User talk:Bbb23

Unless otherwise requested, I will respond on this page. Please include links to pertinent page(s). Click New section on the top right to start a new topic.

Demorea

Your presence has been requested. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:33 on December 3, 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas !!!

Merry Christmas everybody!!!

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Did I miss something?

I tagged HH Sheikh Mohammed Bin Faisal Al Qassimi A7 & G5. You removed the G5 as bogus without any explanation, which I undid. Coming back a few hours later, I have a notification indicator that disappeared as soon as I looked at it, and I see the article was deleted A7 (no G5), and a talk page had been created and also deleted. Was it some message from you to me? Ta, Cabayi (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

The article was not eligible for G5, and I might not have used the word "bogus" had it been someone else, but you're well-versed in sock puppetry (btw, you do a very good job at SPI). First, the user who creates the article has to be blocked. Second, it has to be shown that there is a master and that the master is also blocked. Third, the master must have been blocked before the user created the article. As I recall, at the time you tagged it none of those requirements had been satisfied. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I've rechecked and to me the sequence still looks watertight as the feathers on a duck...

• Master blocked - 12:02, 11 December 2018 [1]
• Article created - 16:40, 23 December 2018 [2]
• Author reported - 18:23, 23 December 2018 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Youareagoner
• G5 tag placed - 18:24, 23 December 2018 Special:Diff/875087342

I've also tagged Rebuild Kerala, just in case you still think I've got it wrong. Cheers, Cabayi (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

You're right about two of the requirements (I was wrong when I said they weren't met), but you're wrong about the first. The creator hasn't been blocked. I declined the G5 on Rebuild Kerala.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

This is the first time I've encountered this interpretation of G5. The whole point is that the master and the sock are the same person, the master's been blocked, and the sock is the master dodging the block. But never mind, I'll re-tag once the SPI cocludes. Cabayi (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not an interpretation. It's the literal language. See WP:CSD#G5 ("This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users"). You have the concept right, but until the puppet is actually blocked, you don't have completion of the concept. Either a clerk or an admin, not the filer, has to make the determination that the accused account is a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I meant the interpretation that the G5 tag should only be applied after the SPI has concluded.

Every CSD requires an admin to make a determination, in this case it includes whether or not Dingdongdingnow is a sock of Youareagoner. It's been my experience that admins will look at the CSD, look at the evidence at the SPI, and either act on the behavioural evidence (block & delete) or wait for the SPI to conclude. Removing the G5 is an outlier, probably due to the unusual route by which we got here.

Have a good Xmas, Cabayi (talk) 10:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

MariaJayHicky block evading

MariaJayHicky seems to be back again using accounts 82.132.212.12 and 82.132.224.136 to changing genres in the article Girl [3] [4]. This editor has done this before while using another account [5]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 16:08, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm happy behaviourally that they're MariaJaydHicky so I've blocked both IPs.-- 5 albert square (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Bbb23, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Meatsgains(talk) 01:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Sorry I can't wait, I need resolution of this issue. Levivich (talk) 08:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

	Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!
	Hope you enjoy the Christmas eve with the ones you love and step into the new year with lots of happiness and good health. Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year! GSS (talk

Merry Christmas

Wishing you and yours a blessed feast. Thank you for all of your help. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:55, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

HardSunBadMoon....

...not yet showing as blocked, and continuing to edit. Mostly innocuous (holiday greetings), but I am concerned because this editor has had a past history of bad behavior, both in article edits and on Talk pages of other editors. David notMD (talk) 11:29, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you're looking at a different user? See [6].--Bbb23 (talk) 13:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I see that User:HardSunBadMoon has not posted anything after your note on being blocked (you posted 13:29 25 December) but there is no description on HSBM's User page of the block. Given your note, my guess is that this is awaiting Clerk to make final decision. Thank you for moving the SPI process along. David notMD (talk) 16:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Greetings.

Hello Bbb23: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, DBigXrayᗙ 16:50, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Happy Holidays to you too.--DBigXrayᗙ 16:50, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

reverted edits

Dear Sir, you have deleted my edits without much explanation. Please can you explain. Thanks -DifferentialCalculus

(talk page stalker) Personally I think there is enough explanation here. That is a lot of text to add without anything to back it up. Having looked at your edits, I'm in agreement with Bbb23.-- 5 albert square (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I partially agree with some of bbb23's edits on the page you mentioned but what about edits such as this one this one - [7] . Here everything is sourced. I had also added quotes from a book and 3 other sources. This is factual information as specified in the source. Thanks

Your edit was gushingly promotional: "Narayan Murlidhar Gupte (1872-1947), popularly known as "Bee", famous 19th/early 20th century Marathi poet and a scholar of Sanskrit and English. His poems, published as "Phulanchi Onzal"(bunch of flowers) are marked by a delicate sense of beauty and metaphysical subtleties - such as the marathi poem "Chapha Bolena" (flower does not speak) written by him for his ill wife." You can't add material like that to Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

OK, got it. I understand now. Thanks for explaining - I am new. Can I add it back in an encyclopedic manner - for example- "Narayan Murlidhar Gupte (1872-1947), known by pseudonym "Bee", Marathi language Poet and sanskrit/english scholar". Thanks[user:DifferentailCalculus] By the way, how did you set up wikipedia editor to add those ":" or are you adding them manually?

I'm adding the colons manually. See WP:INDENT. Also, please learn to WP:SIGN your posts to Talk pages. Yes, you can add the material in a less promotional way. I'd also leave out the pseudonym part - it's not necessary to identify who he was. Also, fix the capitalization. Poet shouldn't be capitalized, and Sanskrit and English should be.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

So how do I create an SPI against a blocked range

You deleted Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2600:1702:1690:E10:0:0:0:0/64, but clearly Special:Contributions/2600:1702:1690:E10:0:0:0:0/64 and 76.238.222.85 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are the same editor. So how do I report the evasion of a range block? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:26, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

File it with one of the IPs in the range who edited most recently. Then in the body add the range as a puppet along with the other IP. A range can't be a named master. The SPI is created as if 64 is the master.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #23650

A user you have blocked has opened UTRS appeal #23650 on the Unblock Ticket Request System. The reviewing administrator, Just Chilling (talk · contribs), has requested your input:

thepoliticsexpert (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Time: Dec 27, 2018 00:52:20

Message: I should welcome your input, please?

Notes:

• If you do not have an account on UTRS, you may create one at the administrator registration interface.
• Alternatively, you can respond here and indicate whether you are supportive or opposed to an unblock for this user and your rationale, if applicable.

--UTRSBot (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Just Chilling: I don't see why this is being handled at UTRS. TPE has access to his Talk page, and I see nothing private in the UTRS appeal. His unblock request on November 9 was denied, and he was given instructions on appealing, although I or some other CU would also have to consent. BTW, the November 9 unblock request was just barely six months after I blocked 4 more of his socks, bringing his total to a staggering number. Hard to imagine anyone saying terrific, you apologize, and you're not going to sock again - after all you don't have time to sock. Does anyone that abusive ever reform? I dunno, but it sure doesn't look appealing (if you'll pardon the pun) to me. Happy Holidays to you!--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I fully agree that this should be handled on talk page however, as you will see from my comments at UTRS, I am simply doing some ground clearing to assist in deciding the advice to be given to the appellant. Thanks for providing useful background. Just Chilling (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

ANI

I think after having been editing on WP for almost 10 years you should have a little bit of WP:GOODFAITH that you did not seem to have here [8]. These were intentionally separate because to me they are unrelated. This other user I have brought twice to ANI before for their editing practice over months, and every time they have gone against their promise. They have been blocked 10 times for the exact same type of edits on the same page. If that is not a completely valid and completely unrelated reason to bring someone to ANI I do not know what is. I would think that the history of this issue and this user itself should be more than enough to show this was far from retaliatory. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 12:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Revisions to Bessie Stringfield's Wikipedia Page

Hello, Bbb23, I am a new editor (member) of Wikipedia so am still learning the rules, so please bear with me.

This morning I started correcting factual (and spelling) errors and adding missing citations/references to the Wikipedia page for Bessie Stringfield. I was using the visual editor since it seemed more user-friendly. I made several edits to correct and/or clarify factual information and to add citations/references, and pressed "publish," and it looked like my edits posted. Then I took a short break, came back with the intention of continuing to make factual corrections, clarify misleading sentences, and insert source citations. But suddenly I got an error message saying that there was an editing conflict because another editor was making edits to the page at the same time. I looked in the edit-history page and saw your username, so I'm writing to ask why my edits were taken out?

For instance, here is a necessary edit: It says on Bessie's page that she was Jamaican American. This is incorrect. It also says her (biological) parents were African American. This is also incorrect, even though the NY Times is cited as the source for this. I am a researcher/author/biographer myself. Bessie's biological father was of mixed heritage, African American and Native American. Her biological mother was white and I confirmed this with Esther Bennett, Bessie's niece who was also quoted in the article and in the NY Times obituary. The NY Times obituary was incorrect in reporting that Bessie's parents were African American because the reporter relied on records that are more than 100 years old, when all people of color and their families were listed simply as "negroes." Further, Bessie's biological white mother died in 1916. The census taker did not come until 1920, after Bessie's biological white mother had died. Her father James White had by then remarried an African American woman, who was Bessie's stepmother but not her mother. So, the NY Times article is incorrect about her parents' races.

These corrections (and others) all need to be inserted for the article to be both factually correct and clear, and for the full citations to be listed.

The above information --regarding the unreliability of old records and the practice of the US Census Dept to list all people of color as "negroes," and Bessie's white biological mother not being present for the census taker, can all be inserted as a footnote if that is the etiquette.

Please advise. I would so much appreciate hearing from you on the best way for me to proceed. The Help guide seemed to suggest that I could continue editing using my edits which would supplant yours, but I don't want us to be going back and forth, undoing each other's edits.

If I could hear from you, that would be great. Thank you. Trubea01 (talk) 16:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Trubea01, thanks for posting here. As you say, you don't know all the rules, and I can tell you, having been here a very long time, that Wikipedia full of rules. Briefly, the central problem with your edits is you rely on an unpublished memoir of Ann Ferrar. I read some of the "book" at her website, and it's written as if Ferrar is a groupie and Stringield is her idol. Wikipedia does not consider that website a reliable source. If you want to add or change material, you're going to have to find what are called secondary sources, e.g., prominent American newspapers, etc. You also can't rely on your own research (WP:OR) unless that research is based on reliable sources. You can't say that the New York Times is "wrong" as that's only your opinion. I hope that helps a bit.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your instructions and candid feedback on how to go about making edits and revisions to the Bessie Stringfield page according to the Wikipedia rules. I will give it another go carefully.

Before I begin, I'm not clear on how to cite a reference that is used multiple times in the Wikipedia article - do I use IBID? It's a little tricky because while the same source is cited multiple times in the article, an even more complete citation would be to list the exact pages, paragraphs and lines where the material is sourced from. However, if I use IBID, I wouldn't be able to cite the pages/paragraphs so specifically, since then each citation would be slightly different. Any advice on this? Or shall I just forego citing the specific pages/paragraphs?

In addition to the NY Times obituary on Ms. Stringfield which came out in 2018, there are 3 other main sources for the Wikipedia article, each published in a reputable place, at different times, all by the same author (Stringfield's biographer Ann Ferrar). Two of these references are already cited in the article (the book "Hear Me Roar" and the AMA Hall of Fame bio of Stringfield, which is actually an excerpt from "Hear Me Roar," although the Wiki citation doesn't mention this. [fyi, if you look at the bio on the AMA-HOF site, it states at the top that the HOF article on Stringfield is from "Hear Me Roar."]

The third main source of info in the Wikipedia article is one that I would like to add because it predates all the other sources. It is an article published in the national magazine American Iron in 1993. Much of the available information on Stringfield across the board appears to have begun with the American Iron article published shortly after Stringfield's death in 1993. I have a hard copy of that article (also by Ferrar) and perhaps I can upload it, though it is of course copyrighted material.

Finally, perhaps this is a nit, but since Wikipedia editors are information-junkies, here it is:

In one or more of the references where "Hear Me Roar" is cited, the editor who did the citation listed the publisher as Three Rivers Press/Crown Publishing. That is incorrect, since Crown did not have the Three Rivers Press in 1996 when "Hear Me Roar" was published. Therefore, the correct citation is NY: Crown Trade Paperbacks, 1996, 1st ed. I have a hard copy of the book's copyright page, as well as the copyright registration page from the Copyright.gov database, if you would like to see those.

Also, the correct citation for the 2nd edition of that book is: NH: Whitehorse Press, 2000, 2nd ed.)

Thank you again.Trubea01 (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I won't have time to reply to this until at the earliest tomorrow.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Demoreasimpson16 Sock

I bought this SPI to your attention on December 12th with no action on your end and none by anyone else. The sockpuppet account, Demorea20, continued to vandalize/edit multiple pages which will now require cleanup. Could you please block the offending account, check for any sleepers, and revert the changes made from December 11 to present? Thank you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:08 on December 28, 2018 (UTC)

41.227.176.234

Hi, you blocked User:41.227.176.234 for socking and recreating Hamza Hamry. This behaviour has continued, please action as necessary. Thanks and happy new year. programmingGeek(talk, contribs) 02:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Sock Block

Her can you take a peak at Brian Evans our favorite sock is back. Had a recent rash of copyright issues on commons, then new sock accounts. In discussions we kept one image and it encouraged more meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism only account

Please take a look at Nisheshbhattarai99. They look to be a vandalism only account and a sock too. Thanks. — Jakichandan (talk) 08:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

A sock of whom?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Of Poojjan ccresta. Thanks.—Jakichandan (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

That case is  Stale. You can file a report there, though, based on behavior if you wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

AdidasZRO

AdidasZRO has made exactly two edits. Both of them are giving out barnstars. Hmmm... -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I noticed. I couldn't find any evidence of socking without someone to compare them to.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. I have them on my radar for now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

AN Thread

An AN thread has been started regarding you. You may find it here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:51 on December 29, 2018 (UTC)

Sri Sri Centre for Media Studies

A small private establishment located in a small house in Bangalore [9], without online presence and with zero reliable third-party Google hits other than in directories. The only official online presence is a single webpage at https://www.artofliving.org/in-en/sri-sri-centre-media-studies, last updated in 2013 (see date on image). No, there is nothing that would point even to WP:SIGNIFICANCE, not mentioning notability where private establishments have to cross WP:CORP. You were likely confused by the word "college" which in many countries implies an official recognition; but not in India. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

If it isn't a college, then tag it as a hoax, but it sounds much more like this should be taken to AfD (you could also try prodding it). If an article says an entity is a college, I accept that on face value unless it's obvious to me otherwise. It doesn't help that this article was created years ago.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I hate the PROD process, so have now AfD'd the article. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I support the deletion. User:Kashmiri Please PROD it first and lets save the community time at AfD. No harm in delaying the AfD by a week. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

G5

Hi there. Hope you had a good holiday. Can you please elaborate on why this is ineligible for G5? They’re a sock of a globally locked and locally blocked sock master. Praxidicae (talk) 01:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I went too fast. I saw immediately the creator wasn't locally blocked (I have a script that shows me that automatically) and didn't realize they were globally locked. I've deleted it. Thanks for the nudge.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Spotting this prompted me to pile on at this request - MediaWiki talk:Gadget-markblocked.js#Globally locked and blocked users. If MediaWiki:Gadget-popups.js can mark LOCKED users in popups then there's no reason MediaWiki:Gadget-markblocked.js can't mark them too.

Praxidicae your un-named G5 author would be a useful LOCKED but not BLOCKED test-case for that request. Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I use the same script (I think?) and it gets me sometimes too. I actually kind of assumed that was the case on the decline which is why I asked. :) And thanks Cabayi! I actually use this script xwiki when doing my GS patrols and it would be super handy for when I wind up blocking spambots that are already glocked. Praxidicae (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

SPI: unexplained reversion

Hi, you didn't leave an explanation in your edit summary on this revert. Please could you help me understand your rationale? Thanks, Zazpot (talk) 18:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I closed the report. You can't just reopen it. If you have something new that is relevant, you can add it but without reopening it.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for replying.

You can't just reopen it. This comes as something of a surprise to me. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/guide#What_happens_in_the_case explicitly states that a user can re-open a case. Please could you point me to a policy or guideline (or equivalent) that corroborates your claim?

If you have something new that is relevant, you can add it but without reopening it. I don't understand the rationale for this statement. According to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/guide#What_happens_in_the_case, closed reports don't receive scrutiny or CheckUser attention. The whole point of my edits ([10], [11]) was to provide additional evidence and to reopen the case to obtain CheckUser review for the suspected sock. Is the documentation out of date? Do closed reports now receive administrator review and CU attention? Zazpot (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

The reopening the guide is talking about is when you create a new report about new users, not when you unclose a report that was just closed. I already ran a check on the two users and reported my findings, but even if I hadn't and had closed it for other reasons, you can't reopen the same report.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

The reopening the guide is talking about is when you create a new report about new users... I'm not trying to be difficult, but that does not make sense to me. How does opening a new report about new users constitute reopening?

even if I hadn't and had closed it for other reasons, you can't reopen the same report. Again, please could you point me to a policy or guideline that corroborates this claim?

I already ran a check on the two users and reported my findings... A checkuser check? If so, thank you for doing that. (It was not clear to me that you had done so, because you seemed to have skipped straight from step 1 to step 6 of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/guide#What_happens_in_the_case; but I guess you actually skipped from step 1 to steps 3 and 6 simultaneously, without stopping at steps 2 or 4-5. I had not expected that to happen.) I must say I am surprised that LibertyLegend did not show up as a sock; oh well. Zazpot (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

You may not be trying to be difficult, but you are doing so anyway. Last comment. When you open a new case (the first report), it's called opening. After the report is disposed of, usually closed and archived but closed is sufficient, filing a new report is called reopening. Whether the jargon makes sense to you doesn't matter; that's just the way it is. And stop asking me to point to some magical policy that has language you think applies; it's very annoying.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Osourdounmou

Thanks for that. When I created the report, I saw there was another open... wasn't sure it was okay for me to simply delete it. Never happened to me before. In the future, if it happens, it's alright for me to delete it? Or should I leave it alone? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!

Hello Bbb23: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great New Year! Cheers, 5 albert square (talk) 23:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019

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

Administrator changes

Galobtter

Orangemike

BorgQueen • Davidruben • Ocee • Revolving Bugbear • Theda • There'sNoTime • Timc • Tijuana Brass • Tristessa de St Ange

Bureaucrat changes

Addshore

CheckUser changes

Joe Roe • SilkTork

Euryalus • Newyorkbrad • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

AGK • Joe Roe • SilkTork

Euryalus • Newyorkbrad • There'sNoTime

Guideline and policy news

• There are a number of new or changed speedy deletion criteria, each previously part of WP:CSD#G6:

1. G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
2. R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
3. G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.

• The Wikimedia Foundation now requires all interface administrators to enable two-factor authentication.
• Members of the Bot Approvals Group (BAG) are now subject to an activity requirement. After two years without any bot-related activity (e.g. operating a bot, posting on a bot-related talk page), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice.

Technical news

• Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:

1. At least 8 characters in length
2. Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
3. Different from their username

User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.

• Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
• {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

Arbitration

• Following the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: AGK, Courcelles, GorillaWarfare, Joe Roe, Mkdw, SilkTork.

Miscellaneous

• Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
• Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Bambifan101?

Good day! I'm an admin on the Uzbek Wikipedia. After several strange, obsessive comments on my talk page by 104.58.147.208, I decided to do a little bit of digging and came across this where you seem to have made a few edits. While the edits and comments of this individual on uzwiki have generally been harmless, his/her obsession with juvenile-themed movies and books certainly raised a red flag. Just wanted to ask you if we should start an investigation. It seems this individual has made some edits on enwiki as well. Nataev ^talk 12:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nataev: By all means file a report at SPI. In addition to other evidence, please highlight the block log at the SPI. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 12:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Arbcom notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Sockpuppet allegations and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Levivich (talk) 08:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Don't ping you

Do you mean in that discussion, or ever again?--v/r - TP 16:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Notice (added party)

At the request of the arbitrators, you have been added as a named party to the GiantSnowman case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 10, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv🍁 16:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)