This user has administrator privileges on Wikimedia Commons.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Nick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
University of Dundee - geograph.org.uk - 10358.jpg
Sir Ian Wood Building (B&W).jpg
Lanyon Building, Queen's University, Belfast.jpg

Happy New Year, Nick![edit]

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

TheSuix socks[edit]

Hi, you blocked a couple accounts earlier Mancharg and Mentoap stating they are socks of TheSuix, as you subsequently blocked several others as socks of Aaron j christopher 101 for creating the same/similar content was the labelling of the first two a mistake or have we got two masters copying each other or possibly being the same person? Thanks Nthep (talk) 18:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Just me picking the wrong block summary when blocking. I'll fix it. Nick (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
NP, pain in the ass vandal whichever it is. Nthep (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Self revert warring[edit]

The user is at it again. I think they are at exactly 4500 edits. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 16:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify Samtar (21:11, 13 January 2017), you (15:21, 8 January 2017), me (21:38, 7 January 2017) 2 have warned him already. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 16:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
(tps) That's peculiar enough that I had to take a look. I found these other accounts, but they're not using any obvious automation. I'm not familiar at all with wrestling topics and the multitude of sockmasters there, so I'll leave these for another admin to sort out. Yes, they're all  Confirmed to one another. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

ANI Notification[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Odd editing behavior at User talk page. -- Dane talk 00:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Cat-adding IP[edit]

Greetings!

At 14:51 UTC on 14 January, you blocked 63.143.229.195 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for block evasion. Precisely 15 hours later, Paul Erik blocked 63.143.232.92 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for the same thing. Additional IPs making the same edits since your block include:

Extended content

It appears that a range block may be in order. Thanks. —ATS 🖖 talk 23:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Range block might not work, here is one of several of my lists (some of these are super old)

Extended content

I have several more lists of these IPs (I can say with a fair amount of confidence these are all related) that I can add later. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any point in range blocking - it's not going to stop any of this behaviour, but risks inconveniencing legitimate users. Nick (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

David Dylan[edit]

Thank you for saving me from having to create a long CIR ANI on that editor. Meters (talk) 00:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for deleting that user page, and thanks for all the useful admin tasks that you have done. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017[edit]

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

Admin mop.PNG Administrator changes

Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirateSchwede66K6kaEaldgythFerretCyberpower678Mz7PrimefacDodger67
Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg BriangottsJeremyABU Rob13

Green check.svg Guideline and policy news

Octicons-tools.svg Technical news

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

Scale of justice 2.svg Arbitration

Nuvola apps knewsticker.png Obituaries

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

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

db-move[edit]

Thanks for that btw! Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

G6 is for uncontroversial moves but the matter was under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bouncing ball dynamics. That discussion has not yet closed and we arguably now have a content fork. Please review the overall situation. Andrew D. (talk) 13:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

This was an uncontroversial move, and there is no WP:CFORK. That bouncing ball dynamics is under discussion for deletion should have no impact on deleting a leftover redirect that was the result of a move of what is now bouncing ball (music). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
@Andrew Davidson: The page move was completed by Headbomb, the move left a re-direct which was tagged and which I deleted. The action was uncontroversial at the time I undertook it, but as there may now be issues with the page move and 'competing' articles, merges, titles etc, can I ask that you and Headbomb reach agreement/compromise and let me know. I'll then undertake any administrative actions required. Nick (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Ok. We have a couple of related discussions at AfD and DYK and we hope that a consensus emerges from those. If more admin action is needed, we'll get back to you. Andrew D. (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Question[edit]

In Operation Ring article, there is a part about loudspeaker which is wrongly referenced and not related to the event. It is from Thomas de Waal's book and while the event is happened, the date of it was in june and happened not in that area but in different village called Erkeç so could you please take action.--Azerifactory (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Wilb2017[edit]

In connection with your block on Voiletr332, how about this one too? Of course, it could be Dr. Wilberto Cortés in person, but they both edited the Draft that I deleted. If he's paid for an article, I can't see him getting away from the lucrative theatre to edit himself... Peridon (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017[edit]

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

Admin mop.PNG Administrator changes

Gnome-colors-list-add.svg AmortiasDeckillerBU Rob13
Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg RonnotelIslanderChamal NIsomorphicKeeper76Lord VoldemortSherethBdeshamPjacobi

Green check.svg Guideline and policy news

Octicons-tools.svg Technical news

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

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Wisdom Collins jr[edit]

AKA Youngweezy et al. An ongoing problem - repeated socking and re-creation under varying titles. I've protected this one, the second today. The author has been added by someone to my reopening of the SPI on Collins wisdom. Peridon (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I blocked Collins wisdom over the Christmas holidays, I've blocked a couple of socks where I've come across a page (usually an edit filter tripping) since. I didn't realise it was quite as extensive as it is. I'll SALT as and when I come across further re-creations (surely inevitable). Cheers, Nick (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

JaneDoe to JaneDoeporn[edit]

Thanks for your valuable input yesterday. I've opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pornactress.

Also, your archive box covers the New Section, History, and Delete tabs at the top. So, obviously, I couldn't delete your talk page when I tried. :)

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki-coffee[edit]

Thank you for encapsulating the concern I've had since I saw that thread earlier. I'm not sure it's total CIR time but some content creation would be nice to see. Nthep (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Mail[edit]

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

More mail[edit]

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

Michael Davies[edit]

How is a redirect stupid? Adam9007 (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Just think about that redirect for a while, and then get back to me. Nick (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Seems plausible to me. You have a better disambiguation? Academic maybe? Adam9007 (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Kola Boof[edit]

Hi. Way back in 2007 you protected the page Kola Boof due to "per BLP concerns from subject on OTRS Ticket 2007061010002768". I'm not sure what they were, but a similar page has been created as Kola Boof (author). Also pinging @Zscout370: who performed a similar edit ("per BLP concerns from subject on OTRS Ticket 2007061210000024"). Thanks. Tassedethe (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't volunteer with the OTRS system now, so will have to leave this with someone who does. I'm quite happy for the protection to be lifted as appropriate. Nick (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
OK thanks. I'll check with OTRS. Tassedethe (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017[edit]

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

Administrator changes

added TheDJ
removed XnualaCJOldelpasoBerean HunterJimbo WalesAndrew cKaranacsModemacScott

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

sock you may know[edit]

[1] Seems like someone you and User:Jpgordon have had dealings with. Meters (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Change yahoo password I 888 24I 4458 yahoo reset password number[edit]

Evidently, the abuse filter did not prevent me from creating that page. Where should I report that abuse filter is not detecting spam articles with such titles like this one?--Barber1987 (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Barber1987: I'm not 100% certain - I'd head over to Wikipedia:Edit filter and then probably take your pick from Noticeboard, Requested Filters or False Positives. Don't worry about it going in the wrong place, just say I sent you. I've also passed the issue around a few admins who work on the edit filter management routinely, hopefully they'll maybe be able to fix it. Nick (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete Josh Reiner[edit]

if you could tell me why yiu deleted my page Josh Reiner i would appreciate it so i can be a better editor. MilesTreble (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

There was no indication of why Josh Reiner meets the inclusion criteria - there are tens of thousands of people recording music and releasing videos on YouTube, there was no indication that Josh was in some way important or would meet our notability policies, which can be read here. Nick (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

ok, a little harsh but thank you MilesTreble (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

It probably is a little harsh, but I cannot understand why you would commit to spending your time writing an article (which I know is time consuming, even for a short article) if you haven't checked to see whether it's going to meet the requirements for Wikipedia. We do make our rules, guidelines and useful advice readily available for editors writing new articles, and we strongly encourage you to read through them. If you do read through them now, and can come back and explain why you believe Josh is notable and qualifies for an article, I'll be happy to review your evidence and if appropriate, undelete the article for you. Nick (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I thought he did qualify, there was valuable evidence and a lot of sources, but i will respect your advice and will research your wikipedia requirements a little more, it may take a few days, but i will try, thank you for your help. MilesTreble (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Ty Price[edit]

Hi. Is there any salvageable content there for use in a draft?   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

No - by the time you remove the promotional guff, you'll be left with his name and a website URL. Nick (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Bureau Veritas Consumer Products Services India[edit]

Hello, Nick. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Bureau Veritas Consumer Products Services India".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Vin09(talk) 05:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Redirect deletion[edit]

Please restore Search Wikipedia, as an RFD on it was closed as retarget. – Train2104 (t • c) 02:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Hello Nick! Mr. X referred me to address you with my question. I am completely new to Wikipedia and trying to make sense of how it works, and I didn't save a copy of the text of the page, Findo, Inc.. I was wondering if you could send me back the information I published accidentally, and if you could also provide any suggestions as to how to make it appropriate for the publishing on Wikipedia!

Marina

Now restored at Draft:Findo, Inc.. Please ensure you read through notability, conflict of interest and promotional content policies and guidelines before working on this article. Please also read through paid editing policy and ensure that you are compliant with this before editing again. Nick (talk) 11:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017[edit]

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

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

added KaranacsBerean HunterGoldenRingDlohcierekim
removed GdrTyreniusJYolkowskiLonghairMaster Thief GarrettAaron BrennemanLaser brainJzGDragons flight

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

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

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

Your GA nomination of Basil Smallpeice[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Basil Smallpeice you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Land -- The Land (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Just to note that my comments are here. The Land (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Aha. I updated the template to say "on hold". That will probably (?) produce another automated message...? :) The Land (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
@The Land: Many thanks. I've updated the lede but wanted to give it 24 hours before letting you know, because I'll probably want to make some further tweaks. I've a nagging suspicion it's a bit wordy now and needing trimmed, actually. Nick (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Basil Smallpeice[edit]

The article Basil Smallpeice you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Basil Smallpeice for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Land -- The Land (talk) 12:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Basil Smallpeice[edit]

The article Basil Smallpeice you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Basil Smallpeice for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Land -- The Land (talk) 10:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Reversion of PROD removals[edit]

Please could you explain why you reverted five of my PROD tag removals? Linguisttalk|contribs 12:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes. You should only remove a PROD when you disagree that deletion of the article is the correct outcome for an article after it is tagged, not because the PROD nomination fails to establish why a subject is not notable. That's something of a circular argument, asking the nominator to try and prove a negative, which is why we generally expect article creators and people who oppose deletion on the grounds of notability to prove notability. PROD is a little different, but we would expect people to remove PROD tags only when they can explain why the article is notable when challenged. If you're able to explain why each article you've removed the PROD tags from is notable, you're welcome to remove the PROD tags again. Nick (talk) 12:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I also do not expect you to revert me before I've even had the opportunity to reply to you, Linguist111. Nick (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Actually WP:PROD says that the tag can be removed for any or no reason at all. A reason is encouraged but not required. It also says that once a prod has been removed from an article it can never be readded. If you feel those articles should be deleted the next step is to take them to WP:AFD. ~ GB fan 12:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Nick, where does it say that? Also, you're not supposed to reinstate PROD tags, even if someone removes them in bad faith. Instead, please bring the matter to my talk page first before you take action, and if I agree with your concerns, I will self-revert. I will review the articles from which I removed PROD tags, and I will leave the tags in place if I agree the article should be deleted; otherwise, I will remove them again, provided I can find external coverage. Thank you. Linguisttalk|contribs 12:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the tag can be removed when the person removing the tag disagrees with the deletion, not the way the tag was added initially. Linguist111's removal of PROD tags on the grounds of the PROD nomination failing to establish that the subject is not notable is being disruptive to prove a point (as evidenced by the response above, which mentions 'bad faith'. I've said he's welcome to re-remove the tags if he actually believes the articles should not be deleted, not just if he has an issue with the language which was used when the tags were added. Nick (talk) 12:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not trying to prove any point here. That's just what I was told. Some PRODs are removed with no explanation whatsoever. Linguisttalk|contribs 12:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
There is no requirement to say anything when removing a PROD. WP:CONTESTED gives strongly encouraged but not required actions when removing a PROD. Someone objected the PROD process is over. The policy is clear on this point, you can not put the PROD back when it has been removed. ~ GB fan 12:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
The point I'm trying to make, is that the edits by Linguist111 were not contesting the eventual deletion of the articles, or even contesting that the articles are notable, but were procedural removals concerning the nomination, and were centred around a contention that the PROD nominations didn't prove why the articles were not notable. The argument that the PROD nominations didn't explain why the articles were not notable is potentially trying to prove a negative. That's the reason I reverted the PROD removals, because I don't consider a removal on such a complex technicality is a proper, valid contention of the PROD. I would hope that Linguist111 can explain if they believe the articles shouldn't actually be deleted now, or will restore the PROD nominations if they agree deletion is correct, and I would also hope they would undertake work to determine if they should be removing PROD tags before removing then, not when challenged about their behaviour. Nick (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
The way to do that is to go to their talk page and discuss it with them. The proper response is not to readd the PROD against policy twice. ~ GB fan 12:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────(edit conflict) Because deletion is quite a sensitive subject, as many users can get upset when articles they have created get deleted, I believe that it should be carried out carefully. Pages that are in obvious, unambiguous violation of core policies are taken care of through CSD, but genuine, non-violating pages should not be treated this way. If an editor PRODs an article with a rationale of "NN", it goes seven days without being contested or endorsed, and an admin deletes it, the deletion log simply states "Expired PROD, concern was: NN". This would be equal to an AfD having two votes, "Delete as NN" (from the nom) and "Delete" (with no rationale, from the deleting administrator) In this case, not only has the proposer provided an invalid rationale, but the article has been deleted pretty much unilaterally, as the deleting admin has simply deleted it based on the proposer's opinion and their own (ungiven) opinion. Sure, the creator can go to WP:REFUND or simply ask, but some users, especially new ones, don't know about those processes, or may be driven away entirely. The creator may have objected to the deletion, but may not have had the opportunity to remove the tag. As I said, any type of deletion can upset content creators, but this is worse when a deletion is performed unilaterally. Linguisttalk|contribs 12:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Then your job is to talk to the nominators and see if they could put a better rationale not make WP:POINTy edits. ~ GB fan 13:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I've left each of the noms a message and self-reverted on all the articles (except Scott Kluge, because the creator had explicitly objected to the deletion and would probably support the removal of the PROD). Thank you and sorry for the disruption. Linguisttalk|contribs 16:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

View Deleted Content on Page[edit]

Trophy.png MVP
I couldn't see how to navigate and find a way to message you correctly but I wanted to grab the information and bio from here to my personal page so I can have it on my website.

The page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De'Andre_Bush VISQ (talk) 05:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Ducento[edit]

Hi, you've deleted Ducento with the edit summary G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (Brunodam) in violation of ban or block.. Would you be able to tell me which user is the sock that created it? I'm not seeing anything at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brunodam. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Uanfala: it was created by Sa48. Nick (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 21:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017[edit]

ANEWSicon.png

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

Administrator changes

added Doug BellDennis BrownClpo13ONUnicorn
removed ThaddeusBYandmanBjarki SOldakQuillShyamJondelWorm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

AN/I[edit]

Information.svg

As you participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Proposal: One-way IBAN on Godsy towards Legacypac, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposing IBAN between Godsy and Legacypac. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Deleted page[edit]

Hi Nick,

Can you please give me some tips about the page I am writing. For the second time it gets deleted and I am losing hope how to make it work.

The page is deleted yesterday - draft:sharingxchange

Can you please help and advice?

Sincerely, (Articulis26 (talk) 08:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC))

Precious four years[edit]

Precious
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

AN[edit]

I have reverted your close, because I think that more discussion is needed. I understand your feelings of irritation at this, but I had independently noticed problems with Dr.S's reviewing. DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@DGG: It wasn't my close in the end, SwisterTwister refused to accept the closure I made, and GorillaWarfare took over the closure. I don't disagree that DrStrauss's reviewing requires some further discussion, but it is not necessary for that further discussion to take place at AN/I, and it most certainly is not appropriate for any such discussion to take place under a thread which was opened concerning (presently unfounded) allegations of personal attacks and incivility towards SwisterTwister from DrStrauss. I would have advised you at the time to re-close the AN/I discussion and to take your concerns to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants page where DrStrauss reviewing can be discussed in an appropriate venue, with more interested and experienced participants, separately and away from the messy AN/I thread.
I notice the thread has received very little traffic since your re-opening, with all the comments (other than your own) concerning SwisterTwister's (presently unfounded) allegations of a personal attack and incivility. I would ask that you re-close the AN/I discussion and to then copy your comments concerning DrStrauss reviewing to a new section at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants before they're lost when the AN/I thread is archived. There is nothing put forward by SwisterTwister, you or any other user at AN/I which requires any form of sanction, therefore there's really nothing at all that requires administrator attention; what is needed is a less hostile venue where we can all provide DrStrauss (and indeed, SwisterTwister) with appropriate advice to improve their article reviewing skills going forward. Nick (talk) 09:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I also commented to GW. It is difficult to figure out what will actually help this situation. FWIW, I have advised ST not to take things to AN/ANI. In fact, I hve almostalways advised people not to use AN/ANI if there is any other possibility..I will in fact consider reclosing; you may be right. DGG ( talk ) 17:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Two things[edit]

1. Thank you for your action on Chaudhry.

2. Your archive thingy covers your tabs.

Best,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

1. My pleasure and 2. Yes, I'm needing to sort out the formatting at the top of my page, it's all gone horribly wrong. It's the New Year's Message which breaks the TOC placement which moves the archive box out of alignment. I'll fix it. Nick (talk) 09:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Cheers. It all looks fine now....except there are three building pictures rather than a bunny or roof dogs or some other animal. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017[edit]

ANEWSicon.png

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

Administrator changes

added Happyme22Dragons flight
removed Zad68

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

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

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Abdul Rehman Chaudhry listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Abdul Rehman Chaudhry. Since you had some involvement with the Abdul Rehman Chaudhry redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. The page is protected so I couldn't add an RFD template. Peter James (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I've deleted it. If you had asked, I would have done so prior to listing at RfD. Nick (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Clarification[edit]

Could you clarify that "main account" means "all accounts other than the bot account" for the purpose of the Magioladitis topic ban? Otherwise, there's obvious potential to game the ban with an alternative AWB-only account (which is allowed under policy - many editors choose to segregate their semi-auto edits in that manner). ~ Rob13Talk 20:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

This issue wasn't specifically raised, but I would consider it to be evasion of the ban for any alternative account to use AWB other than the existing bot account. @Magioladitis: Nick (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, this is typical bad faith by Rob. We have to sort this out at some point becaue it led people out of Wikipedia. Makes you wonder... -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not saying you would do this, Magioladitis. I'm saying that our bans should be "tightly" worded to prevent anyone from evading intent without evading the wording. Wordsmithing can matter; bad wording is how most ArbCom remedies fall to pieces. I would make the same comment about any such ban, regardless of whether I support it or not and who it's against. Thanks, Nick. ~ Rob13Talk 20:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
The comment was referring to me directly. So, yes I get this personal. Recall, that you even proposed block for edits taht did not harm on Wikipedia and in fact improved pages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I have added an additional clarification on the ANI thread concerning this. Nick (talk) 20:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
FYI, Nick, there are two proposals at WP:AN (starting with "Request to remove") that will be affected by the ban. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I've added a comment linking back to my closure at the ANI thread, so an appropriate decision can be made by the participants there on how to proceed. Nick (talk) 12:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Wakefield[edit]

Hi Nick. I was just checking the links update over at Talk:Wakefield and I spotted that you had semi-protected the article on 16 October 2013. Do you think that the persistent vandalism may have gone away by now and that the article might be unprotected? I see it's not getting very many edit requests. But I was just curious. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)