User talk:Amortias/Archives/2022/January

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Administrators' newsletter – January 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).

Administrator changes

Amalthea • Ihcoyc (deceased) • Kateshortforbob • Kirill Lokshin • Rifleman 82 • Ryan Norton • Wrp103

Interface administrator changes

Mr. Stradivarius

CheckUser changes

Cabayi • Donald Albury • Enterprisey • Izno • Wugapodes

Opabinia regalis

Casliber • David Fuchs • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy

Oversighter changes

Cabayi • Donald Albury • Enterprisey • Izno • Wugapodes

Opabinia regalis

Casliber • David Fuchs • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy

Guideline and policy news

Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

Additionally, consensus for proposal 6C of the 2021 RfA review has led to the creation of an administrative action review process. The purpose of this process will be to review individual administrator actions and individual actions taken by users holding advanced permissions.

Arbitration

Following the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Cabayi, Donald Albury, Enterprisey, Izno, Opabinia regalis, Worm That Turned, Wugapodes.

Miscellaneous

The functionaries email list (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Ragnar Lothbrok (Vikings)

Hi. Was it a mirror? I didn't catch that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

vandalism by PolishBoyInUK and her puppets

From 8 januar 2022 he vandalizes and trolls [1] "PolishBoyInUK" again. His "creativity" is only harmfulness and poisonous deep vandalism. Can't such imbeciles be finally blocked? 2A01:C23:903A:8800:6161:BBB6:7C36:39FF (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

11th January 2022

Hello. I want to thank you for stopping that IP - I have already warned it on Saturday - but you did the right thing - I've seen the edits and they are beyond unacceptable

Thank you and good work - all the best!

Malmsimp (talk) 10:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

You made a mistake with reverting my edit.

I know that my edit is correct because i have the movie playing right in front of me when I made my edit. My information was taken straight from the movie. Watch the movie yourself amortias and remember the scenes of the stagecoach getting robbed by Madrid's crew, john starting a fight at the bar, and to when the survivors escape into the tunnel. There were patrons in the bar yes but they were either killed or turned into vampires, no extras were of the survivors down in the tunnel instead they were all characters shown earlier in the film. The evidence that backs up what I said is right there in the movie. In wikipedia articles for the works of fiction they are filled with information taken straight from the source but when the information isn't shown in the source (reviews for example) then we look to secondary sources. Watch the full movie then make your decision, cause i feel absolutely that your decision was rash and without any knowledge of the subject that my edit was about. 2601:443:47F:D7D0:80BB:4354:B40D:8B1D (talk) 12:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Re KCG College of Technology redirect-to-article-to-draft cycle

Howdy! I saw that you deleted KCG College of Technology as a CNR after it was draftified by Jmertel23. From reading the AfD after the page was CSD'd yesterday for COPYVIO that a redirect to Anna University would at least not be inappropriate and I was myself in agreement. With the AfD having an early end consensus was not reached towards that; however, that seemed to not have any opposition. After doing so the article was editing significant from a redirect into a non-encyclopedic article then was wholly appropriately draftified. Is there something that I can do to have a redirect from KCG College of Technology again that has some level of protection? I know that the deletion yesterday under G12 does not indicate anything about its notability, so I am not sure if my request is entirely reasonable. I guess I am more looking for a bit of guidance in dealing with a page that makes sense as a redirect and even maybe an {{R with possibilities}} but one that has been COPYVIO'd twice and has a draft, Draft:KCG College of Technology, that once again seems to be a COPYVIO from here, at least partially. TartarTorte 15:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@TartarTorte: Theres nothing I can see to stop the redirect being put in place as suggested, i cant find a valid position or previous example of a redirect being protected in this manner though. the redirect would limit the ability of the draft being "moved" back to this location but there's nothing stopping someone from editing the redirect into an article in its won right. You could request protection of the page when the redirect is in place but i don't think wed have good ground to do so (but I wouldn't argue against another administrator who decided we did as we all interpret things differently). Amortias (T)(C) 16:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

DreamWorks Dragons: The Nine Realms

Kindly restore DreamWorks Dragons: The Nine Realms to the draftspace so that any copyright material can be removed, and the specific revisions since its introduction can be revision-deleted. Thanks. -- Alex_21_TALK 14:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Alex 21:. The copyvio exists in every revision since its creation. The entire plot summary section appears to be copied from a 3rd party website (one shown as the reference for the current plot summary) and also a secondary website showing the exact same plot summary. Both of this are listed as copywrited. I could restore the article in question but the entire history would need to be rev-del'd. It'll take me a few minutes to clean it up. Amortias (T)(C) 16:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Duly noted. I mostly just needed the template layout, with the infobox and episode table. Many thanks! -- Alex_21_TALK 23:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Uganda Internet Exchange Point

Amortias,

Thanks for the consideration. Please note:

The relevant copyleft (Creative Commons) license *was* added to our website prior to the time of speedy deletion. I clearly noted this when I contested the speedy deletion in the Talk page as per Wikipedia's instructions. It appears that my objection was ignored and the page was deleted without any review.

The subsequently restored copy of our page was also speedy deleted for the same copyright violation. This further indicates that moderators are not actually confirming violations or reviewing objections before deleting pages.

Regarding content veracity: Our page's various statements make reference to other stable Wikipedia pages which make the same or similar statements (e.g. about Internet Exchange Points) as well as third party sources which are (1) credible globally and (2) credible in Uganda. Note that it can be difficult to include references to globally renown sources about Uganda's Internet infrastructure due to Uganda's relative obscurity in the global Internet ecosystem.

There are also numerous other pages related to Internet Exchange Points which make similar statements with a similar (or lesser) array of sources:

I hope it is now clear that (a) our page does not infringe anyone's copyright and that (b) its contents meet or exceed the standards Wikipedia has applied to other articles on the same subject matter.

Regards,
Kyle Spencer (talk) 11:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Tripura State Information Commission

Hi Amortias. I see that the article Tripura State Information Commission had been deleted, despite my pleas that its statutory institution guaranteed by Constitution of India. It would be of great help for people of Tripura if restored. Request you to kindly restore the same. Thank you. Gardenkur (talk) 02:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for everything

I just wanted to say a huge thank you for your help today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emiltak (talk • contribs) 21:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Emiltak: Your very welcome. Dealing with something that isn't started with an argument is much preferable. Good luck with any future editing! Amortias (T)(C) 21:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)