Jump to content

User talk:Mjroots/Archive/Admin

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

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)

Great! How familiar are you with the RfA process? decltype (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I was more referring to the actual nomination process, as in writing one of these. Regards, decltype (talk) 20:56, 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)

Alright, just let me know when the RfA is getting drafted and I'll fix up a nomination statement. Malinaccier (talk) 18:52, 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

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.
  • Keep your cool.
  • Ask me any questions you have. I'll be happy to answer.
  • Read some of the past successful requests for adminship (WP:RCA) to get accquainted with the process.

Good luck! Malinaccier (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

You are now an administrator

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WJBscribe (talk) 22:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Congrats MJ! ArcAngel (talk) 22:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. We haven't spoken much, but I knew you were a good candidate. Rodhullandemu 23:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

\o/ Awesome, congrats! JamieS93 23:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations from me as well. Shinerunner (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations Mjroots! If you have any questions whatsoever, feel free to ask :). Malinaccier (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! - Dank (push to talk) 02:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! and thanks for the gold stars on my user page...:) Modernist (talk) 03:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! I'm happy you made it. decltype (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Well done. --ClemRutter (talk) 10:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:
  1. Remember you will always protect the wrong version.
  2. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5)
  3. 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.
  4. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
  5. Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology.
  6. and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.
KillerChihuahua?!?
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)

Talkback re: User 85.216.25.203

Hello, Mjroots. You have new messages at SpikeToronto's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sure

[1] - sorry about that then, I really just thought most people commenting would know.radek (talk) 09:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Mjroots. You have new messages at Russavia's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RFPP

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! :D 14:20, 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! :D 14:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
(So I don't take up more room on your talk page) No problem! I don't know if I qualify as a "seasoned admin", but I'm happy to help. C: Cheers, Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 23:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Joe Wilson

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)

I found it. Could you please add the pp-dispute template at the top of the article.  Burningview  ✉ 18:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback: SpikeToronto

Hello, Mjroots. You have new messages at SpikeToronto's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Air France

I am aware you are dealing with the potential 3RR on Air France just thought you should be aware of this discussion User_talk:MilborneOne#Joey_Boeing.2FZaps93_undoing_valid_edits. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: Peter Dais

Thanks for blocking the latest sock, and for the heads-up regarding the issue at WP:AN/I; I went ahead and replied there. Thanks again, — Kralizec! (talk) 14:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: User Fram

Thank you for explanation.

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.

Sincerely,--WlaKom (talk) 09:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

About the Joe Wilson page

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)

Guess who?

I wonder who this is? Jasepl (talk) 11:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

User:2pathways

Thank you for blocking this vandalism-only account. I like when you’re on duty! Thanks again, SpikeToronto 06:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Editor800/Airtran660/Airtran371

Editor800 just came off a block and is back to the old tricks. FYI user was reported as a sock of AirTran660 and Airtran371. Can you take a look please? Thanks. Jasepl (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Bad faith (?) by User:Ani medjool

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)

Unprotected

[2] Thanks anyway. —Dark 10:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

IP vandalism

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)`

WP:ANI etiquette question

I gave my opinion. I think you would be fine in blocking a second time. P.S., you forgot to sign your post. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Grundle2600 addition to WP:RESTRICT

You're behind on the times! :P But yes, it's supposed to be added to that page. Master of Puppets 13:35, 23 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 Puppets 14:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
See Category:Sockpuppets with omnipotence. Master of Puppets 14:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Hossama

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 Puppets 16:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll post something to that effect. Good thinking! Master of Puppets 16:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mjroots. You have new messages at Abecedare's talk page.
Message added 14:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Abecedare (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting

Thanks for reverting the vandalism made by the I.P on my discussion page, possibly the past User:Druid.raul. Keep up the good work sir! Kind regards, Zaps93 (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Portsmouth&Southsea

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 page 19:30, 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 page 19:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Continued Spamming

Amiteli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) returned to continue spamming after the warning and AN/I thread.--Crossmr (talk) 04:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Help needed

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.

Would greatly appreciate your help. Thank you. Hertz1888 (talk) 08:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

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. Tiamuttalk 14:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Email

Emailed you. Netalarmtalk 06:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yup. I agree with you on that. I thought that being an admin, one could remove a block on one's own account. Netalarmtalk 07:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag Conduct RfC

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.

The RfC can be found here.

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.

Information on the RfC process can be found at:

  1. RfC Conduct
  2. RfC Guide
  3. RfC Guide 2
  4. RfC Rules

Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK

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 :)

(here is a proper guide)

  • 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)

User:Electricopossum

Hello. I'm not convinced that Electricopossum (talk · contribs) is a malicious user. Could you please review their unblock request and let me know what you think? –Juliancolton | Talk 19:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

2009 Formula One

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)

Take a look at these instructions. Malinaccier (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

User Abraxas Wardark

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)

Thanks

Thanks for your help with the Messiah Foundation International and Younus AlGohar pages... the vandalism should definitely slow down now! (Omirocksthisworld (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 23:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC).

Strumus

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.

Hi Mj, you might want to have a review of the following thread: WP:AN/I#User:Tadija. I've mentioned your name, so in keeping with the policy of noting anyone who is mentioned in AN/I I'm sending you a message. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 07:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

GetJar

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)

User:Simonpettersen

Hello! Not so long ago you gave Simonpettersen a final warning for inappropriate image uploads based on an issue I brought up at ANI, which can be seen at User_talk:Simonpettersen#ANI. Well he's just done it again with this image. Cheers. Rehevkor ✉ 14:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Indiana Militia Corps

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 felt I should inform you that I started a new thread at WP:ANI here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Indiana_Militia_Corps.2C_part_deux regarding the deletion of Indiana Militia Corps. Angryapathy (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Last of the Summer Wine (series 31)

There's an IP editor who keeps making unconstructive edits to Last of the Summer Wine (series 31). I templated him twice yesterday but he's done it again (content removal). I've reverted; but do you think a level 3 is in order such as {{Uw-delete3}}, should I go back to level 1, or ignore him? Level 3 warns of a block, but issuing a block is not in my power. What do you think is best? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:20, 1 February 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)

Suspected sock

Hi Mj, I've never reported a sock before, so don't know the procedure. Could you please let me know what should be done re Gellrok (talk · contribs) who is doing something similar to Gellrock (talk · contribs) that was blocked by Rodhullandemu yesterday? --Redrose64 (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Associates of Gellrock

I suspect that JoshuaHillman (talk · contribs) and Hillmajo (talk · contribs) may be associates of the above, judging by the edits each has done. These two also have user names with similarities. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

JoshuaHillman (talk · contribs) has previously been issued with a {{uw-vandalism4im}} (not by me), but has continued this morning. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Grundle2600

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)

As an user who commented at this discussion, you may wish to weigh in on Grundle2600's topic ban modification request. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Unban I appreciate the heads-up at WP:RESTRICT. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hungarian names in Romania

Hello

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


Thanks in advance for your answer. Umumu (talk) 11:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

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.

Please also study the recent opinion on this issue of neutral and undoubtedly impartial editors here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:S%C4%83rma%C5%9Fu

Please stop wikihounding and vandalizing hundreds of articles.

Kind regards:User:Rokarudi Rokarudi 09:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hungarian names in Romania
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)

Rokarudi, please answer here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Hungarian_names_of_Romanian_places. User:Mjroots already said that this issue is outside his area of knowledge.(Umumu (talk) 12:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC))

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)

I undestand. Thank you.iadrian (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Mjroots. You have new messages at Cobaltbluetony's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


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  ?
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) (Umumu (talk) 07:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC))
Because we did not share his POV, User:Rokarudi has also accused us of sockpuppetry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Umumu. Can you please solve this problem too? Thanks (Umumu (talk) 07:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC))

Hi,

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:S%C4%83rma%C5%9Fu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests/Archive_73

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)
Rokarudi, I had personally notified User:Markussep here: [4] (Umumu (talk). He said that me and User:Iadrian yu are right [5] 18:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

Racist editor back

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.

Also, no IP editors have edited that talk page for years, aside from our banned user.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


Comment

Sorry, I will keep vitriol out of my edits from hereon in. -- Samuel De Mazarin (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hungarian names for Romanian places

Hello Mjroots,

You made a ruling in the discussion Hungarian names for Romanian places here:

[6]

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)

Template problem.

Hello, Mjroots. You have new messages at Iadrian yu's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

iadrian (talk) 10:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

RE: linking a foto file to a name in an article

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 Gloris 13:41, 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.

Many thanks --Shayan7 (talk · contribs) 11:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

re-send

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)

Update. Mdb10usa has been blocked by Crum375. See Special:Contributions/Mdb10usa. Just FYI. Regards, --220.101.28.25 (talk) 09:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Mdb10usa may be a sockpuppet of Mdb10us (no a) who is " banned indefinitely" by ArbCom, see [10] Regards, --220.101.28.25 (talk) 11:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Air India Express Flight 812 URGENT?

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)

Swamilive Socks

FYI? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
216.26.2xx.xxx
216.211.xx.xxx
216.211.xxx.xxx
Pages vandalised
FYI? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Second Opinion

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)

Thanks for your help. MilborneOne (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to ask again but we are a bit short of active admins at WP:AIRCRAFT at the moment any chance of having a look at my protection of Chengdu J-10 please. It was from a request at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Chengdu_J-10 but I have been involved in reverting the change. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
thanks again for your time. MilborneOne (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank spam!

Hello, Mjroots. You have new messages at User:TFOWR/Thankspam.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TFOWR 20:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Email

Check you inbox. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Mjroots (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

A new editor on the scene

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. Tiamuttalk 07:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see the article Charles Whitman

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).
He also has a propensity to use racial slurs... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 06:32, 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).

Banhammer, eh?

So, I hear you have a banhammer. Well, I have a userbox for the owner of said hammer. User:Neutralhomer/Userboxes/Banhammer - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Admin

Hi. Pls see my response at my talk page. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 13:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

A Mail

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.

Best regards 151.76.148.130 (talk) 10:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Further information: user talk:Luigiperali

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)

Miscellaneous comments re User:IZAK

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)

Augsburg Railway Park

Well done, Mj! --Bermicourt (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello

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)

Sorry, I forgot this. 1. Thank you. Adrian (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Flag size

Hi, please see Template talk:Editnotices/Page/2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Tony Abbott

Greets. Is there a reason why your May 2010 edit restriction on the Tony Abbott article is still in force almost a year on?

Regards, Peter Strempel | Talk 02:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Mjroots. You have new messages at Peterstrempel's talk page.
Message added 05:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thanks for taking the time to explain the matter to me. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 15:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Mjroots. You have new messages at Peterstrempel's talk page.
Message added 02:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks

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...)

121.45.217.209 (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

GaryColemanFan

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 Head WWE 19:29, 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.

OLT GmbH, Directorate, Contact: <e-mail redacted> 22:17, 2011-05-02 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.137.93.219 (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

TrackConversion chaos

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:
HTH. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
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)

Jamesbreadth vandal

I really prefer to be known as Swamilive. "Jamesbreadth vandal" sounds too 1920s. Teggersin (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing my work for me and identifying yourself. Mjroots (talk) 15:34, 14 May 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).

user:BradfordPal1

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)

ArbCom case

Moving a page

Hi MJ, I have been working on Lord Beaverbrook but now find there is Max Aitken, 1st Baron Beaverbrook‎ as well as Max Aitken, Lord Beaverbrook‎, which is the preferred article. How can the first one be eliminated? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC).

Thanks, FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC).

Offensive edit to user Kierzek's page by an IP

Hi MJ. Don't know if any further action is required on this? [[11]] Ning-ning (talk) 11:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

PD or not...

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/CN 10:47, 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)

Thank you. Adrian (talk) 05:52, 15 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)

Dolovis and page moves

Hi. You may be interested in the discussion at WP:AN#Page moves for User:Dolovis. I forgot to notify you when I first opened that section, although your name is involved. Sorry about that. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection request

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)
Righto, thanks. YSSYguy (talk) 04:57, 29 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)

Thanks, mj. I knew I could count on you. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:20, 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)

Canadian Parliamentary Motion on Alexander Graham Bell

Was there a consensus for this move? I saw nothing but "oppose" but move went through anyway? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC).

See Canadian Parliamentary Motion 37/1-1205

Don't know what happened here, but it appears to be a "midnight" move when no one was watching. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 06:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC).

Move protection

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 J   08:01, 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 J   08:52, 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 J   13:08, 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....William 16:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I see that Nick has this in hand. Will leave it to him to action. Mjroots (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Root and Branch

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)

 Done Mjroots (talk) 19:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Davey2010

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 edited the article and have added the relevant references. I hope that this resolves the matter. Thanks - JamesSteamPacket (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi @JamesSteamPacket:,
I simply revert those unsourced & perhaps unneeded additions, -
I can assure you I've not just reverted you but can see it perhaps looks like I have,
You've done some great editing! :)
Keep up the great work! :)
Regards, →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Request Page Unprotect

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:

Please take this matter into consideration. Thank you. --Mark Chung (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the help. Mark Chung (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

TAME

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)

@85.234.141.185:, thank you for that, reset to a week. Mjroots (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Help with moving page.

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)
Thanks for your help.--Ykraps (talk) 07:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

PP of Islamabad

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)
Thanks again for your response. MidnightBlue (Talk) 07:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Could use the eyes of an admin

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.

Long term pattern of POV edits and edit warring by User:Jimjilin

I had posted this request as well at admin John talk page, but he is busy at the moment. Thanks. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 22:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

An admin had settled it, no assistance is required. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 03:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
@Xcuref1endx: - glad all is sorted. I've not yet worked out how to edit Wikipedia in my sleep :) Mjroots (talk) 07:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
"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)

Protection removal

Hi Mjroots - it should be ok to remove the full protection from Chartres now as the dissenting editors have been blocked as confirmed socks.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:43, 14 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 mots 19:52, 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".

Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 12:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@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,
Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

AFD SPEEDY KEEP

Hi. Can you close out this AfD. I am the nominator and am withdrawing the nomination. Thanks. Quis separabit? 06:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. No need to keep that SNOWBALL rolling. Quis separabit? 06:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Getting help deleting content on other Wikipedias

If you need content deleted on other Wikipedias (such as the list of "victims" for the accident), the best way to get it handled is:

  1. Follow the following link, replacing the "en" with the language of the wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AListUsers&username=&group=sysop
  2. For each user on the list, check if the user speaks English:
    • Look at the user's userpage (if it isn't a red link); there may be Babel boxes there. An en-4 is probably good enough for yopu to ask for help.
    • See if the user has an account on English Wikipedia; if so, assess the user's English level from his/her edit.
  3. Once you've found one such user, ask him/her for help.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@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 …and as the person who handled most of WP:AN#How to handle a BLP violation?, would you be able to have a read over User talk:Phoenix7777#WP:BLPEL and review the revert discussed there (intentionally not directly linked to try to avoid more potential meta clean-up + revdels later if it goes in the that direction). (The link has been back on the article's Talk page for about half a day now). —Sladen (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Sladen: - you mean the edit on the article talk page early this morning which added nearly 1kb of text? Mjroots (talk) 19:43, 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)
Sladen -  Done Mjroots (talk) 20:04, 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)
Hmmm, now I think I need a second opinion! @Redrose64: are we going to need to revdel those revisions of talk:Bad Aibling rail accident or not. The issue is links to external site that is in breach of BLP. Mjroots (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I revdel'd the three mentioned by Sladen. But I think that this one didn't need to be revdel'd, as the link concerned is not in it. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Unhidden. Hopefully we are now where we need to be. Mjroots (talk) 20:51, 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 (talk) 11:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
@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)

Requesting Admin's Opinion

Recently there has been some low level but persistent disruption/vandalism at Hybrid Air Vehicles HAV 304 Airlander 10. I was hoping to get your opinion on whether a protect request is warranted. Sario528 (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sario528: I've semi-protected the article for a week. Mjroots (talk) 19:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Newcourt (Exeter) railway station

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)

Please leave it at the proper location. Thank you. Useddenim (talk) 01:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
@Useddenim: this is not the proper location, for the reasons I have explained at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways. You may disagree with me, but as this was a controversial move, per usual practice at WP:RM, it must be restored to its long term stable title until consensus is formed to move it elsewhere. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 06:51, 29 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.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@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)

Template:Country data Kingdom of Hanover

Is there a reason for full protection instead of template protection, which is used on similar templates? Peter James (talk) 09:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

@Peter James: yes. The reason was that I made a mistake. Now corrected. Mjroots (talk) 09:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

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.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

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)

I've made the changes in my sandbox, if you want to review them and copy/paste from there. --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:40, 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.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Your AN/I complaint

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)
Thanks--Ykraps (talk) 13:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

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.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).

Administrator changes

Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13
Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
  • 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.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Delete me!

PLEASE DELETE MY ACCOUNT, AS WELL AS THE PHOTO ON THE RIGHT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW HOW TO! THANKS. Alridge (talk) 04:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Alridge: - I can't delete your account, but I have deleted your user page, which is what I think you meant. Mjroots (talk) 06:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Appalling edit summaries

Could you please strike my appalling edit summaries relating to extremism and Islam/Muslims? Thanks. GretzkyCC (talk) 08:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Mjroots (talk) 09:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).

Administrator changes

added TheDJ
removed Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news

  • 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.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

A couple of requests

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)

@WilliamJE: - both  Done Mjroots (talk) 10:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. This AFD can use closing too....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 Done Mjroots (talk) 11:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Years in motoring AfD

Further information: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Category:Years in motoring

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)

@Keith-264: I can adjust your user rights. Do you want rollback removed, or something else? Mjroots (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the swift reply, all of them please. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 Done Mjroots (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, sorry to put you to the trouble. Keith-264 (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).

Administrator changes

added Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim
removed Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

  • 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.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).

Administrator changes

added Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn
removed ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

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)

@Greggydude: - I'm willing to unprotect and see how things go. Mjroots (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

Administrator changes

added Happyme22 • Dragons flight
removed Zad68

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

  • 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.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).

Administrator changes

added Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 (first RfA to reach WP:300)
removed Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).

Administrator changes

added Nakon • Scott
removed Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

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.
  • In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

  • 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.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

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.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).

Administrator changes

added Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem
removed Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
  • 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.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).

Administrator changes

added Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93
removed Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • 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.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

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:

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).

Administrator changes

added Joe Roe
readded JzG
removed Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

Guideline and policy news

  • 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

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • 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.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017).

Administrator changes

added Muboshgu
readded Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned
removed None

Bureaucrat changes

readded Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

  • 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.

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018

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

Administrator changes

added None
removed Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

  • 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 tag will 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

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018

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

Administrator changes

added Lourdes†
removed AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V
† Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

  • The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
  • 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 feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous

Obituaries

  • 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.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Protection of Template:New England Patriots roster

Hi Mjroots,

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' newsletter – April 2018

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

Administrator changes

added 331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG
removed Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando

Guideline and policy news

  • 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.
  • The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
  • The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

Technical news

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.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


Re: blocking threat

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.

TL;DR: Please make sure you're upholding our administrator standards and not inadvertently spreading a chilling effect. Not cool. Thanks and cheers, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@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)
There were multiple people in that edit war ... I'm not sure why you only warned one. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:52, 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)
Wikipedia:Edit warring: "An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: "But my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense." Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
WP:NOT3RR, bullet point 4. Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 15 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.
TL;DR: Gamaliel's edits don't really come anywhere near what we define as vandalism. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:41 and 05:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
@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)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018

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

Administrator changes

added None
removed Chochopk • Coffee • Gryffindor • Jimp • Knowledge Seeker • Lankiveil • Peridon • Rjd0060

Guideline and policy news

  • The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
  • 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.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • 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.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018

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

Administrator changes

added None
removed Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • 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.
  • There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
  • 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.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2018

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

Administrator changes

added Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor
readded Gogo Dodo
removed Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes

removed Andrevan • EVula

Guideline and policy news

  • 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.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus that the {{promising draft}} template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

Technical news

  • 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.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2018

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

Administrator changes

added Sro23
readded KaisaL • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

  • 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

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2018

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

Administrator changes

added None
removed Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz
renamed Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

added Amorymeltzer • Mr. Stradivarius • MusikAnimal • MSGJ • TheDJ • Xaosflux

Guideline and policy news

  • 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.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Requesting Reblocking of user

Bro dude51 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bro_Dude51 continues to make disruptive edits to wikipedia. In the Qatar Airways article, Bro dude51 deleted the fleet chart in revision 859617657: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qatar_Airways&oldid=859617657 100.14.62.7 (talk) 08:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018

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)

@178.153.248.14: I'm pretty sure that MilborneOne and Jetstreamer will back me up. E-mail Wikipedia all you want, it won't get you anywhere. Mjroots (talk) 17:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


Administrators' newsletter – October 2018

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

Administrator changes

added Justlettersandnumbers • L235
removed Bgwhite • HorsePunchKid • J Greb • KillerChihuahua • Rami R • Winhunter

Interface administrator changes

added Cyberpower678 • Deryck Chan • Oshwah • Pharos • Ragesoss • Ritchie333

Oversight changes

removed Guerillero • NativeForeigner • Snowolf • Xeno

Guideline and policy news

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.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, amended the procedure on functionary inactivity.
  • The community consultation for 2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments has concluded. Appointments will be made by October 11.
  • 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.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of shipwrecks in August 1848 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Kirtley
List of shipwrecks in December 1848 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Arran

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2018

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • 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-en@wikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2018

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

Administrator changes

readded Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz
removed Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike

Interface administrator changes

removedDeryck Chan

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
  • 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".
  • A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • 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.
  • Wikipedia policy requires administrators to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Obituaries

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019

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)


Administrators' newsletter – February 2019

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)


Talk:The Independent Group and Talk:Independent Group (United Kingdom)‎ Confusion

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 ~ TALK 18:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bodney: - yoy made that comment in the "More controversy section" section at 16:43. It's still there for all to see. Mjroots (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Someone else made a longer comment too, stating the same, ~ BOD ~ TALK 18:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@Bodney: - that was Localzuk at talk:Independent Group (United Kingdom). Comments copied in to talk:The Independent Group so all should be good now. Mjroots (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019

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)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019

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)

Sorry about that!

I didn't realize that the ANI discussion proposal was still seeking input. Thanks for reverting my closure... :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: - no problem. Mjroots (talk) 09:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

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 02:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

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.

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

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019

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)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019

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) 09:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019

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)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019

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)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019

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)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019

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)


Administrators' newsletter – November 2019

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)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019

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)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020

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

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

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

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Miscellaneous


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

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020

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

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020

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

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

Arbitration

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.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

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

Administrator changes

removed Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

readded Callanecc

Oversight changes

readded HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

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

User talk page rules?

(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)

A cup of tea for you!

Thank you for dealing with that editor. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:45, 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)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020

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

Administrator changes

added CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth
removed Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

removed SQL

Guideline and policy news

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.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2020

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020

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

Administrator changes

added Red Phoenix
readded Euryalus • SQL
removed Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

readded GB fan
removed Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

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

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

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

Administrator changes

added Eddie891
removed Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

readded SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

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

Administrator changes

added Ajpolino • LuK3
readded Jackmcbarn
removed Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM
renamed There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

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

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020

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

Administrator changes

removed Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

Interface administrator changes

added Izno

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

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

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

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

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021

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

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Admin Recruitment ?

I am willing to stand for admin again, if you are asking for more admins. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@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 SoWhy 20:22, 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)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2021

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

Administrator changes

added TJMSmith
removed Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

Interface administrator changes

added AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

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

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

RevDel request

Hello, sorry to bother you. Can you please remove this edit and the edit summary? --Ashleyyoursmile! 07:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ashleyyoursmile: -  Done. Mjroots (talk) 07:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much. :) Ashleyyoursmile! 07:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2021

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

Administrator changes

removed Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

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

Ships

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)

@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: I've managed to restore the article to its correct place. Have asked for help at WP:AN#Lost talk page re the talk page. Mjroots (talk) 08:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2021

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

Administrator changes

removed Enchanter • Carlossuarez46

Interface administrator changes

removed Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

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

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

LTA

Hello, sorry to bother you. Can FlanFlan511 please be blocked- LTA Kingshowman. Thank you. --Ashleyyoursmile! 07:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

They have been blocked. Ashleyyoursmile! 08:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Can you please move protect Dominicana DC-9 air disaster

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)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2021

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

Administrator changes

added Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless
removed Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

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

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

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

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

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

Quick on the draw

Hi, re the last part of this question from almost ten years ago - at the moment I'm getting a lot of experience at spotting one or two of our LTAs. Check out the interval between user create and indef block on these user logs: 6 feet apart now or 6 feet under later. - just two minutes; David Ashley Parker from Powder Springs - four minutes; Saturday in the Park 4J - 16 min; Bkamrad - 8 min. Also notifying Bkonrad (talk · contribs) who may know who the sockmaster is, and Zzuuzz who has revdelled some of the edits. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Nice. That's User:DeepNikita, btw, who is based in Seattle most of the time. Rev-del'd edits are generally libellous, or at least BLP. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2021

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

Guideline and policy news

  • 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)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2021

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

Administrator changes

readded Jake Wartenberg
removed Emperor • Viridian Bovary
renamed Ashleyyoursmile → Viridian Bovary

Guideline and policy news

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

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2021

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • 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.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2021

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

Guideline and policy news

  • 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.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2021

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

Administrator changes

removed A Train • Berean Hunter • Epbr123 • GermanJoe • Sanchom • Mysid

Technical news

  • 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)

Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

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)

New message from Serial Number 54129

Hello, Mjroots. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Message added 18:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I'm sorry to press for clarification, but my query does rather touch on ADMINACCT; apologies for the all caps, but needs must. ——Serial 18:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

User talk:Aidenless

User:Serial Number 54129 is quite correct in what they said at WP:AN/I. Users are free to remove block notices from their talk pages. They can not remove unblock requests while a block is in place. Your assertions with this post to their talk page are incorrect. I've no comment on their actions or their edit summaries. I think you should restore their preferred version with the additional this diff added on. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2022

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

Guideline and policy news

  • 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.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The functionaries email list (functionaries-en@lists.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.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

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.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

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.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • 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.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • 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)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

  1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
  2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • 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.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2022).

Technical news

  • user_global_editcount is a new variable that can be used in abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users. (T130439)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • 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.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2022).

Administrator changes

readded Valereee
removed Anthony Appleyard (deceased) • Capitalistroadster • Samsara

Guideline and policy news

  • 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.

Technical news

  • The Wikimania 2022 Hackathon will take place virtually from 11 August to 14 August.
  • 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.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).

Guideline and policy news

  • 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

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.
  • Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • 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

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Editnotices/Page/Ryan Giggs

Template:Editnotices/Page/Ryan Giggs has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 12:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Editnotices/Page/Gylfi Sigurðsson

Template:Editnotices/Page/Gylfi Sigurðsson has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 12:26, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Editnotices/Page/Benjamin Mendy

Template:Editnotices/Page/Benjamin Mendy has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 12:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).

CheckUser changes

removed TheresNoTime

Oversight changes

removed TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

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

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Request for protection decrease – Basler BT-67

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)

@Computerfan0: I'm happy to unprotect. Hopefully we won't need to re-protect, but the option is there if needed. Mjroots (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! Computerfan0 (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • 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.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Wikipedia.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2023 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • 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.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

IP block exemption request

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)

@Joris Darlington Quarshie: I don't know how. Have asked for assistance at WP:AN. Mjroots (talk) 06:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Sure I will wait for the assistance. Thank you! JDQ Joris Darlington Quarshie (talk) 06:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
  • As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.

Technical news

  • Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023).

Administrator changes

added Novem Linguae
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed MBisanz

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Two arbitration cases are currently open. Proposed decisions are expected 5 July 2023 for the Scottywong case and 9 July 2023 for the AlisonW case.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2023).

Administrator changes

added Firefangledfeathers
removed

Interface administrator changes

added Novem Linguae

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
  • A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.

Miscellaneous

  • Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2023).

Administrator changes

added 0xDeadbeef
readded Tamzin
removed Dennis Brown

Interface administrator changes

added Pppery
removed

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 12 November 2023 until 21 November 2023 to stand in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections.
  • Xaosflux, RoySmith and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee Elections. BusterD is the reserve commissioner.
  • Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
  • Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
  • Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
  • Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
  • An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
  • The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
  • Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 11, 2023 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

SR West Country and Battle of Britain classes page protection

Hi Mjroots,

I'm wondering why the above article is permanently edit protected? I understand the need to temporarily protect pages, but especially with auto-confirmed access surely it should be removed after a time period? Should it be unprotected after multiple years? Danners430 (talk) 14:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Danners430: - I'm happy to see if the issue has gone away now. Article unprotected. Mjroots (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks - I agree, let's hope it has disappeared... it's definitely better to have articles open if they can reasonably be. Again thanks! :-) Danners430 (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on List of ship launches in 1863

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of ship launches in 1863, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

CheckUser changes

removed Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news

  • Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
  • Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse

Hello,

You just sysop edit protected Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse, I assume that was unintentional? ~ Eejit43 (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Eejit43: yes, it was. I was trying to remove the move protection following the closure of the merge discussion. Should be open to all now. Mjroots (talk) 11:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you!! :) ~ Eejit43 (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).

Administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).

Administrator changes

readded Nyttend
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed Nihonjoe

CheckUser changes

readded Joe Roe

Oversight changes

removed GeneralNotability

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2024).

Administrator changes

readded Graham Beards
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed

Oversight changes

removed Dreamy Jazz

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2024).

Administrator changes

added
removed

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mjroots/Archive/Admin&oldid=1251770172"