Thanks for closing the discussion. Boards of Education in India is still there, though. My apologies for the 'nudge' if you just didn't get around to it yet, but I saw the incoming links were deleted but not the article, so I wondered if it 'slipped the net'. Cheers. -- Begoon 19:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the heads-up - I've been noticing the occasional error while using the XfD closer script. I've deleted it now. ST47 (talk) 20:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I guessed it would be a script stuffing up because it did all the link deletions (except one in a hatnote which I found) but the article survived and I was pretty sure it's supposed to do all that in a "batch". Thanks for the quick response (and action). Cheers. -- Begoon 20:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dario Hunter 2020 presidential campaign. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 73.75.84.123 (talk) 03:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted Template:Lil Nas X despite the objections from me and another editor. In the recent discussion, only the editor who initially proposed deletion was in favor of it. A consensus was not reached yet. Compare it to the previous deletion... plenty more articles ("Rodeo" and "Panini") have been created since. Why not wait for the discussion to close before you decide to delete a template? You must abide by WP:CON, so I suggest restoring the template / talk page. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 20:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• A speedy deletion nomination does not require waiting for consensus, only an evaluation that the page currently meets the speedy deletion criteria. The previous TfD was the relevant consensus building exercise, and WP:DELREV is the correct place to go if you want to attempt to overturn the consensus that was established at the previous TfD. ST47 (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Lil Nas X. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥)

ST47:

You redirected a page that I had reviewed without leaving a reason. Is there something you feel I missed in my AFC review? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @MJL: It was marked for speedy deletion as a duplicate of a different article. I redirected it to the correct article instead of deleting because if one person already made the mistake, it seems likely that someone else would in the future as well. ST47 (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  [Thank you for the ping] Ah, thank you for that! That's certainly something I'll have to look for in the future. I appreciate you saving it! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I see you recently tagged User:NorfolkSouthern523 as a sock. Could you please see User:AmtrakAcela2000. Similar edits at Hawaiian Railway Society and Auburn Valley State Park. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Magnolia677: Thanks for the good links, done. ST47 (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 09:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racial_discrimination&oldid=903968918

I recently made these edits. They are cited by this article (though you can find others):

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/are-jews-white/509453/

On the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Racial_discrimination

some seem to disagree that the Jews were discriminated against. These seem to be the same people who believe that the holocaust never existed. Nick is just a really bad person. At this point, I believe I need administrative help.

Nick has a track record of stalking and disruptively reverting my contributions to wikipedia. I was hoping Nick could be blocked from editing, or that a report be submitted against him, at the very least. His abusive behavior is getting out of hand.

People like him also launched several smear-campaigns, simply because I wrote about some things that are well-sourced and well-documented that does not fit their chauvinistic point of view.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Xinjiang_Pages_and_User%3AAlexkyoung

I appreciate your input on this urgent issue. Wikipedia has no space for such bullying and abuse.

Alexkyoung (talk) 05:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have replied on ANI, but mass-canvassing uninvolved admins with statements like Nick is just a really bad person. is quite irregular. I wouldn't be surprised to see this WP:BOOMERANG in some way. ST47 (talk) 05:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quite apart from the above and the user's subsequent blocking, I cannot help noticing a long essay "on free speech and wikipedia" now on the user's talk page. I'm pretty thick skinned, but I can't say I'm very happy about the further unjustified allegations of me and user Moxy stalking, being Sinophobic, anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic etc. Nickm57 (talk) 11:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I messed up, I'm sorry. -- CptViraj (📧) 10:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:War Operation Plan Response also seems to be from the redacted site and accused me of being a sick and twisted pervert. True crime is a specialist subject of mine, not an obsession. I am sorry. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since User:Option 16 and User:Heartworms were both checkuser-blocked, I'd imagine that any other socks would have been caught at the same time. (And in any event, I can't see the deleted edits anymore, so there's not much I can do.) ST47 (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You changed my alteration of footballer Jack Payne. I put that he is a free agent and added a weblink to the proof. You changed it so that it said he’s on-loan at Bradford which is not true anymore! He is a free agent! Dangills (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• A number of other editors were making changes to the article at the same time, and it looks like your changes were reverted here by CLCStudent as part of the cleanup. The only thing that I did was protect the page. You can ask CLCStudent to restore your changes, or see this page for instructions to make an edit request. (I'd do it, but I don't know what else in the article should be updated to account for his change in status.) ST47 (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam¹ • Flyguy649 • Fram² • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe

¹Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

²Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment seeking to alleviate pressures on the request an account (ACC) process proposes either raising the account creation limit for extended confirmed editors or granting the account creator permission on request to new ACC tool users.

• In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

• The scope of CSD criterion G8 has been tightened such that the only redirects that it now applies to are those which target non-existent pages.
• The scope of CSD criterion G14 has been expanded slightly to include orphan "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).
• A request for comment seeks to determine whether Wikipedia:Office actions should be a policy page or an information page.

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous

• In February 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) changed its office actions policy to include temporary and project-specific bans. The WMF exercised this new ability for the first time on the English Wikipedia on 10 June 2019 to temporarily ban and desysop Fram. This action has resulted in significant community discussion, a request for arbitration (permalink), and, either directly or indirectly, the resignations of numerous administrators and functionaries. The WMF Board of Trustees is aware of the situation, and discussions continue on a statement and a way forward. The Arbitration Committee has sent an open letter to the WMF Board.

Not to be ungrateful, but shouldn't the block cover the full range from 112.213.221.0 (talk · contribs) through 112.213.221.255 (talk · contribs)? Thanks. Useddenim (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. That's exactly the range it covers. (You should see a message saying that the IP is blocked on each contributions page for those IPs.) ST47 (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TY. I misunderstood, and thought the notation "112.213.221.0/24" only meant the first 25 IP addresses. Useddenim (talk) 21:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh! CIDR, if you want the details on that notation. ST47 (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You commented at and closed WP:ANI#AFD & comment there. Related to that same thread, can I ask for your review of this edit and history here? — fourthords | =Λ= | 02:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it has already been handled. ST47 (talk) 02:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... for this clumsy misclick. I tried to revert immediately, but Ivanvector rightly assumed that it was a mistake and got there first. Regards to both, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it! ST47 (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We all have bad days :) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The article "R" is simultaneously semi-protected and PC-ed for one year. If you meant to just semi-protect it, then you may want to reset the PC-protection setting. -- George Ho (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, never mind. I realized that PC setting is indefinite while the semi lasts one year, so that's good. George Ho (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I noticed that the previous protection was configured similarly, and didn't want to semi-protect indefinitely - but expect that the issues have been persistent enough that they'll resume once the protection expires. ST47 (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like to contest the speedy deletion (G4) for musical artist Go Grizzly. I believe the Go Grizzly page should be up, but I am not sure where to contest the deletion. As the page has been deleted, the talk page has been as well, which is why I am on ST47's talk page as they are the deleting admin. Please let me know if this is not the correct place for this comment/discussion. Thank you! Johnfrankel (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Johnfrankel:! The reason it was deleted was because there was a previous deletion discussion which decided that the page should be deleted, and (in my evaluation) the deletion reasoning back then still applies to the new article - it does not appear that the new article does a better job of meeting WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE than the old one did. The new article has plenty of inline citations, however, many are not sources that are sufficient to establish notability. In particular, the Genius links demonstrate that this producer is associated with these songs (or at least that a volunteer contributor to Genius thought so), but they are not significant coverage about the producer themself. The best way to proceed is to ensure that there are multiple reliable sources that provide significant coverage about this person and then go to deletion review. That is the forum for overturning past deletion decisions, such as the one at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Go Grizzly. Regards, ST47 (talk) 14:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ST47 - Thank you for the quick response & info. I gone over the notability guidelines and I see your point. Notability in real life ≠ Wikipedia-required notability. Thanks again. Johnfrankel (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ST47. Would you mind keeping this on your watchlist for a little bit? I think this draft is being created by a new editor, who probably means well, but for obvious reasons is not to aware of things like BLP and BIO, etc. There is some discussion about this at User talk:John from Idegon#Removed Edit to MEL B as well as at Talk:Mel B#Assault allegations but I think tempers are might be starting to flare a bit. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might want consider stepping in when you get the time because NPA's like this are going to get even a new editor in lots of trouble fairly quickly. I know your involvement so far has been only to re-added a removed AFC template, but perhaps as an administrator you be able to get things to cool down a bit. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking a look at this. I think this is probably just a new editor still learning how things work on Wikipedia. So, things should hopefully settle down a bit once he/she slows down, starts to breathe a little and takes heed of the advice some others have already tried to give. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not especially hopeful, but trying to give as many chances as is reasonable. We'll see how they respond. Thanks! ST47 (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you protect the page, didn't see any bad vandalism besides one edit but doesn't seem that big of a issue to protect it? Scribbley (talk) 00:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be quite a bit of speculative or unsourced edits at the moment, as people rush to meet the WP:DEADLINE. (For example, a handful of edits back and forth changing him from "active" to "retired" in the infobox.) I semi-protected for two days to reduce the unsourced additions. ST47 (talk) 00:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I edit-conflicted with your decline on JetCity22. He's  Confirmed having created another sockpuppet. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you semi-protect the page? Some IPs always added the false songwriter at seen on [1][2][3][4]. -- 2402:1980:8249:115D:B193:30AB:40A3:1C9F (talk) 07:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure,  Done for one week. ST47 (talk) 07:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote ((checkuser|2=Steph Goodwin)); thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jewish_population_comparisons

the diff listed here

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historical_Jewish_population_comparisons&diff=905016616&oldid=904909070

removes a poorly sourced figure. The source listed is essentially a blog post, with 0 academic oversight or notoriety. Poorly sourced information should be removed, shoudln't it? Then why side with the people continually adding poorly sourced data

• I haven't reverted anything. ST47 (talk) 03:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I received an email yesterday from a user asking me for advice on whether to self-revert due to editing restrictions on the article Andy Ngo. I noticed that you placed the restrictions, so I want to make you aware of the problem. (not asking for sanctions here)

• 3 July Editor A adds material sourced to Twitter

• 3 July Editor B user reverts the addition

• 3 July Editor A restores the material

• 5 July Editor C (IP) removes the material

• 5 July Editor D restores the material

• 8 July Editor E removes the material

• 8 July Editor D restores the material

• 8 July Editor D self-reverts (fear of sanctions)

• 8 July Editor E self-reverts (fear of sanctions) Twitter material is now in article.

You placed the "consensus required" sanction on 8 July. The problem is, it's not clear whether removing the Twitter material is a violation of the sanction, or whether re-adding the material is a violation of the sanction. Since the material has been in the article for less than a week and has been challenged 3 times during that time, a removal could be considered the "challenge" under consensus-required, which would prohibit anybody from re-adding the material without explicit consensus on the talk page. The underlying question is: how long does something need to be in an article to be considered the status quo? Somebody's got to make that call. User:NeilN recommended something in the ballpark of 4-6 weeks if I remember correctly, but some discretion is needed, otherwise you could end up with editors boldly removing stable material while claiming that their removal is a "revert" or "challenge" which would prevent anybody else from restoring the material.

Full disclosure: for the past several months I have been trying to convince admins to move away from using the "consensus required" sanction, partly because of the ambiguity above, but mostly for other reasons detailed here. ~Awilley (talk) 13:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Awilley: Hello! As it happens, one of the editors involved also started a AE thread. I would argue that any action after the page restriction is in place would be a violation of the page restriction - in this case, it was present when the restriction was applied, so it should remain while the discussion proceeds. (The edit of "adding this information" has been reverted at least once, and the edit of "removing this information" has been reverted at least once, so either adding or removing this information would apply as "reinstating an edit that has been challenged (via reversion)".) Obviously The Wrong Version applies. I can certainly switch the sanction to enforced BRD based on the arguments in the page you linked; I was initially concerned that that sanction is far easier to ignore. Is there any middle ground that anyone has thought of that would prevent slow-motion edit warring without rewarding talk page stonewalling? Or does that not really matter, because the requirement to bring your reasoning to the talk page is effective? ST47 (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I didn't realize this was already at AE. Regarding "middle ground", there were proposals at Template_talk:American_politics_AE#Proposals_for_a_better_ruleset and Template_talk:American_politics_AE#Preventing_tag-team_edit_wars with User:JFG proposing various BRD-like rules that would also prevent slow tag-team edit wars involving multiple users. I didn't implement the proposed rules partially out of concern for personal accountability issues (punishing Editor B for doing something that would normally be fine except that Editor A did something yesterday that made Editor B's action illegal).

I suspect I'm in a minority among admins, but my own view on slow-motion edit warring is that it should be prevented at the editor level and not the page level. Sanction the few editors who regularly participate in slow edit wars, instead of sanctioning all the editors with a page-level restriction. And when page-level restrictions must be implemented I want them to allow the following (good IMO) behavior: 1. Editor A adds something to an article. 2. Editor B reverts the addition. 3. Editor C partially reinstates the edit, modifying it to assuage the concerns of Editor B (like adding a source, re-wording for neutrality, adding it to the body instead of the lead, etc.) ~Awilley (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your last question (does that not really matter) I've been using the Donald Trump article as kind of a petri dish for the BRD rule that I applied there in January, watching it closely, as it's a hotly contested article. There have been a few slow-motion tag-team edit wars (2 or 3 that I can remember) sometimes over trivial issues like the capitalization of "President". From what I've seen the edit wars die out on their own after the involved editors use their first revert, and editors generally respect a mutual agreement not to revert anymore until they find a consensus on the talk page. ~Awilley (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]