User talk:Stephen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019[edit]

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


Administrator changes

added EnterpriseyJJMC89
readded BorgQueen
removed Harro5Jenks24GraftR. Baley

Interface administrator changes


Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
  • Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news

  • A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.


  • Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clive Swift[edit]

I have read the NFCC several times and the only distinction is between living people and deceased people. There is no edict to wait an arbitrary extra time after the person's death. The Clive Swift page was on this website for well over fourteen years and in that time there clearly had not been a free-licence image of him found by any of those editors who had contributed to it. I also did several searches myself before uploading that Doctor Who screenshot.

There are many articles about once-living subjects which sat image-less for a long time, and I do not know of any cases where photographs of the person were released under a free licence immediately after their death. In several cases (Baroness Trumpington, Lord Stewartby, Lord Richard, Peter Imbert, Charlie Gard) I have uploaded a fair use photograph within a month, or even a day, of the subject's death and it did not provoke any complaint. It was generally understood that if free images had not been found during the preceding years in which the subject was alive then they were not likely to suddenly emerge a week after the subject's death.

If ever a free photograph of Clive Swift does become available, it will of course replace the one that I used. Until then, File:Clive Swift 2007.jpg stands.

Robin S. Taylor (talk) 12:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) Please see Talk:Dan Kneen#Images 'deleted' from article by an editor invoking a bot (twice). --Rocknrollmancer (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're wrong on two counts. Firstly, the site consensus is that non-free images are not uploaded immediately on death. There should be time taken to respectfully reach out to source a free image from family, agents, publishers, etc. Secondly, a non-free image of an actor in a role can only be used to illustrate that role, not the actor themselves. Stephen 23:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your comments. It would be expeditious if you could point to any discussion where this (new-to-me term) "site consensus" was established; likewise the second point about any role of an actor.

Some years ago I approached an admin for advice and was bitten - twice, on two different occasions - then on the second occasion further lambasted for my 'ignorance of MediaWiki software' (loose quote). Accordingly, any further guidance from your previous involvements would be beneficial.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 12:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have a look 5 sections up where a clueless admin had exactly the same issues with an image he uploaded (File:Chérif Chekatt.png). Stephen 23:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Michael Ripper[edit]


I notice you have taken down the image I put up, File:Actor Michael Ripper.jpg, and left the comment "Not fair use as main image," but without any reason given as to why not. Can you please elucidate? Beryl reid fan (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We shouldn't use an image of an actor playing a role to illustrate the actor themselves, it should only be used to illustrate the role, and then only if it is iconic in some way. Stephen 23:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

O.K. thanks. I found it hard to find a decent one of him, if I remember. Beryl reid fan (talk) 09:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC) Just found a decent one (much better, so thank you) and put it in the article. Beryl reid fan (talk) 09:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drive-By Purging[edit]

Having rejected my pleas on Clive Swift, you are obviously pouring over my contributions list in a photograph deletion spree.

  • The photograph of Baroness Trumpington had two fair use rationales: the first was to illustrate the likeness of a deceased person, the second to show a notable event which, given that it was only recorded on parliamentary cameras, could not be available from any free-licence source.
  • You insist there is a consensus to wait six months (though, as admitted in the linked discussions, it is not actually in the letter of the rules), but Lord Norwich has been dead for eight months and yet you deleted him anyway. Your assertion that "a famous speaker would almost certainly have a free image available" strikes me as specious given there are plenty of famous individuals on this website for whom free images have not been found.
  • Linda Smith died just shy of THIRTEEN YEARS ago. Also, prior to the upload of my image, the same article already had a different non-free photograph of her, which had been in place for several years without apparently coming to your attention.
  • I don't really understand what you mean by "evidence" of attempts to source free images - I haven't seen this applied to the many dozens or even hundreds of non-free biographical images that were uploaded before my time on the same fair use rationales that I have employed. Certainly I am not inclined to believe that you have made any significant effort to check any of them during today's rampage - and if you had found free images to replace my non-free ones, surely you would have put them in place instead of just leaving the infoboxes empty?

Overall I am decidedly unimpressed by your behaviour. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The community has come to a consensus that non-free images of deceased persons should only be uploaded where it is unlikely that a free image could be found. When a non-free image is uploaded it should only be done months after the person has dies, and when a search for a free image has been exhausted. If Trumpington's image is being used to show a notable or iconic event then it should only be shown inline with the event. John Julius Norwich is a famous speaker and it is unlikely that a free image doesn't exist. Similarly for Linda Smith as a famous comedian. The onus is on you to show that you have exhausted all avenues before uploading a non-free image. The best was would be to document your extensive fruitless search in the talk page of the article in question. The onus is not on me as an administrator to search for an upload free images to cover your actions. Stephen 01:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

British English[edit]

Hi, this correction kind of undermined the consistency we've been aiming at at DYK to use British English for British subjects. The nominator himself used British English ("realised" instead of "realized") in his query. Yoninah (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, I'm afraid that's completely incorrect and Stephen's correction was exactly right in British English. We simply do not refer to station names in the UK in the way you are asserting. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nick Cafardo[edit]

Hi - regarding your edit to remove a photo of Nick Cafardo; you noted "Not fair use, too soon after death" — I have not seen such policy, can you please provide a link to where that is documented. Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Non-free content, Images, point 10. Stephen 05:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The one that reads as below? There's no mention of time there... ? Dmoore5556 (talk) 05:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely. Note that if the image is from a press or photo agency (e.g., AP, Corbis or Getty Images) and is not itself the subject of critical commentary it is assumed automatically to fail "respect for commercial opportunity"."
The community consensus is that at least 6 months wait is reasonable to ensure that a free use image can not be obtained. Stephen 06:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, thanks for the clarification; good to know. It would probably help for that to be added to the noted point 10. Dmoore5556 (talk) 06:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Vinny Vella: nope[edit]

Hi, an IP had added unsourced films to the article after nomination. I have removed it again, can you please check if it can be posted now. --DBigXray 07:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Handel, Chopin[edit]

Wish you'd left this one alone for a while. What have you got against a little good-natured back-and-forth? – (or against me?) – Sca (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No offence intended at all, just clearing some old reports and checking that nothing needs attention. It's not a page conducive to back-and-forth banter, and I didn't notice that your comments were so recent. Best wishes. Stephen 23:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK and thanks. All the best. Sca (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Archbishop of Chicago[edit]

"No error" – That's a matter of opinion. Sca (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.


  • The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
    • has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


re [1]: cheap, too cheap. For starters, there is also "big news vs. small news", you did not clarify. Anyway, no need to tell me "you know how this works" by your personal assuption/arrogance. Next time, speak for yourself. -DePiep (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thank you - the loony fan has also targeted Marisa Siketa‎[edit]

Thank you. That loony extreme Saddle Club fan has also targeted the Marisa Siketa‎ (who was also Melanie in Saddle Club) article for a long time. Can you protect that as well please? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 08:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thank you for fixing this awkwardly worded segment of the "In the News" section of the Main Page. It was bothering me for days! Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 22:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revision deletion request[edit]

Hi Stephen, It seems that someone's personal details have been posted in this edit. So I was wondering if you could consider doing a Revision Delete please? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@1292simon: Done, thanks for the note. Stephen 20:54, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow that was quick! Thanks for deleting the Edit Summary. Sorry to trouble you again, but the personal information was also in the edit itself, so perhaps the versions by that IP editor should be removed from the Revision History? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks again, I missed the details in the text, that’s now been hidden as well. Stephen 01:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great, thanks for that. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 04:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this an April fool?[edit]

User talk:Jimbo Wales is usually edit unprotected and move protected. On 14 March you configured it to be indefinitely edit protected and move unprotected. Are you serious? (talk) 08:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Read the protection log again as you are mistaken. Stephen 09:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, it was 11 March. Here's the log:

curprev 04:21, 11 March 2019‎ Stephen talk contribs‎ m 16,329 bytes 0‎ Changed protection level for "User talk:Jimbo Wales": Persistent sock puppetry ([Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (indefinite) [Move=Require administrator access] (expires 04:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC))) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

The protection expired after 3 days, on March 14. It wasn’t indefinite. Stephen 09:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(talk page stalker) Stephen, I thought the IP was being silly at first, but looking at it again I think there actually was a mistake here... From [2] you changed the Move protection from "indefinite" to "expires 14 March", and the Edit protection was set to semi-protected "indefinite". Presumably you intended to set semi-protection until 14 March and retain Move protection indefinitely. I have edited the protection settings just now so that the page is fully editable, but only movable by administrators. If that was not your intention after the expiry of the protection you set, please let me know! Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I edit-conflicted. Thanks. Have a good day. (talk) 10:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jimbo Wales[edit]

To avoid violating 3RR I won’t reinstate the joke again, but I’d appreciate it if you didn’t rollback WP:APRILFOOLS content as if it was vandalism. (talk) 12:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019[edit]

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

Technical news



  • Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a 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. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
  • As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remove old?[edit]

That was your edit summary for removing "Recent deaths". Let me understand: Yes, Ruth-Margret Pütz died "already" 1 April, but news came around only 5 April (my talk), and official news a day later. Is that "old"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, my edit summary was ‘rm 2 old RDs > 7 days’. Per the instructions, Recent deaths more than 7 days old are removed. Stephen 10:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand that much, only think it's kind of unfair that it seems related to the date of death, in cases of a late information about that death, and that date of having been entered might be better to be used, perhaps per IAR when there a few anyway. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair use image on Shepard elephant[edit]

File:Roger Shepard with Shepard elephant illusion March 2019 ASU SciAPP conference.jpg
Roger Shepard (2019) with poster showing Shepard elephant (4 legs, 4 feet)
Derivative version of Shepard elephant (4 legs, 5 feet)

There is a specific reason for using the fair-use image of a Shepard elephant poster in addition to the Wikimedia image of Shepard himself standing next to the poster. The article itself talks about (and shows a PD image of) a later derivative that has been widely circulated on the internet. The only difference between the two is derivative's addition of an extra leg, crafted from the "tail" of the original. Unfortunately, Shepard is standing in front of the most important part of the poster showing his original image. Therefore it is not gratuitous to include the fair-use image, which is an image of the same poster as the one Shepard is standing next to.

I took both photographs, both show the same poster. I uploaded the poster itself as fair-use because I did not want to dilute Shepard's copyright. I believe that showing the suitably-small fair-use image of the original Shepard elephant design in the article about the Shepard elephant is exactly the way fair-use images are meant to be used. It is unfortunate that Shepard is standing in front of the most important part of the poster in the other image. If he weren't, there would be no need to include the fair-use image, I agree. Please reconsider your decision to remove the fair-use image and undo it. Thank you. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update, bot just notified me the fair use image will be deleted because it is no longer in an article. So I wish you will reconsider saving this useful information for ourreaders.Thanks. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It won’t be deleted for a week. I don’t believe the non-free image is justified, as there’s a 90% uncovered portrait version, and a derivative version. The tail is not the most important part of the illusion, the legs are. Happy for you to discuss on a suitable talk page for non-free images to gauge further consensus. Stephen 03:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where would be a suitable talk page for this discussion? The most important part of the image for the illusion is indeed the legs. But the most important part of the image for comparing the original to the derivative image is the part of the elephant that differs between the two images: the derivative's added leg at the back. Look at the two PD images above. You can not tell the difference between those two elephants because Shepard's torso entirely blocks your view of the relevant part of the image. That is why the fair-use image is essential to the article. Without it, you can't understand why the five-footed derivative is said to be different from Shepard's original. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@HouseOfChange:, from the discussion at WP:Media copyright questions it seems that the photo of Shepard with the Elephant behind him is wrongly tagged, so here's what I suggest:

  • Crop and upload an image to just Shepherd alone, and use to illustrate the article for the man and also include in sub-articles on his work.
  • Delete the image of Shepard and the obscured Elephant.
  • Use your standalone photo of the Elephant (the one showing the ambiguous tail) as a fair use representation of the artwork.

Does this make sense? Stephen 01:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those sound like good suggestions, a much more productive use of time than arguing fine points of policy. Thanks for your help. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. Let me know when you need any files deleted from here, and they're already tagged for deletion at Commons. Are you planning on writing an article for Shepard's other illusion shown in the portrait panorama (the two figures in a tunnel)? Stephen 01:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't plan to write about the other illusion, which is not particularly famous. There is an interesting thing called a Shepard diagram I want to write up, if I can find a free-use image of one. The idea behind it is very interesting. I also have part of an article written for ghost moose in my sandbox, but real life has been busy during the past few weeks. Thanks again. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lists of Australians[edit]

Categories are heirachical. Lists of Australians is included in Category:Lists of Australian people, which is already in Category:Lists of people by nationality. But I suppose it should be in the List of Lists category. Rathfelder (talk) 06:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ITN recognition[edit]

Hi. I think you may have forgotten to add ITN recognition after posting Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#(Posted) RD: Richard Lugar. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done, thanks. Stephen 00:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Stephen: Thanks. I just saw that I didn't get any alerts and wanted to make sure you hadn't forgotten --DannyS712 (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DannyS712:, no problem. Not every posting admin does it though, especially the drive-by posters, and there's no issue with you crediting yourself for the record. Stephen 01:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Stephen: In that case, should I credit myself as the updater for this one? For nominator its fairly clear, but whether or not one's contributions count as being the updater is less clean cut, so I prefer not to credit myself --DannyS712 (talk) 01:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You made updates resulting in quality improvement, so it's fine in my view. Stephen 01:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DannyS712:, now I see my problem: I was confusing you with the other very similarly named editor who got the nominator's credit. I will fix the credits. Stephen 01:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2019 special circular[edit]

Icon of a white exclamation mark within a black triangle
Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)[edit]

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.


  • In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
  • Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quick Notice[edit]

Just wanted to let you know that your "My edit count" hyperlink on your user profile links to a 404-Not Found page. (I would send you a private message instead, but I have no idea how to do that--sorry.)

TheHardestAspectOfCreatingAnAccountIsAlwaysTheUsername (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I'll find another link someplace for edit counts. I create that one years ago probably on some long-abandoned counter. FYI. there are no private messages other than sending an email from the 'Email this user' link on the left-hand side. Stephen 03:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Only if you want[edit]

Hi! Nice to meet you!, could you review my nomination of former Nauruan President for RD?, I invite you!, regardless of your position!. Kind regards! --LLcentury (talk) 01:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LLcentury: this was assessed by someone else and posted. Thanks for your nomination. Stephen 02:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Current template on Aeroflot Flight 1492[edit]

Is there any specific rationale behind removing the tag? In my opinion the fact that the investigation is underway is enough of a reason to keep it up, as it encourages users to update the article with latest information. Cheers, FriyMan Per aspera ad astra 19:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Never mind, I should have read the description of the template. Sorry for disturbance. Cheers, FriyMan Per aspera ad astra 19:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Australian Labor Party[edit]

I saw you protected the page Australian Labor Party, however you might have forgotten to add a protection-symbol to the article! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Vif12vf: Done, thanks for the note. Stephen 00:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I reinstated this topic as I was just finishing my reply when you deleted it. Request you leave it a bit longer. Thanks. – Sca (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry Stephen, just yesterday Sca notified me that had an "edit conflict" which was delayed by more than ten minutes. As this will pass in a couple of hours, I suggest we just leave it at ERRORS until tomorrow. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ITN reversion[edit]

Hi Stephen -- did you mean to revert your recent 2 postings? I was preparing to post the fire though haven't yet investigated the riot. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A completely unnoticed mis-click . Thanks for the note. Stephen 23:26, 26 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dummy deletion[edit]

Hi Stephen. Can you help me with this please? Just to delete it, and immediately undelete. More of a dummy editdelete, if you want to call it that. I'm pretty sure the article is not showing up on search Engines because of the previous page moves. P31?P40? (talk) 14:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article probably hadn't been indexed by search engines. Stephen 05:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's what I thought too, but it has been this way for a while now. And strangely, if you even search the whole term "2019 anti Muslim riots in Sri Lanka", the result is no where to be seen. Even if we include the word Wikipedia. Since a deletion for a few seconds won't be controversial, can we try that? P31?P40? (talk) 05:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's no evidence that page moves affect search results, so it's not a valid deletion reason, nor is there nay chance it would fix things. Ask at WP:VPT if you think there is an issue. Stephen 06:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright. Thanks anyways. Kind regards, P31?P40? (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019[edit]

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


Administrator changes

removed AndonicConsumed CrustaceanEnigmamanEuryalusEWS23HereToHelpNv8200paPeripitusStringTheory11Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

removed Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
  • An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
  • An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

  • The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
  • Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


And why wasn't it fixed? Govvy (talk) 12:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was discussed at WP:Errors, and it aligns with WP:JOBTITLES. Stephen 09:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019[edit]

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


Administrator changes

removed 28bytesAd OrientemAnsh666BeeblebroxBoing! said ZebedeeBU Rob13Dennis BrownDeorDoRDFloquenbeam1Flyguy649Fram2GadfiumGB fanJonathunderKusmaLectonarMoinkMSGJNickOd MishehuRamaSpartazSyrthissTheDJWJBscribe
1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Guideline and policy news

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

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.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

India/Pakistan heat wave[edit]

Hi Stephen -- Good to see you back at ITN. I notice you added 2019 heat wave in India and Pakistan to ongoing, but I also note it has been little edited since 1 July. As there are four items at the moment, which tends to exacerbate balance problems, I'd ask you to reconsider. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 02:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, you're right, the edits were not substantial additions. I removed it. Stephen 03:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ITN wording[edit]

To clarify, I was addressing a grammatical issue. Another solution is to append the definite article. (In English prose, they're the Russo brothers.) —David Levy 13:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news



  • Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
  • The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

    Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019[edit]

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


Administrator changes

added BradvChetsfordIzno
readded FloquenbeamLectonar
removed DESiegelJake WartenbergRjanagTopbanana

CheckUser changes

removed CallaneccLFaraoneThere'sNoTime

Oversight changes

removed CallaneccFoxHJ MitchellLFaraoneThere'sNoTime

Technical news

  • Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
  • The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New message from DBigXray[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Stephen. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#RD%3A_Carol_Lynley.
Message added 07:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DBigXray 07:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you![edit]

Erdbeerteller01.jpg Thank you for joining the discussion on RD: Carol Lynley and agreeing to change your mind to post. DBigXray 11:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Administrators' Exclusive Friendship and Support Club....[edit] working well. We now have one Admin closing a discussion with a personal attack on me, and you not allowing me to respond. Wikipedia is sick. HiLo48 (talk) 06:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That doesn’t sound good. Link? Jehochman Talk 08:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#(Posted) RD: Paul Cronin and this edit Stephen 09:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

  • As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.



  • The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two lines or six deaths[edit]

Hi Stephen, regarding your revert. There are some instructions on the template which say There should be a maximum of 5-6 recent deaths, over no more than 2 lines. Remove any older than 7 days. I can't find any corresponding instructions at WP:ITN/A so I wonder where this instruction came from? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Martin for raising this discrepancy. I don’t recall in any of the discussions about the number of RDs, especially when it got bumped up to 6, that there was a qualifier about the number of lines. Balance has always been managed by adding or removing whole blurbs. I’ll look around a bit more. I meant no offence in undoing your removal. 08:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
No offence. I just wanted to explain my rationale for removing the 6th. It seems sensible not to let that section get too large, but I am not too familiar with all the past discussions. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


When we get to Leonov, shouldn't we use a more current photo of Leonov: File:Aleksei Leonov 19 April 2016 (cropped).jpg. I like how he is wearing his two Hero of the Soviet Union medals. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:23, 12 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alexei not Aleksey. Cheers. Thanks. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:WHEEL notice[edit]

I feel like I've told you this before, but if your administrative change is reverted, then it is forbidden to reinstate it. This includes pictures on ITN, which are edited through protection and thus subject to 1RR like other admin actions. Please self-revert and discuss. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:24, 12 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The rules for ITN are that the top item is pictured. If you want to change the rules so that we cycle slowly through available images then start an RFC, rather than creating your unilateral view without any consensus that I can see. Stephen 11:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You knew that the plan was re cycling through the pictures, it's been discussed on my talk page, Gerda Arendt agreed with it, and there was discussion on the candidates page yesterday. It was simply not necessary to change the pic again after only three hours of listing. We frequently make on-the-fly decisions about putting different pics up at different times, so certainly this was not such an urgent or clear-cut issue that you had to wheel war with me in that way. I respect your point of view, but warring is never an acceptable substitute for discussion, and once again you have broken a bright-line rule.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My comments on the above:

  • Amakuru: you shouldn't leave instructions to other admins in hidden comments, which have no basis in policy, and expect them to follow without question. This seems like micromanagement. A suggestion posted at WT:ITN may have attracted support and then would be more likely to be acted on.
  • Stephen: you are not allowed to reinstate a reverted edit on a fully protected page. Arbcom will take away your tools for this kind of behaviour. Please ensure this does not happen again.

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ITN recognition for Chris (sheep)[edit]

Ambox current red.svgOn 24 October 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Chris (sheep), which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

  • A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019[edit]

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


Administrator changes

added EvergreenFirToBeFree
removed AkhilleusAthaenaraJohn VandenbergMelchoirMichaelQSchmidtNeilNYoungamerican😂

CheckUser changes

readded Beeblebrox
removed Deskana

Interface administrator changes

readded Evad37

Guideline and policy news

Technical news



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Protection of Talk:Main Page[edit]

Not sure if you saw this already, but FYI: WP:VPT#Nonsense from mobile editors. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Suffusion of Yellow:, no I hadn't. Thanks for the heads up. Stephen 21:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Stephen, could you help me with the blurb for the Chilean military plane? You are normally good at phrasing these well. Cheers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It’s a tricky one, but the main tweak was to use the simple present tense. There may be some better suggestions at Errors. Thanks for taking the time to assess an older item, that would otherwise probably have been missed. Stephen 11:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy Holidays[edit]

Happy Holidays text 2.png Thank you for continuing to make Wikipedia the greatest project in the world. I hope you have an excellent holiday season. BabbaQ (talk) 10:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ITN blurb[edit]

Hi Stephen, I started this thread for a more general discussion on ITNC. you said that we dont post same story twice. Can you clarify what you meant by the story ? The blurb are clearly different. Do you mean we dont post same article twice ? if so Then how do you explain Brexit getting a blurb so many times ? This info will help me to be more careful while nominating ITNs. Ping when you reply. Thanks in advance. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXray 20:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DBigXray: The story is the protests because of the Act, which was posted in mid-December. The the protests are continuing should be ongoing. The old blurb should have been nominated to be posted to ongoing as it rolled off, but it was missed. Brexit is only posted when significant events happen, and it’s in and out of ongoing when there’s general activity.Stephen 22:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy New Year, Stephen![edit]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Russian government[edit]

Stephen, DBigXray now says he's 'fixed' the [3] Russian govt. nom. FYI, he posted this on my talk:

"I have fixed the issues, while you were commenting. May be you can remove your last comment. Please share your opinion on the best blurb."
You might want to take another look at it. – Sca (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
  • The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

  • Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
  • When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [4]


  • Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please clarify your reversion[edit]

I see that you reverted my edit of (Closed) I don't know how, but could someone put 2020_Iowa_Democratic_caucuses on here?. Your comment was, "(Undid revision 939709028 by Ubzerver (talk), one wasn’t an error)." So, which thing that I thought was an error, wasn’t an error, and is anybody going to fix the thing that was an error? Ubzerver (talk) 08:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Snow close is an accepted term. The world has moved on and it’s trivial, so no, nobody’s going to fix the error. Your refactoring of the discussion on animations that had petered out was also pointless, a complete waste of time, and should be reverted. Stephen 21:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
  • A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

  • Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My comment[edit]

Look closely at what I wrote. I don't think I even implied that TRM is violating Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I just said that if his actions are permitted, then I don't feel welcome. It is disingenuous for you to prevent me from saying that. Perhaps you can think of a better phrasing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What gives you the idea that this is anything to do with violating policies and guidelines? The phrase "[a]s long as The Rambling Man's actions are tolerated" implies that his actions are somehow sub-par, and casts aspersions against him. This is a personal attack. You have been asked multiple times at ANI to provide evidence of this behaviour which you failed to do, as well as failing to respond to accusations regarding your treatment of IPs. Your block was partial only to allow you to respond at ANI, so continue the discussion there. Stephen 04:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Come on Stephen. Please relax. Seriously. Mr Rubin is free to state his mind. That is all that it is. That's his position and there's absolutely nothing wrong with saying what his perspective is and/or how he feels. Dawnseeker2000 04:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think Rubin feels entitled to make a scene about this because the entire community agreed that his actions were wrong and that mine were correct. What's wrong with saying what his perspective is and/or how he feels is that he's doing it without any context e.g. a link to the community discussion in which he repeatedly personally attacked me, repeated cast aspersions and repeatedly ignored requests for evidence to substantiate any of it, a direct repeat of the behaviour that got him de-sysopped a while ago. Not to mention the multiple concerns over Rubin's behaviour at the years pages and his treatment of IP editors. So, for "If his actions are permitted, then I don't feel welcome" read "because I attacked TRM multiple times at multiple venues without evidence and didn't get away with it, I'm off." I even offered to help Rubin out with his behavioural issues. But based on the community discussion, Rubin has made the right decision even though he feels he has to have one last snipe before he goes. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 06:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

  • There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news



  • The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tom Moore[edit]

I don't understand the rush to close this discussion. Your close is based on the implied opinion that no one else will add to this discussion but in fact if you close after one day you have no idea if this discussion will continue. I did not see this discussion as I'm sure many others have not, so did not have a chance to weigh in. I assume my opinion is worth as much as yours or anyone else's. Please reconsider this close and allow this discussion to run it's course. If after a few days nothing changes then yes, a close is warranted. Discussions on Wikipedia do not their course in one day. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Please leave the Nova Scotia killings ITN discussion in ERRORS alone - all the issues haven't been settled yet. TNX. – Sca (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK re issues. Thanks. – Sca (talk) 13:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS: I like the current "22 victims dead" formulation. – Sca (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, an unambiguous wording that I don’t think we’ve tried before. Stephen 22:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020[edit]

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


Administrator changes

removed GnangarraKaisershatnerMalcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

readded Callanecc

Oversight changes

readded HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

Technical news


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi! Just a quick reply to this: a shortcuts box isn't expected to list all shortcuts available, but only the most prominent and widely used one/s: WP:LINKBOXES. – Uanfala (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There’s only 2, both of which are used. Stephen 22:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: marking own ITN noms as ready[edit]

Is there a written rule against doing so? I see ThaddeusB doing so on numerous occasions.[5][6][7][8][9] And you didn't revert him. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There was a discussion here [10] suggesting it was bad form. Stephen 22:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for letting me know! I didn't see that discussion until now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020[edit]

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


Administrator changes

added CaptainEekCreffettCwmhiraeth
removed Anna Frodesiak


CheckUser changes

removed SQL

Guideline and policy news


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

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:In The News[edit]

OK, I said my edit was bold, so was expecting a challenge. As you've reverted it is only fair we discuss.

I don't know whether you've seen my nomination of the statue of Edward Colston at ITNC, but the protests there, and in London, were getting close to a riot. The blurb states protests and riots, so I think my addition of "and elsewhere" to the blurb was valid even if the riot threshold wasn't quite reached. Will you please reconsider your reversion, or shall I raise this for discussion at WT:ITN so that a consensus can be established for the inclusion or otherwise of "and elsewhere"? Mjroots (talk) 11:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Definitely fair to say there have been mass protests which bordered on riots in the UK. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I’m not convinced that they’re riots of the same level as the US or HK, but happy to revert my undoing. Stephen 11:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ITN Trump rally closure[edit]

good close but please include your rationale in the closing notes. The OP is not an ITN "regular" and had no idea how doomed their good faith nom was --LaserLegs (talk) 11:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The standard is ‘consensus will not develop to post’, do you think that would have helped him more? Stephen 20:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Derailing other people's threads[edit]

In your revert you wrote, "she has been warned multiple times about derailing other people's threads".[11] Could you give a diff for a warning previous to your current reverts? Bob K31416 (talk) 15:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


How come you removed the Hong Kong protests from "Ongoing" in the template "In the news"? I thought they were still ongoing and haven't ended (yet). Quahog (talkcontribs) 15:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Quahog:, there was a discussion to remove at WP:ITN/C. Stephen 06:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removing talk page messages[edit]

Hi, do you believe that WP:TALK supports third party message removal for derailment without notification? EllenCT (talk) 05:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does WP:TALK mention notification? Stephen 06:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My understanding is that even a strong, righteous, well-founded suspicion of derailment does not qualify for removal, because derailment is ill-defined. In this forum, everyone is free to say what they want, most of the time, even when it raises important and uncomfortable issues. Do you know of a contrary interpretation? EllenCT (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your derailment is not ill defined at all, and you have been warned not to do it on previous occasions. Are you editing while logged out to try an create an illusion of support? Stephen 21:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is the definition of derailment? When threads are open at every junction, is it even technically possible? To answer your question, if you are so sloppy as to edit as if derailment is well-defined, then why should I respect you enough to bother to log in? EllenCT (talk) 19:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2020[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ITN recognition for Kelly Preston[edit]

Ambox current red.svgOn 14 July 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Kelly Preston, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rather than just reverting[edit]

Rather than reverting without comment its a good idea to discuss this on the talk page involved. Your views are invited at Jyotsna Bhatt. Victuallers (talk) 08:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: ITN date[edit]

With regards to this, I haven't seen any consensus in favour of treating RDs differently from blurbs for the purposes of time … —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yellow box at the top of the nominations page, "How to nominate an item", second bullet. Stephen 05:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yup, read that already. And the date of an event is defined in Wikipedia:In the news#Procedure for posting as "when the event was first reported in reliable sources. This will often be the same day as the event itself, but sometimes it can be some time later." I placed my nom under "July 20" because that was "when the event was first reported in reliable sources", not because it was the date nominated (it just so happen to be the same date). I see no consensus in favour of scrapping the aforementioned definition of the "date of an event". —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(talk page stalker) @Bloom6132: the "date reported" clause is intended for cases where there's a significant delay between the event and its announcement for some reason. Where something happens one day and is reported in the media the next day, we always just use the day of the event. Scouring sources to try to determine and argue about whether something was reported on Thursday or Friday would not be a good use of time or add any value.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Amakuru explains it perfectly, and when you nominate an item you should follow "How to nominate an item" and not "Procedure for posting". Stephen 09:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am following "How to nominate an item". That section, however, does not define or elaborate on what "date of an event" means, while "Procedure for posting" does. I'll take the established definition in the latter any day over a broken convention not supported by consensus that is premised on "we always just use …". —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hal Bernson ITN nom[edit]

Any particular reason why my nom above didn't get promoted in your latest round of postings? Four of the RDs you posted were nominated to dates after Bernson's death. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Missed it when working the queue. All posted now. Stephen 04:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, and no worries about that! I was just concerned that it would go stale. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD Ruth Lewis Died 20 July 2020[edit]

Hi Stephen, Thank you for posting the above RD which I nominated - could you kindly do the give credit bit for me. Best wishes JW 1961 Talk 06:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done, sorry for missing that. Stephen 10:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, no problems have a great day JW 1961 Talk 10:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, I've always done these entries by the date the death was announced, rather than date of death, as that's how they're listed at ITN/C. If you listed them by actual DOD, someone who died a week ago but whose death was not released until today would immediately drop to the bottom of the list when they were posted? Black Kite (talk) 11:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The case where the reports of death are delayed by a significant number of days is a special one that warrants posting on the reported date. All others are listed by the date of death. Stephen 11:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And the instructions at the top of ITNC state to list on the event date. Stephen 11:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks like I've been doing it wrong all along :) Black Kite (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well if you have, then no-one's noticed! Stephen 21:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020[edit]

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


Administrator changes

added Red Phoenix
readded EuryalusSQL
removed JujutacularMonty845RettetastMadchester

Oversight changes

readded GB fan
removed KeeganOpabinia regalisPremeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

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

ITN barnstar[edit]

In The News Barnstar Hires.png The In The News Barnstar
Thank you for everything you do to keep ITN running, including ensuring article quality and posting blurbs and RDs, and always giving credit to everyone involved! Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 06:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Experience with a recent ITN/C post[edit]

Greetings Stephen

I am the editor who had posted a recent nomination at ITN/C re: NASA/SpaceX capsule’s return to Earth. I wanted to share my thoughts on the whole process with you.

I am not sharing this with an intent of seeking an redressal of any form. But, I wanted to use this post to indicate how unfriendly this whole process is. More so, how hostile language and actions from seasoned contributors, can not only create a bitter experience, but, can also dissuade well meaning new comers from being contributors of any form. It has definitely dissuaded me from contributing henceforth.

Let me start off with the fact that I stated in my post itself, right out of the bat — that this was my first post and I request for friendly guidance through the process in case there were any lapses. Not only was that ignored by seasoned editors, the entire experience was bitter and filled with snark.

Caveat - Yes, I did momentarily feel disappointed, yesterday, that we missed out on an opportunity to post what was a relevant post (per me, at least). But, I can state that my messages today are more of a reflection than a disappointment.

  1. Seasoned editors (including many Administrators) are happy to jump in and push a newbie down a procedural hole as opposed to truly considering notability or explaining certain procedural lapses. E.g. I had set the article’s ITNR flag as yes, based on my read (subjective) of the ITNR guidelines, specifically Space Research. At that point - there was a pile on of at least two to three pretty seasoned editors (including perhaps and Administrator) that was out to prove that the ITNR flagging was ‘bizarre’, and a few other terms, all reeking of sarcasm and snark, rather than a simple explanation — “Hey nominator - while this is not an ITNR, we will discuss notability, and here are the reasons why notability might not work a), b), and c)”. It just seemed like the ITNR flagging was the entire focus of the debate, even after I clearly indicated there that it was my subjective flagging.
  2. While we can not expect this from everyone, the reasons provided by even reasonably seasoned editors for opposing notability is not objective and seems like they are aimed at pushing down the nominator. While this might not be the intent, the language definitely leaves a lot to be desired - “This is not a buy one get one free”, “Blimey! That is a stretch!”, and latching onto certain phrases almost just to prove a point “microboosted launch”
  3. When I did what I understand now might be frowned upon, i.e. posting multiple updates as the splashdown moment came close - just to draw attention to the fact that the splashdown moment was around, and given that multiple folks had mentioned about waiting for splashdown. It seemed like many of the participants wanted to latch on to that rather than a simple statement that such updates are not recommended. Though one user did respond to my message at that point, with his follow up.

Anyways in summary, while we can not expect this from every user - at least seasoned editors (and definitely Administrators) should ensure that user interactions, particularly of newbies is friendly, filled with empathy, and is done in a manner that fosters a spirit of understanding. At the end of the day everyone is a volunteer, and time is often a scarce commodity on all sides. But, we should expect more, and expect better from our senior editors and definitely from Administrators.

The only reason I am sharing this with you, is to voice out my experience.

Cheers and Good Day!

PS: This whole experience left quite a bad taste that I requested for a change in handle. Hence you see a different / updated handle here. But, you should easily see my post and my contribution to trace to the NASA/SpaceX/ISS return post.

Ktin (talk) 07:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for high bandwidth communication[edit]

Stephen, it has become clear to me that you think I am not acting in the best interest of the encyclopedia. I would like the opportunity to discuss this with you. Please let me know your thoughts and feelings. EllenCT (talk) 01:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:ABS-CBN, side view (Sgt. Esguerra, Quezon City)(2019-05-27).jpg now on commons[edit]

Hello. Through FileExporter, the file that you protected - File:ABS-CBN, side view (Sgt. Esguerra, Quezon City)(2019-05-27).jpg - is now available on Commons. It is now OK for photos of ABS-CBN Broadcasting Building to be hosted there after the Commons:Commons:FOP Philippines was updated (in which buildings built before November 1972 can now be hosted there). If this is OK as per current conditions, may I request you to add {{Now Commons}} on the photo and (if this is still necessary) lock the Commons file to prevent vandalism? Thanks for the response. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020[edit]

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


Administrator changes

added Eddie891
removed AngelaJcw69Just ChillingPhilg88Viajero

CheckUser changes

readded SQL

Guideline and policy news


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sei Ashina[edit]

Hello Stephen thank you for trying to help with Sei Ashina. She died on September 14th this year so I think recent deaths template is appropriate, but why did you remove? Thank you Giocabene (talk) 12:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because it’s not a template to note that some has recently died, it’s to note that their article is being heavily edited, which this isn’t. Stephen 12:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020[edit]

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


Administrator changes

added AjpolinoLuK3
readded Jackmcbarn
removed Ad OrientemHarejLidLomnMentoz86Oliver PereiraXJaM
renamed There'sNoTimeTheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news



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

Reopening ITN discussion on Trump's COVID-19 diagnosis[edit]

Hi, there. I'd like to request that you reopen the discussion for this ITN item. Several editors have asked that it be reopened and I don't believe that the closure was a reasonable summation of the policy-based arguments in the thread. You can see additional discussion on the nomination here. Thank you for your consideration. Qono (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This was a little disappointing to see. When you are reverted, especially on a protected page, please do not edit war even if you are sure you are "right". Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MSGJ: Seconded. And I have mentioned this to you on more than one occasion in the past too, Stephen. It needs to stop. Reinstating your reverted edit under full protection is considered WP:WHEEL warring which, as I'm sure you know, is a bright-line rule which admins should never violate. Your work at ITN and other areas is excellent, so please don't ruin it all by breaking the rules in this fashion. If you don't agree with the reversion, a simple note at WT:ITN or WP:ERRORS will do, and then another admin can check it out or a discussion can commence. Cheers and all the best to you  — Amakuru (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the reminder, I should have noted it for others to discuss. Stephen 23:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ITN recognition for Jacinda Barclay[edit]

Ambox current red.svgOn 15 October 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Jacinda Barclay, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ABS file[edit]

Can you unprotect File:ABS-CBN, side view (Sgt. Esguerra, Quezon City)(2019-05-27).jpg. It's not on the main page anymore. Thanks. (CC) Tbhotch 17:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tbhotch: done, thanks for the note. Stephen 19:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precious anniversary 4[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Four years!

Amazing work for ITN, - thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


In The News Barnstar Hires.png The In The News Barnstar
Thank you for co-nomming me for adminship. Take this barnstar for that and for all the work you do on ITN. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 20:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grim work[edit]

I see you updated the casualty counts. Thank you for helping provide accurate information to the world. Jehochman Talk 23:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) Jehochman, Stephen +1 Ktin (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Sorry, I didn't realize there was a discussion going on, nor am I fully aware of the steps to follow. I guess I shouldn't have made such an edit without learning more about the process first. My bad. Would I just post the same thing as you did for Seymour Topping, stating that it's been posted instead of now with it being pulled? Or just edit the current entry to "posted" and add my say? Lexicon (talk) 22:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, just follow the Topping example, updating the header and leaving a posted note. Also give the credits to the nominator and updater, there are clickable links that will do that for you in the nomination header template. Thanks for following up. Stephen 22:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the help! Lexicon (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Joe Biden[edit]

Hi, I see you locked or have access to the Joe Biden Wikipedia page. The US election has not been conceded nor has it been confirmed or made official. Joe Biden is not the president-elect and putting out false information is just proving teachers right. Keeping it up is irresponsible and it should be taken down immediately. I however would like to suggest near the top of his page in his summary that it be noted that he is the apparent president-elect. Currently though, he is not. WulfNorth (talk) 05:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ITN recognition for David Prowse[edit]

Ambox current red.svgOn 1 December 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article David Prowse, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020[edit]

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


Administrator changes

removed AndrwscAnetodeGoldenRingJzGLinguistAtLargeNehrams2020

Interface administrator changes

added Izno

Guideline and policy news

Technical news


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

Restoring Agitu Ideo Gudeta to RD[edit]

Hi Stephen -- I restored this as a 7th item. RDs seem to be running through very fast at the moment which is causing agitation at ITN/C -- not sure what the long-term solution is (possibly going back to the old system), but in the meanwhile, an occasional 7th item seems the course of least friction. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem at all, Stephen 02:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please explain your rationale[edit]

I think you have missed my edit summaries as you are reverting my addition of a fair use image which appears IMO to be not based on wiki policy. Despite my request. Interesting theory that we should not use images just after someone dies. Can you point me at this guideline or policy as I see no rationale given. Please see Josefina Echánove's ‎talk page where we can resolve this. Thank you and happy new year again Victuallers (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Non-free images and RDs[edit]

Per this, how soon after a person's death is it OK to use a non-free image? This would be good information for me to know. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 13:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, I see Victuallers has asked essentially the same question immediately above. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 13:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do tell us about what you ponder :-) on this. I look in newspapers etc and they all have a respectful picture of the recently deceased ... and so do we!! in our biogs when there is a free-to-use image to used. Why this should change depending on the license state of the image is difficult to understand. Victuallers (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia:Non-free content, Images, point 10. "Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely." The community consensus is that at least 6 months wait is reasonable to ensure that a free use image can not be obtained. Stephen 06:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Stephen, what about Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2020_May_29#File:George_Floyd.png and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#Image_revdel?, as I mentioned in my edit summary? It seems the consensus has changed, and item 10 does not mention 6 months. Pinging Eddie891 and Victuallers again. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 06:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That’s a specific case for someone who was unknown until his death, as opposed to people who have bios prior to their death. They didn’t have pictures when they were alive, so their death doesn’t immediately warrant that we cease to try an find a free image. Stephen 08:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So we agree that including "Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely" has a consensus and is agreed. However the 6 months concept which you claim has "community consensus" is not included in policy. Why is that? Can you provide any evidence of this "community consensus"? I have added dozens of images of recently deceased people under fair use and I have only had objections from one editor and no one else has mentioned it. No one has added this idea to policy. Can you tell us the source please of this consensus or restore the picture. I understand your view that someone's death "doesn’t immediately warrant that we cease to try an find a free image" ... bit its not true. We always want a free image, but the consensus is that we do not use "fair use" whilst they are alive (i.e. not recently alive). Victuallers (talk) 10:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I’m not incredibly familiar with image copyright, the George Floyd discussion was clearly closed with the opinion that “ this discussion is of the view that an interpretation of the policy WP:NFCC#1 that presumes that free images of recently deceased people are normally available is mistaken, and that the guideline WP:NFCI #10 should be read with the presumption that obtaining a free image of recently deceased people is normally not likely”, so saying That’s a specific case is incorrect, because Sandstein’s close is pretty broadly construed. Now that by itself is not necessarily enough for a community consensus, but I’ve yet to see any evidence of a consensus for the other opinion (that we should wait some set period of time), and would be curious to hear where that came from. a 2017 rfc specifically opposed specifying an amount of time which would seem to go specifically against your assertion that the community has supported 6 months. Perhaps it’s time for another rfc? Eddie891 Talk Work 12:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Eddie. That’s an interesting close. Given that Sandstein has been involved in debates on the topic he shouldn’t have closed that discussion with his opinion. You’re right that an RFC is probably needed, but I’ll step back from removing RD images, as consensus is indeed murky and shifting. Best wishes to you all. Stephen 23:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy New Year[edit]

Hi Stephen, I know we did not get to the best of the starts this new year, but, I wanted to take a moment to say that I do not hold any ill feelings. I continue to remain appreciative of your efforts in keeping the WP:ITN engine running. Wishing you and your dear ones a wonderful new year filled with all joy and happiness. Ktin (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, there’s no bad starts or ill feelings from my side! Thanks for your passion of getting articles up to scratch, which is all we are here to do at the end of the day. Best wishes and stay safe. Stephen 09:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Stephen. Have a wonderful day ahead. Regards. Ktin (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah sorry about this.[edit]

Sorry about that.--Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 11:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A cupcake for you![edit]

Choco-Nut Bake with Meringue Top cropped.jpg Best. Closing. Statement. Ever. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 08:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unpiping "election"[edit]

Reagrding your revert to exclude "election" from the pipe, we wouldn't write "Melanina and Donald Trump", just because "Trump" also refers to Melania. While your edit summary says "we’ve been there", I didn't see this discussed before (any more than my bold edit was). Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
love your work at ITN Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know where is the proper forum to ask this..but...[edit]

Can I request a ban/block for myself until 10.00 UTC, 30 January 2021? I've been too much distracted by Wikipedia that I can't study properly anymore. Thank you for your help! Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More than 100 cities[edit]


If you don’t agree, let’s please discuss it at WP:ERRORS. Jehochman Talk 09:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021[edit]

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



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merchandise Giveaway Nomination – Successful[edit]

A Wikimeida t-shirt!

Hey Stephen,

You have been successfully nominated to receive a free t-shirt from the Wikimedia Foundation through our Merchandise Giveaway program. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Please email us at and we will send you full details on how to accept your free shirt. Thanks!

On behalf of the Merchandise Giveaway program,

-- janbery (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Re your revert, how it happened I don't know. I tried to revert it myself but kept getting an instruction page on how to revert. Sorry for the prob. – Sca (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. Your prior edit had introduced some stray characters further up, but all fixed. Stephen 01:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removing nom from ITN[edit]

I appreciate the intent of this edit, I really do, but IMO it's better to leave them to prevent repeats (like we're seeing with the OG nom). My #twocents anyway. Cheers. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You’re probably right. But I also doubt that it would have prevented another drive-by newcomer nomination. Stephen 19:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I didn’t have a chance to respond on the error page so I hope I wasn’t in the wrong to revert your deletion? If you could take a look at my question about piping it would be appropriated. If you look on the nomination page of people including especially me who were for the addition of rhis blurb an editor made not of the piping of the “Serbian Orthodox Church” part. Why wouldn’t it link to the list of patriarchs? The Church itself is the focus? Maybe I’m not familiar with thebformats here but the a history of past patriarch would make sense as thw piped article instead of piping “46th Patriarchy” as that is him only.

If you still hold the same views that’s fine. I trust you admins just I tend to ask a lot a questions and understand reasoning. I felt I didn’t have enough time to respond and you dif sais nope and erased the section. :( Regardless stay well and have a good day. OyMosby (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OyMosby, No problem at all, you are free to revert any closure or deletion if you think that your query or proposal has not been properly assessed. The issue here was that both of the articles that you were talking about were already linked in the blurb, albeit not in the way that you were proposing but in a more logical way to our readers. Stephen 04:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for looking into it. Appreciate it. I see now that yeaha the blurb is hood. I get fixated at times. OyMosby (talk) 04:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jordan Peterson[edit]

In case you missed it, per Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions, 1RR applies to JP article. Acousmana (talk) 11:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2021[edit]

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


Administrator changes

added TJMSmith
removed Boing! said ZebedeeHiberniantearsLear's FoolOnlyWGFinley

Interface administrator changes

added AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
  • When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
  • There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ITN image[edit]


I'm aware of the automatically determined sizing, which I didn't alter. I manually specified the same height to adjust the formatting (specifically, to confine the caption to a single line – thereby preventing either person's name from wrapping and ensuring that each appeared in the appropriate relative position). —David Levy 04:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ScreenshotsDavid Levy 05:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ideas for Wikipedia Adminship Criteria[edit]

Hello Stephen,

I don't know if you have the authority to make these rules or not, but I looked into the requirements of becoming an administrator and it said that there are no official requirements towards becoming an administrator on Wikipedia which is something I don't like. I thought of some ideas for Wikipedia adminship criteria to show someone that they're trustworthy enough to become an administrator.


1. The Wikipedia user must be registered for at least 5 years.

2. The Wikipedia user must make at least 10,000 edits.

3. The Wikipedia user's actual age must be at least 18-years-old

4. The Wikipedia user must not have been blocked for violating the following policies and guidelines listed below.


  • Vandalism
  • Harrassment
  • No Legal Threats
  • No Personal Attacks
  • Sockpuppetry
  • Block Evasion


  • Disruptive Editing
  • Don't Create Hoaxes
  • Disruptive Editing
  • Offensive Material
  • Child Protection

So what do you think of my ideas for adminship criteria? Let me know. - Placlutwo (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2021[edit]

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


Administrator changes

removed AlexandriaHappyme22RexxS

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
  • Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.

Technical news

  • When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
  • Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Why would you not WP:BRD on the main page as much as anywhere? It's not an emergency or a matter that can't hold for awhile. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Order of blurbs at ITN[edit]

OK, I understand your reasoning, but it does seem that the story is being kept artificially at the top of the page. Can you assure me that as it drops down and a different picture is used that it will be placed below the volcano story? Mjroots (talk) 06:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well I see you’ve added a picture of the volcano which alleviates the issue. They can now stay in that order. Stephen 06:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2021[edit]

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


Administrator changes

removed EnchanterCarlossuarez46

Interface administrator changes

removed Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2021[edit]

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


Administrator changes

added AshleyyoursmileLess Unless
removed HusondMattWadeMJCdetroitCariocaVague RantKingboykThunderboltzGwen GaleAniMateSlimVirgin (deceased)

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ITN recognition for Mike Bailey (weatherman)[edit]

Ambox current red.svgOn 23 June 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Mike Bailey (weatherman), which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

  • Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
  • An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.

Technical news

  • IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Date of picture[edit]

Hello. @Stephen:. You have claimed that the picture was taken on 13 July 2021. That is the day the picture was uploaded - a Tuesday. Those of us who have been following the story and are actually from the region are very aware that the gatherings started prior to the break out of protests. As the original caption says, 'Saturday, 3 July 2021' was the correct day, not 13 July 2021 that you claim (based on the upload day). Unfortunately, this is a classic example of systematic bias by an administrator. I ask that this is discussed before you revert again. The original uploader is @PubliusPretoria:. Please see @I JethroBT: and @Deb:. Ear-phone (talk) 00:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ear-phone, "this is a classic example of systematic bias by an administrator"? What are you on about? I was going by the description date on the photo description, if that needs changing then update it. Stephen 00:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it's systematic bias. The person who uploaded the photo @PubliusPretoria: specifically mentioned 'Saturday, 3 July 2021' then you changed that to 'Saturday, 13 July 2021', which is an error/systematic bias because the 13th of July 2021 was not a Saturday. Despite me trying to correct your error, you reverted my edit, which to me is indicative of systemic bias. @I JethroBT: @Deb: Ear-phone (talk) 00:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ear-phone, I was looking for an image to go on the main page. I found a good one, with a date description of 13 July. In the article it was captioned as 3 July, so I changed it. The picture still has a description of 13 July, which may erroneously be the upload date. If the date description needs to be changed to 3 July then just do so. Your claim of systemic bias is laughable. Stephen 01:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Stephen:, you very clearly changed to 'Saturday, 13 July 2021', an error. So it's laughable, to you, that an editor from the Global South corrects your mistake, yet you persist in reverting their edit. Ear-phone (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I haven't persisted in reverting your edit at all, I took out the Saturday while aligning the caption to the date in the photo description. Isn't it your systemic bias that you assume that I'm not in the global south? And it's moot as the picture is a copyright violation in any case. Stephen 01:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Stephen:. So you know better than the Folks who captioned it 'Saturday, 3 July 2021'. You are not from the the Global South which is different from the Southern Hemisphere. Like I indicated, I did not upload the photo. Ear-phone (talk) 01:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't say I knew better than anyone, I merely aligned the article caption with the date in the description of the image. The image will be deleted shortly anyway, but I never suggested that you uploaded the photo. How do you know that I'm not the global south? That's a strange assumption. Stephen 01:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, the photo was taken on Saturday, 3 July not 13 July 2021 as you were claiming - 2021 It is your right to think it's an assumption. Ear-phone (talk) 01:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can see you that you don't really understand that I wasn't claiming anything, but no need for you to reply here anymore. Stephen 02:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's very interesting.[edit]

It's very interesting. You have voluntarily opened Pandora's box. Ear-phone (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ear-phone:, it doesn’t seem that way to me. Stephen 07:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Stephen:, It is your human right. Ear-phone (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ITN credit[edit]

Thank you for updating the template, - do you think you could help me to a credit, just for the record? She is pictured on my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course, done. Sorry I missed it Gerda, I am usually good with such things. Sorry for the loss of someone important to you. Stephen 11:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Ear-phone (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Saint Lucia[edit]

We don’t mention the country in a blurb twice.
– Niggling micro-rules like this can reduce clarity and work against reader comprehension. The latter is far more important in a brief blurb than any sense of so-called elegant variation, IMO. – Sca (talk) 11:47, 31 July 2021 (UTC)