User talk:Fish and karate/Archive 32

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


Re: RPP comment

Regarding this comment, three editors reverting a single IP user is not edit warring by any stretch of the definition. It is incorrect to call this edit warring and the most effective response to a disruptive user on a dynamic ipv6 range is semi protection of the page. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Protection is to stop vandalism or serious disruption, it’s not intended to be a tool to ensure that logged-in editors can get the upper hand in a content dispute. The edits were not vandalism. Nor were they disruptive. Fish+Karate 04:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strange, others disagreed. But when an ip editor gets to 3rr, I'd rather see a semi pro than go to ani, personally. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Better yet, you could go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Why was the user being disruptive? I do actually look into this stuff before I hit the protect button, and while yes they have, just (by 35 minutes) breached WP:3RR, the edit they are making doesn't seem completely unreasonable or disruptive. Have you tried discussing this on the article talk page as if they were a human being, to understand why some may object to a murdered teenager being referred to as a 'black man' instead of templating them? Does it really matter that much, given that it's a throwaway line in a garbage pop trivia section that doesn't belong in the article anyway? Fish+Karate 09:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sock vandalism vs. ordinary vandalism

Thank you for putting ECP on Philip Hamilton. Just FYI... your comment indicates that you read the page history as sock vandalism, and I'm guessing that's because WP:DUCK. I've been patrolling against what I've labeled the "Hamiltrash pattern of vandalism" for almost 2 years now, and for whatever it's worth, I don't think much of it has been sock vandalism. There's definitely been meatpuppetry on the John Laurens page (which was admitted by one of the meats during a SPI, and was adequately dealt with), but the kind of vandalism I usually see on Hamilton-related pages looks decentralized to me. Nationwide, a lot of high school kids are big Hamilton fans, enough that it doesn't take sockpuppetry to account for the number of editors who add Hamilton references to Wikipedia articles. For what it's worth. Anyway, thanks again for the ECP, which has been very effective. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lwarrenwiki: I have to pick something as the reason for protection, and that was as good a choice as any :) End result is the same, article is protected from nonsense vandalism. Cheers, Fish+Karate 10:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC close on Kingdom Come Deliverance

Hi! Could you provide a brief summary of your read of the consensus at your close at Kingdom Come: Deliverance beyond it being a consensus to keep it out? PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PeterTheFourth: Hello Peter, what's happening? When there's no significant policy or guideline backing one 'side' versus the other in a binary yes/no discussion, then it basically boils down to head counting. There were only three editors participating who wanted to retain that statement in the article, and far more wanted to exclude it, even if I discount Fustos as a blocked editor. Fish+Karate 10:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind that this is just my idiot opinion, so if I make an obvious mistake let me know- if information is sourced and there's no reason to remove it, that makes it okay for inclusion. Even with more people 'voting' (head counting?) that it should be removed, I would think the onus is on inclusion unless there is an actual reason to remove it. If you see no significant policy or guideline on either 'side', then I don't see why you believe the material should be removed or see any consensus that would advocate such. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant policy is WP:ONUS which says that "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" Galobtter (pingó mió) 01:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But if I am wrong and there's a reason you read a consensus for removal - please put that in your close so idiots like me don't get confused in the future. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Okay for inclusion" does not mean "must be included". As well as a policy/guideline bar, there's also an 'encyclopedic value' bar. See Wikipedia:Relevance of content or Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. If there's no strong policy or guideline advocating one way or the other, then yes it does boil down to voting (head counting means the same thing). Fish+Karate 11:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please put that in your close at the page that the consensus you read was a vote count? PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why? To what end? Fish+Karate 07:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So people who wish to know your reasoning can see it. In the interest of speeding things up, I'll make my own comment. If you view it as unrepresentative, feel free to clarify at the page. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like to do so, feel free. Fish+Karate 09:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Many thanks for closing that RFC, I didn't envy you the task! Yunshui 雲水 10:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Yunshui: Thank you, always appreciated. Fish+Karate 10:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Wimbledon Championships – Women's Singles

Now that the real draw has been announced (and added to the article), can you unprotect 2018 Wimbledon Championships – Women's Singles now? Thanks. Iffy★Chat -- 14:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Fish+Karate 19:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 June 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2018

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

Administrator changes

added Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor
readded Gogo Dodo
removed Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes

removed Andrevan • EVula

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Miscellaneous

  • Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you update Jennifer Wingets Page.

Hey since you are authorised to update semi protected pages would you help us update Jennifer Winget's Wikipedia page. The information on the page has not been update from quite some time and a lot of new things have to be added. Ra13a13 (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on Talk:Jennifer Winget. Fish+Karate 14:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

why my request for protection of nanda parbat article was decline

hi, i should have probably been more specific about my reasoning for why i wanted the article on Nanda Parbat to be protected. yes, i'm well aware that NANDA parbat is not a real mountain. However, NANGA parbat is (notice the difference in spelling) and is located in pakistan. Unfortunately, some propagandists and vandals feel the need to regularly change the wikipedia article for NANDA parbat so that it reads that the real world NANGA parbat is located in india, which it isn't.

therefore i would like you to reconsider your declination of my request and look into the issue for a slightly longer amount of time than previously. thanks

Hi @Gangadesh721: - while I do understand your point, the article has only had two instances of vandalism in the past week, and four in the past three months, which is not enough to justify protecting the page anyway. Fish+Karate 14:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanks

Oh

The perils of closing an RfC! -Darouet (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'm having a little break from closing any more. Which is probably why Wikipedia:Requests for closure is rapidly expanding, but hey-ho. Fish+Karate 14:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page protection request

Can you protect List of wars involving India just like you protected List of wars involving Pakistan from nationalist vandalism?[1] Orientls (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Orientls:. Please request this at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Thanks, Fish+Karate 19:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

@Gazoth: Yep. Fish+Karate 14:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the quick response. —Gazoth (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I notification?

Re: this, I did not receive a notification. If I had not been notified by another editor via email that the discussion was taking place, I wouldn't have known about it. The absence of a notification seems underhanded to me, although, to be fair, I suppose it could have just been an oversight. Still... -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Winkelvi: Apologies - as I was the third person contributing to that thread I kind of assumed you’d been notified and didn’t think to check. Fish+Karate 20:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rene Strange – MP/E

Sorry, I was trying to achieve chronological order. Sca (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naz Shah protection

You have recently declined the full protection of this page [2]. I am fine with this decision, and I am not going to dispute it in any way (in fact, I just happened to have this page on my watchlist, I did not edit is since May I believe). However, if I were an admin acting on this request I would take a different decision. Sure it is a content dispute but it resulted in massive warring, which all occurred within a day or two. Would you mind to spend a couple of minutes and write several lines of more extended motivation, so that I could understand your reasoning better (the part on the abbreviations I got, no need to repeat that one again). The page is currently in the same state as it was when I submitted the request (so that probably the protection was indeed not needed in the end). No hurry. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: The article has had three edits in the past 24 hours. This is not sufficient to justify protection. Fish+Karate 16:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks. I would agree that three edits would not be enough, unless introducing BLP violations (which is not the case here). But why do not you count the preceding edits of Huldra and NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (they were split by smaller edits, but essentially Huldra was removing, and NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM restoring the same material). That would make it two days and five reverts in total? Do you think it is still insufficient? I am in this case trying to understand whether it is a borderline case for you, or are you firmly on the decline side. I never had issues with your admin decisions, meaning in the latter case I might need to readjust my own criteria.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I think I have enough info. Thanks again.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Equity Premium Puzzle

When are we going to unblock the Equity Premium Puzzle page? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_premium_puzzle)

I am not sure why FNAS unjustified edits are protected while the many people which disagree with him are being ignored. That is a case of vandalism in itself.

The Signpost: 31 July 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2018

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

Administrator changes

added Sro23
readded KaisaL • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Redirect

Brilliant stuff --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helping maintain the integrity of the Main Page!

The Outlaw Halo Award
In the last 17 days alone, we've identified and fixed more than 100 errors at the ALL NEW TRM ERRORS page!! Thanks so much for your diligence and your dedication to ensuring our readers get the best possible experience from Wikipedia! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage

I happened across your user page and noticed you applied some rotation. I guess that is meant to be funny, but I would like to point out that it can be a pretty significant accessibility problem for people and as such goes against: Wikipedia:User_pages#Simulation_and_disruption_of_the_MediaWiki_interface —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDJ: Can you please explain to me how a small amount of rotation "prevents important links or controls from being easily seen or used", or "makes text on the page hard to read or unreadable"? I have searched and can find no evidence that such rotation causes accessibility issues. I am happy to have my mind changed on this, but it will take more than an assertion. Thanks. Fish+Karate 09:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I got here from your message on my talk page. As a user of a desktop screen reader, it doesn't make any difference to me ... but I don't know about any effect it may have on other assistive devices. Graham87 09:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Graham. Fish+Karate 09:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Readability is one of the points that accessibility is judged on. This is not specifically for blind users and their assistive devices, but targeted mostly at those with 'reduced' vision, people with cognitive disabilities and people with neurological disabilities (epilepsy). For that reason things like blinking effects are not allowed, text should be zoomable to at least 400% and reflow, spacing between lines and sufficient fonts size are for instance taken into account etc etc etc. Now there is no specific rule against tilting (probably because no one ever figured it common enough to write it down).
However it made me feel physically uneasy while reading your page and I have no diagnosed disabilities and am not 80 years old. My mind WANTS it to be a horizontal line, interprets it as a horizontal line and then has to reconcile that with the truth of the other actual horizontal lines on the screen/screen itself (See also Visual tilt effects). This creates a mild amount of vertigo for me. This is also why things like Parallax-effects and 3D background animations on phones can be disabled for accessibility purposes. Now since I have no diagnosed vertigo inducing disabilities, I can only guess at how it makes people feel who do. "Not good" doesn't seem to be farfetched however. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I note your personal dislike of my user page and thank you for the feedback. Fish+Karate 11:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @TheDJ: for bringing this up. I was just about to raise the issue with Fish and karate when I saw your thread. Hi Fish and karete. I too stumbled upon your user page. As someone who suffers from epilepsy with vision problems, it almost triggered an attack and I immediately had to leave the page. It is too strong. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 00:12, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Senegambianamestudy: @TheDJ: Apologies, forgot to ping you both the other day in order to let you know I have removed the slight rotation. Fish+Karate 13:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sociedad Civil Catalana

Dear Fish and karate I would like to ask you about the status of the complaint you put here [3] about the article [[4]]. I think the article should be categorized as "under dispute" like this:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigationJump to search Unbalanced scales.svg The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (January 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

until the things are clarified. I think this article is not balanced. There were many editors like and me and others who were not happy with the version of Filiprino.

Thanks and regards --Manlorsen (talk) 09:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Manlorsen: If you are unhappy with the content of the article then the appropriate place to discuss your concerns is on the talk page of the article. I do not know enough about the topic area to be of much help to you, I'm afraid. Fish+Karate 13:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

To help you wake up. LOL Simonm223 (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. appropriate. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 13:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 August 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

Re your closure of the Kane Tanaka DRV: there was canvassing, there were lots of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS !votes, there were quite a few well-argued "endorse" !votes. I'm surprised that this was closed as "consensus to overturn" (and overturned to what, keep? No consensus?) At best, this was a no consensus. Weighing the policy-based arguments and ignoring canvassing and OSE, this would be an "endorse". I'd appreciate if you could have another look at this close. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 12:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Randykitty:. I have had another look and I am happy that I judged the consensus at the DRV reasonably. Thanks. Fish+Karate 13:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for having another look. Itn fact, it is my impression that you re-closed the AfD, instead of closing the DRV. Anyhow, normally when a DRV is overtunred, the closer indicates what it is overturned to. Is this an "overturn to keep" or an "overturn to no consensus" (defaulting to keep)? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again @Randykitty: In line with the consensus at the DRV, the decision to delete (redirect) was overturned. There was a mix of preferences for overturn as no consensus / overturn as keep, I’d say “overturn as no consensus to delete” is reasonable. Would you like me to add that to my DRV closing summary? Fish+Karate 18:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is how DRVs are normally closed. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 18:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please confirm what weight you gave to canvassed votes and how many votes you considered were canvassed. What weight you gave to votes that included unevidenced accusations of bad faith or bias on my part. In concluding that i made a supervote you found a consensus that I wilfully acted against consensus rather than that I reached a good faith different interpretation of consensus. Please confirm which opinions persuaded you of this and the clear policy error I made that meant that my decision could only be explained by assuming bad faith on my part. Spartaz Humbug! 18:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Spartaz:. That I acted in bad faith is an assumption on your part. To be clear, please be aware I don’t think you were acting in bad faith, just as I’m sure you didn’t assume the majority of participants in the original AFD were acting in bad faith. Accusing someone of acting in bad faith just because they read a consensus differently to how you did does not mean they acted in bad faith. If anything, it’s rather an unfair accusation on your part. To answer your points I don’t consider any of the participants to have been canvassed. To do so barring obvious evidence would be - yep - bad faith. I didn’t personally conclude you made a supervote, the DRV consensus, as I read it when closing a deletion review nobody else apparently wanted to close, was that you did. I hope that answers your questions, please let me know if it does not. I’m away til Monday now but will pick this up then if needed. Cheers, Fish+Karate 18:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I may butt in, nowhere does Spartaz accuse you of bad faith. They are simply curious whether you agree with the "overturn" !votes that they acted in bad faith. Which your close actually suggests... --Randykitty (talk) 18:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your close is being discussed at ANI. Please feel free to accuse me again of bad faith and lacking integrity in my judgement. Spartaz Humbug! 19:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bravo. I actually feel a lot like SPartaz right now. Your close of this DRV was seriously misguided. --Randykitty (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have commended your overturn at An/I and salute you for a brave, and I believe correct, call. Thanks, and best wishes! Jusdafax (talk) 22:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree with your call, and I wish Randykitty and Sandstein would let it be. Apparently Spartaz has resigned from Wikipedia in disgust. Perhaps you could have phrased it a bit better, but I see no underlying problem with your reading of the consensus. Have a good day. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 01:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With people talking so much about the discussions and the substance of the AfD and DRV, it seems like an important detail is being overlooked. It seems like the reason Spartaz had the reaction he did was because you accused him of supervoting (i.e. that he did not act in good faith and sought to implement his opinion instead of assessing consensus). I don't think a simple overturning of an XfD close would be enough to set anyone off -- it's the accusation of supervoting rather than assuming good faith that the close was simply how he evaluated consensus. Editing that part of the close out doesn't require actually closing it differently. FWIW. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, I didn't realize one DRV close would lead to all this.
  • @Spartaz: - I am truly sorry for anything I said or did that led to your resigning the bits. That was certainly not my intention and I would beg you to reconsider. I can only assume there are other issues going on as I can't imagine one DRV close you disagree with would lead to your resigning. I don't know what they are but I hope things get better soon for you, and if I can help in any way, please do let me know.
  • I have amended the DRV close now to:
a) Remove the part of the closing summary that mentioned a supervote (again, I don't think Spartaz made a supervote, but a number of contributors to the deletion review did, which is why I referred to it in my summary). I wish now that I had not. Thanks @Rhododendrites: for the advice.
b) Add that the close was "overturn, DRV found the AFD should have been closed as "no consensus".", per Randykitty's request.
  • I explicitly said I didn't think Spartaz was acting in bad faith, and still don't.
  • I will not close any more contentious DRVs, it's really not worth the hassle or aggravation. I can see why they get left open, it's a thankless job.
  • I will note that Randykitty's comment of "Bravo", linking Spartaz's resignation note, implies I am responsible for Spartaz's decision to resign their admin role. Spartaz is a grown and fully functional human being capable of making their own decisions; to disenfranchise a person by suggesting the independent decisions they make are the responsibility of anyone else is unfair. I note Randykitty has also resigned their bit.
  • @Tarage: I saw your message on ANI cussing me out for daring to take a weekend off. It's not a job, we're all volunteers, the close of the DRV was made six hours before I signed off for the weekend. Think before you type.
  • @Lourdes: (and others) Thanks for your support.
Thanks, Fish+Karate 08:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by every statement I made. If you choose to step into an already controversial area, make a bold and undefensible action, and then run away when people question your actions, you are a bad admin. The correct action would be to undo your edit until you have time to defend it, which you choose not to do. That's on you, and I'm not the only one who feels that way. Hiding behind "we're all volunteers" is cowardly. --Tarage (talk) 09:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And finally, I should mention that your actions drove off TWO admins. TWO. One would hope you put the same gravity to that as you do to my "cursing you our on ANI". --Tarage (talk) 09:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You know, there's so much misinterpretation of everything I wrote, I am concerned you may not be able to understand this reply, either, so you don't need to reply again unless you can do so in a less aggressive manner.
  • The action wasn't "undefensible", I closed a DRV that was long overdue being closed and had been sat at WP:RFCL for days as "overturn". It was a reasonable close of a contentious DRV, nothing indefensible about it.
  • I didn't "run away", I was available for six hours, as mentioned, and I responded to the queries raised initially.
  • I'm not hiding behind "we're all volunteers", but that doesn't make it less true.
  • If you have a real concern about my conduct ("you are a bad admin") then please feel free to file a request at WP:ARBCOM.
  • While I am sorry Spartaz, in particular, has left, I don't think one DRV close they disagreed with ought to have done that, and it was not my decision for Spartaz to resign, it was theirs, and the responsibility for that decision lies with them, not me.
  • And I said cussing, not cursing. They mean different things. Fish+Karate 11:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I'm disappointed that Spartaz has felt the need to walk away, I do not blame him at all. Everyone gets discussions closed against their wishes from time to time. That's quite normal; what isn't normal is for completely unwarranted personal attacks against their integrity to not only go unchallenged by the closing administrator but also make their way into the closing statement. I'm glad that you amended that, though it's probably too late now. But what I'd really like to know is how you managed to decide this is not partisan canvassing? The IP has contacted nine people who participated in the DRV for Chiyo Miyako, all of whom had voted to overturn its deletion. The IP did not contact a single person who had endorsed the Miyako deletion DRV. Selectively contacting only people the IP editor knows will vote "overturn" is pretty much textbook vote-stacking. Did you not check this? Reyk YO! 13:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi @Reyk: Put yourself in my shoes. You're trying to close the Kane Tanaka DRV, based on the content of that DRV. You do see that Randykitty had posted a link to the IP's contributions, at the very bottom of the DRV. While yes, you absolutely agree with Randykitty that it was partisan canvassing, what impact should it have made? Should you discount the arguments from anyone who the IP contacted? How do you know that they only commented because of the IP's comments? They are all, given the fact that they participated in the Chiyo Miyako DRV, clearly interested in this topic area, so to discount their views would not have been the right move. All you can do is judge the DRV based on what's in the DRV. You find that the DRV does have a reasonable consensus to overturn the original AFD closure, and so you close it that way. What else would you have done? It's easy to criticize without offering a constructive alternative. Let's see what yours is. Fish+Karate 13:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I can tell you one thing I wouldn't do, and that's declare it to be not canvassing at all. I don't think "maybe they'd have voted anyway" is plausible. The two editors who responded to the canvassing hadn't voted in the two weeks the DRV was open, but somehow totally coincidentally managed to find their way there within an hour of being pinged about it, completely innocently. Uh-huh, sure. If you believe that, then I have a bridge I want to sell you. Seeing those timestamps, I'd have given the final two overturns exactly zero weight and the canvassing editor would have gotten a block lasting at least until the DRV was closed. I cannot imagine anyone on the "endorse" side being permitted to canvass with impunity. Reyk YO! 14:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So would you have done anything differently? I don't think discounting the last two overturns would have particularly swayed the consensus away from "overturn", and whether the IP should be blocked or not is kind of immaterial to the DRV (although I'd be interested to see if it was the IP of one of the 'overturn' voters, which wouldn't surprise me, but I can't find that out and I work really hard not to assume bad faith, which is why I "declared it to be not canvassing" (and what I actually said was we can't assume people only participated because they were canvassed). Please do let me know where else I went wrong and what I should have done. Fish+Karate 14:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For mine, the DRV was firmly in "no consensus to overturn" territory. Throwing out the canvassed votes would have just solidifed that. Reyk YO! 14:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's no policy which says votes which may have been canvassed are discounted. If someone is seriously worried that canvassing might have affected the outcome, the best thing would be to "reverse" the canvas by pinging other people. For example if all the "keep" voters were pinged, then go ahead and ping the "delete" voters too. Discounting votes of established editors just because they were canvassed would be the wrong solution, and would open the system up to gaming in the opposite direction. A hostile "canvas" could be used to edge legitimate contributors out of the discussion.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Anyone canvassing for delete votes, even to neutralize canvassing going the other way, is going to get blocked for it. And even if not, two wrongs do not make a right. Reyk YO! 14:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        If any editor is absolutely convinced that the DRV didn't follow procedure, The appropriate procedure out here would be to start another DRV after a reasonable period has passed. Fish and Karate has given their point of view (and in my view, it sounds very logical). I don't believe badgering them here continuously is the solution. Lourdes 15:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Fish and karate. Thank you for responding to the close request for Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 August 14#Kane Tanaka. It was left open for so long because any close would have upset some group of editors. No admin wanted to close it but you finally stepped up to do so. I respect your courage and willingness to take this on. I greatly appreciate your quality work at WP:ANRFC.

    I agree with Rhododendrites' recommendation about editing out the "supervoting" part, which you have done. Spartaz had a strong objection to that part of the close ("I'm quite phlegmatic about being overruled but closing that I supervoted is to me a massive accusation of bad faith against my judgement and my integrity").

    Much of the discussion about the DRV has been about the canvassing that occurred. I think one point you could have discussed in the DRV close was: Did 100.40.125.198 (talk · contribs)'s notifications sent only to participants in the Chiyo Miyako DRV who supported overturning the AfD result have any effect on the DRV's outcome? Had Lepricavark and Sbharris (the two editors who participated in the DRV after receiving notifications from 100.40.125.198) not commented, would the consensus still have been "overturn to no consensus"?

    If the answer is "yes", then the notifications did not affect the DRV's outcome, so the DRV is not tainted.

    If the answer is "no", the DRV is tainted because it is unknown whether they would have participated had they not been notified. In tainted discussions, the closing admin has wide latitude. The closing admin can try to assess the consensus anyway and give the same or reduced or no weight to canvassed arguments. The closing admin can write "a meaningful consensus cannot be ascertained because the DRV is tainted by canvassing, no prejudice against opening another DRV nomination in a few days" or "a meaningful consensus cannot be ascertained because the DRV is tainted by canvassing, default to relist at AfD".

    Given that you said "I don't think discounting the last two overturns would have particularly swayed the consensus away from 'overturn'", it seems like the answer is "yes".

    Thank you again for taking on this thankless task. Joe Roe (talk · contribs) noted here that he "deliberately didn't attempt" to close this DRV because he had "gotten flak" after closing a DRV on a related topic. It is terrible that admins who have the courage to close contentious discussions are being attacked so intensely that they avoid closing those contentious discussions. The accusations about your being "cowardly" or "running away" or "hiding behind we're all volunteers" are abusive and completely unwarranted. Had you known the discussion your close would have sparked, you would have closed it on Monday or maybe avoided closing it altogether. Cunard (talk) 09:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks @Cunard:. And @Lourdes: again. I do not mind people coming to question me politely about anything I have done on Wikipedia. Not even if they do so repeatedly. I don't think it's badgering (or, if it is, I don't mind being badgered). Being willing to be questioned, repeatedly, and to respond as best you can, repeatedly, is part of the admin roles and responsibilities. The day I start reacting badly to that is the day I should take a long break, or leave. But Cunard your last point is exactly right. Had I known the hassle I would get for closing the DRV, perhaps I would not have done so. That is a sad thing as I am usually willing to step in and close contentious xFDs, RFCs and the like. I will have a think about whether I'll ever close a contentious DRV again. I initially said I would not but all that means is someone else will get tirades of hysteria for doing so instead, and I'm pretty unbothered about it, whereas other admins are sometimes more sensitive to criticism. Or, these things will stay open forever. I'll not touch DRV again for a while, at least. Fish+Karate 09:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha

While posting to ANI, guess what I found :D Having said that, while I may or may not agree with your DRV stuff, I want to commend you on the way you communicated your point of view, despite being pushed. I have to learn that from you. Lourdes 01:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2018

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

Administrator changes

added None
removed Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz
renamed Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

added Amorymeltzer • Mr. Stradivarius • MusikAnimal • MSGJ • TheDJ • Xaosflux

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.

Technical news

  • Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
  • Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
  • Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

List of highest-grossing Indian films need extended-protection as some merely auto-confirmed users are making problematic changes. Unlike other film industries, Indian cinema don't have any trusted box office tracking services and collections are often exaggerated. Any auto-confirmed 'fan account' can add numbers with challengeable references. Recently, user Mollywood.lover (apparently a single-purpose a/c) added a disputed addition ignoring long-standing discussions against it on talk page. It was after those discussions were cleaned by an archive bot that this user came back to add it. Similar unverified edits are common in that page. 137.97.171.37 (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please visit Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Fish+Karate 09:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

wanjiku kahore

please help me and allow me to write a article about wanjikua kahore she is one of the forgoten heroins of kenya (Colony worldpress 02:13, 11 September 2018 (UTC))

Hi, please visit Wikipedia:My first article, which is full of helpful advice on how to get started. Fish+Karate 09:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Page Protection Request

I am including the page protection request and response for easy reference: Tappan Zee Bridge (2017–present)

Indefinite semi-protection: Slow but steady IP disruptive editing including very recent examples. The bridge name is the subject of significant regional controversy and many disruptive edits have been related to that. But most importantly, this page has already had two periods of temporary semi-protection this year which solved the problem of disruptive editing - while the semi-protection was in place. Each time the semi-protection has been lifted the IP disruptive editing has started back up again. It is time to add indefinite semi-protection to this page. Your assistance is greatly appreciated. HudsonValley (talk) 02:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. Only one period of semiprotection in log under current article name. The other is for pending changes. Fish+Karate 09:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First, thank you for the prompt response and 3 month semi protection. However I am hoping you will reconsider the request for indefinite semi-protection. The log shows two periods of semi-protection this year in addition to the page move protection - April 22, 2018 and June 21, 2018. The first one was described as "configuring pending changes settings" to requite autoconfirmed permission and the other as changing protection level to require autoconfirmed or confirmed status. Thanks again for your time. HudsonValley (talk) 12:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HudsonValley, happy to help. We don't usually like to jump straight to indefinite, when the two prior episodes of semi-protection were both fairly short. Three months is quite a long time for semi-protection to an article that hasn't had much in the way of vandalism, just some mild disruptive editing. In three months' time, it may be that the people making a fuss about the bridge's name have found something better to do (which could be just about anything, frankly). If the disruption resumes in December once the protection lapses, please ping me, or go back to RFPP, and the semi-protection will likely be put back on, indefinitely. All the best, Fish+Karate 13:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did You Protect Murdoc Niccals's Page Indefinitely? If So Don't Even Try to Protect Elsa

Dear Fish and Karate.

I know that not too long ago that another user had protected Murdoc Niccals's page. In case if you didn't know who he is he is the green-skinned bassist of the British cartoon band the Gorillaz.

Noodle's was only temporary. But as for 2D and Russell Hobbs their pages remain unprotected.

Now on to the main story, how many fictional character pages on this website have been semi-protected indefinitely, e.g. Kristoff from the 2013 Disney flick Frozen or the world-famous sapphire blue hedgehog Sonic from his beloved long-running video game series of the same name.

I don't know if you're the one who locked up 3 by Britney Spears a very very long time ago. It has been forgotten from that article to have its tonic/key signature of F Minor be written before that happened.

Good night,

67.81.163.178 (talk) 03:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Felicitations, 67.81.163.178. I can confirm for you that I did not protect Murdoc Niccals. This was protected by an administrator by the name of SilkTork. However, I do like both the Gorillaz and gorillas. Do you also like gorillas?
I do not know how many fictional character articles have been semi-protected indefinitely. I am sure if you worked your way through every article within Category:Fictional characters you could find out. It was also not me who protected 3 (Britney Spears song), it was another administrator, this one by the name of Anthony Appleyard. Furthermore, you'll note the "Composition" section of the article does discuss the song's key and chord progression (Fm–E♭–B♭m–Fm), so panic over there.
I trust this response finds you well. Take care, Fish+Karate 10:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just add that I've never met a gorilla, but I met GorillaWarfare, and she's awesome? Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

E.C Stoner GA

Hi there,

Thanks for starting the review. I did a cursory glance at what you looked at and will get to work on your comments. Some of the images were from before I revamped the page so I will address those as well. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 15:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seven protection

Thanks for the semi-protection over there. I honestly fear this is going to get worse before it gets better. The two registered accounts have been disputing over these (very minor) plot edits for months. There was an ANI discussion some time back that was never resolved – it was archived, but never officially closed. The anon. has tangled with one of those editors in the past, which gives more indication it's a sock, but it's not clear. As I say, the dispute is absurd, since the proposed changes are really just a rewrite of a simple idea. I don't think the change is necessary, but it's not worth an edit war. I think they both need an enforced break from the article until they cool off, and let other editors come to a consensus. Cheers! ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 16:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TheOldJacobite: It does look like a sock to me, although the chap the IP is socking for has a note on his user page saying that he is being mimicked by sock puppets, so make of that what you will. If the dispute does carry on causing edit wars please let me know, I will happily slap full protection on the article to calm things down. Fish+Karate 08:56, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll keep an eye on it. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 12:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentious editing

I would really like to see your detailed proof for "tendentious editing" and "awful and interminable wikilawyering", preferably backed up with exact diffs and policy quotes. Because I can prove everything I have said about Thewolfchild. In fact, I've already begun collating all of the exact policies and guidelines his attitude of "I'm not explaining my revert; I didn't like it, so find consensus" is trampling over, and that's not even counting the dishonesty, WP:IDHT, WP:SANCTIONGAMING, personal attacks, bizarre counter-allegations, and other disruptive behaviours that he has partaken in.

Pointing this out isn't "wiki-lawyering", it's simply the cold hard truth of the situation. I understand and share your exasperation for the situation, but if you don't have the patience to objectively go through this long drawn-out debacle without instinctively going "You know what? They're both equally wrong", then other administrators are obviously needed.

At this point, I have repeatedly asked wolfchild to explain his revert. You have asked wolfchild to explain his revert. Dlthewave has asked wolfchild to explain his revert. Snow Rise has said that wolfchild needs to better explain his revert. So if he continues to refuse, an WP:ANI report for all of his disruption will be filed by the end of this week. That isn't a threat or a bluff. That's genuinely what I plan to do, and I have every legitimate reason to do so. DarkKnight2149 00:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The good news is that, after four months, Thewolfchild finally gave a detailed explanation for his edit. If he can remain this forthcoming and willing to discuss the disagreement moving forward, then there shouldn't be any further issues. DarkKnight2149 02:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Darkknight2149, the exasperation is you did not need to reply in the way you did. It just doesn't help. The block threat was to stop you from continuing to exacerbate things, inadvertently, while we awaited Thewolfchild's reply. This doesn't need to go to ANI, this doesn't need to go to arbcom. And there are two issues here - in one, the actual value of the edit, which is a really really minor change, and the overwrought reaction to it is excessive. The other, in which you are both equally at fault, is the intransigence on both sides. The reams of text about the contributor, not the content, are unhelpful. I appreciate Thewolfchild was not, in your view, justifying the reversions, and so I stepped in, and we now have that justification. You have stepped back from the threats of ANI, arbcom, etc., which is very much appreciated, so let's now discuss the edit, and we can put the behavioural issues to one side, move on, and all work together. Thanks. Fish+Karate 09:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comma

While I agree with your edit summary, it's missing a comma (which didn't happen by you, but I think you are able to quickly fix it without explanation). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: where is there a comma missing? Fish+Karate 10:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) After his name (once we have one before his name). Another one is missing in the same set after "Kerala". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, overlooked the little "while". Just Kerala please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added the one after Kerala (note for self: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Commas). Vielen dank Gerda! Fish+Karate 10:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for article creation

Hi there. Would you have time to pls look at this short album article, and create/release it? As you know, IP editors (unfortunately) still can't create articles. Thank you. 95.114.72.249 (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep 95.114.72.249, please see Worlds Apart (Blackjack album). You could always create an account you know! Fish+Karate 09:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the article creation. Concerning creating an account, I don't think that's going to happen as long as Wikipedia grants admins the ability to smear innocent registered editors via the admin tools. 95.115.9.59 (talk) 11:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Administrative smearing is entirely egalitarian and can be equally applied to anonymous editors. Fish+Karate 12:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 October 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2018

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

Administrator changes

added Justlettersandnumbers • L235
removed Bgwhite • HorsePunchKid • J Greb • KillerChihuahua • Rami R • Winhunter

Interface administrator changes

added Cyberpower678 • Deryck Chan • Oshwah • Pharos • Ragesoss • Ritchie333

Oversight changes

removed Guerillero • NativeForeigner • Snowolf • Xeno

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
  • The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
  • Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, amended the procedure on functionary inactivity.
  • The community consultation for 2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments has concluded. Appointments will be made by October 11.
  • Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
  • Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TRM

The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you for taking note of my humble list at WP:TRM relating to errors on, or just about to be on, the main page. The diligence shown by you and your colleagues has resolved more than 500 issues in just 78 days. Your efforts are more appreciated than you can imagine. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. Cheers. Fish+Karate 08:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

last confessions

The main thing about the story ever since it was propagated soon after his death was Pearce's cannibalism - if no one has put it in the film article, then maybe there is an issue of sensitive little flowers doing the text without mentioning the obvious... JarrahTree 10:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JarrahTree: Yeah, that could be the case. I'm sure there is stuff out there that can be referenced about it, and once it's actually mentioned in the article then the categories could be re-added. Fish+Karate 10:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am in no hurry, even though I have linked the relevant part. I was over-under-impressed by the editors who created the article - they were involved in making the film and they tried every single vanity aspect of an article it could carry - it could still do with a prune for such an average film. (I used to live on the west coast of Tasmania and pearce's story is chicken feed in comparison to the realities of what Richard Davey and Richard Flanagan (I only knew the late richard davey in real life) were able to milk out of the stories of Sarah Island (Tasmania)... but therein lies a tale or many. JarrahTree 10:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
my apology - I tend to speak in shorthand/acronyms... JarrahTree 10:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, it's just so I can find it again in 4 months time when I'm pruning my talk page and wondering what the fuck we were talking about Fish+Karate 10:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
well said sir, but it is a truly self promoted film article that didnt need all that.But totally out of left field, Richard Davey was delightfully tall, he would love the irony of the material about a side issue like pearce, he was very very good at rendering King Lear into some amazing versions JarrahTree 10:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
even more left field, my first valid edit as a member of the piracy project today of a genuine pirate! :::::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Black_Jack_Anderson - owzat! JarrahTree 11:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See, all that makes me do is feel bad I haven't done any work on piracy articles in years. But welcome to the project. Fish+Karate 11:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
nah dont worry, at least most pirates are not cannibals JarrahTree 13:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About that IP range block

That same range block by the same admin carried over to Commons, so I can’t do any work over there, either. Will OTRS be effected as well? It needs to be fixed, but I don’t know who to ask. Atsme✍🏻📧 22:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tash Sultana

Is it time for a more permanent-ish solution to the pronoun tomfoolery? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffeeandcrumbs: Yes, it is. I've semi-protected the page indefinitely, the IP can go and find something better to do. Fish+Karate 11:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Pacific Hurricane Season

So, on your semi-protection of the article "2018 Pacific Hurricane Season", the reason for the semi-protection and duration don't seem reasonable. Can you explain why you set it to a full year? Cyclone of Foxes (talk) 23:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because the short-term protection wasn't cutting it, and this way by the time the protection expires the nonsense will have moved on, inexorably, to 2019 Pacific hurricane season. Fish+Karate 09:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decision about Reliable Sources -Electronic Intifada

I notice you have summarised views on reliable sources before and declared it suitable or unsuitable in certain circumstances, so you may be able to offer me some advice on [my query here], although I don't think you have been involved. I doubt if there will be any consensus on this and some sort of administrative decision will have to be made based on the views and quality of comments. How do I arrange this? --Andromedean (talk) 09:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andromedan: - Perhaps the best thing to do would be to post it at Wikipedia:Requests for closure. Fish+Karate 09:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers!

Congratulations on The Emperor of Ocean Park GA! Wonderful addition to the encyclopedia. Bravo! Innisfree987 (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Fish+Karate 08:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Fish and karate. 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.Nesw (talk) 16:20, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’ve sent you a message regarding Loose Woman episode list. Thanks. Nesw (talk) 16:20, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nesw: Got it, thanks. I’m away this week so will look into it when I get back. Hope that’s ok. Fish+Karate 19:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 October 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2018

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
  • A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
  • The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.

Arbitration

  • Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
  • The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Reynolds edit?

Hello,

I'm a new Wikipedia editor, a historian of early America, and wanted to ask about the lock on the Maria Reynolds page. I have several edits to offer, including information and peer reviewed secondary sources to add. It looks like that entry, looking at the history, has been tinkered with a bit and that's likely why you locked it. Can you give me some insight into when I night be able to contribute?

Thanks so much! Karin

@Kawulf: Hi Karin, the Maria Reynolds page was semi protected due to, as you say, quite a lot of disruptive editing and vandalism. This prevents anonymous editors, and editors with less than 500 edits, from editing an article. However, I have removed the protection from the page, as it's been almost 4 months, so you should be able to edit the article now. Hopefully the disruption won't resume! Regards, Fish+Karate 09:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz in Africa

I reverted the deletion proposal on Jazz in Africa because the person (User:Andrew Davidson) who removed it refused to engage in discussion. He would rather insult me than explain his reasons, probably because he doesn't have any good reasons. This is not how prodding or deprodding are supposed to work. I had the same problem at the same time last week with Andrew Davidson at The Alberts, The Bonzo Dog Doo Dah Band, The Temperance Seven. He deprodded without giving a good reason, refusing to engage in a discussion, preferring to do things his way because he knows better. I have had similar problems with others. There are people on Wikipedia who believe they are on a mission, some kind of higher purpose, to protect, save, and rescue articles as though they were stray cats. They allude to some kind of higher purpose. They feel deletion of an article they care about is somehow morally terrible. Their edit summaries don't explain their reasons and when I try to engage them in discussion, they refuse. This is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. It makes no sense to criticize an editor, a real editor, from editing. I've seen complaints that there are not enough editors. Maybe the problem is that Wikipedia is too big. Even junk articles are hard to delete. Those of us who try to do good editing are prevented from doing so by people with their own agendas.
Vmavanti (talk) 13:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vmavanti, can you show me where Andrew Davidson insulted you, please? Thanks. As mentioned in my edit summary, in line with Wikipedia's policy on this, if a Proposed Deletion (prod) tag is removed, it should not be reinstated, as prod tags are strictly for completely uncontroversial deletions. If even a single user objects, and their providing a reason for doing so is encouraged but not mandatory, then instead you need to submit the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If the article does warrant deletion then this will take place in due course. Fish+Karate 13:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He quoted another person's melodramatic insult as a reason to deprod. Here [5] I get insulted all the time on WP. I don't tell anyone about it because I try to handle things on my own.
Vmavanti (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand it's not the best thing to be called, and it makes a nonsense as a rationale for removing the tag, there's no requirement for any rationale at all. WP:PROD is for completely inconsequential and uncontested deletions, the whole idea is that any editor can object at any point during the 7 days for any reason they wish, spurious or otherwise, or for no reason at all. Think of PROD as a halfway house between speedy deletion (for really obvious stuff) and a full AFD discussion. The idea was to reduce the burden on AFD, as prior to Proposed Deletion existing everything that couldn't be speedily deleted got sent to AFD. But it is meant to be light touch and easy to undo; this is by design. When a prod tag is removed, but you still think the article needs to be deleted, the best thing to do is to shrug, submit the article in question to AFD instead, and move on. Fish+Karate 14:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks.
Vmavanti (talk) 19:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't write it

Regarding this change, apparently every word in the book is from him. I get the tongue-in-cheek nature of the hook. Maybe "is credited with accidentally writing" would satisfy everybody? GMGtalk 22:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ARBCOM?

You seem like a sensible admin with an ability to manage dramah. Have you considered running for ARBCOM? power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki: You're very kind, but I don't have the time or the inclination to run for Arbcom these days. I tried once, in 2008, when I had a lot more spare time. Fish+Karate 13:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Barry OSullivan

Regarding the edits and protection of Barry_O'Sullivan. The MOS clearly states that we refer to people as their announced gender. The motivations of which are not necessary.

One editor, User:Onetwothreeip is attempting to prevent this MOS from being followed and has edit warred against basically everyone else. It has been extensively covered in media that O'Sullivan has come out as Transgender and it is WP:NOTABLE to include this fact. The validity of which should not be questioned according to the MOS.

"Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. "

The wikipedia:Gender identity essay states "We accept the person's latest identification of their gender, as documented in reliable sources, at face value. To do otherwise — to refer to transgender or genderqueer people by names or pronouns which disregard their gender identities, i.e. to misgender them — is deeply offensive and causes harm. This seems to be widely supported by wikipedians, although I do understand that this is not wikipedia policy.

This seems to be a widely supported view, and one editor's war against transgender identification should not be enabled by administrators in my opinion. L32007 (talk) 09:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Want to also point out that the WP:3RR was broken by this user. L32007 (talk) 09:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not against 3RR to revert vandalism and BLP violations, as anybody who has read WP:3RR would know. O'Sullivan does not identify as either a woman or as transgender, and is neither of those. I'm obviously not the only person reverting these attempts, and my editing history shows that I refer to transgender people by their gender identity. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Both your opinions are noted and have been assigned their appropriate level of credulity. If there are concerns about 3RR edit warring, then please go to WP:3RRN. I will note that 3RR does not apply when reverting vandalism or clear violations of the Biographies of Living Persons policy. Thanks. L32007, I have removed the references you have pasted onto my page, as I do not need or want references appearing at the bottom of my talk page. I hope this is ok, I did not want to remove your comment entirely. Fish+Karate 10:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lifting The Page Protection On Avengers 4

Can U Lift The Vandalism Protection On Avengers 4,All Of Those Charcters Were Confirmed,Accroding To The Merger With 21st Century Fox Coolguy3478 (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, the protection is nothing to do with the merger. Fish+Karate 23:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But The Xmen And Fantastic Four Were Confirmed For Avengers Avengers 4

The Xmen Apocalypse And Fantastic Four (2015) Cast Were Confirmed.As Well As Hugh Jackman And Ryan Reynolds As Wolverine,Deadpool. Coolguy3478 (talk) 14:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point? Fish+Karate 15:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fish_and_karate/Archive_32&oldid=1045024677"