User talk:QEDK/Archive 12

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


A barnstar for you

The da Vinci Barnstar
For your help finally modernizing the Main page for mobile users across the world everywhere. This page has been seeing around 3 million hits a day on mobile web and thanks to your work pushing for the technical change these millions of users can finally enjoy the content that has been deprived of them for more than 8 years. May this be the start of many changes in the mobile-sphere! Jdlrobson (talk) 04:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@Jdlrobson: Thank you for all the work you put in. --qedk (t 愛 c) 09:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

QEDKbot 2 approved

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/QEDKbot 2 has been approved. Happy editing! --TheSandDoctor Talk 06:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks TSD, that was quick. :) --qedk (t 愛 c) 06:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).

Administrator changes

added CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth
removed Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

removed SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo THSschool.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Logo THSschool.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

QEDK Bot

Hello, QEDK,

Another thing about your bot. It needs to skip dated maintenance categories that have just been created but have not been used yet. Examples are Category:Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files as of 2 June 2020 or Category:Proposed deletion as of 3 June 2020. These dated categories do not show up on Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories so that bot has found a way to skip them.

For me, it would be ideal if the bot tagged maintenance categories that are empty AFTER their date because then they would be eligible for deletion as unused categories. But before the date, they could still be used.

Thanks again for your bot! Liz Read! Talk! 19:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Liz: The issue is that these categories don't use any standard templates to signify that it can be empty (such as {{Pec}}) which is not a good way to create these categories. If it's created and not meant to be deleted, it should possibly be signified, I'll hack a fix ofc but this is just an idea. Also another note, the bot now informs category creators on tagging. --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Bot doing wrong

Here - the bot is routinely adding a speedy delete template to a category that does not meet criteria for speedy delete. Kingsif (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: I've fixed it for you, redirects don't work like that in the Category namespace, so the bot was doing fine, yeah. --qedk (t 愛 c) 16:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

More QEDK bot

Hello, QEDK, I am concerned with all of the empty WikiProject cats that QEDK bot tagged over the last week; many of these are part of established article sorting structures (the mainy thousands in the "by importance" and "by quality" category families being the most important); these are of course critical to WikiProject functionality even though they may be empty part or most of the time, and until now, WikiProjects have not needed to put the {{empty cat}} template on any of them to prevent deletion. Any way that you could please roll back these tags by the bot before these cats are deleted and many, many WikiProject problems ensue? I am also VERY concerned that there is not any page that logs the pages to which the bot applies speedy tags, similar to User:UnitedStatesian/CSD log that I use for such tracking and to other pages used by many users (including you!), and am concerned that the bot is not notifying the creator of each category it tags. (pinging @Liz: so these are on her radar screen too), UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@UnitedStatesian: I'll set up a fix but again, you have to understand none of these categories have any proper documentation, they don't even need the {{empty cat}} template, if the use the word WikiProject or use the classbar, it ignores them too, these were categories that were mass-produced without there being a need for them. I can get you a list of edits made but there's no way to revert automatically without using specific tools. --qedk (t 愛 c) 06:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 Fixed Code is fixed, I'll try to revert most of it manually. I had deployed the notification code (it only recently passed the BRFA for that and it's not allowed to make edits in User talk: namespace otherwise), so it should behave normally from the next run, somehow the deployment did not stick. --qedk (t 愛 c) 06:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
How about the logging of the bot's speedy tags, do you plan to implement that? And your manual reverts are quite urgent because the categories the bot tagged seven days ago are now being deleted. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@UnitedStatesian: I plan to do it soon, yes but it's not being logged yet, a wikilinked log of all the pages edited is available but it got wiped when I fixed the bot last time. I've now manually reverted all bad deletion tags (importance/quality related) I've come across. --qedk (t 愛 c) 09:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Dated maintenance categories

Hi, would it be possible to have QEDKbot avoid tagging daily maintenance categories like Category:Replaceable non-free use to be decided after 10 June 2020? These categories are all created with the {{Maintenance category autotag}} template, so they will automatically be up for speedy deletion under G6 once they are emptied. ƏXPLICIT 23:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Explicit: Thanks for letting me know, Explicit, this has been fixed in a later update, I'm not sure how many categories were affected but I've reverted the ones (and this one, now) I've come across. --qedk (t 愛 c) 05:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia featured topics categories

Hi QEDK. I noticed your bot is nominating featured topics categories for C1 (e.g. 1). If I'm not mistaken, featured topics categories are exempt from C1. -FASTILY 06:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Fastily:  Doing... On a fix. --qedk (t 愛 c) 07:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
@Fastily:  Fixed --qedk (t 愛 c) 07:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
This is still happening, [1].--十八 03:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
@Juhachi: Fixed now, it was a goddamn stupid typo in a regex. --qedk (t 愛 c) 20:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Question: Too Many Edits/Monopolozing

qedk, I have a question. Is it against the rules of Wikipedia for a user to monopolize and article and make too many edits? See: [2]. What do you think? Israell (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I want to report user BrotherTimothy. See: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8].

All those reverts made today with no discussion on Talk page. Besides, he's decided to monopolize the article. He’s reduced Jackson’s awards to 200 something from over 800 with no prior discussion. I think he should be blocked. Israell (talk) 23:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Israell: I dropped a message on their talk page, let's see. --qedk (t 愛 c) 20:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Baiting by Banananasas on the Charles Thomson Talk Page

On another note: [9]. User Banananasas has just accused me of edit-warring on the Charles Thomson page when I did not edit that page since Dec. 17th of last year... If that's not baiting, I'd love to know what that is. I am pinging Woody here since he did alert Banananasas a few times (about edit-warring and the General Sanctions on Michael Jackson articles). Israell (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Apparently, Charles Thomson (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is another article that needs to be under the Jackson sanctions. If these editors keep edit warring across the Jackson articles, I endorse a block for all of them. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I've sanctioned Banananasas for 6 months and warned TruthGuardians, protecting the articles won't do much at this point, so I've let it be. As for what you can do, @Flyer22 Frozen, Israell, and Woody: is to add the {{MJ sanctions}} template to talk pages of articles related to the topic area, while it's not what an awareness notice counts as, it lets editors know they are liable to be sanctioned (you can also inform editors using {{subst:Gs/alert|topic=mj}}). Thanks for letting me know about this disruption asap. Best, qedk (t 愛 c) 08:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020

Hello QEDK,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources
  • A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
  • Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
  • A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
  • Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

How long is the ban

I want to know how long the ban is? Arsi786 (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Arsi786: It's indefinite, and can only be appealed to the community. See WP:UNBAN - I recommend you wait for a minimum of 6 months with no infractions before appealing. --qedk (t 愛 c) 20:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Ok so for six months avoid making such edits but does this mean I can revert vandalism on topics related to these stuff or no? and after six months do I go back to the administrator page noticeboard and then make the appeal or is it in another page I have to go? Arsi786 (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
@Arsi786: All the exceptions are listed in WP:BANEX, I recommend you do not tread down the path of reverting "maybe" vandalism edits and just edit a different topic area, you can appeal your ban at either WP:AN or WP:ANI. Finally note that the ban is indefinite, 6 months is just a general appealable time period. --qedk (t 愛 c) 20:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Okay thank you for the help I also made a repeal at ANI Arsi786 (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

User: 186.34.188.183

Hi, I was wondering if you could please help me regarding this matter.

User: 186.34.188.183 has been making several disruptive edits even after being warned several times by various users.

  • In Bustamante Park: He renamed the link to the article of Plaza Baquedano with "Plaza Dignidad"[10]. "Plaza Dignidad" was a name used refer to Plaza Baquedano by some protestors during the 2019–2020 Chilean protests, the name "Plaza Dignidad" is in no way official.
  • In Lawrence Vigouroux: When refering to the citizenship of said person he replaced "English-born Chilean" with "British"[11]. In his edit summary he stated that the reason for this was that "British. He got a Chilean citizenship through his father, who has Chilean descent. Chile it's known to give citizenship to good footballers". In which way is that relevant?, even if he acquired citizenship just because "he is a good footballer" does that make him less of a Chilean?.
  • In Afro-Chileans: He removed naturalized people from the list of notable Afro-Chileans[12][13][14], stating in his edit summary the following:"People who only hold Chilean citizenship on paper because they were "bought" in adulthood by the Chilean ANFP (Chilean football federation) in complicity with the Chilean government". I created a section on the talk page of said article with the goal of discussing this, but he ignored it.

Best regards, AtomsRavelAz (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@AtomsRavelAz: I blocked them for WP:POV-pushing. Let me know if there's anything else to do! --qedk (t 愛 c) 21:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. If he continues with this sort of behaviour after the period of 72 hours should I report him in an specific place like Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? or should I just let you know?. Best regards, AtomsRavelAz (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
@AtomsRavelAz: You can do either. :) (although WP:AIV might be better suited) --qedk (t 愛 c) 05:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Possible breach of WP:GS/MJ by Bananasasas

Hi QEDK,

Hope you're well! This users appears to have been topic-banned by you from editing pages connected with Michael Jackson, as evidenced here. The user was notified here.

They have made two edits to pages in article space since being notified of the sanctions, visible as Edit #1 and Edit #2. I spotted them edit-warring with another user and pointed them both to the talk page (not realising they were under GS), where they have made 5 edits with examples at Edit #3 and Edit #4.

I believe this constitutes a breach of the topic ban and would be grateful if you could review?

Best, Darren-M talk 18:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Darren-M: I've blocked them for 3 days. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikimedia

Hello,

I am writing to you today because you write at m:Requests for comment/Should the Foundation call itself Wikipedia that Wikimedia should not be renamed. Now It is possible to take part in an official online survey until June 30th. Please take your time and save Wikimedia!

Thank a lot and best regard! --JohnDoe06.2020 (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Still more QEDK bot

Now the bot is incorrectly applying C1 tags to categories that are under discussion at WP:CFD, such as here. Can you please correct this? And related question, where to we stand on creating the log page for all pages that are being tagged by the bot? Let me know on both, UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@UnitedStatesian: I was not aware of that template so never wrote the regex to accomodate it, should be fixed in a bit. As for the logs, I'll either do it today or by month-end, the source code is available publicly, so you can submit a pull request if you want (the link is in the bot userpage source). Best, qedk (t 愛 c) 12:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 Fixed --qedk (t 愛 c) 16:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello

The meta is prefix was intentional. Some people don't like clicking links and suddenly end up in another project. I see you tried to implement it in another way, but removed it again. Anyway, the prefix method looks much better, in my view. And if you look at the history you'll see almost all the time meta links have the prefix. Thanks.– Ammarpad (talk) 06:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ammarpad: Links to internal sites are not a biggie afaik, feel free to revert me; I couldn't find a better solution, so it's up to you. --qedk (t 愛 c) 22:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Potential RFA nomination of a user

Hello QEDK, I was wondering if you would consider nominating a user for Adminship. This user is TheImaCow. This user joined 3 months ago, but during that time, this user has already made over 32,000 edits on Wikipedia. This user has contributed tirelessly on Wikipedia, and every single edit has been made with one goal in mind: to improve the quality of Wikipedia. Based on all of this, I think this user will be a great fit for the administrator position. I know that I don’t have as much experience as I would need to nominate this user myself, so I wanted to ask someone who was actually qualified to do it first. Take a look and tell me what you think. If you think they’re ready, you can nominate them if you want. Thanks! ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 16:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@ProClasher97: There's actually several steps involved in nominating someone for RfA, one of them would be the editor displaying an willingness for the role, while I appreciate you putting in a good word, it depends on the person actually wishing to take on the role. Secondly, 3 months is a very short period and it's hard to prove an user is experienced enough to take on the role of a sysop in less than a year, that's a modicum of experience imo. Hope that clarifies it! I'm sure they would appreciate you putting in a good word for them nonetheless. --qedk (t 愛 c) 17:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Although I have nothing against this, I am certain for several reasons that it will not happen. There are problems like User_talk:TheImaCow#NAC, or the fact that I've only been here for 3 months. As I read in some RFAs/user essays, it takes at least a year "to understand the policies properly (i agree with that)". and even that happens only in "exceptional cases". So, to be clear, I'm honored, of course, and there are things that speak for it, but also things that speak against it, like the contents of that message. --TheImaCow (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey

Hey, Where've you been on IRC? I've been missing our Brooklyn 99 chats! ~ RhinosF1(Chat) / (Contribs) 16:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@RhinosF1: My MacBook died. Just got set up on my desktop before it BSoDed on Friday, fixed now thankfully, should swing by tomorrow. (hopefully) Thanks for asking! --qedk (t 愛 c) 17:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Ah, see you then. ~ RhinosF1(Chat) / (Contribs) 17:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
and IRCCloud goes down. Cool, Cool, Cool, Cool, Cool. ~ RhinosF1(Chat) / (Contribs) 15:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
@RhinosF1: I thought that was funny too. xD Still down unfortunately. --qedk (t 愛 c) 16:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I'll message you when it's up unless you do WP:DISCORD. Did you like my b99 reference? ~ RhinosF1(Chat) / (Contribs) 16:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Loved it. I have it downloaded but have to reset the password first because the password is on Keychain. --qedk (t 愛 c) 17:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
:) ~ RhinosF1(Chat) / (Contribs) 17:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Article Short Description

Add this article 👉Bayan Ul Quran Short Description by Hotcat.

Short Description is 👉 " Sunni Tafseer by Ashraf Ali Thanwi " Owais Bin Elias (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Owais Bin Elias: Any reason you can't make the edit yourself? --qedk (t 愛 c) 16:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
@QEDK: I have no idea. What is hoycat! ☺ Owais Bin Elias (talk) 04:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Conflict on 'FBI files on Michael Jackson'

QEDK, there is unfortunately another conflict going on, this time w/ user ThunderPeel2001. [15] The conflict is mostly occurring on the FBI files on Michael Jackson article. ThunderPeel2001 removed great portions of the article w/ no prior discussions, and an edit war ensued. Israell (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

ThunderPeel2001 is still edit-warring. Israell (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Israell: Both of the editors were partially-blocked from the page by CaptainEek. @CaptainEek: I'm not aware if you are aware of WP:GS/MJ, but it's a useful tool to enforce editor conduct in this topic area. Also, just adding that I recently warned TruthGuardians "for the last time", so this would've been cause for an indefinite or long sanction imo, in any case, no point about imposing punitive measures, just pointing it out in case you missed it. Partial block was a good call either way. --qedk (t 愛 c) 09:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I was not aware, thanks. There are so many DS it can be hard to remember... CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 16:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
No pressure, cap'n. ​--qedk (t 愛 c) 16:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Category redirects

Hi, the bot is adding Category:Empty categories with no backlinks to category redirects, which are supposed to be empty. Is this intended behaviour? M.Clay1 (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mclay1: Yes it is! To clarify, adding the category itself to category redirects does not make those categories non-empty, the category still remains empty and instead categorized with the category you mentioned at first. Hope that explains it. --qedk (t 愛 c) 15:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I understand the categories are still empty. What does categorising them in this way achieve? Would the category not be easier to maintain if it wasn't filled with redirects? M.Clay1 (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
@Mclay1: It's for housekeeping, and while now it contains redirects, in the future it'll contain empty categories of all kinds, I'm a bit busy rn, so in a few months hopefully. --qedk (t 愛 c) 15:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Potential RFA nomination of a user

Hello QEDK, I had previously left a request on another user’s talk page back in June, and since I still have not gotten a response back, I was wondering if you could take a look and let me know what you think. They also told me on my original request for this user that they would accept the nomination if it went through. This user is Zppix. This user joined in 2014 and has since made over 20,000 edits. Back in 2016, this user applied for the position and failed to get it. I feel that since then, this user has grown considerably with their edits. Based on all of this, I think this user will be a great fit for the administrator position. I know that I don’t have as much experience as I would need to nominate this user myself, so I wanted to ask someone who was actually qualified to do it first. Take a look and tell me what you think. If you think they’re ready, you can nominate them if you want. Thanks! ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 16:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm aware of the editor, I'll do a more in-depth view if @Zppix: wants me to. What say? --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
go for it Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 02:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
So, would your review of Zppix be based solely on your thumbrules, or would there be more criteria that they would need to pass in order to be nominated? ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 22:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
@ProClasher97: Thumbrules are basically my idea of what a candidate should have, they are not a requirement and nor does meeting them mean I will nominate someone (hence, thumbrules). --qedk (t 愛 c) 14:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

A cookie a day keeps vandals away! Breawycker (talk to me!) 20:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Aye, indeed they do, thank a lot! --qedk (t 愛 c) 20:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).

Administrator changes

added Red Phoenix
readded Euryalus • SQL
removed Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

readded GB fan
removed Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Pending change reviewer

Hi could you please review my request to a be a pending change reviewer Ralphster7 (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ralphster7: I'm the third administrator you've asked to review your request this week (please read WP:ADMINSHOP). I also saw that your request for autopatrolled was denied, I think that this is when you should take a pause and focus on writing good content or making good edits, because it feels like you're hat-collecting. It's probably not your intention - in any case, I'll leave your request be for another administrator to review instead of straight-up denying it. Best, qedk (t 愛 c) 18:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

hello

I would like to share an article with you for Wikipedia . Kindly please guide me how to go about it Sarahkalidasi (talk) 07:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Sarahkalidasi: I'm unsure whether you mean a Wikipedia article or some other published piece. In any case, you can choose to post it here or send it to my email (click on the "email" link at the top). Best, qedk (t 愛 c) 08:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Category:Empty categories with no backlinks has been nominated for deletion

Category:Empty categories with no backlinks has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Recreation of Alexandre Beridze

Hello! this article is back despite being closed as delete at AfD a couple months ago. I wonder if you could look at the deleted version and tell me if it is substantially similar? it's a new account that has recreated it, unless the contribs on the deleted draft were also deleted. Thanks.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@ThatMontrealIP: It looks pretty different, there's also some conflicting information, so I really doubt the reliability of the article. --qedk (t 愛 c) 22:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
thanks. It looks very fishy, like your typical promotional autobiography.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe I've spotted a sock, but could use your input

Hey, QEDK, how's your day going? I seem to recall from your RfA a while back that you are regarded as a bit of guru in all things sockpuppetry, so I thought you might be the ideal person to help me parse a nuanced case of what I suspect is socking. I'm not sure if you are a CU, and the idea is to take this to SPI ultimately anyway, but I thought at a minimum you might be able to detect additional useful elements in making a clear determination that I could add to the filing (or in the alternative, convince me this is more innocent than it seems, if that is in fact your read). To wit:

A little over two years back, I was bot-summoned to an RfC at Alicia Keys regarding which occupations should be used to describe the artist in the opening sentence of the lead. User:Lapidite77 was quite vocal that she felt the description should be "singer, songwriter, pianist, music producer, and philanthropist", but the consensus of the discussion (via an 11-to-1 !vote) was to utilize only "Singer-Songwriter". Today, having contributed to another random RfC for an artist with a similar lead, I became curious as to whether that decision at the Keys article had led to a stable result, and went to check. Doing so, I discovered that, despite the consensus never being revisited via the talk page, all of Lapidite77's preferred terminology had been re-added into the article by a new user, User: Pompous Retail). Finding this a little suspicious, I decided to do a cursory article/contribution overlap analysis and found things increasingly suspect the more I looked into the matter:

On the most surface level, despite being on the project only five months, Pompous Retail has edited about two dozen of the same articles as Lapidite77, all in the area of BLPs relating to musician and actor celebrities--indeed, this seems to be the only area of interest for both editors, though of course that is not exactly unheard of. But getting a little more granular, both editors have a particular fixation with the occupations listed in the lead sentences for female celebrities, and there's been at least one telling additional occasion where Lapidite was thwarted by talk page consensus on such matters, and Pompous Retail later came through the article and re-introduced exactly the change Lapidite had wanted: here Lapadite is opposed by everyone on the talk page regarding whether or not the occupation "theatre director" should be added to the lead sentence for Cate Blanchett, and here Pompous Retail adds "theatre director" in exactly that context, and with a misleading edit summary to cover what is actually being changed. There's similar fixation on the lead sentence occupation list at Halsey (singer) (Lapadite77:[16], [17], [18], [19]; Pompous Retail: [20]).
There are other elements here that further increase my suspicion: without exception, in the five months that Pompous Retail has been active, whenever they show up on an article, Lapadite77 never turns up there again (timeline here), despite remaining active in the general area of such BLPs and despite the fact that her contributions to some of those articles spanned years. Additionally (and I'm going to be a bit vague on this per WP:BEANS) I believe I see some patterns in the idiosyncrasies of the edit summaries--but I'm sure you're better equipped than just about anyone to come to your own conclusions as to that, in any event.

So...thoughts? I'm pretty convinced we're at least beyond WP:DUCK on this, but given these are high traffic BLPs prone to a lot of edit warring by nature, I wanted a second opinion from a specialist before I filed the SPI. Do you see anything here which I may have missed which either enhances the concern or argues against it? Snow let's rap 23:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: It seems pretty suspect yes, but I don't think it's at WP:DUCK yet. There's three possibilities - 1) the person is using two accounts on two devices, 2) they are meatpuppets, and 3) they are unrelated. Exploring the first possibility, a checkuser would yield the result almost definitely since most people use WiFi at home but first we must have grounds for a check (I'm not a CU btw ). Now, looking at their editing patterns, I'd say that it's  Unlikely -  Possible that they are related, and that's for multiple reasons (editing hours, edit summaries, WP:BEANS, et al.), so for this to be surely a sockpuppet, it's missing a lot of the basic signatures. It's quite possible that they are aware of how to keep clean tracks having been around for years, but that's a lot of hard work (certainly possible, though). I think there is a possibility that the new account is being used to make covert edits given that there's more than one occasion where it seems to be editing via proxy, but that also leaves the possibility of the new account being a WP:MEAT. In any case, it's probably evident that the new account is not "new" since their very first edit on mobile shows that they know wikisyntax (ref tags, bulleting, ;, edit summary). I personally think a CU "might" be feasible but only a CU gets to decide that once you open a SPI. :) --qedk (t 愛 c) 08:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Hmmm, so here's the million pound question then: under the circumstances, with the behavioural pattern so mixed, would you advise opening the SPI just under an abundance of caution/because it can't hurt to request a CU and see what shakes loose? Or does it make more sense to let this one lay unless/until there is more suspicious activity? On the one hand, celebrity BLPs are well outside my usual areas of contribution (other than that a significant number of random FRS RfCs that I am called to are in this area), so I'm not likely to spot any further suspicious activity (at least not until well after it has happened), so if I'm going to bring this in for further scrutiny and take a chance on securing a CU, now would seem to be the time. On the other hand, even if there are some rather suspicious parallels in the edits that first caught my attention, I was already on the fence about whether there was enough to sustain a useful filing here--and if your more detailed scrutiny has suggested only an unlikely-to-possible finding on the basis of behavioural patterns, perhaps it would just be a waste of clerk time at present, and the matter should be left alone until there is more evidence of gaming or disruption associated with one of the accounts. In your experience with such matters, is it worthwhile to open the filing if only to have the suspicions be a matter of record in the archive, for anyone who might look into one of the accounts later? Or is this a dud that you wouldn't waste further community energy on for the present time? In any event, thank you for taking the time to review the matter and provide your insights--I appreciate it! Snow let's rap 21:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
@Snow Rise: I think there's enough to warrant a check but in case technical evidence is found lacking, I doubt there is much for a behavioural block. You could wait till you find a smoking gun and then that could be used for a block with/without technical evidence. It's possible to get things wrong but suspicions can be legitimate and you need to weigh if it's worth it (your time vs. outcome). I don't think you need to worry about community time, we have a lot of clerks and you can ping me to the case (if you do file). Either way, I don't think the case is a dud but whether you wait for something stronger or go for it anyway is up to you. --qedk (t 愛 c) 21:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Very good then--thanks again for your time! Given your feedback, I think I'll file the case just out of abundance of caution--hopefully the CU will decide there is enough here to take a peek behind the veil and potentially give us some degree of clarity, one way or the other. In any event, I appreciate the assistance. :) Snow let's rap 08:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about QEDKbot

Hi QEDK

At WT:Bots/Requests for approval#QEDKbot, I have started a discussion to request revocation of approval for QEDKbot, and reversion of some of its actions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Replied. --qedk (t 愛 c) 07:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

please fix your bot

According to the bot's BRFA:

Apparently not. In these edits, the bot added Category:Empty categories with no backlinks even though all of them have {{empty category}}, a redirect to {{possibly empty category}}:

List of {{possibly empty category}} redirects is here. I presume that the bot is also ignoring redirects to the other templates mentioned at the BRFA.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  • @Trappist the monk: Hmm, not sure what went wrong. I had shut off the bot yesterday but that didn't take, it's quite possible that the issues are related so I'll investigate, shut it off from TF-end today. Thanks for reporting. --qedk (t 愛 c) 15:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Trappist the monk: I added the new types of categories and it seems that I forgot to incorporate all the skip templates in the newer block, fixed now. Thanks. --qedk (t 愛 c) 06:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

QEDK, bot owners are supposed to respond to problems. Instead you reverted[21] my post[22] which set out the problem, and abused the edit summary to made bogus allegations of forum-shopping and malice. That sort of response to a genuine complaint about a genuine problem is not compatible with WP:BOTCOMM's requirement that

Bot operators should take care in the design of communications, and ensure that they will be able to meet any enquiries resulting from the bot's operation cordially, promptly, and appropriately.

I suggest that you restore the post to demonstrate that you are running the bot transparently. Deleting an evidenced complaint is not transparent, because it misleads others about the history of the bot.

Your claim in that edit summary that "trappist said all there was to say" is untrue. Trappist did not set out the problems with category disambiguation pages, nor did Trappist note that you should be monitoring for these problems rather than relying on others to alert you. Furthermore, Trappist's post was two days ago, and the problems remain unfixed.

So far you promised to remove the category for redirects, but instead of doing that you added the category to hundreds of category disambiguation pages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Yes, but you had already written paragraphs on this exact issue on the BRFA talk page, I just don't see why we need to have two simultaneous conversations on the same issue in two different places. Now, I never promised to remove the category for redirects, what I did fix the bot was so that it works in its remit (per Trappist's quoted comment). And, as I wrote in the edit summary, it will be fixed in time, now please restrict yourself to using one page to communicate (i.e. BRFA talk page). Thank you. --qedk (t 愛 c) 07:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Not true. The sequuence was the other way around: I posted here at 00:24[23], then I followed up 25 minutes later with a post[24] at WT:BRFA where I expanded on the issues raised here.
It is still unclear what you plan to fix, i.e. what the revised code will do. Will it untag the category redirects? Will it untag the cat dabs? What is soon? (Day, weeks?) The lack of clarity is most unhelpful, esp in regard to issues which should have been resolved in trial. Instead, the bot is running in an experimental phase over the full set of categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl: The sequence is irrelevant, you posted to both places (akin to forumshopping). If you wanted to make a good-faith attempt to resolve it here, I would understand, if you made a "complaint" at the board, I would also understand, instead you did both, and that's the reason I removed it (since I wanted to address it on the "official" page). The bot won't untag anything, I will (or the bot's patrolling function), the bot is currently "fixed" in the sense that these issues will not reoccur. The bot is not currently running, so I have no idea what the last sentence means. --qedk (t 愛 c) 07:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
No, it is not foumshopping. The post here was a notification to you that your bot is malfunctioning in a way which had not been reported, so that you could fix it. As a bot owner, you should welcome such reports.
The post at BRFA was to add these issues as evidence request to BAG to revoke approval for the bot.
My position is simple: I want you to reduce the damage which your bot is doing through its malfunctions. Hence my post here.
More broadly, I think your bot is an ill-conceived menace which was improperly authorised without community consensus, so I want WP:BAG to shut it shut down entirely. Hence the two posts.
Your reply is sadly unclear on the key point: will you (or your bot) untag all the catdabs and catrdeirs? Yes or no, and when? Sorry to sound like an interrogator, but your reply can be read in many different ways. I don't cae whetehr you or the bot untag thos ecategorie: i just want the untagged and want to know whether you are going to ensure that happens.
I am sorry that the last part of my comment was unclear. When I wrote that it "is running in an experimental phase over the full set of categories", I mean "running" in the sense of "all the occasions or periods on which it has been run since it was authorised". I do not monitor the bots's contribs to check at which points in time it has been run, and you have not identified any log of its operating times ... so I used the present continuous tense to cover both continuous and intermittent operation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl: Okay then, so assume what I said is "your reports are notification enough and I don't require multiple notifications about the same issue". I do welcome the report, I just don't welcome it being prefaced with "your wretched bot" on multiple pages. That's literally what I'm saying, I don't care if it's "forumshopping" or not, I just don't want to have to deal with the same issue in multiple places. And again, to put it very simply, the bot (or me) will uncategorise catdabs and pages tagged with {{Pec}} (and "when" is when I get time to write the code or do it myself, it's a hidden tracking category, so clearly the damage is very minimal to say the least) - but yes, it will be done. Hope that clarifies it. --qedk (t 愛 c) 08:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for confirming that the you or the bot will uncategorise catdabs and pages tagged with {{Pec}}.
However, I also specifically asked (twice) about category redirects, and your latest reply has not mentioned them. (Do you see why I find your communications poor?)
As to when, there is no need to wait until you have written your own code. The removals can be done very simply using WP:AWB in bot mode. If you don't have AWB authorisation yourself, you can ask for it. Alternatively you can put in a request at WP:BOTREQ. The job list can be generated by a pair of simple Petscan queries: https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=17169380 for the redirects and https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=17169387 for the cat dabs.
I am aware that you find this process uncomfortable. I don't enjoy it either, but the reality is that you are running a bot which does not have community consensus (due to lack of pre-BRFA discussion and inadequate notification of its BRFA), and which has been disruptive, and which is and/or has been running experimental, buggy code across many thousands of pages. Those multiple factors make for a complex situation which inevitably involves multiple locations. That is the result of your choices. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl: I don't care about your opinion on the bot not having "consensus", that's an imaginary viewpoint you have made and only you alone are debating that this consensus does not exist but as I have stated multiple times, it was announced and went through the normal approval process as any other bot, the onus for consensus is thus, on you. And, for the last time, I will not be responding to your concerns on this talk page because this is just not worth my time replying to you at multiple forums when one singular place would do and no - I will not be uncategorising category redirects because that does not fall within the remit of the bot's stated functions (and would thus be considered misuse of the bot), if you show consensus exists that editors do want it excluded (if and when the current thread closes with that conclusion), I can file a change request at BRFA. I don't want to use WP:AWB or something similar to achieve the previous objective of detagging, if you want to use it, feel free to but that's again, your choice and I will do it in the way that I prefer and know. Final point, I don't care that you find my communications poor, so you needn't tell me your opinion on them. Please put your further concerns on the BRFA talk page. Best, qedk (t 愛 c) 10:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Calling my reasoned view of the BRFA an imaginary viewpoint really is classic gaslighting. It is not the first time you have done it, and it is a vicious, bullying way to behave. Despicable conduct.
As explained to you numerous ties, in detail, the BRFA was NOT announce at any category:specific page, even tho BRFA requires that it should be. So it does not have a valid consensus. And at the CFD, nobody supports keeping it.
And after your usual disgusting conduct, we finally get the answer that no, you will not be untagging the category redirects. That contradicts your answer to @Marcocapelle at CFD,[25], where you said that the latest update would fix the overlap with Category:Wikipedia soft redirected categories.
However, right now Category:Empty categories with no backlinks contains 55,685 pages, of which 53,346 pages are also in Category:Wikipedia soft redirected categories. That's 96% redirects.
So your "fix" has not removed the overlap, and Marcocapelle has been misled. If you did not intend to deceive, then please withdraw your reply to Marcocapelle. (If you don't withdraw the comment, I will take that as evidence of intentional deceit). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).

Administrator changes

added Eddie891
removed Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

readded SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Sock puppet accounts

You said drop a note here if any of those sock puppet accounts I sent became active again and that came soon as Special:Contributions/2.127.78.222 just made another round of edits. TKOIII (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@TKOIII: Blocked the /23 range for 3 months. --qedk (t 愛 c) 20:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
They're back again, this time at Special:Contributions/90.195.58.193 TKOIII (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
@TKOIII: Re-blocked. --qedk (t 愛 c) 12:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
They're back again at Special:Contributions/90.195.51.28 TKOIII (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Dealt with by Ponyo. --qedk (t 愛 c) 15:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
They're back again at Special:Contributions/2.123.50.133 TKOIII (talk) 23:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
@TKOIII: Blocked for 3 months, range seems mostly empty. --qedk (t 愛 c) 14:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

you have no right to block me just for making simple edits, they are perfectly acceptable and valid and it does NOT go against anything, if a car was made and sold in a decade, then the appropriate category must be there, it looks clumsy and incomplete without it, users expect it to be there, whoever made those ridiculous rules needs to quit Wikipedia forever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.218.87.53 (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

They're back once again under Special:Contributions/2.121.242.153 TKOIII (talk) 05:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
@TKOIII: Reblocked by Materialscientist. --qedk (t 愛 c) 10:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

PLEASE listen to me and learn something from this, these are extremely important edits that MUST stay there, it does NOT go against anything, it is 100% valid and acceptable to include them, they have always been there and there's no need to get rid of them, people browsing these pages expect them to be there, you seriously don't know how Wikipedia works, do you? also, I'm a he, not a stupid "them". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.123.51.23 (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Aramean Wikipedians

Hey, I want to check with you first if it's okay to publish Category:Aramean Wikipedians.
The "Assyrian Wikipedians" are denying my core existence, even as an officially recognized independent minority (Arameans in Israel).
I know you are busy, but I hope we could solve this issue.
/ Peace and respect. Josef1987 (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

October 2020 GAN Backlog drive!

-- Eddie891 Talk Work 12:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).

Administrator changes

added Ajpolino • LuK3
readded Jackmcbarn
removed Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM
renamed There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

How to stop a user from making false edits

Is there anyway to stop user 174.253.65.34 from continuing to undo and revert the edits done by many so that the false information he keeps setting it back to can be stopped? This Wiki has been factual and correct for years until now.. but the mad man keeps going in and reverting the page back to false information 2 or 3 times a day now no matter who changes it back and he's been doing it for months.

I am referring to the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warner_Archive_Collection — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8A20:5530:AC8E:950C:FD47:7B06 (talk) 03:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

EFH icon

Hello QEDK, I saw that you made made File:Wikipedia page mover.svg. Would you be willing to create a svg version of File:WikiFilterLogo.png. I'm the one who put it together via formally as JudeccaXIII. I have a mac, but mac computers do not support svg. Png files also do not produce same same high-quality as an svg. I can email you the filter if you need it. Thanks. Jerm (talk) 04:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) "mac computers do not support svg" - are you sure? Inkscape is available for macOS. Cabayi (talk) 12:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Inkscape is available, but that doesn’t mean mac supports svg. When a svg file is saved from the internet to a Mac computer, it’s automatically converted to a png and the quality drops. Jerm (talk) 13:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
That's weird, I've been using a MacBook Pro for well over 2 years and never noticed this, and only switched to Windows recently. I'll take a look tho. --qedk (t 愛 c) 15:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Well that was easy

A KSM thing. Suffusion of Yellow (talk)

LOL, I knew I had seen that user somewhere. SPI filed. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Damn, I didn't know it was KSM thing. Good catch, SuffusionSuffusien of Yellow. --qedk (t 愛 c) 13:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Pablo Paredes Arratia → Pablo Paredes

This page move you closed is incomplete; the talk page is at Talk:Pablo Paredes Arratia and Pablo Paredes Arratia is now a redirect to List of Iraq War resisters#Conscientious objectors for some reason?! GiantSnowman 11:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I don't think the RM was incomplete, it was a pageswap after all (and was done with a tool). The current talk page is at Talk:Pablo Paredes and the article is at the COMMONNAME as well. It seems that the original target was a redirect, that's all. I think it can/should be redirected to the current COMMONNAME, I've just done that. --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Suspected Topic Ban evasion

Hello. Will you please look into the edits of these two SPA accounts 1, 2 ? I think these two accounts are related to this user, who was once blocked for disruptive edits and later topic banned on Michael Jackson. You will notice that these accounts made the same and similar edits that the topic banned account has.— Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Akhiljaxxn: Good catch, can you file an WP:SPI report and ping me to it? I'm kinda sure that it's them but it's best to be definitive. --qedk (t 愛 c) 07:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Update Wikipedia:General sanctions/Michael Jackson page on Bananasasas?

Should the page be updated to note that Bananasasas is now indefinitely blocked? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh, never mind. I see that he was blocked for six months. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Frozen: It wasn't a GS action so I left it as-is - I also thought of indefinitely topic-banning but I don't feel comfortable doing that, per WP:NOTPUNITIVE. --qedk (t 愛 c) 16:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Article Recovery Okdo2020

Hi, how are you??

I cannot find my article and I received a message stating" If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page."

I found your account on the list, please are you able to help to recover the article and I can request a review from another editor?

Many thanks, Mollie Okdo2020 (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Hokuokekai90: Can you link me to the deleted article/page you want to work on? I'll make a draft for you. You might also want to fix your signature to link to the correct account. --qedk (t 愛 c) 16:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Disruption on the Akinwunmi Ambode article

Hi! I'd like to report this user: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/103.234.38.162. They are edit-warring on the Akinwunmi Ambode article, accusing bad faith of other editors, and it looks like they've broken the three-revert rule: two reverts on the 22nd [26], [27], four reverts on the 24th [28], [29], [30], [31], two more reverts on the 25th [32], [33]. Could you please take action? Thx! Israell (talk) 07:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Israell: While disruptive, the IP did not violate WP:3RR - the fine print for the policy grants exemption when multiple edits can be constituted as one revert - the first editor's revision (which effectively took 2 edits) was completely reverted with a set of 2 edits each time, that counts as a single revert each time for the purpose of WP:3RR. I see that the editor has chosen to file a thread at WP:ANI, I suggest waiting to see how that plays out, if the editor resumes disruption, I'll make a block. --qedk (t 愛 c) 16:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Beyoncé Talk

Hi! I pinged you three days ago on the Beyoncé talk page regarding a dispute involving one editor, isento. That editor, according to me and Bgkc4444, is being belligerent in their tone, and they've now opened an RfC when one was opened just three months ago in regards to the lead of the article. If there were one more RfC, it should for now only pertain to the infobox. Some editors may oppose to "songwriter" being in the lead but not the infobox. The way the question is formulated, it could lead editors to vote "No" for the infobox just because they'd vote "No" for the lead. Israell (talk) 16:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Update: isento is now being even more belligerent, editing my own edits and attack me in edit summaries. Is it okay for an editor to alter my own edit this way? [34]

@Israell: I've warned the editor in question, editing anyone else's comments is never okay. I would like to assist further in the content dispute but I don't have enough information to take administrative actions yet. And, fwiw, I think 3 months after an RfC is a sufficient fallow period - if other people feel it's a wrong move, they'll be able to voice that in the discussion itself, and people can also discuss a moratorium on further RfCs. --qedk (t 愛 c) 21:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).

Administrator changes

removed Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

Interface administrator changes

added Izno

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Personal attack

Can you please look into this?. The user who is known to have recruited people from social media by declaring himself as an admin on Wikipedia is abusing users with the use of bad language. If possible, please upgrade the protection level of this article for admin only until the ongoing discussion is over on the article’s talk page.— Akhiljaxxn (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Akhiljaxxn: The page was protected by another admin the next day. Just a note that administrators cannot usually act on off-wiki evidence through a public forum as that constitutes OUTING (not in this case, but if you have evidence that someone on-wiki is canvassing off-wiki). You can mail the evidence via the email function to me or simpler, just contact the ArbCom. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter

Hello QEDK,

A chart of the 2020 New Page Patrol Queue

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank Username Num reviews Log
1 DannyS712 bot III (talk) 67,552 Patrol Page Curation
2 Rosguill (talk) 63,821 Patrol Page Curation
3 John B123 (talk) 21,697 Patrol Page Curation
4 Onel5969 (talk) 19,879 Patrol Page Curation
5 JTtheOG (talk) 12,901 Patrol Page Curation
6 Mcampany (talk) 9,103 Patrol Page Curation
7 DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 6,401 Patrol Page Curation
8 Mccapra (talk) 4,918 Patrol Page Curation
9 Hughesdarren (talk) 4,520 Patrol Page Curation
10 Utopes (talk) 3,958 Patrol Page Curation
Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 and WanderingWanda arbitration case opened

The Arbitration Committee has accepted and opened the Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 30, which is when the evidence phase is scheduled to close. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Workshop, which closes January 13, 2020. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. To opt out of future mailings please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Outreachy round 21: NSFW

Hi! I think you may want to take a look at WP:VPT#NSFW project for wikipedia on Phabricator under construction. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Enterprisey: Seems a bit rough. Let me see, ahh. --qedk (t 愛 c) 12:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:QEDK/Archive_12&oldid=1049912817"