This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Admin
Hi. I just wondered if you've considered becoming an admin. You seem experienced enough, so I'd be happy to nominate you if you're interested. Kind regards. Epbr123 (talk) 12:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Adminship
To tell the truth Mj, I'm really not familiar enough with your editing to have an opinion :) For what it's worth you've struck me as a responsible user who would be unlikely to do any damage, but I'd probably have to take a look through your editing history to confirm that impression.
As for your comment about whether adminship would reduce the amount of time spent on content - the answer to that would be entirely up to you. If you want to go and do a lot of adminny type things then I guess it will reduce the time you have for other activities, but if you are just going to continue editing more or less as you are now, obviously it won't. Now, if you were to stand for arbcom, I would definitely advise against it if you wanted to remain content focussed, but for adminship - no, it's just not that big a deal :) Gatoclass (talk) 17:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't help noticing the item above. It's exactly right, some admins concentrate on admin tasks, other mainly do content with a bit of rollback and similar, personally I veer wildly between chunks of content and spasms patrolling new pages and speedies. I know nothing of your edit history, but you need a record of admin type activities such as tagging articles for deletion and dealing with vandalism to get accepted jimfbleak (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Notification
Hi Mjroots. I'm posting to let you know that your name has been mentioned on a list of potential candidates for adminship on the talk page for RfA's here. If you are interested in running, or if you would like to make any comments, feel free to join the discussion. decltype (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm saying this, because you do not seem to have participated in an RfA before. If you are not at all prepared for it you may be taken a bit aback by it all :) decltype (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi again Mjroots :). I saw and recognized your name on the aforementioned list of possible candidates for adminship. After reviewing your contributions, I think that you would make a good admin. I see that decltype has already contacted you about this, and I wondered if I could provide a co-nomination. Malinaccier (talk)17:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, my intention was simply to notify Mjroots that his name was on a list of eligible candidates. I was hoping someone else would step forward and offer themselves as nominators. Seeing as how you are a veteran RfA regular, who is also at least tangentially familiar with the candidate, would you mind "taking it from here"? Regards, decltype (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Alright, sure. Mjroots, could I get a quick count of your GAs and your numerous DYKs? I've been looking on your userpage and its subpages, but I haven't been able to find a definite count. Malinaccier (talk)19:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I see that they got the 100 DYK medal on 7 September, so "100+" is probably fairly accurate, and very, very impressive. decltype (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
DYKs are 99 created/expanded, 7 nominated, 1 collaborative + 2 created that are in the queue to go live overnight. GAs = 2, but only 1 of those was substantially my own work, The other was just a case of a bit of tidying up left over from a failed GAN. Mjroots (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
On your userboxes page, you list five good articles and a featured article. Do these "belong" to you? If not, I would suggest you remove them in case somebody gets the wrong idea :). Malinaccier (talk)20:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Those were article I did have input into, but no, not the major work behind the relevant A class, GA or FA. Ubxs removed as suggested, it's no big deal to me. Mjroots (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
RfA
Malinaccier would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Malinaccier to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mjroots . If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
Please follow the instructions listed at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate. Don't forget to answer the questions and transclude the nomination when you are done. Also:
If there happen to be multiple opposes, do not reply to each oppose--only the ones you feel you can reasonably respond to.
You can go ahead and respond to them. It would be good to have your input on the matter. I wouldn't worry too much if they don't change their mind, but it is nice to go unopposed. Congratulations on your success so far! :) Malinaccier (talk)20:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5)
Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.
RfA Thankspam
I'm not going to post an individual message on the talk page of everyone who voted for me, whether for or against. Please accept this as my thank you message to you all. As some of you commented, there are areas where I do not have much experience in. I'm not going to go steaming in anywhere creating havoc. Those areas I lack experience in will wait for a while until I get used to using the admin tools in the areas I do have knowledge of. If I feel that I cannot assist an editors query I will ask another Admin to assist that editor. Mjroots (talk) 06:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh hey! Just dropping by to remind you to indent your templates. Because, as you know, not indenting them brings about the apocalypse. :P Just kidding, no worries; as long as you remember to indent last time, there will be no Wrath of the Puppets. >:) Cheers, Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D14:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry, it's not even really wrong, not like an editor can't manually move it to the archive. Oh, by the way; if you need any help with the conflict, feel free to drop by :) I'm not infinitely wise or anything, but I hope I'd have something to contribute. Cheers, Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D14:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I noticed you fully protected this article from editing. I have no issue with the protection tag, but could you please add a protection template on the article explaining why the article is fully protected from editiing now. I had no idea why the article was protected until I clicked on the view source tab, and saw your comment and your reasoning there. I don't know where to find it but it's a specific template for this purpose nevertheless. Please add it where editors can be informed on discussing issues pertaining to consensus on the talk page.- Thanks Burningview ✉ 18:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
My complain are not about "notability". My complain are about thoughtlessly marked for deletion within 10 minutes, about 70 articles.
It took me more than 15 minutes to undo history, without looking what is inside. Therefore, it is impossible to read each article and do markup.
He didn't discuss with me his opinion. He didn't check that all parishes are part of one project.
He also removed my post from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism without any comment within this post and without discussion such action with the Project Administrator.
Based on this I have a right to think that people doing such action are not qualify for the Administrator status.
Hi there, since you are the admin who locked the Joe Wilson article, I wanted to point out to you hat I have just posted a lengthy explanation of why I am increasingly convinced that Jimmy Carter was probably misquoted and for BLP reasons the "racism" charge does not belong in the "Outburst" section. I'd like to invite you to read through it if you have time and take action based on whatever consensus emerges. Thanks. --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
As someone who has often been at the receiving end of his despicable tirades, thanks for the recent action you took concerning user:Druid.raul. I doubt he would ever be chastised enough to behave civilly on a consistent basis. Jasepl (talk) 08:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so this user is definitely editing again - as an unregistered IP this time. Several recent changes to articles he used to edit point to my conclusion (see: here and here).
To top it off, I've just got an email that my Wikipedia password was reset because IP 203.76.xxx.xx asked for the reset. I'm dead sure it is Druid.raul/rhp26. Any suggestions on what can be done? Thanks. Jasepl (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I noted you've previously noted questionable edits by User:Ani medjool. So I bring to your attention this recent action with the edit summary _(delete lies)_, and what I wrote just now to User:Tiamut, whose attempts at communication with Ani medjool were likewise deleted as "lies." What follow-up do you advise? Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 09:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC) Further: Thanks for your speedy response. I wasn't seeking action regarding the user's own deletion of User talk page content (as I wrote to User:Tiamut, I've done so myself on mine with content I've found objectionable), but sending a head's up on the expressed attitude that these warnings, etc. are considered and termed "lies." Not being an admin, I don't want to personally patrol this user nor do I have adequate tools to do so at any but the most rudimentary level. I am concerned about what I view as the high likelihood of future bad-faith editing, or even vandalism and sock-puppetry by User:Ani medjool whose record has been quite consistently... bad. Is there any channel for a notification of this sort? -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Commenting here because ANI is protected: you should know that you are apparently dealing with a bunch of 4chan idiots [3], i.e. there is more than one vandal. I don't know what to suggest doing about it other than letting the recent change patrol know what's up, so they can make sure to revert it all. I don't know who "Dark" is. Maybe it's worth finding out, maybe not. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 10:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)`
It's too late. You've made far too many mistakes. I'm desysopping you and getting rid of everything you held dear in your childhood. You're a puny mortal, Master of Puppets14:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I've blocked this user indefinitely for ignoring warnings. I agree with you in that they shouldn't be bitten, but I mean only to prevent further disruption (as I've seen no attempts to discuss so far). I'm certainly in support of unblocking if they speak up. Cheers, Master of Puppets16:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
You appear to have missed the irony of my use of quotes re "new" user on the ANI page. I think you will find that this user and User:HampshireCricketFan are one and the same person. I suggest that you need to look a little deeper and trust experienced editors rather than immediately evoking sympathy for the poor "new" user. Why haven't you told this person that tags are placed in good faith, generally by experienced editors who understand their usage and purpose, and that articles carrying tags must be improved before the tag is removed? And how come a "new" user is instantly so knowledgeable about maintenance tags that he can make an immediate decision to remove them. I would say he has used the site before and is pursuing an agenda, wouldn't you? ----Jack | talk page19:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I have looked at a couple of his edits and reverted them both. First, he removed a tidyup tag from Royal Academy of Dramatic Art saying it does not need tidying up. Well, it does. The article is a complete mess in its presentation. Second, he has added unsourced POV statements to Rufus Sewell. I don't have time to look at any more but his actions clearly indicate that he is anything but a new user. I'll leave it with you. ----Jack | talk page19:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Greetings, Senior Editor Mj. Could you please have a look at the edits made by Ani medjool(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) over the last 2-3 days? This editor clearly has an agenda of POV politicizing of every article pertaining to the Golan Heights—every locale and business, even geological features. Everything Israeli there would seem to be disappearing into Syria. I am at a loss as to what action to take, but am certain he is damaging Wikipedia. I don't know if it is vandalism, but to me it looks grossly disruptive, and is habitual, as part of a long-term pattern. This user has been warned and scolded many times, but never blocked, and carries on with impunity. He removed your level 4 warning of Oct. 13 from his User talk page with the comment "delete lies".
I have had enough head-on encounters to know that if I attempt to revert any of his edits it will only lead to re-reversion, general unpleasantness, and possibly my being the one accused of vandalizing. We are dealing with someone who makes defamatory comments such as these.
Hi Mjroots. I got your message about Ani medjool. While I agree that in the past his/her edits have been disruptive, this set of edits does not necessarily seem to me to be so. As I commented at ANI, most of the world views the Golan Heights to be illegally occupied territory that properly belongs to Syria. Even Israel has said that it intends to return this territory to Syria as part of a peace settlement with that country. True, there are perhaps better ways to deal with the distinction that simply changing Israeli categories to Syrian ones, but for the Israeli cats to be left up unchallenged is not quite NPOV. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Happy editing. Tiamuttalk14:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
A Request for Comments has been opened concerning the conduct of Rjanag. This follows the suggestion of a number of arbitrators at the Rjanag RfA. I am contacting you because you previously participated in the underlying referenced Draeco/Shells AN/I.
Editors (including those who certify the RfC) can offer comments by:
(a) posting their own view; and/or
(b) endorsing one or more views of others.
You may certify or endorse the original RfC statement. You may also endorse as many views as you wish, including Rjanag's response. Anyone can endorse any views, regardless of whether they are outside parties or inside parties.
I was thinking same and honestly hoping on a fairy to come down and fill up the queues. I know only some parts (how to handle images, e.g.). Not a canonical guide, but Allen3 left a note here on preparing updates. Some further instructions (on moving to queues) are also on T:DYK/P1. I'm on-line for about another 2-3 hrs. Materialscientist (talk) 09:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
A crash course on how to put DYKs on the main page :)
Select 8 candidate hooks at T:TDYK. Preferably long approved, from the bottom of the page. The guide is 4 US hooks and 4 others, non-repeating subjects. Negative and controversial hooks are always suspicious (one thing is to chat at t:tdyk and another is to put them on the main page - you'll literally sign on that). The top hook is the strongest one, with the picture, the bottom hook is traditionally "funny" one. Check the copyright status of the lead hook picture in advance. Why 8? - it is easier to move them as a group and see the combination. One-by-one selection is fine.
Move the hooks. My way is: edit in two windows, one T:TDYK, another T:DYK/P1 or T:DYK/P2; in TDYK I edit one hook at a time, in the preps I rather edit the whole page, once. Copy the approved hook text, paste into the "hooks" section of the prep window. If it is a non-lead hook, then remove stray "(pictured)". Go back to T:TDYK, copy credits (check them too, some tried to sneak into there to fetch extra stars) - they look like *{{DYKmake|Example|Editor}} or *{{DYKnom|Example|Editor}}. Paste into the "credit area" of the preps window. Go back to the T:TYK, empty the window and save with a summary "moved to ..". Proceed to other hooks. For the lead hook, also copy the image name and paste instead of the dummy Example.png above the hooks. Done.
Protect the lead image. If it is on en.wiki then protect it for 3 days, admin edit only. If it is on commons (I assume you're not an admin there), go there, download the picture, copy its entire page of description (the code). Upload the image at en.wiki as "your image" (or whatever), replace the summary with the info from commons, add {{c-uploaded}} to the bottom. Done.
Wait some time - maybe others will disagree with your selection.
Move preps to the next queue (easy part). The top of T:DYK/Q tells which is the next empty queue. Click on the appropriate prep area, copy the entire code text from that prep area, paste into the queue, and do not forget to add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} at the top (note 3 tildas!). Save the queue. Go back to the prep you used. Consult "To reset the contents of this page .." line and reset the prep.
The bot should do the rest. If he doesn't - consult another manual :). After the lead hooks go down from the main page, the duplicate image uploaded from commons is to be deleted (no big deal to forget - others like me will do that :). Good luck and thanks for your help in advance. Materialscientist (talk) 07:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
For some reason the debate seems to be on the 2010 season talk page. I can't say the behaviour from either was decent, but only a quick glance seems to show Mr X has a bit of a pattern emerging while it was out of character for 359. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I wouldn't unblock considering it is only a 24h block. The drama of unblock is more than the drama of just waiting it out. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
My question is mainly one of the fact that yes, discussion was not taking place at Talk:2009 Formula One season, but what if this had been a discussion at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Formula One. I'm just curious how much of our contribs were checked, because I'd think that our contribs would show "Pre-season testing" as an area of discussion at approximately the same time, even if it was in another article's talk page, and at least worth checking into. The359 (Talk) 06:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Re:IP sockpuppet of Historain19
Umm...well looking at a Whois report I see that it's a shared ip address so "one month anonymous users only" should be good. Good talking to you :) Malinaccier (talk)21:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey - A new user by this name popped up recently, and started editing a familiar list of articles. I have a strong suspicion that it is Rhp26/Druid.raul/Marcosino Something in yet another avatar (this might ring a bell!). User hasn't done anything untoward yet, but could you keep an eye? Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 13:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, you recently deleted my article about a brain area called the strumus. This was uncalled-for since I only recited the information about the structure which was mentioned in a neuroscience book, that you apparently did not bother to read before deleting. I therefore ask that you undelete the article and apologize your behavior. Probios (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Tadija
Hello, Mjroots. You have new messages at Tadija's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
GetJar was created before, and deleted, and is now protected by admin. Can you help me get it unprotected or help me identify the admin who can/should? Thanks. Mathiastck (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure where my reply to your post on my talk page should go, so I am double replying there and here. I plan to make GetJar redirect to List_of_digital_distribution_platforms_for_mobile_devices. But that's really a temporary fallback position. Here is my draft for what I will replace the redirect with User:Mathiastck/GetJar. So yes, I propose to create a new article that meets all relevant Wikipedia policies. I was not previously involved, but when I twittered that I was gonna have to try and create the page they did contact me. So the above draft is what any wiki editor should have done to the original article. Mind you I'm an inclusionist :-) I still need them to send me their original sources. Mathiastck (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your offering of the userfied version of this article, however several elements are missing including an external link to their website. I cached a better version at User:JP419/rescued_pages-Indiana_Militia_Corps. As I mentioned elsewhere, this article was improperly deleted. The help I require is in navigating the undeletion review process; and if that fails, how I would go about getting arbitration. JP419 (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again. Can you offer any help regarding undeletion and/or arbitration? As I mentioned, the deletion was improper and a violation of WP:Policy. JP419 (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the link but JohnCD was edit warring me. He blanket asserts there is nothing that can or will be notable about the organization, and therefore the article must be kept deleted. Suggestions??!? Is there someone I ought to go to about this?? JP419 (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, whatever JohnCD's status, he's blocked my efforts to bring the article back. I am aware of 3RR, but I believe I already had it pretty well userfied (see my link). The only thing I missed was the Categories (which I can add when I resurrect the page). I did in fact add several third-party sources and a couple of them were relatively recent. And again, mucho thanks! JP419 (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I also noted the rationale for deletion, but the notability was within 18 months, and there are articles that have not been notable for well beyond 36 months. I noted that in the debate and was ignored; I seem to recall that "current notability" doesn't mean that you have to have recent news feeds detailing what's currently being said about an organization. And let's face it, we're talking about militia groups that are not well known for being mentioned regularly in the news. In fact, they seem to go to lengths to stay out of the news and off peoples' radars. The lack of recently dated citations, therefore, doesn't reduce notability. (I pointed that out as well, and was still ignored). JP419 (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it's only one IP editor. After a period of being reverted for continual adding of unsourced information, he's now doing the opposite. He's not removing the whole table, just part of it - either the header or footer, which breaks the wikicode. I shall slap a {{Uw-delete3}} on him, thanks. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
See what I said at the bottom of Bigtimepeace's talk page; in the discussion itself when I was designing the wording, I explicitly mentioned that we were using Thatcher's sanction (almost identical, except that it would be indefinite and inclusive of discussion-ban). Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I think that in light of his history of attempting to game the system by testing the boundaries of previous restrictions, there are concerns he's doing the same here. Instead of editing in an area that would not be so controversial, he consciously chose to edit in an area where politics and science are very much linked - and the pages he was working on did not solely focus on the scientific aspects. I know of the BLP value of the edit I brought up, but it demonstrates that in the midst of already controversial editing, he made a very clear edit regarding a US politician (such edits which he is explicitly banned from making). So everyone isn't talking about climate change probation, but rather the topic ban. That said, the climate change probation seems relevant to this also though, and perhaps it might prove simpler enforcing that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I would like you to ask you to express your opinion about the format that should be used for the localities from Romania where Hungarian has co-official status (where at least 20% of the population speaks Hungarian)
Variant 1. Romanian_Name (Hungarian: Hungarian_Name)
Variant 2. Romanian_Name or Hungarian_Name (Romanian: Romanian_Name; Hungarian: Hungarian_Name)
Variant 3. Romanian_Name(Romanian) or Hungarian_Name(Hungarian)
There are used different formats on different articles and I think it should exist a standard format used for all of them
Hello, i am contacting you to try to resolve a certain problem with Hungarian names in Romania. In Romania official language is Romanian therefore names of the certain towns etc should be in Romanian and then in brackets in other language names. I think that is the standard wiki policy, please, correct me if i am wrong. Now some users are trying to change this, ex [here]. Can you please help me to solve this problem? Thank you in advance. iadrian (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I can only repeat myself. Please look at the compromise reached many years ago on this subject(see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Odorheiu_Secuiesc)
It was clearly agreed that >20%, Hungarian names should be bolded and put into the infobox, too. Everywhere else in Transylvania, even if the Hungarian population is less than 20%, Hungarian placename should be in brackets.
o ease notify User:Markussep and User:Jezhotwells of this discussion. They are very experienced on such issues, and have recently given an opinion on such a matter.kind regards: Rokarudi--Rokarudi 11:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The situation is very clear, respect the standard naming policy WP:PLACE and [this], don`t implement your own, as we said where the discussion is taking place here. Even on previous discussions i do not see anything to support your "naming policy".iadrian (talk)
Mjroots can you please make a ruling in this case so the disruptive editing can stop, since the problem is very clear. Rokarudi refuses to respect standard wiki naming policy. Thank you.iadrian (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I understand, but i thought that the matter is very clear, there are some wiki rules, and Rokarudi refuses to respect them. I don`t think that a consensus will be reached since Status QUO fits him and i can`t apply(repair his edits) the standard naming policy until this is over.iadrian (talk) 13:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello, about our discusson on the ANI page. We can`t make a compromise since Rokarudi is ignoring all arguments represented and he is making edits with no arguments to support his POV. Can you please make a decision to end this dispute? Or if you can`t , please tell me who can? Thank you.iadrian (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
hello. Sorry for being insistent, but you were not very clear. Which variant from here did you reccomend ?
With all respect to your ruling on the subject matter, I would like to remind you that uninvolved neutral parties User:Markussep and User:Jezhotwells in a separate dispute resolution process gave an absolutely different opinion just before this discussion started. I asked you to notify them about the discussion, and it was your chioce not to do it.
In your ruling you called for uninvolved editors who may disagree with your reading of consensus to say so and to explain why this is not the case. As you may have overlooked the above links I gave in the discusion, I asked these editors to give you an opinion on this issue, as my arguments seem to you to be of a too much interested party. I would also be happy if you could contact them as to the right interpretation. I did not contact them before as I did not want to make seem stacking the vote. Markussep works in the geography project and he is very experienced on geographich naming issue. You can also contact any of the editors who took part in the 2007 compromise User:Rokarudi--Rokarudi 17:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Rokarudi, it is time for you to respect the wiki rules and to understand the difference between Hungarian and English wikipedia. There are clear rules that address this matter and by you, we should use a special rule (for no reason than nostalgic ones, since i can`t see any other reason of your disruptive edits on many Romania related articles ignoring a whole set of rules), just for Romania. I stumbled on some of your edits that clearly shows some unusual problems with Romania`s related articles, i don`t know what to think. It would be nice for you to start to respect the WP:PLACE and the wiki rules that exist and are crystal clear regarding the naming policy of places,rivers and counties in Romania. I should not mention again that you haven`t presented a single valid argument to support your POV. I also saw your "projects" for toponyms in Romania, and just to say it, that is also against wiki rules , like this that again forces Hungarian names in Romania. I hope that you will stop forcing Hungarians names in Romania. I hope that it is not a problem for my comment here, if there is, i will erase it. Best wishes.iadrian (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
The editor responsible for the recent spate of racist vandalisms concerning Lewis Hamilton has re-appeared on the 2008 Formula One Season article, under a similar range of IPs as before. I've given the last IP a warning here, some sort of block may be in order. QueenCake (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Aye, this vandal is extremely persistent, I would agree with a ban on the phrase, though I admit I don't have much knowledge on edit filters. Thanks for the speedy action QueenCake (talk) 18:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Request
I posted that thread on the wrong noticeboard. I meant to post it on AN. Could you move your comment over there and delete the thread? I don't want to do it myself, as I don't want to be accused of refactoring comments.
In the discussion there were 3 participants: Iadrian yu (talk·contribs), Umumu (talk·contribs), Amon Koth (talk·contribs) versus Rokarudi (talk·contribs).
The status quo before the discussion was according to a compromise reached by a greater number of editors in Odorhei Secuiesc discussion. As Rokarudi pointed out, according to this compromise the specific rules for Transylvania were the following : Romanian titles, Romanian and Hungarian names in the infobox (if =E2==89=A520),
Romanian names in bold and Hungarian ones (for anywhere in
Transylvania, even if <20%) in italics, and also German names if applicable.
After the ruling, one of the participants Umumu was proven to be a
sock-puppet of Iaaasi and indefinitely banned from
editing Wikipedia (although he got a promise for possibility of returning by administrator Excirial that could happen some month later if and only if he refrain from making sockpuppets and editing controversial topics). The other participant, Amon Koth, never had any single edit on Wikipedia, therefore, his opinion may not be regarded as an opinion that creates a new consensus. Please revise your ruling as the majority
opinion accepted by you as a new consensus was based on the opinion of banned
editors and editor without edits.Very best wishes.--Nmate (talk) 09:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I saws this question and I thought I'd ask you about this on your page.
Since the artist is dead, wouldn't it qualify as NFCC 1 No free equivalent, the artist is dead, it'a self portrait and
definetly not reproduceable. Or am I mis-understanding?
KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris13:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Mjroots Contact info
Dear Mjroots, may you plz write me your e-mail address. I have one question and would like to e-mail that to you.
Hi, thanks, may you please send it again. I changed something in my preference. thanks again --Shayan7 12:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shayan7 (talk • contribs)
e-mail problem solved
I solved the e-mail problem. I will be grateful if you for the last time re-sent that. Many thanks. Shayan7 --Shayan7 12:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shayan7 (talk • contribs)
User Rokarudi
Hello, since we all talked a lot I would like to ask for help on an old matter. User:Rokarudi after this has started again with disruptive editing [7], [8] and [9] with clear intentions of edit warring. Since if i say it to him it is an "offense" if you could clarify this latest violation. Thank you.iadrian (talk) 11:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Afriqiyah Airways Flight 771
Hey MJ Roots, Re. User_talk:Mdb10usa at Afriqiyah Airways Flight 771 they are a real new editor who got into a bit of bother when they started on April 23. FYI, I have welcomed them, requested edit summarys, warned about sources etc. I was going to tell you about that talk post, seemingly a response to my posts to them, but you got there first. Answer when, where, if you wish as I am overdue (UTC+10) to go offline. Thanks! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
New editor (6 edits!) User talk:Chris.duzzo is doing strange things like, 6:03 did what appears to be a mass revert DIFF w/o any explanation (more than being bold!). I reverted him back (wiped whatever you recently did there). I have warned lvl 2. I think this new editor need a look at what they are doing. Not the first time they've done soemthing funny there IIRC. I may be up against 3rr!--220.101.28.25 (talk) 06:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Any chance of a look at HAL Light Combat Helicopter, I have protected it for a week due to users keep adding copyrighted or disputed images. But as I have removed problem images in the past from this article I thought a second admin look to support or otherwise my protection move. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Please note the angry and disruptive editing of the following record. It involves an opinionated but unverified set of changes. Can anything be done? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC).
Thanks for the offer
I may well take you up on that one day soon, when I have a chance to get back to editing in earnest. Hope you are doing well. Tiamuttalk07:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure even how I got involved, but I have tried to intercede in what is turning out to be a WP:COI issue, and I am now appealing for help. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC).
Your call as to what is appropriate in dealing with the issues, as the discourse seemed to deteriorate, I did remove two taunts/incivility, but I am not invested in this article to go any further. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
The editor 98.94.163.97 is apparently a sock puppet by his own admission who has been blocked (he calls it "banned") twice already for his actions on this article topic. This is starting to become more sticky that I had thought. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 06:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC).
This is much more of a difficult issue than first considered, and I think it may be best that it goes to an ANI submission. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC).
Sir,
I am Luigi Perali, M.D.,a.79 - retired after serving in Public Institutions such as Hospitals and University Clinics- the Author of the “Comfort Definition”.
I started dedicating to the study of the ergonomics and comfort of the chair since 1988. In the year 1998
I wrote my first paper “Ergonomics of the chair” which was published in Dec. issue of UFFICIOSTILE, an Italian design magazine.
In that article I first tackled the task to define comfort as objective, analyzing the posture of the back and the energies spent by the back muscles from a physical point of view.
• First, I want to make clear that the article “Comfort Definition” has not the purpose of prodding the sale of books that I have never written.
• Second, I indicated my website in the References only for readers’ convenience, in order to make it easier to find and read the articles.
• Third, I cited in the references only my papers, because it appears to me I am the only Author to define comfort as objective up to now, analyzing the issue from a physical point of view.
Luigi, the issue here is that while you may have been published in reliable sources, your conflict of interest means that you should not add the info yourself. You may point other editors to your work via talk pages of articles relevant to the topic, and allow them to decide on the merits of what you say. Mjroots (talk) 10:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate your professionalism re the Chaim Rabinowitz AFD matter, but I would like to clarify one thing, which should be emblematic of the entire sordid situation.
I pointed out to IZAK at the AFD in direct response to his ridiculous assertions re my username that: I am allowed to keep [my username]... according to ArbCom. Anyone who has a problem with that can take it up with them."
His boilerplate response was:
:::Note: You do not have the right to "impose" any policies, certainly not ones as serious as AfD policies that rely on complex layers of past WP rules and policies that have changed over time, if you do not abide by WP:USERNAME policy. You cannot rely on uncited "exceptions" that allow you to do as you please while other users are forced to abide by the latest WP policies regarding articles that do not recognize any exceptions. IZAK (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
It is impossible to engage in good faith with such persons who cannot and will not accept or absorb any information, even from an admin like Alison, whose integrity was challenged for having disagreed with him. For User:IZAK to state that he was "not familiar with the complexities" of the matter, when he was repeatedly told by a series of admins that he was incorrect and when he was solely and completely responsible for having raised this whole matter in the first place, is, therefore, nonsense. When someone cites the the Arbcom as a basis for anything it should make an impression on the person to whom it is being addressed. It is disgraceful that IZAK has gotten away with harassing other editors and vandalizing (by deletion) comments posted by David Eppstein, an administrator (see this diff) without earning himself a serious block. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello, since you are familiar with Easter Europe users, your input would be appreciated on these matters 1 and 2 . Thank you. Adrian (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Mjroots, thank you for your kind and informative welcome. I'm having trouble getting my signature to appear though I'm logged in, but I hope to sort it out soon. (Will put four tildes below...)
Gary never left me a message on my talk page on my talk page before he went to the admin board. He said and I quote "Talking to him hasn't worked" but he didn't talk to me he just left a tag on WP:PW last night, he never talked to me directly.--Voices in my HeadWWE19:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
In response to your "Re your message, I'll investigate his contributions.", if this is regarding me, please have the decency to inform me of a potential concern before launching into an "investigation". GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Manx2 Flight 7100
Hello Mr. "Mjroots",
we have a problem! It is not as funny as you might think it is, if you have a lock into the internet and find a picture of one of your aircrafts next to headlines and words like aircraft accident, fatalities or injured... So again: The aircraft and airline shown in the headline picture was not involved or related to the accident. Unauthorised use of OLT related pictorial material is not acceptable to us. Infact there are a lot pictures of the accident site and aircraft availible, is it possible to use a picture which is related to the accident and the article.
Hi Mj. I agree. The username clearly suggests he registered with the intent to focus on rail gauges. And for a newbie he is surprisingly well versed in Wiki procedures. I am surprised he has got away with it so far. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
What I can tell you from de.wiki is this:
de:Benutzer:Tobias Conradi was permanently banned for persistent trolling as well as vandalism. No recognisable intent to cooperate in working on an encyclopedia.
A good team effort! But if I see a new User called TopCat making hundreds of dodgy changes my suspicions will be instantly aroused! --Bermicourt (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Just trying to help out :) How many of these accounts do I have, anyway? Could be a lot. You might have to checkuser me. Hope that's not much work. The Garrison Stans (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Whitelist request
Hi MJ, I posted a request a while back but any admin can assist in making a whitelist change. I am trying to reference a fairly obscure film, Lost Flight and am stymied in finding many references. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC).Hi, any interest in this? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC).
This is the page in question: <Felchner, William J. "Television's Lost: Ten Lookalike Plane Crash & Survival TV Shows And Movies."> You have to do a search in google to find the article because it is a "blacklisted" site.Bzuk (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the "heads-up" on the need for an update to the Whitelist request; I have been engrossed in a project and off the web for a while. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 08:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC).
Hey Mjroots, I had a block conflict with you--I was about to block them for a week, taking into account the meat puppetry. Do you think this is worth an SPI? Drmies (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Attempt to remove a level 4 vandalism notice ..by forging my signature.
Hi Mjroots.
I'm not sure what to make of this one. Christopher Gill had an uncited update by User talk:144.173.5.197 reporting his death. This is serious libel if false and another other edit suggest he's had a go at CG before. I put a level 4 warning on. This was replaced by an edit purporting to come from me by User talk:62.31.91.149. Am I wasting my time complaining? JRPG (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Hiya Mjroots, you may wish to see my comment at ANI regarding the copyright issues. When I'm up in Ticonderoga, Port Henry, and across the water in Vermont, I run into those cards. And you can buy them at various stores in the area. They are sold as novelties, decorations (often seen as table decorations under plexi at restaurants) and as of course post cards. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN10:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Replied at ANI. I'm not minded to restore the images until such time as the uploader indicates a willingness to work on the issues raised. Should he fail to do so, then they can stay deleted for all I care. Mjroots (talk) 10:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello
Hello, I am contacting you hoping that you can clear this again. User:Taivo is inserting the "or" form after beign informed about this [12]. Can you please help because like this it is an edit war with clear consensus behind it? Links on his talk page [13], problematic articles Sibiu and Sighisoara. Thank you. Adrian (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Your accusation that I was not engaged in discussion on the issue of Hungarian names in Transylvanian city articles is blatantly false. Not more than one inch above your unfounded accusation is the active discussion on User talk:Iadrian yu. Please amend your comment. While I disagree with Iadrian yu's characterization of whether or not a consensus was reached, that does not mean that I have not been in discussion. --Taivo (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Move-protected article
Hello! In July 2011 you fully move-protected the Štěpán Koreš article, due to one editor disruptively moving articles against consensus. However, as that editor is now banned from moving any articles, is there a reason to keep the article move-protected? Even if you decide to un-protect the article, I will not move it. HeyMid (contribs) 17:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Request for a neutral view
Michael. I appear to be involved in an edit war with the user Giacomo over my reliably-sourced edits to the article on Mentmore Towers. I wonder if you would be kind enough to review the recent edits, the discussion on the relevant talk pages, and suggest a possible way forward? Ghughesarch (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
G'day from Oz; not sure if I'm violating protocols here, but could you please consider semi-protecting Alan Joyce (executive), who is the Qantas CEO. There has been a fair amount of argy-bargy between Qantas and some of the unions representing its employees, which has spilled a bit into the article, plus there is an IP editor seemingly hell-bent on having him labelled as an atheist - which he may or may not be, but there isn't any source saying so one way or the other AFAIK. No need to reply on my talk page at all, I will pick it up via my watchlist and keeping an eye on your talk page. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Done - I've given it three months semi protection. Should be long enough but the article can be unprotected before that should you decide that semi-protection in no longer necessary. Mjroots (talk) 04:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Mjroots, I am the person "seemingly hell-bent on having him labelled as an atheist". Unfortuantely you have been misled by YSSYguy, who obviously has a POV he needs to push on this matter, regardless of what the source material says. I won't try to justify further here, but please have a look at the edits yourself and see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.63.176.43 (talk) 07:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
125, I don't have a dog in this fight, nor does the truth matter all that much. As a biography of a living person, any statement needs to be back up by reliable sources. This is particularly important of statement at are, or could be perceived to be, of a negative nature. Therefore, if you can find a reliable source that backs up the assertion that the subject in question is an atheist, then raise the matter on the article's talk page. As the statement has been challenged, it is up to you to back up the statement with a source, or failing that, drop the issue. Mjroots (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. I've never made the assertion he's an atheist (I have no idea whether he is or not). The source already used in the article to indicate Joyce reads maths & science also indicates he reads the works of atheists. For some reason known only to himself, YSSYguy wishes to remove that information; no doubt he's involved in the current dispute somehow. I don't care enough to continue challenging the matter; just hate to see someone's particular philosophical position being used to hide information coming straight from an interview with the subject of the biography himself. I'm obviously new to Wikipedia, but from now on might leave it up to others to play these sorts of games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.63.176.43 (talk) 02:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Some disruptive editing
Hey, mj, I was hoping you might be able to take a look at the 2012 Formula One season and Talk:2012 Formula One season pages. A user, Colinmotox11 has been making some edits that have been disruptive. I posted a message on his Talk page that I think is a fair summary of the events of the past 24 hours. Basically, he has been making unsubstantiated edits to the page, ignoring preliminary consensus on the issue, undoing any subsequent reversions, using contradictory arguments to justify it and accusing members who disagree with him of violating WP:OWN. While his intentions are good - he only wants to make the page accurate - his methods and his attitude are completely unnecessary. I don't know if there is anything you or the other administrators can do, but I don't think we've heard the last of him on this matter. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey, mj, sorry to bother you again, but can you please take a look at Colinmotox11 again? He's trying to force through changes to the 2012 Formula One season by claiming he has got consensus for them, but reading over the arguments posted on the talk page, it's clear that consensus is against him: four people support his changes, and seven do not. Can you please do something about this, because he's dangerously close to violating the three-edit rule.
Furthermore, I feel that his edits set a dangerous precedent. His footnotes in the driver table essentially create a scenario where the table says one thing, and then he gets out of it by saying something else entirely at the bottom of the table, explaining why content should not be included in the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm uninvolved with whatever quarrel is going on over the article currently at Action of 25 January 2012, but the absurdity of this title has come up in at least two discrete ITN discussions. Would you mind at least giving it some vaguely identifiable name until those warring can work out their differences? I know that's going against protocol, but in this situation anything other than the status quo seems like a clear common sense exception. — C M B J08:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the precedent you're referring to, but I cannot personally see using "action" as a static term ("action {date}") as opposed to {action} as a descriptive variable ("{action} {date}") for any article like this. But even if that's true, it's still an affront to common sense and in direct opposition to WP:NCE, which recommends that articles such as this follow the "{when} {where} {what}" variable format. Additionally, the current title goes against WP:STRONGNAT, which prescribes "{month} {day}, {year}" for American topics. I'm aware that it's generally bad mojo for an intervening administrator to take a position in this kind of setting, but again I think we're dealing with an IAR situation. — C M B J08:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
No, I'm not saying that you've erred in trying to prevent an edit war -- I'm simply reaffirming the views of other contributors that the current name is demonstrably baseless and is interfering with a time-sensitive process (ITN), one that WP:RM wasn't ever designed to accommodate. There is no reason why an interim name—any sane name—cannot be used until those users work out their differences. As a side note, the fact that something this blatantly wrong is even a point of contention at or beyond WP:AN astonishes me. The situation at hand is nothing less than bedlamitic; it's the functional equivalent of someone creating an article named Weather Event January 24 and then successfully vetoing a rename to Cyclone Funso, or any alternative, such as Intense Tropical Cyclone Funso, or Tropical Cyclone Funso, or Cyclone Funso (2012), for the same invalid reasons and in spite of the same unequivocal guideline and during the same type of 5-day nomination debate. It's so disruptive that it's now the subject of broader debate in a discussion about the future of ITN. — C M B J13:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Favor
Could you change the protection level on Phil Mickelson? An administrator put it in full lockdown. I contacted[14] that administrator but he hasn't replied. It just needs semi protection from IPs....William16:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, The article Root and Branch was moved by me to Root and Branch legislation. As another editor objected to this I wanted to move it again to Root and Branch Petition but this was not permitted. If you agree perhaps you could do what is necessary to move it.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I am unhappy because this user has recently been consistently reverting my edits - the latest of which on the Arriva North West page was seen as "nonconstructive" and reverted - all I simply did was update the fleet section. Also this user has been removing vehicle types from various articles (Bus Vannin, Stagecoach Merseyside and Arriva North West) - they have been there for a long time so I don't see how a list of vehicle types isn't needed. I also don't see why he is reverting all of my edits JamesSteamPacket (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I've tried hammering out something that YSSYguy and Ahunt will agree to in the Talk:PSA Airlines page. I've added things they brought up and even picked up a couple more citations. I guess I'd like to have the page unprotected so I can add the final iteration at the bottom of the subject on the talk page to the article. Thanks --50.128.155.168 (talk) 02:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Need this page section semi-protected....again. If you could, please return Controversial Pay Caps section to this rendition [15]. YSSYguy and Ahunt refuse to WP:HEAR that there is no "Consensus". They do not WP:OWN this page. They need to come to the Talk page and suggest a version of the Controversial Pay Caps section. They argue that there is a "consensus" that there shouldn't be a section at all. You can see by the numerous reverts and user comments (Both registered and IP) that there should indeed be a section like this, there is no "consensus" to blank this section. From the PSA Airlines: Revision history page and the Talk:PSA Airlines page there are multiple opinions on the status and text of the section. I'd had the section in question up on the Talk page for over a week. Nothing was added, or protested. They are now exploiting the fact that I asked you to un-protect the page, to start their WP:BLANKING all over again. --50.128.155.168 (talk) 02:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Ban Request
Dear Mjroots, I hereby request a ban on User:Gįs Contismalter for the following reasons:
Re: the message you left on Binksternet's talk page, no you didn't protect it for a week, you have indefinitely protected it. You may want to consider fixing it. 85.234.141.185 (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello Mjroots, I am trying to move Corvette (war ship) back to Corvette (as the previous move appears to be without consensus) but am prevented from doing so because a redirect to Chevrolet Corvette now occupies that position. Is there a way to revert or will I need to list at WP:Requested moves. I got your name from one of the previous move discussions in case you were wondering and thought you'd be sympathetic to my cause.--Ykraps (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
@Ykraps: - The article has been moved back to its original title. I've protected it from being moved at Admin level, so any further proposal to move the article will have to be discussed. There was very strong consensus that the warship carried the primary meaning last time this was discussed. Mjroots (talk) 01:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe Islamabad needs to be protected, per my most recent revert of the page, the anon editor was actually correct, and I almost (or did) accidentally start an edit war. I apologized to the anon on my talk page. @NDKilla^^^20:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Epm-84/Hstudent
Hi Mj - sorry to bring this up again. I hope that you are well
As soon as I mentioned to Hstudent about Epm-84 being absent from the discussion - the next response was a rather poorly mannered response from Epm-84. It's nearly a month since I started the discussion (as JamesSteamPacket) and they insist on carrying on the discussion even after a consensus was reached. I'm planning to implement the removal and relocation of the information that they inserted (as per the 2-1 in favour consensus reached by April 14) in the next few days - but I highly suspect they will probably continue to revert my attempts to remove and relocate the information. Is there anything that can be done if they do go against the consensus?
I have tried to bring the discussion to a close - but in my view it's just turned into them arguing because they can't accept the consensus didn't go in their favour. Their latest solution was the deletion of the entire table - which to me is just an absolutely ridiculous suggestion
They have now twice avoided addressing or denying my suspicions that Epm-84 and Hstudent are the same person - so I think that this has all but confirmed that my suspicions are indeed correct. Do you know if there any updates on the investigation I requested? I think that it may be worth using their denial of my suspicions as further evidence to support the theory that Epm-84 is the same person as Hstudent - Coradia175 (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
@Coradia175: - It would be a good idea to add further evidence to the sockpuppet investigation. The better a case you can make, the better the chance of a successful outcome. Any problems with the article being edited agains consensus let me know and I'll take a look. Mjroots (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
@Mjroots: - Despite all of the evidence I've provided - the SPI clerk disagrees with my case. I don't see the point in continuing it further because I've provided as much evidence as I can find - and I simply don't have the time to go through both accounts to find any further evidence at the moment. I'm disappointed to say the least as I thought it was a decent case
I've just edited the Northern Rail page and relocated the seating capacity information as per the consensus. I'll let you know if they go against the consensus and revert my edit - Coradia175 (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I saw that you added further evidence after the clerk's comments. If you've done all you can and the case is declined it's not the end of the world. Other options are available. Let's see how this pans out. Mjroots (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I've made one last attempt to try and make a stronger case - but after that I just think it would be best to explore the other options that are available. Thanks for your help and support on this matter though - it's really appreciated. Coradia175 (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Malaysia Airlines Flight 370
Hello Mjroots. I'm interested in the admin actions you've taken at Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. There was a content dispute between an ip editor on one side and yourself and MilborneOne on the other. It appears as though you may have used your admin powers inappropriately here to exclude ip editors, thereby enabling your preferred version to prevail. Furthermore, as an active editor on the article you should not use admin powers, but rather, request actions from an uninvolved admin. Can you enlarge on what's happened here? Thanks. MidnightBlue(Talk)17:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
@MidnightBlueMan: It was not just the one IP that was causing trouble. I'd already mentioned to MilborneOne on his talk page that I thought the article might need semi-protection before the IP edit warred for the fourth time. Following the addition of poorly sourced/unsourced info to what is a Good Article a request was filed at RFPP, which I acceded to by a temporary, short-term semi-protection. It was not about my preferred version, but changing long-standing text without/against consensus that one IP was edit-warring about. Per BRD, once reverted, the issue should have been discussed, not warred over. Mjroots (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the explanation. I see the article was un-protected, but then SP'd again after a short time. It's about time Wikipedia admitted it really doesn't want ip editors at all. MidnightBlue(Talk)21:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I've got nothing against IP editors who edit constructively. In this case, it was several IPs that weren't, hence it was easier to semi-protect the article. I had hoped that things would die down a bit, hence the relatively short period of protection. Mjroots (talk) 21:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
We have had an ANI opened since the 7th, nothing new has been added for 3 or 4 days now. We could use an Admin to take a look at it and determine what is the appropriate course of action. If requesting this oversight is in violation of any wikipedia policy, please ignore it, this is not an attempt at vote stacking or canvassing. But it seems discussion is finished there and we all would like some closure.
"Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better." - Samuel Beckett. Keep at it, you'll find a way one day :). -Xcuref1endx (talk) 09:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately we edit conflicted in the protection removal. I had reduced it to semi-protection and you removed the protection altogether. I supposed we can just see how it goes, but I would expect an influx of new socks based on the IP ranges available to the sockmaster. Then again, maybe Aubmn will abide by their block, I'd love to be surprised by the actions of a sockmaster for once!--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots19:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
@Ponyo: The article was previously unprotected, which is why I restored it back to all editors allowed. I've proposed a topic ban for Aubmn over at ANI in any case. Mjroots (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
The August 2015 battle of Chartres
Mjroots, RE the notice you left yesterday on my talk page:
Per the above notice, it seems that there was a sockfarm involved. Consider yourself very lucky not to have been blocked per WP:EW. If this situation arises again, your first course of action should be to raise the issue on the article's talk page. Do not continue reverting, chances are that other editors will also agree and they are free to revert. Should there be no discussion at talk, or the war continues, WP:ANI is there to be used, so use it. Mjroots
Consider yourself very lucky not to have been blocked per WP:EW hit me as rather ironic considering what several editors and myself have endured for months - since June 2015 for me & as early as 2014 for others. The recent rampage at Chartres (and Welborn Griffith) could be understood only by one familiar with the disaster at the Marie Antoinette article. May I also point out that what you propose I do in case of edit warring: "raise the issue on the article's talk page" is exactly what was done at the Marie Antoinette talk page [16], action which, for months - beginning here[17], wasted a lot of editors' time & came to naught, until Flyer22 took matters into her own hands. Had the issue been brought to Chartres talk page, the battle would still be going on with single contributor (myself) fighting an army of socks for the next hundred years.
In view of the above, I personally do not consider myself very lucky not to have been blocked, but do consider that my doggedness at not abandoning the subject, at the risk of being kicked out of Wikipedia, forced the matter to finally be addressed again - under a different title, that of Chartres[18] - after it had been "archived".[19]
Finally, like Jezebel's Ponyo, I am not at all convinced that this is the end as long as anyone can open an anonymous account on en.wiki & immediately bring havoc to articles. This is not possible to do at de.wiki, where edits by new contributors must be reviewed by a veteran wiki contributor before being accepted - and the new editor has to have accomplished over 200 edits before being allowed to go non-supervised. Moreover, one fact is certain: what happened at Chartres is an obvious example of the fact that I am being stalked, as done here: [20] by [21]. What has been removed had been brought to article by me[22]. Additionally, you will notice who had contributed to article, only to be reversed. My belief is that there is a huge problem at Wikipedia and, if serious contributors are not protected, they will go away and, in the end, it might be the end of Wikipedia.
If my reason(s) for persevering at the Chartres & Welborn Griffith articles, as others and myself had done at Marie Antoinette, had condemned me, so be it: as I stated earlier somewhere, my actions were "for the good of the cause".
@Blue Indigo: For the record, if I had blocked you for edit warring, I would have been justified in doing so. One reason for blocking is the prevention of further disruption. With the sockfarm now closed down, there is less liklihood of this occurring. As you will see from my user page, I've been an admin for quite some time now. One develops a sixth sense as to who is editing with good intentions and who is not, even if such editing could be seen as problematic in some circumstances. With my report at ANI, you can be sure that more editors will be watching the article, and any further disruption will be stamped upon quickly and hard.
You are lucky in that it was me that raised the issue and then decided not to block you once the full picture was known. Other admins may well have blocked you. I don't like blocking editors where it is avoidable, but I will block anyone should it prove necessary.
If further disruption occurs - you mention the Welborn Griffith article - then don't fight the war alone. Ask for help, that way you cover yourself. Wikiprojects are good places to ask if you wish to avoid the catfight that ANI can become on occasions. Mjroots (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Mjroots, I am glad that you came upon the scene: when I received your notice, I knew exactly what you were doing. From the beginning (Marie Antoinette/June 2015) I may not have handled the affair in a conventional manner according to wiki rules, but the whole Aubmn saga is now over or, should I say, Aubmn has been openly identified as a trouble maker, although I do not believe that it really is the end of him. And since I am the one he is after, obvious when one sees that he comes to every article I work on & either reverts or brings illiterate changes, then in my opinion, it was worth taking the risk.
In my note to you above, I intended to ask that you do not take it as criticism of you: I just wanted you to understand the "why" of my conduct. Since he first logged in at Wikipedia, Aubmn has not only been disruptive, but destructive as well, doing a lot of damage to articles. It is a shame that individuals such as him use the freedom of Wikipedia to curtail the freedom of serious contributors to Wikipedia.
Now, since it is also recognized that Aubmn has gone on the war path against me, tracking my every move at Wikipedia, maybe steps will be taken to avoid another battle of Chartres, or the cheap obsessed above & below the belt inappropriate details regarding Marie Antoinette.
Flyer22 has been a great support in this case, as it is thanks to her action that it could be handled beyond a simple case of edit warring at the Chartres article,
@Od Mishehu: - many thanks, had already done that, and appealed via equivalent of WP:AN. I was alerted to he he-Wiki problem by e-mail after the others had been dealt with. I knew you are a native Hebrew speaker with good English, which is why I asked you for help. All sorted now. Mjroots (talk) 12:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Mjroots, yes, the insertion of +922 bytes, careful removal of -130 bytes, and its re-insertion of +332 bytes; resulting in opening of the discussion above. —Sladen (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Mjroots, sadly not quite! The middle of those revisions (-130) should be fine to leave visible, aswell as the last redaction I've just made again (-79); but it's the revisions in the middle that contain the link. Plus, ideally encouragement to the user to avoid further reintroductions. —Sladen (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Mjroots, and the remaining revisions? (08:13, 19:39, 19:47). Though please only do this if you completely understand the issue, and agree with it—as I was mainly after a second independent opinion before taking the action which you've already gone ahead and partly done. —Sladen (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I will bring this issue to WP:AN later. If we cannot write a link to a news which includes BLP to the talk page, we cannot discuss even whether the inclusion of the BLP to the article is a BLP violation or not. WP:BLPNAME or WP:BLP1E says about the inclusion to article not Talk page. Also the reason WP:RD2 is hardly applicable.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
@Phoenix7777: You are quite at liberty to do that, but be aware that people who raise issues at ANI can get hit by boomerangs.
It is late here and I probably won't be responding there before tomorrow morning. WP:RD2 is the only one available for BLP violations, therefore it is entirely appropriate. I accept that your editing was in good faith, which is why I was content to leave administrative action at deleting revisions. I haven't even posted any warnings on your talk page for that reason. Mjroots (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
FYI. These sources include the names of victims which apparently against WP:BLPNAME if the names were included in the body of the article. If you wish to revdel, feel free to do so.
@Phoenix7777: I'm not getting involved in a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Consensus established with the article in question was that a) the names orginally posted constituted a serious BLP violation; b) that the names originally posted were, in at least some cases, false; c) none of the victims was a Wikinotable person; and d) there was no need to name the victims.
You went against that consensus by posting the links which have been revision deleted. I don't care whether they are the same as the original names claimed, or the actual victims. Now, if you really want to take this further WP:ANI is the correct venue to raise the issue. Your call. Mjroots (talk) 12:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override policies or guidelines per WP:CONLIMITED. I don't think the content is a serious BLP violation. However even so, WP:BLPTALK permit to include it as a link to such content as I did. Also the name of a driver written in the German newspaper to which I gave a link in the talk page is composed of his given name and an initial of his family name, J*r*en F.. Do you think it is still "a serious BLP violation"?―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Assuming that your link contained the names of the actual victims, then it was not a serious BLP violation. If it was a link to the same names posted earlier, then it was a serious violation. I'm taking it on good faith that your edit was the former. When using the tools to perform a REVDEL, there is a drop-down menu to chose the reason for the deletion. It only gives the option of "serious BLP violation". Given the problems caused across multiple Wikis, I took the cautious approach and REVDEL'd your edits per a request received here. I take it you've never had the occasion to edit he-Wiki? That was certainly an experience. Now, if you wish to discuss the names of the victims and whether or not they should be included, and whether or not BLP is breached given that the accident was a week ago, talk:Bad Aibling rail accident is the correct venue. You may find that things have changed given the timeframe. When the original edits were made, it was possible that next-of-kin had not been informed (assuming at the time that the names were correct), hence the serious violation. You wouldn't want to find out from Wikipedia that you had lost someone close to you, would you? Bad as it is, at least you'd hope that proper protocols were followed and that the appropriate person was the informant. This is why TV and Radio news programmes take extreme care not to name victims until they know that next-of-kin have been informed. They can get into serious trouble otherwise. Mjroots (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Phoenix7777; I'd echo this. Things will change in time: ie. an official list will eventually be published, and memorial stone created with names. An officially published list is going to treat all equally and there will plenty of material for newspapers to write about, and so for Wikipedia to reflect. At the moment tabloids are stalking names from Facebook. ≈150 people were involved; the counts of the injuried, and even fatalities, have changed in the last days. —Sladen (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC) By contrast, the two air incidents you highlighted had believed-complete lists. Both incidents involved in 100% fatalities without risk of mis-identification or change in status. The lists were released by official entities.
A mutual talk page ban was not what was proposed or supported
If your interpretation of the ANI discussion was that there was not enough support for a mutual IBAN between myself and John Carter, you should have specified as much in your close. I requested an interaction ban with John Carter for a number of reasons, not just to do with my talk page;John Carter accepted the proposal, and it was supported by virtually everyone else to boot. I know my request was poorly formatted and I was very long-winded in some of my responses, and if your interpretation was that this merited rejecting my request I will accept that, but this probably should have been written into your close. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Mjroots, you've protected a version of this article due to move warring, but the version you've protected is not the long term stable version. Per WP:RM, normally the long term stable version should be the default if there is a dispute, unless a move request determines otherwise. In this case, the version from 21 July 2013 through to 17 September 2016 was Newcourt railway station, Exeter, so could you please move it back to there, and any users who want an alternative location can file a move request? Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
@Amakuru: and Useddenim. Naturally, I've protected it at the WP:WRONGVERSION. The move protection is to stop a move war and encourage discussion. It is not necessarily an endorsement of the current title. There is the WP:RM system available for editors to use to gain consensus on which title the article should be housed at. I accept that all moves were made in good faith, but the cumulative effect was a move war, which is why I move protected the article. Mjroots (talk) 07:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
WRONGVERSION surely doesn't apply to RM discussions, because there is a process in place for that, which automatically recognizes the long term stable version as the correct version. I agree there should be an RM discussion, but it should take place with the article at its original location, otherwise it's confusing for all users. That's even why we have a section called "Requests to revert undiscussed moves" at WP:RMT. The default location in the event of a dispute is always the long term one. I would go and request this to be reverted at that venue, but I don't want to override your decision to protect, and would prefer that you do the reverting yourself. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 07:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
@Amakuru: I meant WRONGVERSION in the sense that it was bound to be wrong for somebody. I've moved the article back to the stable title as requested. You should now open the RM discussion. I won't be taking part in it as I have no strong feelings either way and consider myself WP:INVOLVED. Mjroots (talk) 07:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I-ban
FWIW, I think the post made by the IP was made by someone at the seminary where I am typing this who I have been discussing various possibilities regarding a parallel Bible project on the WF and gathering together material for a still theoretical interdenominational i-phone "saint of the day" app to be maybe based at least in part of WF material. I did make the mistake of giving out my alias to one of the staff here, and mentioned one of the most problematic cases I could think of in recent times regarding the editors here. But, no problems. John Carter (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Do you think the comments made by Hijiri88 here, here, and I think most importantly here qualify as violations of his topic bans as per the Arbitration case to be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88 or not? Speaking strictly for myself, I have never been even remotely convinced he has ever made much if any effort to understand policies and guidelines, and certainly has rarely if ever given much indication that he understands how they might apply to him. Certainly, Hijiri88 requesting Sturmgewehr88 to file an AE request because Hijiri wasn'ty sure he could himself, as per here,. does not inspire one with confidence. Also, as per the Arb page somewhere, Sturmgewehr88 states rather directly that he had no idea where I got the idea individual editors here are responsible for their own actions, which certainly does nothing to indicate to me that Sturmgewehr88's grasp of policy and guidelines is any better than Hijiri88's. Between Sturmgewehr88 and Curly Turkey and Hijiri88, as more than one editor indicated in the AtbCom case request section, there seems to exist an extremely close relationship, which often seems to be to me, at least in relation to policies and guidelines, the blind leading the blind, as only Curly Turkey of the three has ever even remotely shown to me any particular grasp of policies or conduct guidelines. I am not myself necessarily sure that AE would necessarily be the best way to go with this matter, although I might be wrong of course, but I do think that it would very much be in Hijiri8's own best interests if someone were to make it plain to him exactly how far his topic ban extends, and what he is and is not permitted to do under it. My own impression right now is that any hope he might have of having the topic ban lifted after one year is already pretty much gone, but it might be reasonable to specifically indicate to him that the lifting of the ban is contingent on his engaging in acceptable behavior regarding that matter, something I am not sure I have seen from him yet. John Carter (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I have no reservations about forgetting about him whatsoever. I would be more than happy to do so. However, as someone who has, by my own clear declaration, been receiving e-mails regarding the conduct of that editor for over a year now, e-mails as they come in serve as a form of reminder, whether I want them to or not. If the individual(s) sending the e-mails were to stop sending them, I personally wouldn't have any reservations about forgetting the name for all time. But I am less than convinced that some of those e-mails from others will stop, or whether they necessarily should be stopped, although, I hope to God, e-mails from Hijiri88 such as the one I mentioned at ANI stop. John Carter (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
such as the one I mentioned at ANI The implication here -- that the email JC mentioned was different from the one I disclosed in full -- is completely untrue. I have only ever sent JC one email, and it was that one. "e-mails from Hijiri88" "stopped" six months ago. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
@John Carter: I'll add my ¢2 since you had a tangent about me without pinging me. Where you talk about editors' responsibility for their own actions, you completely misrepresented that argument. I was explaining WP:NPOV to you, and your response quite clearly shows that either you completely reject that policy or are totally ignorant of it. "Editors aren't responsible for how readers interpret articles", complete bollocks! And actually, the bond between Hijiri, CurlyTurkey, myself, and a few others mind you, is our opposition to a small group of editors consisting of you, AlbinoFerret, Catflap, CurtisNaito, and TH1980. There is no less collusion between you than there is between us. At least we can say that we've improved articles more than adding megabytes to the noticeboards. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 02:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
None of those edits are about "Japanese culture", and two out of three of them don't mention anything even remotely related to Japan -- the third was a response to a request from another user to translate something for him off-wiki. John Carter is here continuing his year-long pattern of following me around and trying to wikilawyer me into a block. Also, anyone who wants to block me based on John Carter's dubious reports of me violating a TBAN he clearly either doesn't understand or is deliberately misrepresenting should read this first.
It's also worth pointing out that John Carter just admitted to (inadvertently) engaging in meatpuppetry in order to continue his harassment of me.
I really would like to just forget about this whole incident, but ... I don't know ... if this disruption continues I guess I'll just have to draft another ANI thread.
@Mjroots: Sorry, I just noticed this. Thank you for carefully analyzing my edits before blocking me for TBAN violations. I am not sure what the "YHM notification" refers to -- if you want clarification that I could provide I'm sure I would be happy to, as I have not done anything that would qualify as an IBAN or TBAN violation in a very long time. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Hijiri, please keep a distance from the Japanese thing. John, bringing up an editor with whom you have a problem in the way you described which then leads to someone posting, that's unwise, in my opinion. Mjroots, remember the good old days when we were innocent editors writing up wind mills and lighthouses? Drmies (talk) 03:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
@Drmies: Ah yes, those were the days. I suggest that all parties disengage. The way things are going, we are either going to end up a ANI discussing a CBAN, or there'll be an Arbcom case. Neither of which are likely to end happily. Mjroots (talk) 05:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
You are a disgusting human being
You should be ashamed of yourself. Fully locking the Iran article is absolutely against the spirit of Wikipedia and its foundation pillars. Who do you think you are as well? Taking to the talk page and waving around a ban hammer like you are some sort of Hero. Let me put it this way, you have not been to University and clearly lack an education so why are you attempting to wield around power like the mad hungry rat you are. Unlock the article and let Wikipedia be a reflection of the stupidity that you have no right to put yourself above. You, sir are an idiot like the rest of the geek scum on here who think they can tell a Doctor what to do on an article about Medicine. So an all mighty f you to you. Thank you! 86.134.219.53 (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
@86.134.219.53: Thank you for that message. Every decent Admin gets a message like that. It shows that they are doing the job properly. Now, if you have something constructive to add to the Iran article, the instructions are clearly posted on the talk page as to what to do. Mjroots (talk) 04:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
@86.134.219.53:. If you want to find out more about Wikipedia, the first stage is to register so we can offer you friendly advice on your talk page. The first piece would be: while new, steer away from the top level articles until you have built up some experience on more local articles. Go for stubs or start class articles like Black rat. The second is to post your opinion to the articles talk page- and establish Wikipedia:Consensus, and let a more experienced editor do the final post for you. Its simple really cooperate rather than irritate the hell out of everyone. When you have registered drop a line here to say so- and we will help you find articles where your contribution will be welcome .--ClemRutter (talk) 07:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Mjroots. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you. This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Aircraft occurrence template tweak
Hello, there seems to be agreement on a small tweak of the 'Infobox aircraft occurrence' template (i.e. swapping the items 'Fatalities' and 'Injuries (non-fatal)', to make the order more logical) – see discussion. Would you mind sorting it out? I would do it myself, but the template is locked. Thanks. --Deeday-UK (talk) 20:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
@Deeday-UK: I agree that there is consensus for such change as you suggest. However, I do not feel confident enough to make the suggested changes. Maybe it is worth asking at WP:AN for assistance from a more confident admin or template editor. Mjroots (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,
Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi Mjroots/Archive.
A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.
It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.
Mj, are you still thinking it would be good to ban me from moving articles for some reason? Or shouldn't you just politely withdraw your complaint and move on? Dicklyon (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
@Dicklyon: I'm not minded to withdraw the complaint. Still seeing evidence of WP:IDHT behaviour from you. The AN/I thread really needs to be closed by an uninvolved admin, as it's a fairly close balance of opinions there. Mjroots (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
A question on protocol
Any advice on the best way to handle a case of inappropriate tagging? This morning I noticed this edit [[23]] to the Battle of Trafalgar article. Whether "looser" is a better description or not is not an argument I want to get into at the moment, but someone has tagged the editor’s talk page,[[24]] accusing him of vandalism, which clearly it isn’t. Given that this sort of tagging could be seen as a bit bitey, what would you say, with your admin hat on, is the right thing to do here? Is it okay to remove the tag, leave a message on the new editor's page, leave a message on the tagger’s talk page, or something else?--Ykraps (talk) 07:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ykraps: I'd revert the edit and open a discussion on the talk page re loose/looser. By all means let both editors know that you disagree with the tagging of talk page. Mjroots (talk) 08:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.
Technical news
When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.
JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
A recent RfC has redefined how articles on schools are evaluated at AfD. Specifically, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.
Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.
Technical news
After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.
Can you please closethis AFD? Another editor closed it improperly but I reverted it due to that editor being involved. He or she had taken part in the discussion. You may want to have a word with User Wykx and inform them about WP:INVOLVED. Thanks....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?10:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the procedural close was the right ruling there. It's clear Burning Pillar was intending to nominate every article in that category for deletion, not just the category itself. He only nominated the category itself because it would be empty (which could have been done by speedy if and when the articles were deleted.) But the fact that it was listed under the category and not one of the individual articles in the category (with the others mentioned as well and tagged properly, as they were) is not enough for a procedural close. That being said, it's clear consensus was to keep and it probably could have been SNOW-ed anyway. Smartyllama (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
@Smartyllama: - Hmmm, I didn't realise this was a cat and article nomination, which is not normally how these thing are done. Although the debate had been running quite a while, it did not show up in CAT:AFD/P earlier in the week, which is why I didn't notice it until this morning. Would you prefer I reopened the discussion, leave it closed or do something else? Mjroots (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
@Mjroots: Either reopen it until the end or close it as snow keep (which would be a reasonable close in light of the consensus so far). The only reason he nominated the category for deletion was because it would be empty after the articles were deleted. Which, of course, is not how it's normally done, but doesn't make the discussion on the articles invalid. As I said, it could easily have been closed as snow keep at that point, so if you want to close as snow keep, that's fine. If you're not comfortable doing that, in my opinion it should be reopened and allowed to run its course, then closed as normal. Smartyllama (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
@Smartyllama: - I've reopened the discussion and asked that it be allowed to run for a further 24 hours over what would have been the original time for closure, which will give everyone a chance to comment over at least a full week. Mjroots (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Keith-264
Hello, remember me? You added rollback to my user rights. I can't find how to resign user rights and would like to; any suggestions? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.
There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.
An RfC proposing an off-wiki LTA database has been closed. The proposal was broadly supported, with further discussion required regarding what to do with the existing LTA database and defining access requirements. Such a tool/database formed part of the Community health initiative's successful grant proposal.
Some clarifications have been made to the community banning and unblocking policies that effectively sync them with current practice. Specifically, the community has reached a consensus that when blocking a user at WP:AN or WP:ANI, it is considered a "community sanction", and administrators cannot unblock unilaterally if the user has not successfully appealed the sanction to the community.
Request for reduction in protection level - Windmill
The article has been semi-protected since 2011. It has had very few incidents of vandalism so I don't think it needed to be indefinitely protected. Its risk level should be about the same as any other article of that size. What do you think? Greg (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding ?fuzzy=1 to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.
A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.
LoginNotify should soon be deployed to the English Wikipedia. This will notify users when there are suspicious login attempts on their account.
The new version of XTools is nearing an official release. This suite of tools includes administrator statistics, an improved edit counter, among other tools that may benefit administrators. You can report issues on Phabricator and provide general feedback at mw:Talk:XTools.
Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.
Technical news
You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.
Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.
The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.
To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.
We really appreciate your input!
Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.
Following a successful proposal to create it, a new user right called "edit filter helper" is now assignable and revocable by administrators. The right allows non-administrators to view the details of private edit filters, but not to edit them.
Following a discussion about mass-application of ECP and how the need for logging and other details of an evolving consensus may have been missed by some administrators, a rough guide to extended confirmed protection has been written. This information page describes how the extended-confirmed aspects of the protection policy are currently being applied by administrators.
A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
A new function is now available to edit filter managers that will make it easier to look for multiple strings containing spoofed text.
Arbitration
Eligible editors will be invited to submit candidate statements for the 2017 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 12 until November 21. Voting will begin on November 27 and last until December 10.
The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.
Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.
The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:
Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.
Technical news
Wikimedians are now invited to vote on the proposals in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey on Meta Wiki until 10 December 2017. In particular, there is a section of the survey regarding new tools for administrators and for anti-harassment.
A new function is available to edit filter managers which can be used to store matches from regular expressions.
Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.
A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.
An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.
Technical news
A tagwill now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.
Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee has enacted a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a standardizededitnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.
Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.
Technical news
CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
The edit filter has a new featurecontains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.
Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.
I think you might have missed my comment at the ANI thread about this. Would you consider undoing the protection you placed on Template:New England Patriots roster? I don't think the page was receiving persistent disruptive editing, so I don't think the protection was warranted. There are a lot of IP edits to the page, and they generally seem to be constructive or at least made in good faith. If User:38.27.128.203 is making edits that are non-constructive despite being told to stop, then that IP might need to be blocked for a while, but I don't think protecting the page is the right solution. Calathan (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
@Calathan: For what it's worth, I was the one who suggested the protection originally, in another case, as part of a general pattern of disruptive edits on all NFL roster templates. At this time of year, we see persistent disruptive editing from anonymous editors, widespread across the globe. I don't understand it, but I assume there is some game where they benefit by assigning imaginary numbers to players. This will continue until training camp, when the numbers are actually assigned. As for the Template:New England Patriots roster page, we just had a case where one such disruptive editor (with a non-confirmed account) was forced to use a talk page for the first time to discuss the issue. His viewpoint was essentially "there's an instagram with him wearing 33 (at a previous team), we must change the NE Patriots roster to conform". This may be the first time that editor has been informed that the player doesn't own the choice. Tarl N. (discuss) 17:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
@Tarl N.: I don't see any reason why this would be some sort of game, and don't think it is intentional disruption. I think these are people innocently assuming players will keep the numbers they have had before when they change teams, because they are unaware of how NFL numbers are assigned. These are editors that are making a good faith effort to improve Wikipedia, and even if they are making mistakes sometimes, we need to encourage them to continue contributing rather than preventing them from editing the pages. At least on Template:New England Patriots roster, most of the edits I see from IP users are constructive. I don't believe page protection is appropriate to stop good faith edits just because a portion of them are incorrect. Page protection should only be used when there is persistent, intentional disruption, which I certainly don't see in this case. If an individual editor is persistent in making edits even after it has been explained to them that they are wrong, then the solution to that should be to block that specific editor, not to prevent all IPs from editing the pages. Calathan (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
@Calathan:. There may be some who are doing this in good faith (e.g., that editor who was finally forced to use the talk page), but a good number of them are not - they are perfectly aware the numbers are not assigned. Often the numbers are not simply the previous team numbers, but are completely made up numbers (because the previous numbers conflicted with someone else on the team). Sometimes they change other player numbers to make room for the new players. My experience is that the IPs doing this are motivated for some reason to force their changes in, often resulting in edit wars (and resulting bans). It seems to be an annual ritual. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
@Calathan: and Tarl_N. - Suggest that this is raised at WT:NFL. It seems to be an annual event, so best discussed at WP level to get a consensus re the need to protect templates. I've done what I can here and at ANI. American Football is not in my area of expertise so I'd rather not get dragged into a dispute amongst editors who should be capable of working things through. I do understand your frustration re IPs adding unsourced info to templates and articles on an annual basis. Mjroots (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.
Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.
Miscellaneous
A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.
The ed17 and I have agreed to disagree. Points raised will be taken on board. No need for any further action or escalation. Mjroots (talk) 05:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yo Mj, been awhile! A few points on your message to Gamaliel. 1) WP:DTTR, you know that just pisses people off/don't be a jerk. 2) You'd taken part in the discussion, so any block would have violated WP:INVOLVED. 3) Gamaliel only made two reverts, so I'm curious to know what led to the "banhammer" threat. 4) I'm curious why you chose to only warn him and not Daniel Case or Johnuniq, while leaving this message on the former's talk page.
@The ed17: - Gamaliel was the one edit warring to remove a valid wikiproject banner from an article talk page. As far as I'm concerned, this is akin to vandalism and thus the restoration of the template cannot be edit warring. Things seem to have calmed down a bit now and it seems that the banhammer is not going to be needed. Thanks for the heads up though, I'm not perfect so if I've erred then I apologise. Mjroots (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Administrators have a mandate to enforce site-wide policy, like consensus and BLP, and not the preferences of a particular WikiProject they favor. The template is bad enough, an admin should know not to template the regulars, but an ban threat is clearly over the line. You should probably stay out of administrative matters regarding this WikiProject from now on as you've demonstrated clear favoritism through selective enforcement. Gamaliel (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
@Gamaliel: - There was no BLP violation to enforce. As for WP:DEATH, their members decide the project's scope, which includes "transportation disasters in which at least one person is killed". The removal of a valid WP from an article's talk page was not valid, whether or not you agree with the image on the Wikiproject's template. Mjroots (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
If you mean Daniel Case and Jim Michael, as I've explained above, reversion of disruptive edits akin to vandalism is not edit warring. Daniel Case did indicate that he thought he might be straying into EW territory when discussing the issue on the talk page. Even if he had done so, that is a mitigating factor. Mjroots (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Mj... look. Here's a policy refresher. Wikipedia:Edit warring: Reverting vandalism is not edit warring. However, edits from a slanted point of view, general insertion or removal of material, or other good-faith changes are not considered vandalism. See Wikipedia:Vandalism § Types of vandalism and Wikipedia:Vandalism § What is not vandalism.
You might also be interested in the definition of vandalism, as I'd be hard-pressed to say Gamaliel was guilty of a "deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia." (Emphasis in original.)
See also WP:VANDNOT, especially the first section: Bold edits, though they may precede consensus or be inconsistent with prior consensus, are not vandalism unless other aspects of the edits identify them as vandalism. The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold, and acknowledges the role of bold edits in reaching consensus.
@The ed17: We'll have to agree to disagree. The repeated removal of a valid Wikiproject banner because an editor objects to an image contained within that banner in my eyes was akin to vandalism and disruptive. A WP gets to decide what falls within its scope and if an article clearly fits within a WPs scope then it is only right and proper that the talk page is adorned with that WPs banner. Mjroots (talk) 06:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
We will have to disagree on interpretation of that policy. Regardless, declaring one person's edit as "disruptive" and another's as "valid" when there is nothing that could be reasonably interpreted as "simple vandalism" involved means you are taking sides in an editing dispute and it would be a policy violation for you to use your tools, or to threaten to do so, in this matter. Gamaliel (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
If it wasn't vandalism, it was certainly disruptive. In any case, we can put this to bed. The behaviour ceased, there is a discussion and vote going on at WT:DEATH. If you want the skull removed, there is an opportunity to get it removed. If consensus is that it stays, that will also be the end of the argument. Mjroots (talk) 05:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.
Technical news
AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.
Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.
Following a successful request for comment, administrators are now able to add and remove editors to the "event coordinator" group. Users in the event coordinator group have the ability to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit. Users will no longer need to be in the "account creator" group if they are in the event coordinator group.
IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.
Arbitration
A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.
An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon () in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
Miscellaneous
Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.
Technical news
The WMF Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input on the second set of wireframes for the Special:Block redesign that will introduce partial blocks. The new functionality will allow you to block a user from editing a specific set of pages, pages in a category, a namespace, and for specific actions such as moving pages and uploading files.
Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.
Technical news
Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.
Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.
What you do is so rude. Idiot. Protection p? You ruin my great work with Jetstreamer and MilborneOne! I will email Wikipedia so do not even try. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.153.248.14 (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
There is an open request for comment on Meta regarding the creation a new user group for global edit filter management.
Technical news
Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.
Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.
Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.
Arbitration
Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.
A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
Administrators and bureaucrats can no longer unblock themselves unless they placed the block initially. This change has been implemented globally. See also this ongoing village pump discussion (permalink).
To complement the aforementioned change, blocked administrators will soon have the ability to block the administrator that placed their block to mitigate the possibility of a compromised administrator account blocking all other active administrators.
In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (Raymond Arritt) passed away on 14 November 2018. Boris joined Wikipedia as Raymond arritt on 8 May 2006 and was an administrator from 30 July 2007 to 2 June 2008.
R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.
Members of the Bot Approvals Group (BAG) are now subject to an activity requirement. After two years without any bot-related activity (e.g. operating a bot, posting on a bot-related talk page), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice.
Technical news
Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.
Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
{{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.
Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
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.
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.
I believe some comments are being lost, another editor pointed out that Angela Smith directly linked her comment to reasons for leaving the Labour party, but it has now disappeared. ~ BOD ~ TALK18:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Following discussions at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Administrators, an earlier change to the restoration of adminship policy was reverted. If requested, bureaucrats will not restore administrator permissions removed due to inactivity if there have been five years without a logged administrator action; this "five year rule" does not apply to permissions removed voluntarily.
Technical news
A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.
Arbitration
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).
paid-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org 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.
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. Please see meta:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019 to provide your input on this idea.
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.
Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account.
What do I need to do?
Only to follow the instructions in this message.
Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites).
Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable).
Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers.
How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)?
Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
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.
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.
Arbitration
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.
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.
Miscellaneous
The previously discussed unblocking of IP addresses indefinitely-blocked before 2009 was approved and has taken place.
In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.
The scope of CSD criterion G8 has been tightened such that the only redirects that it now applies to are those which target non-existent pages.
The scope of CSD criterion G14 has been expanded slightly to include orphan "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).
The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.
Miscellaneous
In February 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) changed its office actions policy to include temporary and project-specific bans. The WMF exercised this new ability for the first time on the English Wikipedia on 10 June 2019 to temporarily ban and desysop Fram. This action has resulted in significant community discussion, a request for arbitration (permalink), and, either directly or indirectly, the resignations of numerous administrators and functionaries. The WMF Board of Trustees is aware of the situation, and discussions continue on a statement and a way forward. The Arbitration Committee has sent an open letter to the WMF Board.
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.
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.
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.
A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.
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.
An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
A request for comment asks whether partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. If enabled, this functionality would allow administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces, rather than the entire site.
A proposal asks whether admins who don't use their tools for a significant period of time (e.g. five years) should have the toolset procedurally removed.
The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
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. [25]
Arbitration
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.
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.
Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.
Miscellaneous
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.
(I also miss the big orange bar. Getting rid of it was real dumb; new editors don't notice the little red notification things.) Is there a new policy regarding user talk pages? WP:BLANKING is pretty explicit; users can blank pretty much anything on their talk pages besides declined unblock notices for active blocks. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 14:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@Jpgordon: - AFAIK, editors can remove almost all content from their talk pages, with the sole exception of block notices relating to active blocks. Removal of warnings is taken to mean the warning has been read and understood. Is there any particular problem relating to this that you need assistance with? Mjroots (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
No particular problem, except that I routinely monitor CAT:RFU, so I notice things like you put on User talk:Nathan A RF, and wondered if the blanking policy had changed with the introduction of per-page blocking. There's no injunction against removing block notices related to active blocks, just against removing declined unblock notices. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 14:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Ah, right. I may be mistaken in my "AFAIK" of course. Have watchlisted his talk page so we'll see what happens. Mjroots (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Can you please do something about an editor?
It is LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk·contribs) It mostly involves his editors and edit summaries at Pakistan International Airlines Flight 8303. He keeps trying to add a non notable person to the victims section of the article. Per here[26] here[27] and here[28] at least. His edit summaries include 'Go get whoever you want to European dog!', 'Censorship', an 'Revert censorship. Who are you foreigners to tell us what to do?'. He has also posted[29] a personal attack to my talk page....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?14:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
@WilliamJE: No problem. I know we don't always agree, but when we do disagree it is with respect and decorum. Didn't see any of that there. Mjroots (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation announced that they will develop a universal code of conduct for all WMF projects. There is an open local discussion regarding the same.
Arbitration
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.
The Medicine case was closed, with a remedy authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles.
Sysops will once again be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to interface administrators when that group was introduced.
Twinkle's block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a discretionary sanctions block and/or template.
Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.
By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorizedfor all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
@Robert McClenon: I don't know anything about you. A brief check reveals a clean block log and you've been around long enough to have a clue. Maybe SoWhy will nominate you again and it will be third time lucky? Mjroots (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
(pinged) I think you have me confused with someone else. I was probably one of the reasons his last attempt failed. Not saying I wouldn't offer if things have changed but I doubt Robert will be interested anyway. Regards SoWhy20:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
@SoWhy:, my apologies. It was Alex Shih who nominated Robert the second time. He's not been around since October 2019 though. I'm not in a position to nominate as I don't know enough about Robert. Mjroots (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
A request for comment is in progress to remove F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a, which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
A request for comment asks if sysops may place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
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.
By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
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)
I considered that wording, but now we're effectively saying Indonesian Navy submarine Indonesian Navy Ship Nanggala? Stephen 05:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
@Stephen: - In effect yes, but the caption differed from the display of the wikilinks name. the vast majority of people won't know realise that in any case. Maybe a reword to "KRI Nanggala, an Indonesian Navy submarine, ... Mjroots (talk) 05:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
"Oh" - and "TY"
Oh
Oh - you literally meant windmills. And here I thought you were metophorically referencing some monumental Don Quixote task. Cool though.
TY
Ahhh .. the "Adminy" stuff. This. Appreciate that. I thought about it a time or two, but I was already knee-deep in commenting (and knowing you know who, thought better of it).
Humph
"And now for something completely different" .. Sections within sections on a user talk? You're making me work here. Geesh. ... LOL. Anyway, thanks again. — Ched (talk) 09:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
HMHS Britannic
Hi. Sorry to bother you. Would you mind, please, having a look at HMHS Britannic? An inexperienced user has moved it all over the shop without checking with anyone else, and, just to really cheer me up, they have lost the talk page too, or rather left it behind at home all lonely. If you were minded to intervene I would be most grateful. I don't want to start trying to move stuff myself in case I screw up and make it worse! Thanks and all good wishes DBaK (talk) 08:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.
Arbitration
The community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.
It has again been moved to Air Dominicana Flight 603. I moved it back. There have been multiple talk page discussions about the flight. Here is just one[30] of them. Please note- I made this same request at MilborneOne's talk page but I saw you edited just a few minutes ago. Thanks in advance....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?10:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
@WilliamJE: - protected, but see comment at talk page. It seems that the flight number may be verified, although I'd prefer to see a contemporary source. Mjroots (talk) 10:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I have access to the New York Times archive but the only article they have doesn't give a flight number....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?11:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
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.
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.
Arbitration
The community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.
An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.
Technical news
Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)
A discussion is open to decide when, if ever, should discord logs be eligible for removal when posted onwiki (including whether to oversight them)
A RfC on the next steps after the trial of pending changes on TFAs has resulted in a 30 day trial of automatic semi protection for TFAs.
Technical news
The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.
Arbitration
A request for comment is in progress to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. Comments and new proposals are welcome.
Following an RfC, extended confirmed protection may be used preemptively on certain high-risk templates.
Following a discussion at the Village Pump, there is consensus to treat discord logs the same as IRC logs. This means that discord logs will be oversighted if posted onwiki.
A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.
Miscellaneous
Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.
Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.
Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)
The already authorized standard discretionary sanctions for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), broadly construed, have been made permanent.
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.
The functionaries email list (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.
A RfC is open to discuss prohibiting draftification of articles over 90 days old.
Technical news
The deployment of the reply tool as an opt-out feature, as announced in last month's newsletter, has been delayed to 7 March. Feedback and comments are being welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project. (T296645)
Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)
Following an RfC, a change has been made to the administrators inactivity policy. Under the new policy, if an administrator has not made at least 100 edits over a period of 5 years they may be desysopped for inactivity.
A public status system for WMF wikis has been created. It is located at https://www.wikimediastatus.net/ and is hosted separately to WMF wikis so in the case of an outage it will remain viewable.
Arbitration
Remedy 2 of the St Christopher case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to place a ban on single-purpose accounts who were disruptively editing on the article St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages from those pages.
Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.
The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.
An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.
Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)
Arbitration
The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.
Miscellaneous
You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.
A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.
Technical news
The impact report on the effects of disabling IP editing on the Persian (Farsi) Wikipedia has been released.
The WMF is looking into making a Private Incident Reporting System (PIRS) system to improve the reporting of harmful incidents through easier and safer reporting. You can leave comments on the talk page by answering the questions provided. Users who have faced harmful situations are also invited to join a PIRS interview to share the experience. To sign up please emailMadalina Ana.
Arbitration
An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.
Miscellaneous
The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
Following an RfC, consensus has been found that, in the context of politics and science, the reliability of FoxNews.com is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use.
The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.
Arbitration
Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case will be rescinded 1 November following a motion.
An RfC is open to discuss having open requests for adminship automatically placed on hold after the seven-day period has elapsed, pending closure or other action by a bureaucrat.
Tech tip: Wikimarkup in a block summary is parsed in the notice that the blockee sees. You can use templates with custom options to specify situations like {{rangeblock|create=yes}} or {{uw-ublock|contains profanity}}.
An RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign has been closed.
Technical news
A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)
Arbitration
Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 12, 2022 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
The arbitration case Stephen has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 1 December 2022.
A motion has modified the procedures for contacting an admin facing Level 2 desysop.
Miscellaneous
Tech tip: A single IPv6 connection usually has access to a "subnet" of 18 quintillion IPs. Add /64 to the end of an IP in Special:Contributions to see all of a subnet's edits, and consider blocking the whole subnet rather than an IP that may change within a minute.
I feel that the page Basler BT-67 does not need to be semi-protected any longer. The page was semi-protected over 5 years ago due to an IP adding unsourced material. I feel that this is a stale protection reason and that the page does not need any protection at this time. This page is also rather infrequently edited, making pending-changes a suitable option. Computerfan0 (talk) 13:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.
Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.
Following a request for comment, the Portal CSD criteria (P1 (portal subject to CSD as an article) and P2 (underpopulated portal)) have been deprecated.
The Terms of Use update cycle has started, which includes a [p]roposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing. Feedback is being accepted until 24 April 2023.
The rollback of Vector 2022 RfC has found no consensus to rollback to Vector legacy, but has found rough consensus to disable "limited width" mode by default.
A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.
Technical news
Progress has started on the Page Triage improvement project. This is to address the concerns raised by the community in their 2022 WMF letter that requested improvements be made to the tool.
Hello Mjroots,
Please i will like to request for an IP block exemption for this user:LordXI01 for a duration. He will be contributing to a wikipedia project " Africa Day Campaign". I you can grant him a minimum of 6 months IP block exemption. I did be glad. Below are his details:
User:LordXI01
IP Address:102.176.94.159 JDQ Joris Darlington Quarshie (talk) 06:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.