User talk:AmandaNP/Archives/2019

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019

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)

Ignite Media Group

I deleted this page as WP:G11 spam with the additional comment see WP:YFA, WP:Paid WP:RS, notability guidelines. Unsourced promo, likely paid editor I've blocked the accounts of two corporate editors and warned a third likely undeclared paid editor that they must declare any COI. I note that you had correctly previously declined a speedy request by User:Farooqahmadbhat who selected inappropriate criteria, just checking that I'm not treading on your toes. If you think that my deletion or the blocks of Igniteasia or User:Ignite1 were incorrect, feel free to restore/unblock as you see fit Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Nope, that's fine. I had questioned if it should be deleted under G11 at the time, so no worries. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 13:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I hope you enjoyed your break! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Successor-elect Rfc

Howdy. Would you clarify your 'close' at the Rfc for successor-elects in infoboxes? GoodDay (talk) 04:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you wish for it to be clarified; the original proposal had no consensus. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps elaborate. Just need to be certain, as it effect numerous articles. GoodDay (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Basically there should be no change to the current policy/actions being taken. The RFC does not give a new authority to remove or add successors of incumbents. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Ok. GoodDay (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:AE sanction

Thanks for sorting out my mess. GoldenRing (talk) 07:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

All good. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Pending SPI

Hi DQ, sorry to post a reminder here on your talk page, probably my ping (15 days ago [1]) wasn't sent properly or might have got lost among the numerous pings that I am sure you must be getting from all places. I have replied to your Q on this SPI. I am not sure how long the CU data are stored, (Is it 3 months ? please correct me, if wrong i had read it somewhere), but if this is not acted upon, I am afraid it will become stale. Thanks for the help at SPI. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I've replied. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019

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

Administrator changes

added Enterprisey • JJMC89
readded BorgQueen
removed Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes

removedEnterprisey

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)

Request for help with Fradio71

Hi, I am sorry to bother you. I noticed that you recently were involved in a block concerning User:Fradio71. I was wondering if you could help me with his current edit warring, including these three reverts: 1 2 3. He also manually reverted a substantial copyedit by me on another page, including removing reliable sources (here), and is trying to threaten me with a block on my talk page (here) Any assistance, or if you can point me in the right direction on what to do, would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 07:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I simply reviewed an unblock request over an Arbitration Enforcement block. Does not mean I have an understanding of your situation. The proper place to report 3RR violations is at WP:AN3, and because I don't have access to my administrative tools, being at a remote location, I am unable to assist. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. I hope you get well soon. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 07:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

IP block exemption

Just to let you know, I have given IP block exemption to an editor who was caught in the school IP rangeblock you made. See User talk:PatrickDunfordNZ#Unblock request. The rangeblock is here. -gadfium 21:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Request for unprotection

Hi, DeltaQuad, the page Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive 1 has been deleted and salted recently.

There has been a discussion about creating a full archive for WP:RFPP at WT:RFPP/Archive9. At the moment, we are discussing implementing such an archive using ClueBot III, at WT:RFPP#Technical roadmap and WT:RFPP#Edit requests.

The bot that previously did the archiving has been blocked after multiple malfunctions. We would like to set up a working permanent archive using ClueBot III. To do so, the archive page would need to be un-salted. Could you kindly reconsider the salting decision?

Thank you very much in advance! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: I'm not sure exactly what your saying, could dumb it down a bit for me? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry. What I was trying to say is, you have recently creation-protected the page Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive 1. Because that page will be useful in the future, you may like to unprotect it again. Even if someone creates it accidentally, I think that it should only be blanked/deleted, but not protected. Accidental re-creation does not seem to have happened so frequently that protection would be necessary. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
No problem. Normally we salt pages like that, but if it's going to be of use to you in the future, I've taken it down to autoconfirmed. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk to us about talking

" icon depicting two speech Bubbles"

The Wikimedia Foundation is planning a global consultation about communication. The goal is to bring Wikimedians and wiki-minded people together to improve tools for communication.

We want all contributors to be able to talk to each other on the wikis, whatever their experience, their skills or their devices.

We are looking for input from as many different parts of the Wikimedia community as possible. It will come from multiple projects, in multiple languages, and with multiple perspectives.

We are currently planning the consultation. We need your help.

We need volunteers to help talk to their communities or user groups.

You can help by hosting a discussion at your wiki. Here's what to do:

  1. First, sign up your group here.
  2. Next, create a page (or a section on a Village pump, or an e-mail thread – whatever is natural for your group) to collect information from other people in your group. This is not a vote or decision-making discussion: we are just collecting feedback.
  3. Then ask people what they think about communication processes. We want to hear stories and other information about how people communicate with each other on and off wiki. Please consider asking these five questions:
    1. When you want to discuss a topic with your community, what tools work for you, and what problems block you?
    2. What about talk pages works for newcomers, and what blocks them?
    3. What do others struggle with in your community about talk pages?
    4. What do you wish you could do on talk pages, but can't due to the technical limitations?
    5. What are the important aspects of a "wiki discussion"?
  4. Finally, please go to Talk pages consultation 2019 on Mediawiki.org and report what you learned from your group. Please include links if the discussion is available to the public.

You can also help build the list of the many different ways people talk to each other.

Not all groups active on wikis or around wikis use the same way to discuss things: it can happen on wiki, on social networks, through external tools... Tell us how your group communicates.

You can read more about the overall process on mediawiki.org. If you have questions or ideas, you can leave feedback about the consultation process in the language you prefer.

Thank you! We're looking forward to talking with you.

Trizek (WMF) 15:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

ACC

Hey there. If it's not too much trouble, can you reactivate my ACC account? I just saw the notice about the severe backlog, and I would like to help out. I was an ACC'er back in the day, so I'm sure I could pick it up again fairly easily. I have also already signed the confidentiality agreement. Also pinging the other active tool admins: @Stwalkerster and JJMC89: Thanks, ~Swarm~ {talk} 17:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Swarm: Would be happy to bring you back, but it seems you haven't signed the new agreement. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't realize there was a new agreement. Now signed, will let you know when I'm on the noticeboard. ~Swarm~ {talk} 01:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Account reactivated. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey DeltaQuad

Hi. I noticed that you're an administrator. I wanna become an admin myself someday. What does it take to become an admin? What tasks do admins perform? How can you block substandard Wikipedia users? I ask those questions 'cause sometime before August 2026, I wanna become an admin myself. I have been editing Wikipedia and Simple English Wikipedia since August 2010. I fight vandalism, create pages and use Twinkle. Angela Maureen (talk) 03:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi September 1988, some editors have collected advice at Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates. I personally think that having a look at recent requests for adminship (2017, 2018, 2019) at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship by year can be very educational and shows potential pitfalls. That said, I didn't try yet. For recent experience reports, you may need to ask someone who recently became an administrator. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...
Nous n'oublions
jamais.
... you were recipient
no. 1868 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

Best wishes for your health! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019

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) 21:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Your RfB

As was once said to another RfB candidate, "there's an excellent chance that this one will go to a bureaucrat chat. You might just barely eke this one out, [Amanda]. In the event that it ultimately passes, I'd like to give you my preemptive congratulations. (Fingers crossed.)" (Kurtis). I wholeheartedly agree that despite my support, this RfB might be destined to....*gulp* succeed - er - fail. I also particularly like the followup, but your username does not contain 'flux' and therefore the pun doesn't work much. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Fingers crossed... Kurtis (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

DeltaQuad, congratulations on passing your RfB, you are now a bureaucrat for the English Wikipedia. Welcome to the team! (Nihonjoe and I trampled over eachother to promote you!). — xaosflux Talk 01:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Definitely, welcome to the team! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Excited to have you on the team! Welcome, welcome! –xenotalk 01:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Congratulations for bureaucratship !! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Congrats..The Crat' T-shirt for you. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Concrats (Congrats) on your successful RfB, the first successful one since July of 2016! --DannyS712 (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Congratulations! Can I be a bot now? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Felicitations on your successful RfB. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Congrats! Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Congrats! J947 (c), at 02:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • As I said above, congratulations! I still think it was close enough that withdrawl was probably the better course of action --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Congrats and Best Wishes.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you all to all welcoming me now, and to those doing so soon. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Congratulations, DQ. --Pine(✉) 06:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Congrats!! SQLQuery me! 08:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  ❤ Heartiest Congratulations ! ❤ --DBigXrayᗙ 08:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Congratulations Hhkohh (talk) 09:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Wooo! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Well done, and I'm sorry I misidentified you as male! Deb (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Congratulations, obviously. I vandalized your user page. Mkdw talk 18:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
But.....vandalism is bad! I must urge you, Mkdw, to revert your edit lest someone be offended --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Glad to see that there are two newer bureaucrats than me now. ;) Seriously, though, well done - welcome to the team, DeltaQuad! Acalamari 00:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again to all. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Congratulations and best wishes. Donner60 (talk) 04:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Congratulations on your promotion! Jianhui67 T★C 15:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Congratulations! (or should I say my sympathies?) --rogerd (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Congrats ! Take care.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 22:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Well done!-- 5 albert square (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I did get around to reviewing your RfB, and I had decided to add my enthusiastic support! It is with great regret that I did not get around to !voting in time, but you have my congratulations and my ex post facto strong support. Your answers to the questions were exceptional. All the best, ~Swarm~ {talk} 03:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
OMG, OMG I am so sorry, Damn I missed your RfB ! I'm going to go read it right now, Oh CONGRATS :)...... - FlightTime (open channel) 23:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Could you please move this draft?

Could you please move Draft:Cyclone Idai to the mainspace, over the redirect? Cyclone Idai is a currently active system that had killed over a hundred people in southeastern Africa to date. NoahTalk 01:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Revdel request

Can you please revdel this revision EFD wasn't working and I had to compare different versions of commonsettings.php. Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 21:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Please be aware I have suppressed it as it includes passwords to your backend. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Shit, thanx for the catch, forgot about that, it's been awhile since I dealt with those files, thanx. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-14

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Changes later this week

  • Notifications tell you about things that happen on the wiki. You can turn on notifications about new links to pages you created. For performance reasons you can no longer get e-mails about this. [2]
  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 2 April. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 3 April. It will be on all wikis from 4 April (calendar).

Meetings

  • Recurrent item Advanced item You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 3 April at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

16:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Sock mass page moves

Greetings Amanda. A confirmed sock has gone and done a massive number of page moves [3], I was wondering if there was a way of undoing their moves automatically at all? Regards --Kzl55 (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Sadly, there is no easy way. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
@Kzl55: (talk page stalker) would you like help moving the pages back? --DannyS712 (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
And actually there is a way to make it easier - try User:Danski454/undo-move.js and go to [4]. Next to each move is a "revert" button to move the page back. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
@Kzl55: I've reverted all of the ones that weren't already moved. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
@JJMC89: they also moved some drafts to mainspace that haven't been reverted. Should they be? (1, 2, 3) --DannyS712 (talk) 00:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
They created those. If a NPR (or other experienced editor) wants to draftify them under the usual guidelines, I have no objection, but I'm not going to move them back. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712, JJMC89, and DeltaQuad: Really appreciate your help, saved me quite a bit of time doing them manually. I am happy to draftify the articles linked by Danny if there are no objections. Regards --Kzl55 (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi. You might want to take a look at your log entry here, specifically the rational for deletion. Just an fyi, --DannyS712 (talk) 05:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Script doesn't know how to handle multiple deletion criteria. Thanks. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, but apparently twinkle didn't work in this case either - new log entry: G8: Subpage of a deleted or non-existent page - G8 is correct, but its a talk page without a subject page, not a subpage. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 05:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
No, that was a human error, but i'm not going to undelete and redelete for similar meaning. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
@DeltaQuad: okay, just wanted to let you know. --DannyS712 (talk) 06:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

SPI

Can you take a look at this SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arsi786? You checked this suspected sock on an SPI earlier[5] but it is possible that your check was limited. ML talk 13:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I reran the check solely on KamranHassanUK, I'm confident no socking is going on. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding access to acc tool

I had applied for access to acc tool, a week ago but I haven't got any response on that(its mentioned on the application page, that if my application is rejected I will get a mail or if it's approved a message on talkpage!), you are one of the tool admins. So I thought to ping you and check with the things, if I am missing on something or the response time for such requests would be more? thanks and regards. QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 15:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

We did start discussing your application, but just hadn't gotten far. I'll poke it again to refresh the discussion. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019

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)
I know I'm late to the party, but my congratulations (or commiserations!) on the new role. Thehelpfulone 22:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, glad to see you around! -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RexxS/Bureaucrat chat

I've opened a bureaucrat chat for a current RfA. Your input would be most appreciated at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RexxS/Bureaucrat chat. Best regards, Maxim(talk) 22:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

April
... with thanks from QAI

Thank you for speaking up there for me and other women! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
For your incomparable tenacity in defense of truth and righteousness. Mona.N (talk) 04:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Careful with hats

Not sure if it was wise to personally action the removal of a case request about a bureaucrat discussion in which you participated. I appreciate it wasn't an exercise of discretion given the clear view from the Arbs, but I think there was a conflict in you clerking that request and it ought to have been left to an involved clerk. WJBscribe (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I can see how it could have been perceived incorrectly. One of the benefits of being a clerk is that you don't have to read full Arbitration Case requests, or other material for that matter. How I had skimmed over it at the time was that it was solely about Maxim (as the only listed party). That's why I didn't step back from handling it. Had I noticed that, I would have handled it differently. I will pass this onto the clerk team to review and maybe offer some best practice advice. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Catalonia International Trophy

Hi, I see the above article was deleted today. I have no issue with the deletion reasons, but I do feel the content itself could justify an article (there are equivalent in other languages) or at least incorporated into another on the same theme (which is one of my current areas of interest). It looked fairly sound to me although I would obviously endeavour to make sure any gaps in sourcing etc were addressed if I was re-adding it to some extent in my name. If you could send me the text prior to deletion that would be great, thanks. Crowsus (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll just restore it, have no problem doing so, and you can have at it. (Also for licencing reasons it should just be restored) -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
You have been working on Wikipedia for long with all A+ edits from so much back in contributions. I even hope to contribute and serve to Wikipedia like you doing so well. Best of Luck❤️ 
Manupriy Ahluwalia (talk) 09:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

NPOVEditor2345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Hello, AmandaNP/Archives. 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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by CorbieVreccan (talk • contribs) 22:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Rama Arbitration Case

Just so you know, the mass message you sent out skipped User talk:GB fan (log entry) --DannyS712 (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

About WP Permission

@DeltaQuad: Hi, hope you doing well. I just wanted to know if one make copyright violation by mistake or in either and requesting for reviewing Permissions but yes that fault stops the way, how to overcome it.I wish to get your reply.Manupriy Ahluwalia (talk) 10:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I do not understand what you are saying. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 13:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

fwiw...

I think it is really unfair for you to archive all the cases, Kidding aside, good work! --qedk (t 桜 c) 12:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Lol it feels like I only do it like once month. Need to up my edit count :D. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019

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)

Request for further investigation

  • I had requested a SPI here, which resulted in finding another related account and my doubt stayed unresolved. As I edit on mrwiki and enwiki, Behavioural/content/themes evidence tells me strongly that they are related.
  • As user संदेश हिवाळे is blocked on enwiki, there is very little technical information available about that particular account. So, I thought I should approach someone who has CU access everywhere and can look into this. (संदेश हिवाळे, Vijay bramhane, Mahendramisal) Seems to be related to each other. Would you be able to help me in this regard? or tell me where I can confirm this. QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 17:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • As an Ombudsperson, I do not have the ability to checkuser everywhere, that's only afforded to the Stewards. I can only use my tools while working for the Ombudsperson commission. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
    DeltaQuad, ohh my bad, I missed it, thanks for the help anyways. QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 13:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac's UTRS request

Is there a reason why it was removed or am I missing something here? CoolSkittle (talk) 02:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) It was bogus. As in, not posted by Legacypac but by some troll. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh ok. UTRS trolls sure are annoying. CoolSkittle (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

NPR clerking

Hey Amanda, I noticed that you've declined quite a few NPR requests due to those who had requested them not having had enough CSD and/or Draftspace experience. I don't mean to second guess your decisions (and of the most recent batch at least two of the requesters seem to not only lack experience but to have actively misused CSD and draft moves) but we currently we have a massive backlog to get through at NPP and I'm wondering whether a lack of CSD or draft experience should be a dealbreaker for granting the permission to otherwise good candidates. Speaking for myself, I don't think I had used CSD at all before I was granted NPR, and I doubt I had very many edits to draftspace. signed, Rosguill talk 01:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Rosguill: I'll start by directing you to this discussion. That explains my basic ideals around why I'm so harsh on NPR applicants. That and I've seen a number of articles created by sockfarms of paid editors where the sourcing looks good at glance, but is completely faked. Therefore we need someone who understands policies very clearly to prevent that sort of stuff. But also as I mention in that discussion, our pages are top indexed by google. One fuck up could mean some international attention, like faking deaths that I remember was in international news a few years ago. It's not only bad for Wikipedia, but bad for the article subjects. Now CSD/Draftspace is not the only thing I look at, and if someone has autopatrolled, or some other evidence that shows they know policy well enough, I'm willing to consider that. But it is rare you can find evidence that someone understands the majority of policies outside deletion policies. In fact, deletion policies combine all other policies on what is and is not permitted on Wikipedia and are very comprehensive for that reason. Often I find my first issues with someone when looking through their CSD/Draftspace history (which are the two main functions of NPR). So when I don't see that, and especially since AFC/Draftspace is a separate application system, I see it as the safer way for them to gain experience by declining them. I do understand there is a backlog, but it's hardly the only backlog, especially when we are at 3.4k AFC articles needing review also. All this to say, it's my primary deal breaker because the system is so fragile. I hope this starts to explain why I go the way I do. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. I agree that the baseline requirements are too low, although I'm not sure how to feel about the fact that I almost certainly should not have been granted the permission when I was. This is a discussion to be had on a more public forum, but it seems like we would benefit from having some sort of trial run system for people who want the permission––I remember making some mistakes my first week or two, but was able to get on track within a month. signed, Rosguill talk 02:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I understand the nervousness with that, I have it about the standards at RfA too. But as you note, this is better as a wider discussion. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Rejected submission -Draft:Timeline of Westward Television

I see that you have rejected an article that I have created and left a note on my talkpage informing me of this. I don't understand why the article failed thebasic principle for stand-alone lists so if you can tell me why on my talkpage I'd be most grateful. Rillington (talk) 02:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi DeltaQuad, Greetings, I was the one who moved the article to draft space. I had a lengthy conversation with User:Rillington and User:This is Paul regarding the article and the move on my talk page which you could find it here - Draft:Timeline of Westward Television. Editor also created about 30 similar type of TV Timeline articles - see HERE. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
That is correct, and the reason you placed it into draft was due to a lack of references which I corrected and this was acknowledged. However the article still ends up getting effectively deleted and I do not understand why given that all of my other broadcasting timelines have been reviewed and approved. The timelines I have created continue to be added to and improved as more information becomes available and just last night I found a new source for information about Westward Television. I would be grateful if you could tell me either here or on my own talkpage why you rejected my article, and advise me as to what I can do to ensure that the timeline is seen as good enough to become part of Wikipedia. Rillington (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I keep talkpage discussions in the same place, and don't move them around, so I'll respond here. A lot of the articles I'm seeing that you have created fall under what wikipedia is not. When you list histories of television companies, it can be properly summarized in the parent article, as directed by MOS/IINFO. Furthermore, items in SALs are supposed to be independently notable to meet all Wikipedia criteria as outlined by this synthesis of policy, and that's why it's also recommended that the overall subject has been discussed in reliable, independent sources. I could see keeping around Timeline of television in Wales as History of television in Wales, but the other ones that are tied to individual companies are not appropriate. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. What I would say in response is that whilst you might not think that these timelines are appropriate for Wikipedia, the wider Wikipedia community has no issue with them as all of the others have been reviewed and approved and others have made further additions to them. Rillington (talk) 03:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
That's a classic argument not to make when talking about deletion, and isn't valid. You do not address any of the concerns and policies I've listed, nor even attempted to find policies that counter it. Though I appreciate the ping in your notifying other users. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I made this argument because I believe you are using guidelines to back up your personal view regarding these timelines. The timelines show how the company/organisation developed and include information which is not contained in the subject's history section. They also contain reliable independent sources. Rillington (talk) 04:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
People have tried to tell me I have random biases on a lot of things, like permission granting policies, but on timelines would be a first. Until I see some actual policy arguments, i'll leave this be. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't think there's any bias in Amanda's decision to reject this, and I think she's acted in good faith. Somewhere, and a while back, I asked about policy regarding timelines (though I can't remember where now) and was told we don't really have anything that covers them specifically. Lists would be the closest. I've done a few of these, though not for regional television companies. I have suggested the possibility of merging some of them, particularly the smaler ones that don't have much information. The idea of reorganising them into a history of would be a solution. This is Paul (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree. Some History of TV in X country would be a perfect summary and I'd have no issue with. (You could likely find more sources and critical discussion too). And ya, there isn't one specific policy on them, it's a combination of several larger policies that make this, which could be used to synthesize it's own policy page. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I've merged the information contained in the Westward timeline into the TSW timeline so the Draft:Timeline of Westward Television can now be deleted. This is Paul said on his talkpage that this is a good solution. Rillington (talk) 23:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • This is not a solution. It's subject to the exact same arguments I made before. But I suppose now an RfC is required to create a policy for this to be seen. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I suppose what I mean is that it's a solution for that particular article and the discussion surrounding it. I think a policy would be useful as there are lots of timelines on different topics and having some guidelines could help to keep them better organised. A WikiProject might also be a good plan. The name WikiProject Timelines is already in use but seems to deal with a slightly different subject matter. This is Paul (talk) 08:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment in wrong section.

At Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Evidence#Requesting there is a comment by GoldenRing in Winged Blades of Godric 's section.[6]

Also, are we supposed to have subsections in the comments sections? While it isn't being abused in this case, I can see a potential for subsections being used to give one editor's comments more prominence. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I have addressed your first concern already. And no, comments in subsections are not particularly helpful, and given the direction I've received from the committee, I would modify ones that were particularly disruptive or point making. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Keep up the good work. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Kitty sees all your hard work, and appreciates your dedication.

Sario528 (talk) 12:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

wow

down to a crat blank! I sure I hope I havent started something! JarrahTree 14:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom statement length

I cut my statement to under 500 words, but I get the feeling you meant it should be edited down in some other way. I'm not familiar with ArbCom cases, and I don't see an archive of previous requests—what do you recommend? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

That part is not a requirement, only the 500 words is. The reminder was just meant to indicate that no further diffs of evidence were need, as that is meant for the evidence stage. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

DQ Bot6

Thanks for taking on this task. The first runs look good but can you explain to me what the criteria is for referring a file for human intervention ? Although its the same code DQBot seems to have flagged more for review than I recall RonBot doing. That is only my impression not an empirical assessment. Nthep (talk) 08:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

The bot will decline if:
  1. It is part of a potentially free image category (list on this page)
  2. There can only be the edit that adds the template, and the new upload has to be the immediate revision before that. If not, it declines. (Since the bot wasn't running for over a month, this is likely the reason)
  3. If there are over 105000 pixels, it declines
Those should be the only conditions. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks - makes sense. Nthep (talk) 13:48, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
@Nthep: Given the 1.3k files to deal with this morning, I updated the code to ignore bot contributions. Can you spot check a few that were processed today? I think they should be fine from what I saw. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I'll take a look. Nthep (talk) 10:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I've spot-checked about 50 and didn't find any issues. As the enquiry from MJL below shows the bot is doing what it should and flagging possible grey area files. Nthep (talk) 12:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Questions about word count and SPI

Hey, a couple of questions, if I collapse my existing replies, does it count in the word count or not, I do not intend on commenting anymore unless someone replies to me, but I'm mostly asking for future reference. Secondly, we could use some help at SPI, in particular, there's some annoying histmerges and neither Cabayi nor me can get around to them, so if you have time, you could come by the old shack. :) --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Arb Stuff: Normally it'd be removed, but like I said, i'm not going to take action as long as it's your last comment. Clerk discretion.
SPI: Sure, just list what I need to look at. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Here's a few to deal with:
Thanks for all the help! And also, since I didn't exactly get your answer. I meant as in if I {{cot}} {{cob}} my comments, does it count in the word count (I'm probably being stupid but I have no clue and I thought I'd ask). --qedk (t 桜 c) 11:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
@QEDK: I should be able to get these later today. In the future, ya it would likely still count in the word count, but as I noted here, I wasn't going to enforce it. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Majorily screwed up, but all done by me or others except Vjardin2. Have to figure out what is going on there. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Criterias

Hey Amanda, basic criteria for NPR is very easy to achieve. Could you tell me all criterias? Thanks If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{u|Masumrezarock100}} to your message, and signing it. Sincerely, Masum Reza📞 08:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Could you update on the matter please? Thanks. Masum Reza📞 19:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Masum, most of us look holistically when evaluating request for permissions. Currently on your talk page NinjaRobotPirate and Swarm are talking with you about other recent issues that you have had. These are basic issues of competence with Wikipedia and maintence, that if you're having trouble with, means that it'd be unlikely for you to get the new page reviewer permission from any admin. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

DeltaQuadBot 6 (question)

The bot just tagged this as needing a human to review. However, I agree with revdel in this case and don't think a human needs to review it. What should I do? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually there is an issue the bot correctly points out. You have labelled it both as a free image and a non-free image. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
@MJL: Although you've correctly identified the copyright status of both the objects depicted and the image of them i.e. your freely licenced image of some copyrighted objects, this mix and match is very difficult to program a bot for as there are so many possible combinations therefore the bot errs on the side of caution and asks for a human review. As someone who does a lot of the reviews I'd much rather have that then everything go unchecked. Nthep (talk) 12:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
@Nthep: Oh gotcha! Thank you both for addressing my concerns! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

UAA reports

Haven't seen any DQ bot reports at UAA the last few days, so giving you a heads up so it won't be three months like last time. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Thanks, I switched frameworks and screwed up some of the code that sent all UAA/BOT postings into the trash can. :D It's going back through the other days now. I've also now removed all holding pen code. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Awesome. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

I'll do my best to remember that CU blocks aren't just for keeping the socks at bay. Rivselis (talk) 04:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

IP block

Hi, you recently blocked 98.162.170.103 and what appears to be IP hopping on the same article/talk page for the same changes for an IP with a matching ASN has arisen from IP 24.252.174.130. As the prior block referenced an Arbcom action which I am unaware of, rather than an SPI case, I am uncertain where to report this activity. It seems incredibly unlikely not to be IP hopping considering the ASN and context, yet I was criticised by Mathglot for saying anything about the likely match without first creating an SPI case. Naturally, considering the work in starting SPI cases every time an IP hopper changes address would end up with us not bothering to get any of them blocked. Equally obvious is that if the 'Arbcom aware' case applies, then any related edits from IPs or socks should be removed. Advice on how best to proceed appreciated!

As a courtesy I have left a note on the IP talk page. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Fæ, just to be clear: I wasn't criticizing you, more the opposite. If you look again, I said, "You can state a good-faith reservation about the comment (as you did above)." (diff). I also acknowledged that you were not the one that removed IP's comment in the first place. Clearly, if that IP is a sock, the comment may be removed per TPO, but until that has been established, WP:AGF applies, in my opinion. Mathglot (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in responding to this. I did block someone, but it was not referencing an Arbcom action. ANI is fine as a place to request blocks for any form of block evasion, as it will process there way faster. Also, just to clarify, checkuser blocks can be made for multiple reasons, not just because a block is involved. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

ARBCOM procedural question

Hello Amanda,

Are archived talk pages presentable at ARBCOM, or are diffs mandatory? François Robere (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

You can link to any discussion that has been made in the past. The only thing that is prohibited is trying to make a personal statement only (and not show anything about the case) with a link. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
So if I provide a relevant a thread and want to highlight a particular comment within it, I can do it with a quote or time stamp instead of a diff? François Robere (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
My advice is that a diff would be the best to show it, as reading a whole discussion on top of everything else is a lot for an Arb. Remember this is not the evidence phase. If you do quote someone, you do need to attach a diff. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

New pages reviewer

Hi there Amanda,

I can understand why you rejected my application for NPR perms, but I just wanted to know what sort of things I can be doing to get my application accepted. You mentioned CSDs and draft space editing - what else is there to give me the right experience for being an NPR? It would be great to get your thoughts, as I'm hoping to reapply once I pass the 3-month milestone. Thanks for your help (and consideration) - OliverEastwood talk 23:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Normally I write a long paragraph explaining why, but I'm just not having the energy to do that tonight. Basically anything that shows me you 1) Have a knowledge of Wikipedia's inclusion policies and 2) shows you are applying them properly. Whatever you do end up doing, there needs to be a significant quantity of. I would normally recommend at least 50 CSDs or AFC reviews, but 100 is closer to my comfort zone to granting it fully without a trial. It may be also useful to go back through the approved applicants and see what they have to help answer this question. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Holocaust in Poland

Hi, I have some fresh idea on how to deal with the conflicts like the one that is currently being discussed. If you grant me a word extension, I can propose it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

[7] -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
May I be granted a word limit extension to respond to the above? François Robere (talk) 10:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019

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

Administrator changes

removed Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

removed 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)

Bot is making typos

Hi, just wanted to point you to this WP:UAA/BOT edit, in which your bot made a couple of typos, "similiar charecters" for "similar characters". Nyttend (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Fixed -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Your BRFA

Hello DeltaQuad, your recent BRFA (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DeltaQuadBot 6) has been approved and you may commence normal operations. I've requested at WP:BN to have the sysop flag set to indefinite. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 13:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Rollback

In response to my last request for rollback, you said that I had issues identifying vandalism and with edit summaries. I am still unsure about the issues with identifying vandalism, but I think that I have resolved the edit summaries concern. If I understand correctly, the issue was that I was using a default STiki revert message for good faith edits. After discussion with ToBeFree, for whom I am very grateful, I realized that I could modify the edit summaries. I have since done some STiki-ing with manual edit summaries: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], and [23]. Could you confirm whether or not these address your concern? If you don't have time, I completely understand. Thanks, StudiesWorld (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

🙂 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
My primary concern is in which cases would you use for rollback, and which you would not. It is fine to use no summary in clear cases, but in unclear cases a summary is required, and likely rollback shouldn't be used. Can you tell me which ones you would use rollback on and which not? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
DeltaQuad, based off of the link numbers, I would most likely use rollback on 24 and I might use it on 14, 15, or, 23. However, those last three on unlikely. Thanks for your time, StudiesWorld (talk) 10:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I would  Use rollback on: 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 22, 23, 24, 26
I would  Not use rollback on: 11, 12, 17, 19, 20, 21,
I would Not sure. on: 25
-- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
DeltaQuad, thanks for the advice. I really appreciate your time and help. I'll work more on improving my accuracy before applying again. I have one question remaining: Would I be correct to assume that it is better to err on the side of not rollbacking and manually reverting when in doubt? StudiesWorld (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, AmandaNP/Archives. 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.TheSandDoctor Talk 03:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019

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

Administrator changes

removed 28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam1 • Flyguy649 • Fram2 • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe
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) 21:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Question about file deletion

Hello, DQ,

I thought I'd try to tackle the hundreds of files at Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old needing human review. I followed the instructions, pasted the code, bypassed my cache but I'm not seeing the rescaled tab. I have several user pages with Javascript but when I clicked on the link, it brought me to User:Liz/vector.js where I pasted the code. Could you check the page and tell me if you see anything wrong with it? I'm not sure what the problem is.

I understand you aren't editing much so no rush on this question. I just thought I'd tackle the mass o' files. Be well, Liz Read! Talk! 01:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Liz: There's a % missing. You have multiple version of the same script there: lines 2 and 5. I'd remove the first one if you fix the second one. You should see 'rescaled' under More when in the file namespace. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, JJMC89. I thought I just cut and paste the code that was on the category page. I'll double-check and see if I can find the missing %. Liz Read! Talk! 00:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, I cut & pasted the code in your diff link into User:Liz/vector.js and when I saved the page I got an error message. Some day, I'll get this right. Liz Read! Talk! 00:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
@Liz: you have multiple errors in User:Liz/vector.js, including on the very first line. Notice the red x's on the line legends. Also, these scripts will load in addition to the ~35 scripts you have at User:Liz/common.js so if things are a bit awry you may want to try disabling some other scripts while you test. — xaosflux Talk 00:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
This is what happens when you don't know what you are doing. There were over 200 files that needed deletion and I thought add some code I'd try to help but it's clearly not going to happen. I just have added scripts over the years as I came across them and I don't remember what each one does. I remember going to some admins .js pages after I passed my RfA and just copying their scripts. Maybe I'll just the delete the pages and start from scratch. Frustrating. But thanks for the advice. I just need A-B-C instructions. Liz Read! Talk! 01:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
@Liz: You removed '); from the end of the first line. I think everything should work it you restore that bit. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Fixed for Liz. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I still am not seeing the rescaled tab, Oshwah, even though I've cleared my cache and even rebooted my computer. I just will have to leave this work for another admin to tackle. Thanks for trying to help. Liz Read! Talk! 03:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Awesome Kong

Hi DQ. You deleted the target yesterday as WP:G6. Not sure what was there, but I've recreated it as a redirect to Kia Stevens since the deletion left a redlink on a large number of pages, there was no discussion I could see at WP:RM or the target talk page, I can't see other uses which would need a DAB, and it's questionable whether the target should be anywhere but under the current name since she has appeared worldwide under different ring-names and is currently referred to under her real name in a bunch of mainstream media owing to her presence in GLOW (TV series). ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 12:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Hydronium Hydroxide: @STATicVapor: had tagged it {{db-move}} and that's why I deleted it. I don't like making the moves myself and thought it would have been done already, but either way I have no opinion on the recreation. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I did not get the chance to move it yet. However, I still think Kong is the common name. This will go to WP:RM probably. StaticVapor message me! 06:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, AmandaNP/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 19:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC). 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.

MrClog (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam 2/Bureaucrat chat

I've opened a bureaucrat chat for a current RfA. Your input would be most appreciated at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam 2/Bureaucrat chat. Primefac (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

UTRS

Hi User:DeltaQuad,

I would like to drive your attention to Ticket:2019080110001198 am sure you would help to assist the query.

Thank you --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 05:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I had noticed the issue earlier last night and again tonight. The issue should be fixed and they can refile. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Email

Hey! I sent you an email regarding ACC on July 29. Could you take a look at it? (Just a friendly reminder.) Kind regards, MrClog (talk) 10:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I think I already know the answer, no need to reply. --MrClog (talk) 11:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Did anyway. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 15:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
And I sent a reply to your reply :-). --MrClog (talk) 07:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't want to be impatient, but just a reminder as you may have forgotten about my email. --MrClog (talk) 11:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019

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

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
  • The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

    Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Indent on my RfA post

Hi Delta Quad - just wanted to thank you for indenting my "Neutral" post after I'd switched to "Oppose". I realized from the report at the top of the page that I was showing up,in the "Dupes" column, but wasn't sure what to do - didn't want to delete the earlier post, but didn't know how to take it out of the "Dupes". (My lack of editing skills wasn't helped that I was simultaneously trying to figure out that problem, on a wonky old iPad, while watching Scooby Doo with my son. 😀 ). Thanks again, Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

No problem. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I've sent you mail!

Hello, AmandaNP/Archives. 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.

Long time no chat

Amanda, if God is real, then how come peecha chakka no wookie boonowa tweepi, solo? Ho ho ho ho hoooooo.... I hope you're doing well... please stay in touch. How can I reach out to you like I used to be able to? TS? Do you visit that server often anymore? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019

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

Administrator changes

added Bradv • Chetsford • Izno
readded Floquenbeam • Lectonar
removed DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

removed Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

removed Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

  • Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
  • The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Chris.Sherlock/Letsbefiends unblock request. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

About the full protection on the 9/11 redirect

Greetings Amanda! I'm not sure why my request was archived by bot prior to getting a yes or no response (but I must admit I'm not too familiar with the RFPP habits). In light of my rationale below, would you consider reducing the protection level for the 9/11 redirect, perhaps to ECP instead of full protection? — JFG talk 16:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Quote from archived thread at WP:RFPP:

Unprotection: No apparent reason to fully protect a simple redirect. — JFG talk 22:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Note: @JFG: According to the instructions above, you should have asked the protecting admin, DeltaQuad, as she is currently active. Now done – if the notification system works. Favonian (talk) 09:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
@JFG: can you clarify what you mean given the history of the redirect being vandalized? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
What changes to this page do you envision being made that are currently blocked by the protection? Prodego talk 20:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Following a recent merger of dab pages for "911" and "9/11",[24] I was performing cleanup work on various related pages and redirects, and simply noticed that this one was fully protected. I do not envision any immediate changes to this particular redirect, but I note that the history of vandalism is ancient (2009–2010) and mostly by IP editors. The page was re-protected on 11 September 2011 "out of respect",[25] perhaps as a precautionary step on the anniversary day, given there had been no recent vandalism at the time.
Examining the history more closely, I realize now that unprotection may be excessive, as it has been tried earlier in 2009,[26] but in the spirit of keeping our encyclopedia open with the minimum required level of protection, I believe that ECP would be sufficient in this instance. Note that somebody on the talk page already wondered why this redirect was fully protected, noting that the redirect article September 11 attacks is itself only semi-protected. — JFG talk 20:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I have reduced it to ECP. Semi can easily be evaded for a proper vandal, and ECP didn't exist back in 2011. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Great, thx! — JFG talk 20:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

UTRSBot

Hi,

Is there an issue with UTRSBot? We've had plenty of requests coming through on UTRS in the last few days, however UTRSBot hasn't been posting? Indeed, since July it's only posted 3 times?-- 5 albert square (talk) 05:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there is definitely an issue. I have to code another partial replacement, but have not had the time of day to sit down and do so. I'll see if I can do so this week. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 13:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
If there's a JSON API somewhere that exposes the same information found at User:DeltaQuad/UTRS Appeals, I could write something to post it. This would take that part of the weight off of you - and JSON being easy to work with, if the next person running a utrs bot gets hit by a bus, they're easier to replace, without requiring direct UTRS developer intervention. You wouldn't really even need to add authentication to a JSON endpoint as it's intended to be posted publicly. SQLQuery me! 00:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
@5 albert square: I apologize. I thought this was a user talkpage issue, not the master table was actually down. It has been fixed. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
No worries, the bot appears to be doing some reporting today.-- 5 albert square (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

DQBot at UAA

I hadn't been monitoring UAA lately and I guess nobody else knew to tell you that DQB hasn't been making reports there for a while. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Thanks for letting me know. I should eventually move this to a shared project and have multiple people with the ability to restart it, or create a web tool for it or something. My SPI part was down too. They are going to take a bit to recover, but once they do, I'll try and get them in a regular cycle ASAP. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

WikiMedia, UTRS, and global renaming

Hello, DeltaQuad. When I try to log in to WikiMedia, i get thos message, There seems to be a problem with your login session; this action has been canceled as a precaution against session hijacking. Please resubmit the form.

When I tr to log in to UTRS, I get that message, a 500 error, or am logged in as Dlohcierekim.

When I try to rename, I'm told I lack access.

Can you help?-- Deepfriedokra 11:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I've tried to mediate the issue by renaming you directly in the database. Has that helped? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Fram RfA

Did you mean to remove Reaper Eternal's vote here? – Joe (talk) 07:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

For fuck sakes...no I didn't. Thanks for pointing this out. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

If you are going to clerk the RfA, perhaps a comment like this one may be applicable for removal as well? I don't object to people opposing and describing me as unfit to be an admin and so on, but I think "pathologically compulsive negativity" clearly crosses a line. Fram (talk) 08:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Already hit that one on the head before reading this, trying to get everything I can as I have limited time. Feel free to point out anything else I may miss. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, an editor asking "was this the thing that got oversighted" is perhaps a problem?[27] If not, I will reply (since my statements were made long after the reban, not at the time the editor was active), but I guess it's better if the question gets removed (revdel or oversight) and a friehndly word spoken to the editor instead? Fram (talk) 08:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Fram! A user asking another user if an edit (which is now hidden from public view) was them adding a certain comment or them performing a certain edit or action is not problematic in itself, no. So long as nobody is being uncivil or making personal attacks, and the questions and thoughts are for legitimate reasons and purposes (such as good faith efforts to evaluate a situation, process, or user on project-related processes), editors are free to ask and to speculate to an appropriate and reasonable measure. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Okay. I didn't doubt that Wugapodes made a good faith edit, but it seems strange that associating the same label to the banned editor in this way is not a problem. Fram (talk) 09:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Fram - It depends on the situation and the user's intent. If a cookie jar disappears and nobody saw what happened to it, it's okay for someone to legitimately ask, "Did you break the cookie jar?" Similarly, it's okay to speculate within reason and say, "I think the cookie jar was broken." It wouldn't be okay if I pointed my finger at you and said, "Fram, you broke the cookie jar!", or asked you questions or made speculation with the intent on harassing you or causing disrepute. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I get where you're coming from, and I'll drop the issue, but I'm a bit torn between two scenarii. If you would say "Fram is not only a bad admin but also a double murderer", then it would be good if this was revdelled, but if someone then asks "did Oshwah really call Fram a double murdered", then that question should remain as well (which is the point you are making). If on the other hand you said "Fram is not only a bad admin but he is the same as notorious troll DeathtoWikipedia from the facebook group "HappyWikiPuppies", then you would be outing me and it would again need revdel; but while it would then be allright for someone to say "Oshwah should be blocked because he tried to out Fram", would it be acceptable if they said "Oshwah should be blocked because they tried to out Fram by saying that they are the same as DeathToWikipedia"? I don't think repeating e.g. outing in such a way would be acceptable. And I'm not sure if the current situation, which is at first sight closer to the first than the second scenario, but where serious (perhaps not sufficient, but to the point) evidence has been given to support the statement, is not closer to the second in that regard.
Anyway, just wanted to explain my reasoning, no problem if you agree that the question can remain. Fram (talk) 09:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Whatever harm was mitigated with the original oversighting is now being re-introduced by the speculation and commentary about it. –xenotalk 12:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Fram, Xeno - I'm going to recirculate this discussion and your thoughts back to the OS team for further input and discussion. Fram, I completely see where you're coming from with your viewpoint, and I'll admit that I felt conflicted when writing my argument in response to you above. While I think reasonable questioning and speculation will undoubtedly exist in general, this is obviously a situation where determining exactly where "the line" is in regards to being acceptable is important. The right thing to do here is to take this to the team and come to a consensus regarding its acceptability and (if applicable) its visibility. I hope that you both know and understand that I'm doing everything I can in order to be helpful and (above all else) make sure that we do the right thing. I'll get back to you as soon as I can about this... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I don't think that you (or Wugapodes or me) did anything wrong, certainly not deliberately, but I wasn't completely comfortable that what we did was right either, or how best to handle it. Fram (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Fram - I agree, and no problem; always happy to help. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
At the risk of prolonging this, I want to say that I support whatever decision the oversight team comes to with regards to my question (and if the page history is anything to go on, it seems a decision has been reached). It's not an easy situation, but I actually like when my comments are refactored in good faith. Having said that, on a more philosophical level, the major concern that led me to ask the question the way I did is that I worry about suppression being used to prevent adequate community oversight, especially after the WMF and ArbCom have kindly given the community the chance to perform its own oversight as we requested.
Whether a revision is deleted does not change the fact that the revision occurred. If the community is trying to make an informed decision, claiming that suppressed diffs cannot be used to show behavioral patterns and also claiming that questions regarding the specifics of that behavior just binds our hands. Taken to its logical conclusion, suppression would give carte blanche to bad actors because as long it's suppressed we cannot hold the actor accountable for their actions. I am not saying that is what has happened here (I choose to believe no one was acting in bad faith), rather, I worry that the combination of not being allowed to use secret evidence and not being allowed to speak frankly about the behavior that led to the evidence being made secret weakens the ability for the community to perform adequate self-governance.
At a lesser extreme, as has been seen in this situation, we are forced to use doublespeak which frustrates our ability to evaluate the severity of a complaint and determine how much weight on it. If we insist on being strict with oversighted material, and that is a reasonable position, we cannot be surprised if the power forfeited by the community is usurped by institutional forces like ArbCom or the WMF. I believe the community should have the ability to discuss matters of great concern without being forced to use doublespeak, even if we would not normally speak so candidly about oversighted material. Moving forward, we'll all need to reflect on the balance between privacy, community oversight, and institutional authority, but I respect that others may and have come to different opinions on how those ideals should be balanced. Wug·a·po·des​ 20:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Hats in numbered lists

I didn't vote in this RfA, but I did notice that you said in a few places that you weren't allowed to use Template:Hat anymore. Have the rules for clerking RfA changed, with regard to collapsing people's comments? Airbornemihir (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Simply, that if I do use it, it will throw off the entire numbering of the vote. Special:Permalink/918147653 -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I think there’s a way to do it if you define the next number in the list, but it’s really more trouble than it’s worth (if an earlier vote gets indented, etc.). Moving to talk page is fine. –xenotalk 22:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019

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

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

  • As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

ACC Interface

Just wanted to let you know, in case you didn't realize it, that your "homepage" link at https://accounts.wmflabs.org/team.php points to DeltaQuad rather than User:DeltaQuad. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 01:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

DannyS712, I sent a pull request to fix this, and some of my information - see: [28] SQLQuery me! 20:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Global watchlist - Update 1

Updates associated with DannyS712's Global watchlist script:

General announcements
  • Management has migrated to phabricator; to report a bug or request a feature, please create a new task with the script's tag
  • Message translation has been reduced; for common messages that are already translated in mediawiki core, the system translations are used, in order to reduce duplication of efforts
Recent additions
  • New pages are shown at the start of a site's feed
  • Log entries are shown at the end of a site's feed
  • Basic validation has been added to user settings, applied before saving
  • Site validation has also been added; a site (excluding unique projects like wikidata, meta, commons, etc.) is considered to be valid if it is the form of "language.project", where both the language code and project name are valid. It does not, however, check that the actual site is valid; only that it could be. In other words, even though sco.wiktionary refers to a site that doesn't exist, it is considered valid, because sco is a valid language code (sco.wikipedia is a working site) and wiktionary is a valid project.
Announcements
  • BREAKING CHANGE: Backwards compatibility supporting the use of sites as *.*.org (like 'en.wikipedia.org' or 'meta.wikimedia.org'), deprecated in version 1.7.5, will be removed soon; all sites should now be saved as *.* (like 'de.wikinews' or 'fr.wikisource')
  • BREAKING CHANGE: Storing user sites as window.GlobalWatchlistSites, deprecated in version version 1.11.11, will be removed soon; all settings should be stored in the window.GlobalWatchlistConfig object
  • Both of these breaking changes will be implemented alongside version 4.0; until then, any use of the config page (m:Special:BlankPage/GlobalWatchlistConfig) will result in saving settings in the newest format
Next release

Version 4.0 should be released in around a week. It will include the new features mentioned above, as well as removal of backwards compatibility for settings and sites.

I've sent this first message to users that participated in the discussion at m:Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Watchlists/Revive Crosswatch tool or otherwise shown interest in the script. To subscribe or unsubscribe from future updates, see the distribution list.

Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Global watchlist user script: About • Updates • Code

COI edit request from behind a blocked IP range 7-OCT-2019

Hello! There is an edit request at User_talk:158.169.40.9 from a user who is behind an IP which you had blocked last year. I understand that requests from blocked users may be disregarded, but was unsure how to proceed when the block is on an IP range, and not on a specific editor. May I answer the request? Please advise. Thank you! Regards,  Spintendo  12:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a potential proxy, so if your willing to take responsibility for the edit, go for it. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Just curious

Why was the RfA of RexxS sent to crat chat, and the RfA of Greenman (with a higher support/oppose ratio, and rising for the last days) not? I haven't seen an RfA going up from 50 to 61. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I was also curious if you had considered sending this to a wider discussion. What weighting (if any) did you apply to those whose sole oppose rationale mentioned COI editing but failed to actually provide any evidence of controversial edits? I found these to be particularly unconvincing and indicative of a pile-on. –xenotalk 22:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

So next question: could the crats decide they want to chat about it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I don’t think there’s precedent for that. Certainly a closing statement at least was indicated here. –xenotalk 22:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
So next question: even without a precedent, could the crats (or one crat to begin) say that the unique RfA might profit from more eyes? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I mean, sure, yes, with my bureaucrat hat on: I think it would have benefited from a bureaucrat discussion. However if DeltaQuad doesn’t want to send it there, I respect their decision but suggest a detailed closing rationale be provided. –xenotalk 22:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm also surprised at the quick closure given the circumstances. I'm aware, Amanda, that you commented on the talkpage of the RfA that you were not in favour of a vote to extend the RfA, but I'm not sure how aware you were then or at the close of the exceptional circumstances of this RfA. A comment as to your thinking on the matter, and the rationale you used to dismiss the circumstances would have been useful. Indeed, it still would be. An indication, at least, that you were aware of the circumstances and decided to disregard them, would be something. I can't recall any RfA in which people were talking strongly as to how it should be closed early because it was such an obvious fail, that then turned around to climb within a few points of a crat chat. We've had an RfA recently pass successfully at 64%, and this one in a matter of days climbed from under 50% (I think it was at 48%) to 61%. I don't think the candidate should be an admin, but there were plenty who did so, and out of courtesy to them some comment should have been offered. Also, it would be useful to 'Crats in the future to have some rationale to refer to in deciding that a reverse of direction and strong climb in the last few days due to positive arguments used in an RfA does not count as "exceptional circumstances". SilkTork (talk) 23:12, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
To come out strongly against an extension, and then making your very next edit to be closing the same RfA on the minute ... the optics aren't great. –xenotalk 23:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Optics are all about how you view something, not what it actually is. There was a picture that I saw a while back where someone showed two different angles of a picture. The front on angle showed something like several fingers up in the air. The second picture, from a side angle made it look like he was giving someone the middle finger. If you plaster the second photo on the news and social media, then ya, "optics" will never look good. There was 16.5 hours in between those edits, and include me staying up and watching Chicago PD and Fire along with doing some very heavy lifting on essay research and note collection for my courses right now. That and I stayed up till like 7am specifically for work so I could make money. That's why I didn't make any other edits in between that talkpage edit and the close. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Sure, but for a bureaucrat to be seen to be impartial is sometimes just as important as actually being impartial. –xenotalk 00:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
With respect, no. The person is or is not impartial, based on facts. We don't ban someone from the encyclopedia for looking like they are going to be a problem, same with potentially problematic CUs or ArbCom members. 'Looking' impartial is appeasement of the public for what they want to hear. Wikipedia is here for diverging viewpoints, not turning into a political circus like some ArbCom proceedings have. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
The person is or is not impartial, based on facts ... 'Looking' impartial is appeasement of the public for what they want to hear. is surprising to read. Avoiding the appearance of impropriety isn't about appeasing the public, but reassuring them. Crats should be seen to be impartial so that editors have no reason to question their impartiality, so that editors are confident in the process. – Levivich 02:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
We are getting way too deep into theory. I commented in line with policy, just like the admin who closed it. I did not express a vote, just an interpretation of policy before it spun out of control. And then yes, hours later after I woke up, I closed the RfA on time. If someone wants to dig that far into it, that's their choice. I watched the RfA week long, even clerked at other parts of it. I'm not using a bias. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I’m sure that you feel you have been impartial. I still think it was a mistake for you to close the RfA on your own under these circumstances, as there are other bureaucrats who had not opined so directly in the discussion that could have done so. Being a bureaucrat requires a different skill set and approach than being on the arbitration committee. Could you please write your closing rationale into the RfA? Thank you. –xenotalk 05:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
For greater certainty, the mistake I feel was made here was in relation to the opinion being provided on the extension, and then being the one to close it on the minute. Sending it to a bureaucrat discussion is a distinct topic and I do not feel any mistake was made there, though I would not have taken the same approach. DeltaQuad, I've been contributing while time-limited and distracted, and some of my comments may be coming across harsher than I've intended (including one unintended word choice I found at BN). Please accept my apologies for this. –xenotalk 03:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I came to ask why Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Greenman does not appear to have a result, just a 'silent' box-close. My recollection is it is usually stated to be 'successful', 'unsuccessful', or 'no consensus' (sometimes with more added as a closing rationale, which I take it some of above are asking for). Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
    @Alanscottwalker: the very first line of that page says: The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. That "closed as unsuccessful" wasn't typed in doesn't seem to be confusing to the reader. — xaosflux Talk 23:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, it is normal convention to type it in, but it's still rather obvious. For another example this year, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/JJMC89. — xaosflux Talk 23:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Xaosflux, Eh, look again at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GermanJoe: "Closed as successful by Primefac (talk) at 23:57, 5 October 2019 (UTC)" is precisely the type of note I was expecting but Greenman does not have it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • (some of these may have ec'd each other) - I agree it is the modern convention to type it in to the wikitext. It was typed in to the edit summary as well as using the template though (see Special:Diff/920938087). — xaosflux Talk 00:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I put it into the template that gets substituted, and apparently it didn't make it to the final. I mean it does say "did not succeed" at the top of the page, but I can make it clearer. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, especially with 'did not succeed' it has come up before, was that one unsuccessful or no consensus (and perhaps withdrawn too) Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC) (I should add, thanks for your time. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC))
  • I am building a statement for the talkpage here, not ignoring this, please give me a bit to do so. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to compare this RfA with a previous RfA. The numbers at the end of the day only give an idea, not determine the direction something should go.
My assessment of this RfA is that it was unsuccessful. There is mention of the COI issue, but that is not the only issue that plagued the oppose section of this RfA. Looking at the COI opposes, a lot of editors comboed their opposes with comments about other things. Amoung this: answers to questions, questions of suitability and ability to respond with a thought out explanation in line with consensus, and concerns about article development and deletion all were flagged. That said, I also looked back through the support section, and found a lot of supporters dismissing the COI issue or just giving a generic support. In fact, some people in support even said they were concerned by some of the things noted in the oppose section, but not enough to sway their weaker support vote into an oppose.
As for how this RfA went from below 50% to a last minute resurgence of support, it still had the standard 7 days. If we had left it open for a longer period of time, there would be concerns that we were trying to bake the numbers to show more support. There was no new issues presented before the last few days of the RfA that made it important to keep the debate going. It's simply people finding the time to vote. If we held every RfA open just for people to vote, we'd never close them. I get that things statistically flipped. But you also see this type of thing happen at the start of an RfA. It starts out all as supports before people start finding reasons to oppose. Some might make an argument for a snow closure in favour at that point. The point is, regardless of where it occurs, statistical flips occur in every form of vote (!votes and votes). Closing them early because of it, or closing it late because of it only increases the level of bias in determining the canidates success or failure. We don't close ArbCom votes or Steward votes early or late because of this. Same as political elections in the world beyond the internet. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Can you address why there wasn't a discussion among crats about having a crat chat before this was closed? – Levivich 02:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I didn't take it to BN as I felt the consensus was clear enough. Barring a requirement, I had no reason to. I can't speak for other crats if they were concerned why they didn't post a thread on BN about a chat being needed. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I note, Amanda, that you are taking the line that this was just a run of the mill RfA. Yet there are a number of people here on your talkpage who are querying your close. Is that run of the mill, in your experience, for a RfA which closed at 61%? And, in a RfA where there has been talk of leaving it open for a little longer than the minimum seven days, in which you dismissed the notion of keeping it open, why did you close it over two hours early? Given your involvement in this RfA, in which you had expressed a view that it should be closed, was it wise in the circumstances to close it earlier than normal? Your impartiality in this RfA is in question here as it could be viewed that you were not the person best placed to close this; and it is particularly unfortunate in the circumstances that you closed it early before another Crat could look it over.
Your argument that closing at a specified time is the most appropriate way of achieving consensus is not how I see us arriving at consensus on Wikipedia. I don't see it as about completing the discussion within a fixed time; I see it more about ensuring that people have a fair chance of putting their views across. We often extend discussions if consensus is not clear, or discussion is still ongoing. It is generally regarded as inappropriate to close a discussion too soon - that is when discussion is still ongoing and the matter has not yet reached stalemate. There were 26 votes in the past 24 hours, 18 of which were for support. This was still a discussion in which people wished to take part, and in which the majority of new votes were pushing for support. I didn't feel the candidate was appropriate for adminship, yet I could see the value of keeping the discussion open to establish a consensus. We run Wikipedia by consensus, not by fixed (or arbitrary) time limits or by the word of law. If the wording of our policies hinders fairness or progress, we don't stick by the word of the policy - we are a wiki, so instead we change the wording to meet the intention. In this case, I don't see that the wording nor the intention called for a strict seven day to the minute close, let alone an early one. SilkTork (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
@SilkTork: Preliminary reply: I did not close it early. This says "Scheduled to end 20:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)", and my diff is noted at 20:56. That's a minute past, not two hours early. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I was basing the two hours early on the time stamp of the nominator which shows to me as "12:12 pm, 5 October 2019", and the time stamp of your close as "9:56 pm, Yesterday" (12 October), so it appeared to me to be two hours short. But I now see that there were votes starting at 10:27 pm, 5 October 2019, so the 12:12 pm time stamp of the nominator has led me astray. I apologise. I think there were some errors in setting up the time stamp which has resulted in the nominator's statement being timed as pm instead of am (at least on my browser). SilkTork (talk) 13:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
There are 3 people here who are concerned about the closure. Not sure that qualifies as "a number of people". I don't have much history to go on, as the community only lowered it's consensus mark earlier this year, but Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AmericanAir88 was closed no consensus/unsuccessful in August at 57%. As I noted above, I closed it on time, not two hours early. I closed it after I was up for the day and made it to my computer. My "involvement" in this RfA was making a note of how I would handle things based on existing policy. I did not believe it clouded my judgement even in the slightest. If I thought it did, I would have stopped, it's why I don't run CUs on RfAs I clerk now, because I am a crat. If you want, I am absolutely happy and willing to face the music of the community and my fellow crats with a post at BN. If I did truly do something wrong, it can then be overturned there or I can be trouted or disciplined in what ever matter needed.
I have read your viewpoint here, and while I can see where it comes from, I disagree from an RfA standpoint. It's one of the most hostile areas of the wiki. We have had several timed RfCs where it has said it will close on X day such as the ACE RfC, 2012 PC RfC, Office actions RfC, and I'm sure more that I am done dumpster diving for. If you think I've still stepped over a line, like I said, please do take this to BN. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I posted at WP:BN#Greenman RfA. (Not that I think you stepped over the line.) – Levivich 04:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
DQ, I only asked why, remember. You say "I felt the consensus was clear enough", I say the same, but we reached different results. If I was you I'd just revert the close and let someone else do it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm not asking for anything more here than a reflection on the incident. I think it prudent in such cases to offer an explanation of the rationale given the circumstances (which you have now done, though placing it on the RfA at the time of the close would have been better, and that's something I'm sure you'll consider moving forward). I also think, given the circumstances, that the Crat who opposed the idea of extending the RfA should have considered the reaction of the some parts of the community if they were also the one to close the RfA, particularly with a such a strict timing. I want to reiterate that I personally feel the candidate was not suitable for the role of admin, however, I prefer to see consensus unfold and reach an appropriate outcome than simply achieve what I want. As regards the issue of was this your average Joe RfA that should have closed on time - I think we're probably going to have to agree to differ on that. Indeed, it might be a matter for an open discussion, perhaps via a RfC (when things are more settled in a few months time), on what sorts of things could be considered to be "exceptional circumstances" in an RfA, such that it could be considered for extension. SilkTork (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I've posted a rationale and definitely will consider posting one next time when it's closer to this number. Would like to avoid more of the drama beforehand. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for posting it. –xenotalk 18:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I waded here somehow, but just want to lend my support - I think your close was proper. Historically, very few users with <70% support become admins, and I can't find any with a lower tally than RexxS, which was quite unusual (there may have been one or two more awhile back, I don't remember, I looked at the stats a couple of hours ago.) Perhaps a "crat chat" would be worthwhile here, but with all due respect to the candidate, it would be historically extraordinary if anything changed. SportingFlyer T·C 09:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Just wanted to say I fully support and endorse your closure, Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 12:49, 13 October 2019‎
  • +1 and fully support your closure. More at BN. Lourdes 14:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Also fully support the close. What's the point of having a specified discretionary range if we're going to start regularly ignoring it? And @Xeno: given that you were quite vocal in supporting this RfA and arguing against those of who opposed because of the COI editing, is it really appropriate for you to suggest to your fellow crat how she should weight the votes you disagree with? For a bureaucrat to be seen to be impartial is sometimes just as important as actually being impartial and all that. – Joe (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
    Joe, I don’t think I supported the RfA and asking someone to substantiate their claim is not “arguing against.” Nor did I ask DeltaQuad to weigh the votes the way I would have, merely asking them to elucidate their thought process, which they’ve now done. I support DQ’s closure. –xenotalk 18:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Joe, before people go off track here, the concerns raised were in regard to Amanda closing without a rationale given the circumstances. It's not about the "specified discretionary range", it's about the timescale and the guidance given that seven days is a "minimum" (not a maximum), and that 'Crats can decide to extend longer in "exceptional circumstances". As part of that discussion was that Amanda commented in the RfA that she was not in favour of such an extension, so there was a query as to was she the Crat best placed to close this RfA, particularly as it was not overdue for closing, so there was an "appearance" of possible bias. Amanda has explained that as she saw and felt no bias - that she was closing normally, she didn't consider there was a need to make that clear to anyone else. As for closing as unsuccessful at 61% - of course. I don't think there's anyone who is saying that is an inappropriate close. It is a) lack of rationale, b) appearance of potential bias, and c) closing strictly on time that are the concerns here. And these have now all been addressed by Amanda. SilkTork (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
SilkTork - you mention "appearance" of possible bias. when it comes to Amanda's close - yet I don't see you mentioning "the appearance of possible bias" when it comes to the COI editing issue. Also saying I don't think there's anyone who is saying that is an inappropriate close. might be a bit of a stretch given the comments here and at WP:BN, but admittedly you do preface that with "I don't think there's anyone", so perhaps that's a subjective review of the situation. — Ched (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Well I agree that some people, such as myself, were concerned that a prompt close was made by a Crat who had indicated they didn't see the value in keeping it open, and that there was no rationale given for what was a non-standard RfA, however my take on the discussion here (I've not looked at BN as I'm satisfied with Amanda's response) is that folks are not concerned about a close of unsuccessful at 61%. It was closing on time when there had been discussion about extending it, without making a statement about the close, that appeared to me to be the focus of the discussion on this page. SilkTork (talk) 02:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@SilkTork: I have to disagree. Gerda's original question was why wasn't there a crat chat, and xeno followed that up with I was also curious if you had considered sending this to a wider discussion. – Joe (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I can't speak for Gerda, but my take on their comment was in regard to a 'Crat chat to discuss extending the RfA because the swing was still upward, rather than discussing the possibility of passing the candidate at 61%. SilkTork (talk) 02:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I thought I was clear enough. I would have liked this - with a COI accusation that could not be substantiated - to have gone to crat chat. I accept your afterwards reasoning, Amanda, but would (obviously) have weighed arguments differently, which is fine. Peace? - Just what can we do to not have the same 11-year old copyvio and alledged COI come up in Greenman's RfA2? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
​"At this particular time stamp I'm not seeing that it would be valid to keep this open beyond the standard seven day minimum".1 Lourdes 05:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, at that particular timestamp it looked like the swing toward support had stalled, but after that it continued upward again. We don't know how the RfA would have ended if it had been kept open, though I suspect it wouldn't have reached pass level. Amanda applied the strict sense of seven days as that in her view is the best way of deciding a RfA. There are many who agree with this approach. My view is slightly different, as I feel the procedures are here to serve us rather than we serve the procedures. Amanda's approach is strict and firm so there is a uniformity which gives a clear standard. My approach is more fluid and flexible to accommodate the situation. It's a difference in philosophy, and I cherish the range of approaches within Wikipedia - that is the strength and beauty of our project, and why we favour having discussions when outcomes are unclear. Of course, the point at when a discussion becomes appropriate can at times be blurry, as was the case here. SilkTork (talk) 09:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I supported both Rexxs and Greenman, and I think I was in that small minority who supported lowering the discretionary band to 60%. But I can recognise when consensus is against me. I'm OK with this close. The rally in support from under 50% to 61% was very unusual, but I don't see it as being late enough and steep enough to justify an extension or a crat chat. If the post close conversation was dominated by opposers saying that they regretted not having the opportunity to reassess and go neutral or even support then things would be different. Instead we have some of the opposers hoping that the candidate will come back to RFA at some point next year. I wish that people were more willing to support those who they thought were good candidates but who weren't quite ready. But we are where we are, and in the circumstances it was a valid close. ϢereSpielChequers 11:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Recent edit on my talk page

Hi, out of interest could you tell me what was the username of the editor who left a message on my talk page and its content (which is now removed)? Thanks :) JACKINTHEBOX • TALK 05:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@JackintheBox: Sadly, I can't tell you the username, otherwise I would not of removed it. They are blocked if that helps. The content was drive by trolling, if you want to know the exact words, I can tell you that. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks :) JACKINTHEBOX • TALK 06:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@JackintheBox: per your edit summary, "Dear Jack-Box, Your username is COPYWRITE TRAP!" was the content. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Do you think the Michael Johnson1212 who also left a message on my talk page is a sockpuppet (possibly of the hidden user)? JACKINTHEBOX • TALK 06:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Ran a CU, came back unrelated. That said it's definitely interesting the they were about the same thing. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, AmandaNP/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 16:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC). 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.

Vanamonde (Talk) 16:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I've replied. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, AmandaNP/Archives. 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.TheSandDoctor Talk 17:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Retired?

I am both shocked and saddened to see your notice and the corresponding request to hand in your various tool sets. Please take whatever time off you need and come back. Your long term departure from the project would be a hard blow. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, please come back. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I am too. Are you sure you;re not overreacting? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

  • I am sorry to see you go, Amanda. Best wishes, and I hope after some time off you'll find yourself wanting to come back. --valereee (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I and many others will miss you. Thank you for all your service. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I do hope to return to the project some day (though that is not a promise). I'm going to be around, my bots are staying and I'm still working globally, just not on enwiki at this time. I took 5 days to consider stepping back alone, so it wasn't a spur of the moment decision. I'm glad that I've created good ideas of me, and that you want to keep me around. Thank you. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Your greater experience in some areas has been very helpful to me during the period we were both on arbcom. I want in particular to note this because we did not always agree; but without you I would have found it much more difficult to understand the issues. I remain grateful, and hope to work with you again whenever. DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Despite my deep disappointment with the current Arbcom, I recall you being a wise voice in the past and regret that you find it necessary to retire. I hope it won't be for long. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Sorry to see you go. You have always been a pleasure to work with. Good travels to you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I only just noticed this now, and also want to say thank you for the many significant contributions you've made to this movement, to wish you well in your retirement, and also to hope we see you again when the time is right. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Just saw the news, sad but enjoy the break my friend! Thehelpfulone 21:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, that news hit me like a sack of bricks to the head this morning. I will be very sorry to see you go, Amanda; your skills and experience have not only been invaluable to the project but inspirational to me (and, I suspect, many others). I strongly hope you'll make a return to en-wiki soon; you will be much missed. Yunshui 雲水 08:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I should have posted earlier. As others have said, you're missed. I hope you find it possible to come back sometime. I enjoyed working with you on ArbCom. Doug Weller talk 09:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Just saw this and it is a great disappointment. You have been a sensitive, reasonable and skillful contributor and "official". I know nothing about what may have caused this but I am sure you are not doing this lightly. I hope you just need some time for other activities, projects and rest, and will return. Best wishes. Donner60 (talk) 04:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Amanda, I've said this to you what must be a million times, but I'm repeating it now: You are a Star. Do whatever you need to do to ensure you're healthy and happy, and know that your wiki family will be here waiting for you when you're ready to return, my friend.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Cup of tea

Mint tea
I'm vaguely aware of current issues and haven't looked into excatly what happened, but I thought that I'd say hello. I felt that you were friendly when we've talked on a few occasions. I support people taking breaks, and I hope that you're able to relax. Best wishes, ↠Pine (✉) 03:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Twelveth anniversary on en-wp

Hey, DeltaQuad. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Date sort problem in SPI case list

At User:DeltaQuad/SPI case list, which is transcluded into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, the date format of the "timestamp" columns is non-standard, and (understandably) cannot be made to sort correctly (I tried the three relevant values of data-sort-type). How about switching to a standard format, like "2019-11-09T23:39Z", which will sort correctly?

Before
timestamp
Nov 01 20h11 UTC
Oct 28 14h10 UTC
Nov 06 16h11 UTC
Nov 08 13h11 UTC
→
After
Timestamp
2019-11-01T20:11Z
2019-10-28T14:10Z
2019-11-06T16:11Z
2019-11-08T13:11Z

—[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I see that this is currently used only as a backup, and the normally-used list does not exhibit the problem. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
@AlanM1 and Dreamy Jazz: I have fixed this issue so it sorts correctly. If your interested how, drop a look at the source. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays!
May your winter holidays be filled with joy, laughter and good health. Wishing you all the best in 2020 and beyond.

--Cameron11598 (Talk) 21:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Amanda!!

Hello DeltaQuad: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, TheSandDoctor Talk 08:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message
From my family to yours, I hope that you have a wonderful Christmas holiday and a Happy New Year! --TheSandDoctor Talk 08:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Belated holiday greetings

Merry Christmas and happy new year.
↠Pine (✉) 16:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AmandaNP/Archives/2019&oldid=1045023743"