciated, I have to admit it's sort of an irritating habit. (sorry!) -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to logoff now but will give you a response when next on. Just Chilling (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circularEdit

 
Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 03:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)Edit

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

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

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

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


Administrators' newsletter – May 2019Edit

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

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

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

  Arbitration

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

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Global blocksEdit

Hey, just following up on UTRS 25302. I went ahead and granted local IPBE when I saw the request on meta (because of the recent China problems, I follow those so I can grant locally when needed.) Local IPBE allows a user to edit through global blocks. Global IPBE does not allow a user to edit through local blocks. Depending on the users xwiki activity (and the steward who sees the request), they are likely to kick back someone who only wants global IPBE to us to give it locally. In cases where a user wants to edit through a global block only on en.wiki, just letting a local CU review for en.wiki IPBE is usually the quickest way to get it done :) TonyBallioni (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Ah! That's very helpful; thanks! :-) Just Chilling (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
No problem. It also motivated me to write WP:GIPBE. I have to remind people on the functionaries list of this sometimes as well, so having it documented is probably the best way to avoid confusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:George Herbert Hirst.jpgEdit

 

The file File:George Herbert Hirst.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

UTRS TrollEdit

Hey!

Do we know which user is doing this? I've come across a couple of the trolls requests before but only once they've been closed. The reason I picked up that Citation bot's UTRS appeal was likely to be them is because there's already an unblock discussion about the bot's block on its own talk page. That and Citation bot's operator is actually an administrator and so knows how the unblock system works.-- 5 albert square (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

We don't know who it is but we have a strategy for dealing with them that I don't want to publicise here. Just Chilling (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Can you email it to me please so I know what to do? You should be able to email me through Wikipedia now :)-- 5 albert square (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
They're back!-- 5 albert square (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The IP editor who adds lots of (the)s, changes tenses, and mixes date formatsEdit

User talk:24.191.243.36 has returned after the three month restriction you placed on IP 24.19.243.36—six edits in May, two so far in June. Same m.o. Sorry to drop this on you, but you did sign your post. — Neonorange (Phil) 02:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019Edit

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

  Administrator changes

  AndonicConsumed CrustaceanEnigmamanEuryalusEWS23HereToHelpNv8200paPeripitusStringTheory11Vejvančický

  CheckUser changes

  Ivanvector

  Guideline and policy news

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

  Technical news

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

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #25508Edit

Hi. I've made a comment at UTRS appeal #25508, and I hope you don't mind if I give you a heads-up in case nobody has seen it. I'd like someone else to take it over. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Happy to take it over. Just Chilling (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations!!Edit

  Hey, Just Chilling. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day!
Mjs1991 (talk) 11:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 


Administrators' newsletter – July 2019Edit

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

  Administrator changes

  28bytesAd OrientemAnsh666BeeblebroxBoing! said ZebedeeBU Rob13Dennis BrownDeorDoRDFloquenbeam1Flyguy649Fram2GadfiumGB fanJonathunderKusmaLectonarMoinkMSGJNickOd MishehuRamaSpartazSyrthissTheDJWJBscribe
1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

  Guideline and policy news

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

  Technical news

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

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Remove my IPBE bitEdit

I have exhausted my need for IPBE and do not need it in the foreseeable future (for a month atleast), thus I think it's best if you remove it. With thanks. --qedk (tc) 15:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

unblcok appealsEdit

I'm on vacation from work, so I'm going through the Unblock back log. Got two now that I'm awaiting editor response on. Imagine waiting all this time, and when someone seriously puts serious effort into these difficult cases, the users are not around.   Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

unblockEdit

Hi Just Chilling

I am the italian user from ip range 151.48.0.0/17 who made an unblock request by utrs

You say "there is no restriction on users creating an account on en-wiki" this is not correct

To create this account i am using right now i had to connect from another ip range because if i try creating an account in en.wikipedia.org from the blocked ip range the following message appears

'Editing from your IP address range (151.48.0.0/17) has been blocked (disabled) on all Wikimedia wikis until 19:38, 13 December 2019 by Masti (meta.wikimedia.org) for the following reason:

Cross-wiki spam: spambot

This block began on 19:38, 13 June 2019'

After creating an account by bypassing this block as i did i am actually able to log in and edit from the blocked ip range but to do this a user has to bybass the block somehow first to create an account

Since the reason of the steward's global block was a user who created several accounts from this ip range just to spam messages ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/Masti&offset=20190615224135&limit=20 ) the way this block works does not protect wikipedia from the vandal's spam because he could do as i did to create new accounts to spam but just prevents good unregistered users connecting from this ip range to help with their constructive contributions

Take in consideration the possibility to change the block settings please in order to allow anonymous users to edit en.wikipedia.org while leaving account creation disallowed

In case they abuse in any way then the block can be set again but i am sure that no disruptive edits will come from this ip range at least not more than from any other ip range not blocked on en.wikipedia.org

Semplicemente Agghiacciante

  • @Semplicemente Agghiacciante: - I have checked the block settings and confirmed that they are set to allow account creation. If this was not possible then clearly there has been a glitch and I regret the inconvenience. Accounts can always be requested here. Restricting editing to account-holders only allows us to track who is editing. Since this is a global block, in view of your reservations, then the way forward would be for you to appeal to the stewards by one of the means that I previously advised you. Just Chilling (talk) 12:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for checking !

If there is a glitch could you please report it to somebody who can fix it ?

What i do not understand is the need of blocking anonymous users who had not done anything wrong since the cause of the block was an abuse in account creation which instead you say is allowed

This seems absurd to me because it should work exactly in the opposite way...instead in this way the vandal would be free to continue with his massive account creation while all the other unguilty users will be prevented from contributing

Semplicemente Agghiacciante

  • @Semplicemente Agghiacciante: Sorry, if I sound repetitive, but all this now is a matter for the stewards. I doubt that they will be able to establish why you were not able to create an account because it will depend on the procedure that you adopted but by all means raise this with them. I understand the points that you are making with regard to the effects of the block but, again, as a global block it is for them. There is nothing more we can do at this end. The key positive is that you now have created an account. Happy editing! Just Chilling (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Well ok then

I will try asking some stewards about this issue

May you tell me the name of some english stewards i can ask ?

It would be even better if you could report about this glitch to somebody you know he might be able to check and fix it

Thank you anyway for replying

Semplicemente Agghiacciante

I already tried a few of those methods but without success

I will continue trying then

Semplicemente Agghiacciante

utrs 25825Edit

Hello. I tried requsting CU, and it said it couldn't. It won't let me release and it's out of "new".  Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding broken redirects...Edit

Sorry to bother you. I've done some more research and AnomieBOT III would have taken care of that particular problem. It's still obviously generally a good idea to check WLH, but not necessary in a self-iniated situation like this. Retro (talk | contribs) 17:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@Retro: Ah! That's helpful; thanks! :-) Just Chilling (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Cristina GoughEdit

Hi! Just gonna say that your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina Gough and explanation is top notch! Sadly, I feel this will be the subject of a deletion review by accusing that you did a WP:SUPERVOTE. Personally, I am getting quite annoyed at billions of sport related BLP permastubs that squeak through (too inclusive) sport guidelines. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

While your explanation was clear, thank you, I think it was also clear that the consensus was that WP:NCRICK does not reflect community assessment of notability in rating men's regional finals above women's. And yes, many articles about sportspeople have been kept without SIGCOV, because they meet the relevant sports criteria - so in this case, for me, it came down to whether the WP:NCRICK criteria should distinguish in this way between men's and women's games. Most participants in this AfD thought that they should not. I guess that will have to be taken up at WP:NCRICK. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Just Chilling".