User talk:Alanscottwalker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

User talk:Alanscottwalker/archive1

User talk:Alanscottwalker/archive2

User talk:Alanscottwalker/archive3

I started using one-click-archiver in 2017, it labeled the new page with a Capital 'A':

User talk:Alanscottwalker/Archive 1


RfC on "No paid editing for Admins" at WT:COI[edit]

I've relisted an RfC that was run at WT:Admin in Sept. 2015. It is at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Concrete proposal 3 as there are a number of similar proposals going on at the same place. Better to keep them together. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Cheers to you, sir. One "wikipedian" seems to be trying to bully me, and I don't have the time to deal with it. I appreciate you bringing your experience and rationality to the discussion of the Pope Francis intro. Thank you. Remclaecsec (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
@Remclaecsec: Excuse me sire. Reckon when did I try to bully you? You're the one who started the condescending attitude in the Martin O'Malley article by calling my edit as being "silly", and reverting without explanation. You're too fond of eluding Wikipedia policies without seeking consensus on the talk page. Have fun and drink on that one :)). Bluesphere 16:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
No. This is a WP:BLP -- it is you that must have consensus on the talk page -- it's your burden and your onus to get consensus, as the person who wants to add such BLP material. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

BN comment[edit]

"Support - Gosh, you're responsible people, I assume, but more important, we have no need to micromanage in this way, and I don't want to."

I'm probably having a thick moment here, but I don't understand. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Forbid adults (or adult like people) from having a work channel when they think they can use it? I am not going to do that or support it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The curse of the autocorrect strikes again[edit]

Alanscottwalker, if you say variable one more time when you mean verifiable, I'm gonna reach through the ether and throttle you.[FBDB] EEng 12:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Gah, sorry, but feel free to correct the auto-"correction" anytime you see it in my comments -- that may be somewhat more effective than trying to reach through the internet, and I would heartily thank-you (for multiple reasons of life and limb) :). Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Education program[edit]

The education program doesn't control anything, it just facilitates. You might want to actually read the AE and look at the several community discussions already linked there at ANI and ENI, including the recent statement by the Education Program on what happened. Jytdog (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. It facilitated this. Facilitation means you are responsible. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Too facile. Not that simple. Jytdog (talk) 01:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Actually, it is profoundly and directly on point, and the only hope of effectiveness in the future. They set up this whole thing. Your thinking punish-blocking an account is really something, is the only thing that is facile and simplistic. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
This is the last response I will make here. You do not understand the Education Program and what its "powers" are, and what it can and cannot do. You obviously have not read what the Education Program tried to do to prevent this and stop it once it happened. Please inform yourself before you make more statements like this. This is a little bit like the way people offer very strong opinions like "we must ban paid editors!" without thinking through issues like anonymity/OUTING which render the banning-call impossible nonsense and clutter.
And as stated at AN this indef is to prevent future disruption. Jytdog (talk) 03:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
False. I have read and do know well the education program, and I know what they did, here. And have seen it through years of experience. If I didn't, I would not be taking them at their word that they want to work with EJustice and others in a less pressured time and atmosphere to find out what went wrong and to see if and how it can be remedied. Your punishment-block is short-sighted, facile and simplistic. Your retribution is going to be more damaging than the alternative of sorting it out this summer. The only thing obvious is you have now made disruptive and imagined claims about what I have read, for which you have no basis of actual knowledge. Then you turn around and bring up totally unrelated paid editing to somehow support your nonsense post. That you would do that only confirms your wrongheadedness. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Clarification request[edit]

On Jimbo's talk page, could you edit "Indeed, and OID your absurd claim that a written licence is not proof of licence and that people cannot rely on written licence is absolute nonsense" to say "...and OID your (name of person who made the claim) absurd claim..." Right now it kind of looks like I made the claim, when in fact in my opinion it is a false claim. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

New move request for New York[edit]

In case you are still unaware of this discussion, there is a new discussion for renaming New York to New York (state). As you participated in the previous discussion on this topic, you may want to express your opinion in the new disussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


New Zealand TW-17.svg Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Just be careful, what you ask for:) and good luck. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Glad I'm not the only one...[edit]

To hit the "archive" link instead of "show" on those collapsed discussions :) MLauba (Talk) 15:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, egads, and I just happened to look at my contributions a short time later and wondered where those edits came from. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Map of Illinois Historic sites 2012.jpg listed for discussion[edit]


A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Map of Illinois Historic sites 2012.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ~ Rob13Talk 18:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I just popped in to make the same point, but see someone beat me to it. I'm heading to Wikimania in the morning, so will have limited time to discuss this further until next week, but I would like to discuss it late next week, if you are interested.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what there is to discuss - I made the rationale, years ago - and its been illustrating the thing discussed since - I don't have anything to add to the rationale. We have no interest in original research. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I have speedied the file as no longer used. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Change to RfC at NOT[edit]

You participated at this RfC; the proposal has changed a bit. Just providing you notice of that. Jytdog (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

btw that change was based on your oppose vote which was in view entirely valid. Jytdog (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Illinois Historic Preservation Division[edit]

Thanks for monitoring a recent change in Illinois law. Bigturtle (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Precious five years![edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Sherman Park[edit]

Hello! About this, my mistake. Thanks for fixing it. Mudwater (Talk) 13:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, it forced me to double chk, which is not always a bad thing. :)Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Emancipation proclamation[edit]

Although I concede that "Brian R. Dirck" has written that the "Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order", I find that questionable. The Proclamation/Executive Order dichotomy was, as I understand it, really an anachronism advanced by the State Department in 1907. The Emancipation Proclamation was given the proclamation number 95. It was not given a number in the Executive Order series, and is not included as an excutive order on this page. In my opinion, this indirecly contradicts Dirck. There are also sources which contradicts it more or less directly, for example:

The distinction between executive orders and proclamations was even less clear in other eras. President Abraham Lincoln directed much of the early Civil War by proclamation, including calling forth the militia. Calling forth the militia is now typically accomplished by executive order. In 1862, President Lincoln issued the first formally designated "executive order." But later that year, he ordered federal officials not to return captured former slaves to the states in rebellion in his "Emancipation Proclamation." In sum, there is not much that distinguishes Lincoln's executive orders from his wartime proclamations--apart from the title. Gaziano, Todd (21 February 2001). "The Use and Abuse of Executive Orders and Other Presidential Directives". The Heritage Foundation, Center for Legal & Judicial Studies. 

Gaziano acknowledges the hollowness of the distinction, but nevertheless described the Emancipation Proclamation as distinct from an executive order. I should add that the term "executive order" is receiving much abuse on wikipedia. For example, just as I'm writing this I discover that Reorganization Plan No. 3 is an "executive order", which is totally false (also, see here). National security directives were until recently executive orders (incidentally mislabeled "Presidential Directives"). Those kinds of things makes me skeptical of any things that are described as "executive orders". Btw, I've recently written the page presidential directive to try to clarify these issues. Uglemat (talk) 07:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I am skeptical of the use of an advocacy group think tank piece, but I take from Gaziano that there was no difference in Lincoln's time - if we can get enough good sources, I would propose a note in the Emancipation Proclamation article, after the use of the term, explaining the distinction is academic/anachronistic, as one of your quotes in your Presidential Directives does suggest it's substance, not form - this might lead to greater understanding - see, eg. [1] a famous executive order to the armed forces (similar to Lincoln's) and most certainly not done pursuant to the will of congress. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
According to one widely used source, "issuance of proclamations by the President followed a tradition established by British monarchs and practiced by royal governors in the North American colonies and by their elected successors after the Revolution" (Relyea 2008, p. 14) I don't think "Executive Order" so denominated had such a tradition, but that doesn't stop sources from talking about it and "tracing it back", as is the wont of nationalists everywhere. I haven't seen a source saying straight out that "Executive orders were invented in 1907", but I wished such a source existed, because I believe it is the case. Heres another definition:

Presidents have historically utilized various written instruments to direct the executive branch and implement policy. These include executive orders, presidential memoranda, and presidential proclamations. The definitions of these instruments, including the differences between them, are not easily discernible, as the U.S. Constitution does not contain any provision referring to these terms or the manner in which the President may communicate directives to the executive branch. A widely accepted description of executive orders and proclamations comes from a report issued in 1957 by the House Government Operations Committee...

The 1957 description does say "in the narrower sense Executive orders and proclamations are written documents denominated as such". The Emancipation Proclamation was clearly denominated as a proclamation. The problem is really that one cannot object to Dirck on objective grounds. If he thinks the Emancipation Proclamation was an "executive order", then noone can stop him. But I think his contention is very unusual, and ultimately confusing. Uglemat (talk) 12:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I did find this quote, perhaps of use (Unfortunately I don't have the books under the "further reading" section of presidential directive):[2]

Executive orders are the best known and most common type of unilateral presidential directive. They date to the earliest days of the republic, but the term "executive order" was not regularly applied to unilateral presidential directives until the late nineteenth century, and the first directives to be officially designated as executive orders were military orders by Abraham Lincoln. There is no official definition of what constitutes an executive order; there is no law—or even an executive order—that defines what an executive order is.

Uglemat (talk) 12:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I do not know why you would want to have a source that says EO's were invented in 1906, since, read your sources again, we know EO's exited long before 1906 and we know that EO's after 1906 did things that proclamations did before 1906, it apparently just did not matter. I do not think it helpful, at all, and is actually harmful to try to understand this as if it is such a particularized thing, like a form of common law pleading - Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the sources say that EOs existed long before 1907, but the sources were written after 1907. By "invented", what I mean is that (I suspect) the very concept of the "Executive Order" as a particular type of presidential directive was invented by the State Department in 1907. Directives issued in the past naturally fit the definition, but that does not mean that Lincoln thought about the "executive order" in the way we do today: "Executive order" was simply a natural thing to put in the title of his decree. After all, he belongs to the executive branch, and he is giving an order. Anyway, we digress. The more relevant point is that pretty much all knowledgeable sources reaffirm a distinction between "Executive Orders" and "Proclamations", in which the Emancipation Proclamation clearly falls in the latter category. Dirck's idiosyncratic usage is more confusing than helpful, although it cannot be "proved wrong". Uglemat (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
As to your penultimate point, that is not what the sources are saying, they are saying there was basically no distinction. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes and no. The sources say that there is no legal difference, but they still accept the basic classification scheme of the State Department from 1907, and they still use it, despite the anachronism. They describe the Emancipation Proclamation as a type of "Presidential Proclamation" (read: as opposed to an executive order) for two reasons: 1) It has "Proclamation" in its title. 2) The State Department in 1907 classified it as a proclamation, again, as opposed to an executive order. Uglemat (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
No. They are not accepting the "classification system" when they say it does not matter how you classify. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
If you accept that the differences are mainly of "form, not of substance", then surely you accept that the "Emancipation Proclamation" is in the "form" of a Proclamation? Just read the last source I quoted: "Executive orders are the best known and most common type of unilateral presidential directive. They date to the earliest days of the republic.... Proclamations are another main type of unilateral presidential directive. Prominent examples of proclamations include George Washinton's Neutrality Proclamation and Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. Like executive orders, proclamations are generally written documents that the president issues to direct goveernmental action, and they lack a strict definition. Accounts disagree somewhat about whether or how these two devices differ. Legally and constitutionally, there is no difference between executive orders and proclamations."[3] Emphasis added. Yes, there is really no difference, but the classification is still made, and the Emancipation Proclamation falls firmly in one camp. The legal and constitutinal equivalence is best discussed in the article presidential directive, because that article encompasses both types. Uglemat (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
No, it does not fall firmly, otherwise we would not be discussing it. The distinction in substance is generally one orders the government, generally the other orders private individuals (in either case, to the extent he (never yet, she) can order them) - we already know there is a source calling the EP an EO, and other sources saying it's of no real difference from the EO. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the false premise of my last comment, which misrepresents your position. I have now found one source (a book about the Emancipation Proclamation) which directly contradicts Dirck: "...what was the reasoning that led Lincoln to emancipate through the use of a proclamation rather than an executive order or a general military order?" [4]
I've now found several other sources which also describe the EP as an "executive order". So Dirck is not alone. Uglemat (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure we're both tired of this debate. Let me just close by saying that I personally don't think the EP should be described as an "executive order", but I realize that I was mistaken in my strong conviction that there is only one truth to the matter. Cheers. Uglemat (talk) 18:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for stopping by, as you may have surmised, I am unsurprized and would expect sources to call it P and/or EO. Alanscottwalker (talk)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2017[edit]

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


Administrator changes

added LonghairMegalibrarygirlTonyBallioniVanamonde93
removed Allen3Eluchil404Arthur RubinBencherlite

Technical news



  • 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.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Mister wiki case has been accepted[edit]

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 15, 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2017[edit]

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


Administrator changes

added Joe Roe
readded JzG
removed EricorbitPercevalThinggTristanbVioletriga

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news



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

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Alanscottwalker. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


Orologio verde.svg
This user's request to have autoblock on his/her IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.
Alanscottwalker (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Jake2622". The reason given for Jake2622's block is: "Vandalism-only account".

Accept reason:

Yeap, no overlap I can see. Unblocked. Yamla (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Season's Greetings[edit]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Happy New Year, Alanscottwalker![edit]

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

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018[edit]

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


Administrator changes

added Muboshgu
readded AnetodeLaser brainWorm That Turned
removed None

Bureaucrat changes

readded Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Generation X page[edit]

To avoid an edit war please go to the talk page to discuss it further. Thank you!Aboutbo2000 (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


What's the arb case you're referring to? --NeilN talk to me 01:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

[5] You really have to consider, the inevitable back and forth of were those words 'clear violation' 'was that really a violation' 'yes, it was a violation, but no one should care', 'the way the ban is worded is crap' etc etc etc 'every enforcement is a naziplot'. 'lets have several rounds of appeals', and on and on. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I do note an enhanced civility restriction was enacted, though. --NeilN talk to me 02:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
You call that enhanced? It's all just a weird way through a tortuous process to try to say something similar to what was said before 'but we think this might be a little clearer because it's all just so hard.' And even then, that new wording caused a ton of drama later. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Peace Barnstar Hires.png The Barnstar of Diplomacy
I appreciate your contributions regarding my topic ban as well as your thoughts on Arbitration Enforcement. --MONGO 13:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. And good wishes to you. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Jean Baptiste Point du Sable[edit]

Andrew Jackson[edit]

I think this article is close to promotion to FA. I recall collaborating with you on other POTUS articles and thought you may like to take a look and offer your comments or support for promotion. Thanks. Hoppyh (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Civility in infobox discussions case opened[edit]

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 17, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Another Daily Mail RfC[edit]

There is an RfC at Talk:Daily Mail#Request for comment: Other criticisms section. Your input would be most helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


Thanks for correcting my incorrect edit of Rockefeller's article. I don't know why I missed that "m." indicating marriage!! I only make minor grammatical edits, generally, and was surprised to see I goofed.

Best wishes!TobusRex (talk) 10:04, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

No worries. You may consider adding a pipelink with the 'm.' to Marriage, if you think that would help. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Portals[edit]

The Portals WikiProject has been rebooted.

You are invited to join, and participate in the effort to revitalize and improve the Portal system and all the portals in it.

There are sections on the WikiProject page dedicated to tasks (including WikiGnome tasks too), and areas on the talk page for discussing the improvement and automation of the various features of portals.

Many complaints have been lodged in the RfC to delete all portals, pointing out their various problems. They say that many portals are not maintained, or have fallen out of date, are useless, etc. Many of the !votes indicate that the editors who posted them simply don't believe in the potential of portals anymore.

It's time to change all that. Let's give them reasons to believe in portals, by revitalizing them.

The best response to a deletion nomination is to fix the page that was nominated. The further underway the effort is to improve portals by the time the RfC has run its course, the more of the reasons against portals will no longer apply. RfCs typically run 30 days. There are 19 days left in this one. Let's see how many portals we can update and improve before the RfC is closed, and beyond.

A healthy WikiProject dedicated to supporting and maintaining portals may be the strongest argument of all not to delete.

We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years.

Let's do this.

See ya at the WikiProject!

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   10:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018[edit]

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


Administrator changes

added None
removed ChochopkCoffeeGryffindorJimpKnowledge SeekerLankiveilPeridonRjd0060

Guideline and policy news

  • The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
  • A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

Technical news

  • AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
  • When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
  • The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
  • There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.



  • Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

German war effort arbitration case opened[edit]

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 30, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Abolition of slavery in West Virginia[edit]

Hi there! I notice that you indicated in the edit history that a map I recently made (my first SVG map, actually!) was incorrect with respect to West Virginia. I had been wondering about that, and would be happy to stand corrected. Do you know when and how slavery was legally abolished in West Virginia? Q·L·1968 23:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes. See Slave and free states#West Virginia, during the civil war, February 2, 1865 by state statute if memory serves. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC) Sorry February 3 [6] Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Brilliant! Thanks very much. I've now corrected that (though you may need to refresh to see the new version in your browser). Q·L·1968 23:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Your comment at WP:AN[edit]

Thank you for your comment. I'm glad that some people still understand allusion. Face-smile.svg — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much[edit]

The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.

By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.

Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.

If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.

Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   08:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: if you reply to this message, please {{ping}} me. Thank you. -TT

social worker[edit] hi - shes not a notable social worker, is she? this is your edit - 19:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure she is, we have an article about her. I stress the article is about her, it is her biography, it should be written about her. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, I'm happy to disagree with you, regards Govindaharihari (talk) 20:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018[edit]

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


Administrator changes

added None
removed Al Ameer sonAliveFreeHappyCenariumLupoMichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
  • There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
  • It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.


  • A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Charles White artist.jpg[edit]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Charles White (artist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thirteenth Amendment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration request[edit]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 23, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

If you no longer wish to receive notifications for this case please remove your name from the listing here

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 19:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 16[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of museums focused on African Americans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carbondale (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 25[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chicago River, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Goose Island (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2018[edit]

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


Administrator changes

added PbsouthwoodTheSandDoctor
readded Gogo Dodo
removed AndrevanDougEVulaKaisaLTony FoxWilyD

Bureaucrat changes

removed AndrevanEVula

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus that the {{promising draft}} template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

Technical news

  • Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
  • Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon (Codemirror-icon.png) in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
  • IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.


  • Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2018[edit]

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


Administrator changes

added Sro23
readded KaisaLYmblanter

Guideline and policy news

  • After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
  • Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.

Technical news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Your comment[edit]

Thank you for your comment, what's truly surprising is that those voting keep don't speak Spanish either. It was a simple machine translation of an article from es.wikipedia - there is a common "tell" in the opening line if you look. You may have missed it but they've now changed tack to argue that she is notable because she is used as the character in two romantic works of fiction. And I say they, since nearly all of those voting keep appeared after it was listed at a wikiproject and belong to that project. WCMemail 16:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort closed[edit]

An arbitration case regarding German war effort articles has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. For engaging in harassment of other users, LargelyRecyclable is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia under any account.
  2. Cinderella157 is topic banned from the history of Germany from 1932 to 1945, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
  3. Auntieruth55 is reminded that project coordinators have no special roles in a content dispute, and that featured articles are not immune to sourcing problems.
  4. Editors are reminded that consensus-building is key to the purpose and development of Wikipedia. The most reliable sources should be used instead of questionable sourcing whenever possible, especially when dealing with sensitive topics. Long-term disagreement over local consensus in a topic area should be resolved through soliciting comments from the wider community, instead of being re-litigated persistently at the local level.
  5. While certain specific user-conduct issues have been identified in this decision, for the most part the underlying issue is a content dispute as to how, for example, the military records of World War II-era German military officers can be presented to the same extent as military records of officers from other periods, while placing their records and actions in the appropriate overall historical context. For better or worse, the Arbitration Committee is neither authorized nor qualified to resolve this content dispute, beyond enforcing general precepts such as those requiring reliable sourcing, due weighting, and avoidance of personal attacks. Nor does Wikipedia have any other editorial body authorized to dictate precisely how the articles should read outside the ordinary editing process. Knowledgeable editors who have not previously been involved in these disputes are urged to participate in helping to resolve them. Further instances of uncollegial behavior in this topic-area will not be tolerated and, if this occurs, may result in this Committee's accepting a request for clarification and amendment to consider imposition of further remedies, including topic-bans or discretionary sanctions.

For the Arbitration Committee,

-Cameron11598(Talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Bell page[edit]

I removed this.

His blog is an SPS and is not useful as a reference for much other than his opinion, and we should not be reaching for opinion pieces on this page in any case. So the section is not about developing content.

You appear to have been using the article talk page to argue with him. The article talk page is not an appropriate forum for that, per WP:NOTFORUM. It is also weird, since he cannot respond.

I believe his blogs have comment sections if you want to argue with him. Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Disagree. I have undone your edit, as you are wrong, per WP:TALK. There is no rule against discussing published opinion pieces on the topic, and it is about the content of the article, the article already discusses the legal standard of Carlile report. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I'll bring this to ANI. Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
done: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#NOTFORUM_at_George_Bell_(bishop). Jytdog (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)