Jump to content

User talk:Samsara/Archive19

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

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019

[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

  • Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
  1. At least 8 characters in length
  2. Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
  3. Different from their username
User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.
  • Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
  • {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
  • Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Angels Request for Reduced Protection

[edit]

Hello Samsara, last year you and I worked on protecting the page: Blue Angels (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) due to some vandals. It was set to expire on 12/22/17. Unfortunately, it seems it's still protected. The RfPP page says ask the protecting admin first so that's what I'm doing. I'm sorry if I'm going about this the wrong way. If I don't hear from you I'll post a request there as instructed in the WP:RFUP section. Thanks! -Frapsity (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Frapsity: The only "protection" on the article is pending changes review, which is considered a very low and uncontroversial protection. In essence, anyone can edit the article, but changes do not go live immediately to allow monitoring for vandalism or other problems that may recur. Since the actual protection expired only recently, I would suggest leaving pending changes intact for a little while longer to see if things have really calmed down. Regards, Samsara 09:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For some added insight, if you hover over the protection icon, it will display this information and link you through to the pending changes article. Samsara 09:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

[edit]

Thank you the warning. I should know better. The discussion is at Talk:Assamese_people#Dravidian_element_in_Assamese_people. Chaipau (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019

[edit]

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

Administrator changes

added Enterprisey • JJMC89
readded BorgQueen
removed Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes

removedEnterprisey

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

Concerning Emirates Stadium...thank you for implementing the protection I thought I had applied. Lectonar (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lectonar: My pleasure. I figured since you'd made a call, it made sense to follow it. Thanks for saying hi. :) Samsara 03:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is L. Inc. protected (thanks) but at the wrong title (oops)

[edit]

Hi there,

Thanks for looking over the page move warring at This is L. Inc. [sic] but you've protected the page while it was at the "wrong" title. The move discussion at Talk:L. Inc.#Requested move 26 January 2019 opened when the page was at L. Inc.. Can you move it back there, please? 94.21.238.64 (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I would not touch this as per Wikipedia:There is no deadline, meta:The Wrong Version and because it is an admin's responsibility to be impartial when administering a dispute. However, apparently rogue moves were not considered when Template:requested move was created, so I guess it'll have to be moved back just so the move request displays correctly. Only for that reason. Samsara 03:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please semi-protect

[edit]

Please can you semi-protect Ilhan Omar. The subject of this article is a living person who is currently in a large controversy in US media over a possible antisemitic remark, and this article about a living, controversial figure currently has no semi-protection to stop vandalism. There is currently a large edit war happening on this page due to the controversy. Please fix this quickly! TheNavigatrr (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller has already activated pending changes, and there hasn't been much happening since. Samsara 21:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your quick response. TheNavigatrr (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

[edit]

Hopefully this will end the rash of meritless AE ECP requests of late. Pinging Oshwah too because he's had to help with it. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to TonyBallioni for pinging me in on this message and discussion. As someone who evaluated many of the arbitration enforcement requests for protection made by this user, I declined all of them due to the article subjects not involving the Arab-Israeli conflict as was incorrectly stated. I actually got to the point where I refused to evaluate any more of them and instead would remove them as they came in so that they wouldn't waste anyone's time. I admire this user's diligence; I'm sure their heart was in the right place when making these requests. But when you're seeing a near-100% decline rate with the numerous requests you're making, and then continuing to make more of them despite the multiple messages from users telling you that what you're doing is becoming disruptive and asking you to stop - a discretionary sanction becomes a necessary action to take in order to put the brakes on this user, get them to look up from what they're doing, and pay attention to the warnings from others when they're telling you that you're being disruptive. In this case, had TonyBallioni not imposed this sanction on the user, I definitely would have done so myself. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(possible ec) I agree that these requests are a form of being disruptive as a result of being possibly too invested in the PIA conflict, or overly fascinated with making Wikipedia's mechanisms churn. So no objection from me. In spite of this, I've assessed Palestine Solidarity Movement as being a valid enforcement target. I don't believe we need to be cutting our own nose just to show disruptive people what's what (and as you say, the intentions may have been good). If we see an article that needs to be placed under sanctions, we should generally do so regardless of the circumstances in which this was brought to our attention, imo. If there has been any guidance from ArbCom about the threshold of disruption below which we should not enact ECP, then I haven't seen it. As I've said before, it is my assessment that the PIA conflict is currently reasonably well controlled and additional ECP will be having an increasingly marginal impact. Samsara 02:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rum

[edit]

i didn't understand your comments, please elaborate, regards. 175.137.72.188 (talk) 10:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest issue here is that I did not find the claimed facts in the book you referred to. You said page 91, but the link was to page 140. Neither page seems to discuss either of the two aspects you mentioned. Samsara 10:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
sorry its page 60 and 59 of the book and not the slide, i did mention page 60 in the citation while mistakenly put the wrong link, regards.
Rum175.137.72.188 (talk) 11:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see that it's there. Next point - the book bears a 1994 copyright mark. So it is not out of copyright yet. This means you should use paraphrasing and not copy phrases from the book unless you do so explicitly, marking them clearly as quotations and while also giving the reference. Samsara 11:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for your contributions in Rum, regards. 175.137.72.188 (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection icon hidden

[edit]

Hi Samsara. I have a question about your recent edit of the Jim Acosta article. As far as I can tell, even after purging the page cache, the semi-protection icon does not show up. I'm curious what action/edit was used to hide the icon - if any. Do you know? --77.173.90.33 (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The padlocks are an unresolved bug. In contrast to some other wikis, on the English Wikipedia, they do not display automatically and have to be added manually if desired. This gives an overview of the situation including phabricator tickets, in 2016. I've added the padlock on the mentioned page now to show you that edit. HTH, Samsara 15:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information and link. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stray edit

[edit]

Hi, your helpful insertion of a historic edit prior this edit of mine that I made today made my edit moot, nosensical and misleading. Can you delete my edit, please? Thanks! --В²C ☎ 01:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see you also mentioned this at RfPP, so let's see how the discussion proceeds there. Regards, Samsara 06:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Inserting an older edit prior to mine changed the effect of my edit. The edit summary doesn’t even match what the edit does any more. You’ve essentially gone back in time and changed the world out from under me, turning my edit into nonsense. Surely you see this? Please delete my edit which your action inadvertently corrupted. Thanks. —В²C ☎ 07:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFPP

[edit]

There are too many requests ... Hhkohh (talk) 02:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that it will need manual attention until either Enigmaman or Cyberpower respond. I've cleaned it up once now. Samsara 04:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stitch's Great Escape

[edit]

Hi there, since you semi-protected Stitch's Great Escape! do you mind removing the pending changes please, Thanks Pepper Gaming (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Afaik, the bug whereby pending changes will lose all information if removed, still exists, so my practice is that if a significant amount of information has been gathered under PC, I leave it enabled to preserve that information. I understand this is not an ideal situation, but it's the one we're in. Samsara 06:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion For New User

[edit]

On the article I'm trying to edit, Ebyabe states "Non-encyclopaedic tone" - this is opinion - theirs vs. mine. If I think it's encyclopedia tone and they don't - why is theirs favored?

Also, you said I was doing "disruptive editing" in your comments for protecting the page, but when I look up the definition of disruptive editing it says, "a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time on many articles". How can you establish a pattern when you haven't let me finish the edits I wanted to do? This is my first night on a wikipedia registered account and from what I'm learning, there is a responsibility on users to first educate new people and teach them before resorting to things that block them from editing altogether. I did not make edits "over a long time" or "on many articles" so I did not do disruptive editing and I can't see why I'm being treated this way. Instead of talking to me I'm being shut out and I don't even know how to private message you or if this will reach you. I tried to use the page's talk page and it says I'm blocked from that. So what am I supposed to do now? Seems like I'm not being treated fairly or given a fair opportunity to be taught how to use this site let alone share my thoughts intelligently in a discussion with others because now I can't use the talk page either due to the protection level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcontributor777 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a false dichotomy. Your edit was disruptive as you labelled it as "minor edits" when it was anything but. Bearing false witness - twice now! Samsara 06:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Samsara: Hi Samsara - Maybe our views on major and minor are different - the first edit I did I did not mark as minor - the second edit I did was a minor edit from my first edit, but major and minor are opinions. My intentions were not bad, but perhaps we view things differently and instead of thinking I have good intentions you are assuming I don't and pre-judging me instead of having an honest dialogue to understand me. I have good intentions - not deceptive ones. And for the record - I made two revisions - one NOT marked as minor - and one that I did view as minor. Maybe you missed that in the details or maybe we just view major and minor differently, but your assessment of me having negative intentions or not trying to do good is incorrect. But after the treatment from you and others I am done with this site. You do not show appreciation for people with education and knowledge to share when you pre-judge them as troublemakers before you really know who they are. Not everybody on the Internet is out to violate rules and cause problems. Have a great day. I won't be reading to reply back or coming on here probably.

Thanks

[edit]

Thanks for the page protection at Drought NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fazal Ahmad Khalid

[edit]

Same issue. There are people continuously adding the controversy section, even after I have tried to explain (in edit summaries and on user talk page) that the controversy section's references do not support the claims made.

I only come to you because I do not know what else to do, and that you were the last admin to look at the page.

Can you please take a look at this?

Thanks, Levvyowo? 19:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Levityn: The disruptive user is now blocked; I've extended semi by three months as this is clearly still an ongoing concern. If we continue to see autoconfirmed disruptive activity, elevating to ECP is another option. Samsara 06:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Improper use of the Undo by Mrschimpf

[edit]

Hello,

I noticed you recently protected the Rotten Tomatoes page from vandalism which is probably a good thing at the moment. However, my edits were NOT vandalism but they were still reverted by a user named Mrschimpf without sufficient reason or explanation TWICE. Could you please look at them and restore them? You'll see they fully met the WP:PRIMARY guidelines as they simply linked to RT's statement and made absolutely no judgment call on the material itself. I'm not a regular Wikipedia user and this experience isn't exactly making me want to become one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.123.197 (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He used undo and not rollback, which is perfectly fine, and gave explanations of his edits, pointing to WP:POINT, although I understand this may not have been entirely clear to a new user. You should (1) be careful to avoid edit warring and instead use the talk page to discuss whether there is consensus in favour of your proposed changes, (2) avoid forum shopping, that is, posting the same issue in multiple locations, and (3) take note to paraphrase material from reliable sources in a way that is neutral in tone and does not introduce synthesis. It's not easy being a Wikipedian, but I hope this gives you some useful guidance. If you need more help, feel free to ask again. Samsara 05:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox album change

[edit]

Hey, can you point me to where the discussion was held regarding Template:Infobox album/genre/Sol-Angel and the Hadley St. Dreams and the change to {{Infobox album}} to support it? --Gonnym (talk) 09:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The same mechanism is already in use on {{Infobox single}} and {{Infobox musical artist}}. We need this to be able to correspond appropriately to genre warring under the guiding principles of the protection policy (specifically, not protecting more than is necessary). I only make that change to a template when an actual use case arises, which is why you haven't seen it at Infobox album until now. If you feel that a separate discussion is needed for Infobox album, feel free to start one. I would ask that you leave it intact for now as it supports an administrative action. Thank you. Samsara 09:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The RfPP request is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Sol-Angel_and_the_Hadley_St._Dreams. Regards, Samsara 09:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the reasoning behind your action, but how it was done was not really done by any consensus made process (what other templates do has no automatic baring on what this template does). As these sub-pages aren't really templates, but store article text (not following WP:TG), have much less eyes on them are usually left and forgotten, I think you should have gained consensus on the actual template page before making the change, and not make the change and require me to start a discussion regarding if it should be kept or not. Personally, I'm against such uses of templates to bypass just protecting a page. --Gonnym (talk) 09:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019

[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

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

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-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.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.

Miscellaneous

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

Wraper11

[edit]

Hi Samara, the page is now protected, so I removed words here. I also sent you an email containing proofs, hope you can see I'm sincerely protecting the page from vandalism here.

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Your article protections have been awesome. Any time I've requested protection over on RFPP, and you're around, you've been on top of it. Plus, you do really long semi-protections because of the silly IPs who will return—eg, Henry Danger and its LOE—and I think you're about the only admin who does that. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Amaury, it's nice to know that my work is appreciated. :) Samsara 19:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eurovision 2019

[edit]

Since you have added the protection of that article, would you be so kind to take a look at what’s happening on that page? In my opinion, the high ticket prices are a reason to mention, however, others reckon it should not be included. Is there any way someone unbiased could take a look, and decide what to do, because this has became an edit war. It will be greatly appreciated! 「Robster1983」☞ Life's short, talk fast ☜ 10:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Samsara: Please change the protection level back to Extended confirmed protected as all of the users who edit the page are not administrators and the page needs update regularly. Thank you. —Dimsar01 Talk ⌚→ 11:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dimsar01: Can you stop being disruptive for even five minutes? You are clearly engaged in an edit war, so don't complain about the protection going up. Samsara 11:13, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Samsara: I don't want to be disruptive. That's why I also agree with Robster1983 that someone else has to check the issue. I'm complaining about the update of the page; I wouldn't continue the edit-war anyway. Friendly regards —Dimsar01 Talk ⌚→ 11:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Samsara/vector.js

[edit]

FYI the protection you added to this page is redundant: even without any special protection, only you and Interface administrators can edit JS pages in your userspace. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time left over, I would encourage you to help with triaging bug reports such as this as the WMF does not seem to be getting around to it. Samsara 15:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Een ster voor u!

[edit]
De ster van verdienste
Thanks a million for giving some guidance in a nasty debate. It helped a lot. 「Robster1983」☞ Life's short, talk fast ☜ 23:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Ombuds

[edit]

Hi, re: this, I'm taking it off the RfB because I'm not trying to get you to change your !vote at all but rather to clarify what the role of the ombudsman commission is. I know what the meta policy says, but what I'm saying is that the odds of the Ombudsman Commission actually taking actions involving a sysop on en.wiki that is not related to the privacy policy are less than zero, and I don't think it has ever happened in the history of it's existence. Regardless of what the written policy says, it's current role is confined to advising the WMF on what actions should be taken for violations of the privacy policy/NDA and the global CheckUser and Oversight policies, and if it still exercises any function outside of that, it would be for stuff like an admin showing up at someone's house (this happened on nl.wiki in 2014 and from what a steward has told me, before Alex Shih it was the last time the WMF advanced permissions banned someone.)

I'll ping @Risker, Ajraddatz, and MarcoAurelio: to correct me if I'm wrong, but I really think this is an important understanding to clear up, regardless of the outcome of the RfB. If an admin on en.wiki thinks that the Ombuds commission handles things that are normally handled by the local ArbCom, there are likely others who have this impression too. That, or I'm off-base completely and the people I pinged clearing up my confusion would be helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The OC only investigates alleged violations of the privacy policy and access to nonpublic information policy (and as a result the CU/OS policies), and does not deal with admins (or any group) outside that context. Further to that, any ombudsperson is required to recuse themselves from an investigation where they have a real or perceived COI. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)
  • the odds of the Ombudsman Commission actually taking actions involving a sysop on en.wiki that is not related to the privacy policy are less than zero
    • It makes me quite concerned when people present opinion as fact. And as a sysop, I believe you should avoid gaffes like this.
  • don't think it has ever happened in the history of it's existence
    • This is a non-argument, and I suspect you know that. Ombudsman commissions exist to handle rare cases.
  • Regardless of what the written policy says
    • If you believe there are issues with the policy, meta is the place to raise that.
  • it would be for stuff like an admin showing up at someone's house (this happened
    • Aha.
  • If an admin on en.wiki thinks that the Ombuds commission handles things that are normally handled by the local ArbCom, there are likely others who have this impression too.
    • The point here is that any normal person would take the policy to be valid as written, so if there are issues with that, meta is the venue. Just because someone you've pinged tells me that things are such and such is not going to change the course of the world. If you want something to take effect, you have to attack the problem at the root, and that's on meta. That's not saying that I believe a word of your claims (other than the Dutch incident - I was aware of that), just advising you what to do if you genuinely believe there is a problem and you want to see an effective solution. Samsara 00:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, and I've raised it on meta since I agree the current wording can be confusing, but as has been pointed out there it's authority is limited to what the board resolutions gives it. The current expanded scope can be found here. That expanded the initial scope, which is found here. That is controlling, not what the meta information page says. The only things that it has been authorized to investigate on behalf of the board are:
  1. Violations of the privacy policy.
  2. Whether or not local policies for CheckUser or Oversight violate or conflict with corresponding global CheckUser and Oversight policies
  3. CheckUsers or Oversighters have violated the global CheckUser or Oversight policies.
People who abuse these positions usually are sysops, but the ombuds would not be investigating outside of the scope of the board resolutions. Are there other roles that you think it performs that are not listed here? I really am trying to understand where you are coming from, and get this clarified, because unless there is a board resolution expanding their scope beyond what is listed, that's all they investigate. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm trying to get my head around what you think is the potential conflict of interest here, and why you think it should relate to the current candidacy. As best I can figure, a complaint to the Ombudsman Commission would result in the current RFB candidate recusing from the discussion on *that* committee, and would not result in any COI on enwiki; in practice, Ombuds do not normally participate in discussing any cases that involve their "home" wikis, according to every member of the Ombudsman Commission that I have spoken with over the past 10 years. Anyone can be the subject of a complaint - in the past, we have had Arbcom members named as parties in Arbcom cases - and their conflict of interest is addressed in a situation-specific means, both on English Wikipedia and on the Ombudsman Commission. (And yes, people with CU permissions from enwiki have been brought before the Ombudsman Commission, but only in their role as CheckUser, not in their role as administrator, or any other role. As far as I know, there has never been an enwiki Oversighter or Arbitrator brought before the OC for actions in those specific roles, nor have enwiki administrators or bureaucrats for actions in either of those roles. We have an Arbcom that deals with all of that.)

    Now, I do understand the position that a candidate already has too many roles and responsibilities to grant a new role (if we're being snarky, the term "hat-collecting" might even make it into the sentence), and I personally think that's an entirely valid reason for an oppose vote. I think this might actually be a more accurate description of your concern. I don't think you've made a good case for conflict of interest in your comments, because you haven't shown a situation that is within the OC's remit where being an enwiki Bureaucrat would conflict with deliberations by the OC. Incidentally, the Ombudsman Commission is what is called a "committee of the Board of Trustees" - that is, it is responsible directly to the Board, and makes recommendations to the Board (which has in turn delegated responsibility for action on those recommendations to the WMF staff). It has no reporting duties at all, except to the designated WMF staff and the Board, and it has no mandate to act, only to recommend action. Risker (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Actually, I'm going to correct myself here. I do have some knowledge that a person who met multiple criteria (CU/OS/Arbitrator) was the subject of a complaint to the OC; however, as it is a private complaint, I am not entirely familiar with the nature of the complaint and whether it was specific to one or more than one of those roles. It's possible that it involved all three roles. Given the OC almost never reveals the subjects of their complaints, even if they are recommending action, it's sometimes pretty hard to figure out what happens there. Doesn't help that they pushed most of the 2018 cases on to the 2019 commission. Risker (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

googol

[edit]

This page has been semi-protected since 2017, and is not edited much. Any chance of unprotecting it? I'd like to make some edits. It can always be protected again if vandalism restarts. Thanks. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 08:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it hasn't been edited much is that it was under protection, and most of the previous edits were vandalism from IPs and the corresponding reverts, so it goes without saying that the edit rate will go down drastically. The only reason I'm granting your request is that it looks like you may be a user in good standing (assuming you are the sole user of that IP address on wiki - you don't need to tell me if this is true, I'm just laying out my reasoning). I've put it on PC1 as I don't want the vandalism to just resume in full force. This means you can make edits, but they will need to be approved by registered editors. Happy editing, Samsara 08:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but it looks like it's still semi-protected? I see your PC change in the history and the page log, but there's still "view source" instead of an edit button. There are a few bouts of vandalism in the history but it doesn't look like anything that much shorter semi-protection can't handle. Some of the vandalism was from logged-in users too. I think after this long, it's ok to unprotect and see if the vandals come back. It was just easily revertable page blanking and gibberish insertions anyway, no big deal. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 10:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for notifying me. This is a bug we've been hunting, so I'm reporting it and will apply the change when the bug has been discussed, hopefully later today. Thanks for your patience and understanding. Samsara 10:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, no prob. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to what was said on Phabricator, it should be good to edit now. When I log out, the edit button shows and the edit window opens as it should. Samsara 19:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite protection

[edit]

Hey, could you indefinite protect the pages: Benjamin Burnley and Sam Hunt because of long-term vandalism please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.157.19.180 (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've put Sam Hunt on indef PC1. The other doesn't have enough recent activity. Samsara 14:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Angels unprotection?

[edit]

Would the Blue Angels article be able to be unprotected? It has very few (if any) instances of vandalism or disruptive editing, as far as I can see, and the pending changes was placed on the article around two years ago. EggRoll97 (talk) 07:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Samsara 04:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for your help with the WP:RfPP backlog! Keep up the good work! ~Swarm~ {talk} 09:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nia Sioux

[edit]

Hi Samsara, regarding this, it looks like Admin Primefac moved a page over the protected page, which removed the create protection, then speedy deleted it. Thus the page was left unprotected. Not a technical glitch, just missed during the move/delete phase. --kelapstick(bainuu) 16:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, kelapstick, somebody else said the same thing. Can't remember who and I'm not sure it's worth looking up as there's clearly nothing left to do here - thanks for getting back, though! Samsara 16:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Kst (software)

[edit]
Notice

The article Kst (software) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

[edit]

Thanks for monitor page Sophie Scholl.

From Malaysia

Alif Fizol (talk) 07:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne City Wrestling

[edit]

Please revert the edits by Drummoe. They are not sourced and the claims to Cage Match are not reliable. The site can not be used under BLP - see WP:PW sources list. It needs proper sources. As it stands the claims are controversial. 2001:8003:5901:B400:5035:B7CE:159E:E954 (talk) 07:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kst (software) for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kst (software) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kst (software) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019

[edit]

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

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
  • As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake

[edit]

I don't understand your protection of Mistake. You said it was for persistent vandalism. It has been almost a month since the last edit. There have only been 10 edits in all of 2019. This does not look like persistent vandalism to me that needs any type of protection. ~ GB fan 11:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The original request came from Oshawott 12 through RfPPtheir edit same section after addressing request and was asking for semi-protection to be applied. This is not unusual in that we often get requests that ask for stronger protection than could possibly be warranted. However, the editing history shows almost every other edit to be a revert, that is, this disambiguation is not substantially developing, it's mostly a playground for vandals, misguided good-faith editors, and reverters. I've noticed that you have been quite active in the reverting role. The advantage offered by pending changes is that a response is not immediately needed to prevent visibility of bad edits, and pending changes is the protection method of choice for slowly edited pages. Before I make a suggestion to resolve, maybe we should give the original requester Oshawott 12 an opportunity to comment. Samsara 11:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I agree with GB Fan, my usage of the word ‘persistent’ wasn’t the best choice. I just copied it from the format, and I will admit that I was lazy. However, this is not my main reason to nominate it for page protection. I first ran into this page on Reddit, where benjaminkuta posted a vandalism edit by a new user. He left a link, so I decided to go and check it out. Looking at the history, I found most recent edits to be vandalism, and nominated it. I don’t see anything wrong with it being protected apart from my wording. However, I did mention that most of its edits on the page was vandalism or reverts, which made up part of the reason. Personally, I don’t see anything that needs to be changed, since I agree that this protection suits the infrequent vandalism. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 15:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to read WP:PP#When to apply pending changes protection. It says "temporary pending changes protection on pages that are subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption". It also says "As with other forms of protection, the time frame of the protection should be proportional to the problem. Indefinite PC protection should only be used in cases of severe long-term disruption." There isn't significant disruption of the article or severe long term disruption. It has very mild disruption. This does not meet the requirements for page protection. Please unprotect it. ~ GB fan 16:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be consensus that the page has problems, and since the rest of the discussion is now venturing into interpretation of policy, I don't think this talk page is a good venue. I would suggest taking this to the appropriate section of WP:RFPP if you want to pursue it further. If you do, please ping me in the discussion and I'll comment further. Samsara 21:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Review of protection at Mistake. ~ GB fan 23:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

[edit]

For the double thanx, I lost my head :P - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 17:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good. I'd be crazy to complain about that. ;) Samsara 17:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, thanx - FlightTime (open channel) 19:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

[edit]

You have recently stated that you believe a topic ban is necessary, and, correct me if I'm wrong, have cited the fact that I have started "yet another fire in a new venue" as one reason for such a stance. Can you please explain why taking a talk page dispute to WP:DRN is disruptive (or anything else about my actions that can be viewed as disruptive), or how it otherwise contributes to my potential future topic ban? Note that this is not a comment attacking your position, but instead a genuine question with the intention of improving my conduct.OlJa 22:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that this situation sort of has a solution now, at least for the short term. However, I'll reply in any case. My concern is that unmanageable complexity is being created that further slows down a possible conclusion of the ANI thread, and also that unacceptable amounts of energy from experienced users could be tied up in managing the case-load you generate. We can't allow a situation where every time you edit a new page, a thread is opened on some noticeboard by either you or a third party. That would be a rather flagrant violation of the "if everybody did that" principle. Samsara 11:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

[edit]
Hello, Samsara. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Atsme Talk 📧 22:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 special circular

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

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

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019

[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

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

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.

Miscellaneous

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

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019

[edit]

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

Administrator changes

removed Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

removed Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Miscellaneous

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

Talk page consultation

[edit]

Would you mind clarifying what you meant by "should be done by actual stakeholders, which it isn't clear to me based on your userpage that you are" [1]? I marked the page as closed after an editor mentioned that it was, which I understand may have been premature or out of process, but I'm scratiching my head as to why my status as a "stakeholder" is in question. –dlthewave ☎ 20:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the WMF considers itself to be in charge. But we seem to be in no shortage of incomplete closures, as Jc86035 has now also tried their hand, with an equal lack of success regarding the listing of the project as "open" elsewhere. Samsara 21:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did I neglect to do something in particular? I added the archive templates and removed the discussion from {{Centralized discussion}}, and I didn't think anything else needed to be updated. Jc86035 (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019 "in progress" Samsara 23:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, thanks. Jc86035 (talk) 04:10, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019

[edit]

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

Administrator changes

removed 28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam1 • Flyguy649 • Fram2 • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe
1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Miscellaneous

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

Creation of new books

[edit]

I will like to Inform everyone, if I should create a book Chiboy14 (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed edit of Myanmar

[edit]

Hello. I've noticed a mistake in the page for Myanmar, and I see you've protected it, so I'm asking you to edit the mistake, because otherwise Wikipedia would be giving wrong information to people and might even be closed down for that.

The problem is the fact that the first sentence of the page says, "Myanmar, officialy the...., and also known as Burma,....", while Burma is not the name of the country. Respectively, I want the part that lies people it is to be removed. I hope you take action, because if you do not, I will be forced to.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.85.61.53 (talk) 07:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It already correctly states that Burma is not the official name. The phrase is, "also known as", which to me seems coherent with what you are saying. If there are further details to be discussed, please do so at the article's talk page, and try to do so in a neutral tone. I'm not sure if you intended to make a legal threat, but Wikipedia has a clear policy about that, Wikipedia:No legal threats. Please abide by it. Thank you. Samsara 07:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I give you one more chance to edit the mistake before I have to kill the page and later, Wikipedia as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.85.61.53 (talk) 08:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP has been blocked. Samsara 13:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please PC protect Steve Smith (cricketer)

[edit]

Before semi-protection some IPs used to make useful contributions. Vandalism and unuseful edits can be reverted by PC reviewers. So please apply indefinite pending changes protection to this page. Thsnks. ~SS49~ {talk} 03:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Samsara 11:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And subsequently undone as there was an avalanche of disruption. Samsara 17:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Samsara! Thanks for the protection. PC-protection is still there. Not sure if it is needed. Sorry for the multiple requests. Thanks. ~SS49~ {talk} 22:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Mating Systems and Strategies

[edit]
Notice

The article Mating Systems and Strategies has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced, no evidence of reliable independent sources supporting notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 21:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019

[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

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

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

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

Wooohooo

[edit]
Hey, Samsara. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Mjs1991 (talk) 05:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations

Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society

[edit]

Dear Samsara/Archive19,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. ​

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of PaintShop Pro releases for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of PaintShop Pro releases is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of PaintShop Pro releases until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019

[edit]

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

Administrator changes

added Bradv • Chetsford • Izno
readded Floquenbeam • Lectonar
removed DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

removed Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

removed Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

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

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mirrorless interchangeable-lens camera, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Banding (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019

[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please adjust page protection

[edit]

Please adjust the page protection settings on the following pages. As discussed at there is clear community consensus that ECP should not apply for "high risk templates" and nothing under WP:ECP supports such protection to this/these template(s) (example: "by request" is insufficient).

Thank you. Buffs (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Buffs, Samsara has been inactive for a month so I looked into this for you. I assume that Samsara either was not aware of the consensus (your link) that ECP should not be used on templates as a preemptive measure for high risk, or did so in error, so I have changed the protection level to template protection. I trust that resolves your concern, but if you're looking for the template to be unprotected I'm afraid I will have to decline, as the template is a frequently used template vulnerable to particularly disruptive abuse. Cheers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: That's really all I'm looking for! Buffs (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mole Day!

[edit]

Hello! Wishing you a Happy Mole Day on the behalf of WikiProject Science.

Sent by Path slopu on behalf of WikiProject Science and its related projects.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019

[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

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

Arbitration

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

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

[edit]

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019

[edit]

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

Administrator changes

added EvergreenFir • ToBeFree
removed Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

readded Beeblebrox
removed Deskana

Interface administrator changes

readded Evad37

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

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

Can I suggest removing the protection from the article since its now been moved away from 420. It was moved away from "420" in September so now should no longer get vandalism that it used to get from people looking for the cannabis when you protected it in 2017, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s that time of year!

[edit]
Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic)

Atsme Talk 📧 18:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Time To Spread A Little
Happy Holiday Cheer!!
I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree
in the spirit of the season.

 What's especially nice about
this digitized version:
*it doesn't need water
*won't catch fire
*and batteries aren't required.
Have a very Merry Christmas - Happy Hanukkah‼️

and a prosperous New Year!!

🍸🎁 🎉
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Samsara/Archive19&oldid=1211815177"