User talk:Xeno/Archive 32

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

change my user name

Hi Can you rename my user name from Rohollah.ghanbari to Rohollah_Ghanbari ? Tank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohollah.ghanbari (talk • contribs)

Done per your email request to me. 28bytes (talk) 03:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Seriously?

[1] -- who cares if he was "no longer an administrator" -- the guy gave ten years of his life to this place -- it's totally not important. Probably the stupidest most pointless thing I've ever seen you post. NE Ent 00:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I was under the impression the poster was seeking removal of administrative rights. No disrespect was intended. –xeno^talk 00:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah -- thought / was hoping it was something like that. That would make sense if it was BN instead of AN, but there wasn't a request for removal rights for the account, so it doesn't read quite right. NE Ent 01:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

There wasn't any context at all. –xeno^talk 02:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Context: Death. Sadness. Appreciation. NE Ent 03:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Mea culpa. Thanks for your refactoring, I approve. –xeno^talk 13:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like I wasn't alone in misinterpreting the thread. –xeno^talk 10:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Question regarding merge

Special:CentralAuth/Steinbeck

Special:CentralAuth/Csteinbeck

Hi Xeno, in 2014 I issued a merge request (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations/Rejected/21#Csteinbeck_.E2.86.92_Steinbeck) which you were dealing with. In the end, you referred to an upcoming merge tool which would deal with my request some time in the future. In the mean time, my "old" account, which I wanted to usurp, got renamed to something like "steinbeck_enwiki", so I assume something has happened. Can you enlighten me? :) Thanks, Chris Csteinbeck (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Csteinbeck: Apparently the merge tool will now not be available, at least in any kind of near term. If you want to be called Steinbeck, that could probably be arranged but we can't merge the two accounts. –xeno^talk 16:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Xeno:Thanks for the reply. Would the rename give me back my old edits under the name 'steinbeck'? In particular in the german wikipedia I did quite some. Otherwise it is not worth the effort, just for the sake of a different name. Csteinbeck (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we can help you stitch those accounts together, certainly not if you can't remember the password. –xeno^talk 16:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

welcome

Welcome to "the deep dark black hole" — Ched : ? 14:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Quite. It seems the only winning move is not to play. –xeno^talk 14:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I have GOT to remember that response. I'd imagine that more than a few folks could have predicted a difficult close once things got down to the 70% range and lower. I would have more to add there, but I'd be afraid that the wording would be twisted into an accusation of gloating. To be honest, I was actually working on a "congrats" if it had gone in the "promote" direction (hoping it would calm any "but we opposed" commentary) - some of which I used in my response to Hawkeye's thank you statement.

<thinking> .. Crat eh? Seems much like a fireman's job. Days and days of boredom, with sudden flashes of more drama than you could shake a stick at. I can understand some of the thinking there, but there are other posts which leave me in a perpetual *headdesk* state.

Anyway - thanks for doing the tough jobs. (feel free to pass it along to the others at the next cabal meeting) — Ched : ? 15:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, things will probably quiet down 'until the next big one'. Thanks for your kind words. –xeno^talk 23:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The last time I explained my read of consensus in general (which is more or less in line with yours), I got the same response. The lesson I learned is to explain less, which is unfortunate but less drama prone. There is a lot of nuance to determining consensus, and it is more art than science. This is particularly true when trying to explain it to people that see it as binary, rather than fluid. I think this first major test went fairly well in all respects. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I will admit that it would have been the 'path of least resistance' to simply say, like some of my colleagues [who I am not criticizing, mind you], that "I just don't see consensus here" (indeed no one argued against their positions), without referring to any of the thought processes that I had used - but I would rather be honest and upfront about my methods and be willing to listen to the feedback regarding them. And of course, our guiding document indicates that we "are expected to explain the reasoning for [our] actions on request and in a civil manner". –xeno^talk 00:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree, and that is how I got into the debate. In the end, I was not dissuaded from my methods, in spite of the exact same arguments you just saw. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes - that "nuance" thing that Dennis mentions is key. Plus - there was obviously some lack of understanding in regards to consensus in general, and consensus as it pertains to individual .. umm - projects isn't the right word - but consensus of a RfC or XfD rather than consensus at say RfX, where it's the boundaries which are being determined. (hey Dennis, how the heck ya doin?) — Ched : ? 00:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Related: Special:Diff/703030113. –xeno^talk 02:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Greetings

How are you? It has been a long time, again. Congratulations on the nomination; the header made an excellent start to my post. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Ncm. I'm well, how are you? Thanks for dropping by :) I added a new header because I still haven't claimed my shirt, lol. –xeno^talk 10:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Your answers

Just wanted to thank you in a more "personal way" for the answers you offered me concerning the RfA process. I thought if I move here, I could isolate my words from a thread with the potential for misunderstanding. Caballero/Historiador^⎌ 20:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome, thanks for clarifying what you were asking. –xeno^talk 20:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

You are an administrator.

I see that you have evaluated the situation on MBisanz user talk page. Since you are aware of the problem, why don't you take action?

I see this as a serious Wikipedia problem. There is bad behavior. There should be a systematic way to resolve it. ANI is not the proper place. There is too much drama there. By making a complaint there, there's a good chance that I would be attacked and there still wouldn't be resolution.

Therefore, my plans are to appeal to you to act. If not, I will let it go. Canadians are usually not like that. They can be quite helpful.

Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm an administrator but I typically don't get involved in user conduct or civility enforcement. What actions would you like me to take? Would you like me to unarchive the section you posted? Would you like me to scold the user for their inappropriate and uncollegial language? (done) –xeno^talk 19:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern and comments, Xeno. It encourages me to come back to edit now. Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome, let me know if you experience further problems. –xeno^talk 20:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

This user seems to have real problems and issues. Look at his/her belligerent response (edit summary) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BatteryIncluded&action=history Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't have bothered putting that link to them, I included their username in the message on your talk page and they would've received an 'echo' notification. For now I would say let it drop and just try to focus on content, rather than contributors. –xeno^talk 21:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree but thank you for your effort! It would have been a very unfriendly atmosphere if someone were nasty and everyone thought is was acceptable. I don't seek an eye for an eye. Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 00:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Just because. Winterysteppe (talk) 03:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:USURP request

My request for username usurpation is way past the hold period of 1 week. Since you are one of the most active renamers here, I request to please fulfill mine and other's usurpation requests. Thanks. - Randomuser0122 13:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the note. –xeno^talk 12:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Requests for page protection/Header

Should these redirects be tagged for deletion ? Mlpearc (open channel) 15:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Probably not (they're harmless), they just don't need to be listed in such a long list. –xeno^talk 15:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking that they would find there way back easily if they're still around, (looks like I'm a closet deletionist :P ) Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 15:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

. . . for approving my name change.(1). Bunai (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with the rename!

Been trying to get that done for a while now. Unquietwiki (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Happy to help! –xeno^talk 19:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

UserStatus Template

I adding an eating trigger. For example, if you put eating in your user status, you would get

Xeno is

eating

. Just to let you know. Peter Sam Fan 14:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure... Is that a public domain donut though? –xeno^talk 14:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

fyi

WP:A7M and Wikipedia talk:Credible claim of significance Bazj (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the pointer. –xeno^talk 19:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	because i can Winterysteppe (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

fyi/multi

Further to User talk:Xeno/Archive 32#fyi... To you and to Redrose64, thanks for not pushing the various discussions together. Wikipedia talk:Shortcut#RfC: To deprecate WP: shortcuts to user essays seems to be lining up for a WP:SNOW close as caveat lector but the other two discussions are throwing up some interesting ideas for A7/uw-hasty and nuanced yes/no !votes at the significance discussion which would have not emerged in another year of discussing it all in one big lump. Thanks, Bazj (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I just like to have the context, but understand about not muddying up a general discussion. –xeno^talk 13:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

You don't say...

Your comment at arbcom caught my eye; "could you point to any misuse of the rollback or account creator facilities or otherwise explain why they cannot continue to be held by the editor? Removing them would seek punitive otherwise."
My Rollback was taken from me and I never even got to use it, never mind abusing it. Your view on this is admirable, I only wish that all admins had the same apprehension about using their tools for punishment. Cheers. - ^theWOLFchild 23:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Seconded! Irondome (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, we definitely shouldn't be removing userrights that aren't being misused just to punish someone for some other transgression. Is there no policy/guideline advice on this? –xeno^talk 13:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I wish more admins were like you. Wikipedia would be a different place (for me at least). Keep up the good work. - ^theWOLFchild 14:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

KrisAndianaRus

Dear Xeno,

You have just renamed this user. However, s(he) is currently blocked on meta-wiki for abusing of multiple accounts.

Regards, RadiX ∞ 12:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I had checked the CentralAuth page. Must have missed this one. The rename has been reverted. –xeno^talk 13:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Vik1697

Hello. This user seems to have moved their own user page to User:Vikram160797. But they seem to be editing from the first account as noted here. The history of the first name also indicates that there is another account User:Vikythewild. Please have a look. — LeoFrank ^Talk 10:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Done, fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. –xeno^talk 11:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Highlandergame2.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Highlandergame2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Question regarding Administrator rights vs Bureaucrat rights

Hi Xeno! Long time no chat! I hope you're doing well. I have a random question for you regarding the technical abilities of Administrators vs the technical abilities of Bureaucrats. According to both the Bureaucrat page as well as the user access levels table - you don't have the technical ability to grant the IPBE user right to an account, but you can revoke it. However, Administrators can both grant and revoke the IPBE user right to and from accounts. Is this true? And if so, why is that?

According to the 'crat page,

"Bureaucrats are Wikipedia users with the technical ability to:

add the administrator, bureaucrat, account creator, reviewer, or bot user group to an account

remove the administrator, account creator, IP block exemption, reviewer, or bot user group from an account."

The table I linked you shows a minus ("-") next to IPBE and the Bureaucrat user group, while Administrators shows a plus or minus ("±") next to IPBE. I'm just confused and curious at the same time as to why this is the case. I feel like this would have to be done purposefully and for a particular reason. It just seems odd to me... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not really sure, to be honest. You'd probably have to dig around really old bug reports (site requests) for when the group was being created to find out. One of my talk page watchers might have the answer or be able to help find it. –xeno^talk 02:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

It seems like it was added accidentally. I can't think of any good reason why the 'crat bit would have that. In Wikipedia's early days, the 'crat flag didn't exist and sysop promotions were done manually by the sysadmins. However, they then updated the MW software to allow users to promote to administrators on their own, which became the sole role for bureaucrats. Their roles have evolved into handling bot flagging and renaming, later removed, so I don't see where the IPBE comes into play.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 17:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Isn't there developer logs? –xeno^talk 18:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Workshopping: Proposed "Page mover" permission

Hey, I'd like some help workshopping a proposed new permission called "Page mover". Please see Wikipedia:Page mover and leave your comments at Wikipedia talk:Page mover (or just go ahead and edit your suggestions in). –xeno^talk 23:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Re: your comment now archived at Wikipedia talk:Page mover/Archive 1#Include history merge tool?: the results of that tool are reversible with the press of a button; see this log. Graham87 07:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh! Excellent. Thanks for pointing that out. –xeno^talk 15:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Writing an article on the same subject as a page you deleted

Hi, I was writing a draft article about Dr. Vipul Patel when I discovered that you previously deleted a page by the same name. I never saw the previous page, but I would like to be sure my page is not suffering from the same problems. Could you take a look? Draft:Dr. Vipul Patel

The page is not complete; it needs more references, and the sections on Major Career Events and Academic Career need more information. I am also not sure if the list of publications is too much.

Here is what I found about the previous page:

A page with this title has previously been deleted.

If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below.

21:26, 23 June 2010 Xeno (talk | contribs) deleted page Dr. Vipul Patel (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: http://www.globalroboticsinstitute.com/en/urology-robotic-prostatectomy/why-dr-patel/achievements) 19:15, 23 June 2010 Xeno (talk | contribs) moved page Dr. Vipul Patel to User:PRPLwiki/Dr. Vipul Patel without leaving a redirect (WP:USERFY) (revert) 19:14, 23 June 2010 Xeno (talk | contribs) restored page Dr. Vipul Patel (5 revisions restored: WP:USERFY) 18:41, 23 June 2010 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted page Dr. Vipul Patel (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

Proboscidian (talk) 01:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I deleted the article because of the copyright violation, so as long your draft has no plagiarism or close paraphrasing my deletion would not prevent you from submitting a compliant article. –xeno^talk 02:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Moving pages

Hi, could you please move Article Kde domov můj? to Kde domov můj - original name in Czech is without question mark. Thanks --ThecentreCZ (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, –xeno^talk 01:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Ooops?

Whack!
You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

I know we're all keen to give Maile66 the mop! -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Haha. Thanks for the thanks, after I received it that's when I double-checked things. No idea how this happened! Maybe because I've cut caffeine from my life?? –xeno^talk 15:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm always pretty ecstatic to see someone pass RfA, though I think this is a first! I always thought a caffeine habit was a requirement for a crat.. -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Good morning!

I see you said you didn't have your coffee when you closed Maile's RfA a little early, so here's a fresh cup for you. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 11:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I think it must have helped, I think I managed not to muck anything up! –xeno^talk 15:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

You asked for it! --QEDK (T ☕ C) 16:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Plip!

Bureaucracy time

Paoc3030 is going to be a bureaucrat and administrator. 112.134.82.204 (talk) 09:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Change a page name

Hi I saw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Firyal_al-Muhammad this page of her royal highness Princess Firyal of Jordan using the name she doesn't use. She is known as Princess firyal of jordan(visit her website or the UNESCO page )

Please change the name to Princess Firyal of Jordan. If you want, I can give you more reliable sources. Like her identifications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aj0ob009 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Answering your message... from 2014!

I always tell people it takes me six months to return a phone call. Thank-you for your message concerning administrator status. I was unaware until just a few minutes ago. I just got a computer, after many years of not having access to a machine of my own. I plan to return to active editing, and in a few months I intend to apply for re-instatement. I have always been a user of the resource (WP) but haven't logged onto my account, only very occasionally. I think I had a very solid record of pursuing high ideals within the body of the project, especially issues concerning racism and harassment within article space. See you around!

Hamster Sandwich (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	thank you with love..your jennie. Jenox143 (talk) 06:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Xeno. I wanted to request your time. Can you please take a quick look at Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations and see if I've done this okay? Thanks. Xender Lourdes (talk) 11:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Please Rename my Username.

I want my username to be changed to "shaktibhai14" from "shaktimak14". Thanking you in advance. Please... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaktimak14 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

RMpmc

I've made a little proposal at Template talk:RMpmc#Appearance, and since all this is still so new, I'd like your input. What's in your palette? Paine 19:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day

Happy First Edit Day, Xeno, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 14:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

It's been ten years, today. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Well how about that! Thanks for the note =) –xeno^talk 15:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Bot/semi-automated edit question

Hi Xeno, just thought I'd run this by an admin before boldly taking off with this idea - the latest Tech News title was bungled when the mass-message sender sent it out. I've got a semi-automatic (as in, I'm having to verify and click "Save" after every found occurrence) AWB task set up which will fix these. Firstly, is this even needed, and secondly does this need any approval/consensus to do? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 13:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

What was wrong with it and how many pages were affected? –xeno^talk 13:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

It was initially posted missing a leading [, making the link syntax break:

[m:Special:MyLanguage/Tech/News/2016/29|Tech News: 2016-29]]

There are 517 subscribers to the newsletter, but not all of these are for the English Wikipedia -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 13:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You will trigger the "new messages" dialog for every user if you clean this up without actually being a bot. The bad section header isn't breaking the rest of the page, and isn't necessary to read the newsletter - so it may not need to be fixed. I have a bot approved to clean up other people's messes that could be run tonight if it is really worth it (ping me). — xaosflux ^Talk 13:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Good point on the new messages notification, perhaps spamming 400-odd people wouldn't make me overly popular.. As you say, it's not needed at all, but given the relatively low number of fixes required, and the ease of the fix, it may be worth using your mess-cleaning bot if you have time :) thanks -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 14:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

FYI: I've got a bot job doing a stealthy cleanup, but only for enwiki user talks that are still present, I'm not chasing down all those other projects :D — xaosflux ^Talk 21:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

A request

Hello Xeno please help me. Please add UTC+5:45 in the list of Template:Time. It is standard time of Nepal. Thanks—Nepali keto62_{Questions?!?!?} 07:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Nepali keto62: The procedure is listed there itself VarunFEB2003 (talk) 12:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@VarunFEB2003: No it isn't when I keep NST as my time zone then error message is displayed.—Nepali keto62_{Questions?!?!?} 12:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

It uses a module so maybe NST isnt in it you can add it VarunFEB2003 (talk) 12:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Nepali keto62, I added {{time|NPT}} (ex: 21:43, 30 April 2024 NPT [refresh] ). The change was made on page Module:Time. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Note NST is already in use for "Newfoundland Standard Time", I'm assuming Nepal time is NPT. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Xeno. 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. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Query regarding contributions of Usurped account

Dear Sir/Madam, Please clarify why my edits and contribution of previous account are not showing in my current account i.e. User:Pragmocialist. The edits i performed with my previous User:Pragmocialist account is showing for user:Pragmocialist (usurped), i want both contributions to be merged. Thank you.Pragmocialist (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, it is not possible to merge contribution histories. –xeno^talk 17:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Question

Bureaucrats remove administrator rights if they remain inactive for one year. This administrator is inactive for more than 4 years but still has administrator rights

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Useight

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=1&username=Useight — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.39.38.17 (talk) 04:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Useight is active on their alternate account Useight's Public Sock, see Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 32#Bureaucrat Useight and similar threads. I don't know why they never use their main account. –xeno^talk 18:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Xsign/month

Template:Xsign/month has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 14:08, 10 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) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Xeno.

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) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Xeno. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Name Change Request

Xeno, I would be very grateful if you could rename my account to "SwapLink". Can you do this? Dannyboy 360 (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Dannyboy 360. I'm not Xeno, but if you would like to have your username changed, please see WP:Changing username. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 20:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

K6ka, I did look at this, and that is why I knew how to request a change. Dannyboy 360 (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Acc

Template:Acc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. GXXF T • C 16:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Bureaucrat chat

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Godsy/Bureaucrat chat

I would be grateful for your input in the above discussion. Many thanks, WJBscribe via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Alien sideboob listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Alien sideboob. Since you had some involvement with the Alien sideboob redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of List of video game exclusives (seventh generation) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of video game exclusives (seventh generation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Odie5533 (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Unblocked

Template:Unblocked has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hello Xeno: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 15:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Greetings

You thief! Kidding. Happy New Year, and thanks for all your work all year (BAGs, page moves, WP:USURP, etc.). --JustBerry (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your message on the noticeboard concerning User:JohnCD's death. The thread has been closed while I have been offline. I am preparing a presentation on the Battle of the Somme and will not be online much, if at all, for a few days. I thought I would take a short break to see if the status of the matter had been cleared up. I take no pleasure in the outcome. I would have preferred to have been fooled and embarrassed by a hoax than to have one of Wikipedia's most learned, diligent, cautious and polite administrators, who did such good work, pass from among us. His contributions surely will be missed. Donner60 (talk) 06:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Bot for category history merges

Leaving a note here since i notice that you have shown interest in history merges, and the idea of automating it, many years back. See wp:BTR#Bot for category history merges. 103.6.159.72 (talk) 14:13, 18 January 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

A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

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

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!

Xeno, thank you (about a year and a half late) for your notification. I have been absent about five years all together, so I missed the entire discussion and am obviously well over the inactivity term. But thanks very much for the courtesy of explaining the situation! I've missed this place, I'm planning to make more time in my life for it in the near future. Dan 02:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Nice to see you around, Dan - I'm sure we would benefit from your resumed presence =). –xeno^talk 15:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Deleted Template:Truestatus

Hello, I'd like to see the template's code. Could you copy it to my user space? Thanks. RoCo^(talk) 16:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Done, Rollingcontributor see User:Rollingcontributor/Truestatus, User:Rollingcontributor/Truestatus/doc. –xeno^talk 19:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! RoCo^(talk) 01:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Xbox Game Pass

Yes :)

Hello, Xeno. You have new messages at McDoobAU93's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--17:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by McDoobAU93 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Great! –xeno^talk 18:27, 28 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

A recent RfC has redefined how articles on schools are evaluated at AfD. Specifically, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
AfDs that receive little participation should now be closed like an expired proposed deletion, following a deletion process RfC.
Defender, HakanIST, Matiia and Sjoerddebruin are our newest stewards, following the 2017 steward elections.
The 2017 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Góngora, Krd, Lankiveil, Richwales and Vogone. They will serve for approximately 1 year.

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)

DYK for Xbox Game Pass

On 10 March 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Xbox Game Pass, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Xbox Game Pass has been described as "Netflix for video games"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Xbox Game Pass. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Xbox Game Pass), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 12:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Maintenance category listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Maintenance category. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Maintenance category redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Jason Quinn (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Whoops

Misclicked here, but I fixed it. Apologies if you got a confusing notification about the revert. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

No worries. –xeno^talk 20:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Maintenance category listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Maintenance category. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Maintenance category redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. UpsandDowns1234 21:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017

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

Administrator changes

TheDJ

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) 10:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Bureaucrat discussion - GoldenRing

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GoldenRing/Bureaucrat chat

I would be grateful for your input in the above discussion. Many thanks, WJBscribe (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

At the above-mentioned discussion you stated "Controls are in place if any particular administrator starts behaving poorly." Please could you outline the controls available because I am dubious that such controls exist. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. –xeno^talk 16:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Please provide one example of the Arbitration Committee desysopping an administrator for incompetence. It has not happened during my time on site, but perhaps you're aware of an example from before my time. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The committee is the last resort in a wide range of available dispute resolution options. If an admin displays incompetence, they can be talked to on their talk page and if that doesn't help, there is WP:AN, blocking, etc. –xeno^talk 16:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Updating Template:CUU / bot clerking

Hi Xeno. A discussion at User talk:K6ka#WP:USURP prompted me that the bot's responses need to be brought up to date with the (rather unsatisfactory) global renaming arrangements. I asked Anomie about it at User talk:Anomie#WP:CHU/U. Couple of questions...

Do you agree with the tweaks I've suggested?
Are you able to update Template:CUU accordingly?

The template's syntax is a bit too complicated for me to feel comfortable editing it without making a mess! Cheers, WJBscribe (talk) 09:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I will take a look a bit later. It's a bit too early in the morning to be fussing with nested if statements =) –xeno^talk 12:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@K6ka: do you know how to handle this? –xeno^talk 13:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- I can try in my userspace when I have time to dabble with it. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 14:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Bots Newsletter, April 2017

Bots Newsletter, April 2017

Greetings!

The BAG Newsletter is now the Bots Newsletter, per discussion. As such, we've subscribed all bot operators to the newsletter. You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding/removing your name from this list.

Highlights for this newsletter include:

Arbcom

Magioladitis ARBCOM case has closed. The remedies of the case include:

Community encouraged to review common fixes
Community encouraged to review policy on cosmetic edits
Developers encouraged to improve AWB interface
Bot approvals group encouraged to carefully review BRFA scope
Reminders/Restrictions specific to Magioladitis

BRFAs

We currently have 27 open bot requests at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, and could use your help processing!

Discussions

There are multiple ongoing discussions surrounding bot-related matters. In particular:

RFC on COSMETICBOT
Efforts at WP:CHECKWIKI to identify cosmetic fixes
Requested move for the Bot Owners' Noticeboard
A phabricator ticket T162685 has been made to have a "bots" tag, so issues related to bot frameworks can be tracked

New things

Several new things are around:

A BAG Guide has been created (WP:BAGG, discussion).
Users now have the option to hide AWB from their watchlists via a script (WP:HIDEAWB, discussion)
The guidance on how to deal with bot issues has been overhauled (WP:BOTISSUE, discussion)
The bot policy has been updated to clarify that bot operators are required to register accounts. (WP:BOTACCOUNT, discussion)

Wikimania

Wikimania 2017 is happening in Montreal, during 9–13 August. If you plan to attend, or give a talk, let us know!

Thank you! edited by:Headbomb 11:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

(You can unsubscribe from future newsletters by removing your name from this list.)

ANI followup

As you were involved in the discussion on ANI, I am bringing this to your attention: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Request_to_de-sysop_Jondel. Toddst1 (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017

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

Administrator changes

Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim

Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.

Technical news

You can now see a list of all autoblocks at Special:AutoblockList.
There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
Administrators, bureaucrats and stewards can now set an expiry date when granting user rights. (discuss, permalink)

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)

Your own section...

Psst...Xeno...Newyorkbrad left a comment in y'all's section...and I think he grabbed a handful of the beer nuts... Drmies (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

It's fine, the time it would take to read Newyorkbrad's apology for his minor transgression would outweigh the cost of the beer nuts ;p. Thanks for the pointer. –xeno^talk 15:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017

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

Administrator changes

Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn

ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

An RfC proposing an off-wiki LTA database has been closed. The proposal was broadly supported, with further discussion required regarding what to do with the existing LTA database and defining access requirements. Such a tool/database formed part of the Community health initiative's successful grant proposal.
Some clarifications have been made to the community banning and unblocking policies that effectively sync them with current practice. Specifically, the community has reached a consensus that when blocking a user at WP:AN or WP:ANI, it is considered a "community sanction", and administrators cannot unblock unilaterally if the user has not successfully appealed the sanction to the community.
An RfC regarding the bot policy has closed with changes to the section describing restrictions on cosmetic changes.

Technical news

Users will soon be able to blacklist specific users from sending them notifications.

Miscellaneous

Following the 2017 elections, the new members of the Board of Trustees include Raystorm, Pundit and Doc James. They will serve three-year terms.

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

Section headers

Hello Xeno. I very much appreciate your attempt to resolve the situation. WP:TPOC states Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. To avoid disputes, it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial. It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant. In order to ensure links to the previous section heading (including automatically generated links in watchlists and histories) continue to work, one should use one of the following templates to anchor the old title:

Thread retitled from "{{{1}}}"., {{{1}}}, . Link (or template) markup may be removed from section headings, but the link should be recreated at the first use of the term, or in a hatnote.; WP:UP#OWN states Traditionally Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. I constantly notice others users changing section titles on their own talk page within reason as they see fit, and I believe it is a widely accepted practice to organize ones talk page as one sees fit. A more minor personal concern is that I keep my talk page very tidy and try to keep a consistent format which the formerly notice style does not match. I do not believe I should have to visibly retain the former section header, they've made their view clear in their post. Any objection if I change "Formerly Minor, pointless edits to {{anchor|Minor, pointless edits}}? Best Regards, — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 17:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

If I grasp Calton's concern, it's that you are removing their statement that your edits are "pointless" (as this word is not repeated in their text). As a compromise, you could move the anchor to be the first words of their text, i.e. "{{anchord|Minor, pointless edits}}: Would you mind...", perhaps that would be amenable to Calton. –xeno^talk 17:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Done. See here. I've ignored a lot of section headers lately, some of which make far worse false allegations against me, but I should not have to tolerate them on own my talk page. Thanks again and Best Regards, — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 17:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Amitshahid -> Meetuonline

Why does the bot think I blocked Amitshahid (see here)?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Bbb23: multiple rename actions involved, your block is here. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Xaosflux, although I'd never be able to figure this out myself, and I still don't completely understand. Is there a reason why he's unblocked now?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Here is the timeline:

2016-05-04T14:43:04Z You blocked the account Meetuonline (currently called User:Meetuonline (usurped))
2016-05-16T21:08:00Z Vituzzu set {User:Meetuonline@global} to globally locked
2017-06-20T17:39:07Z Xeno renamed User:Meetuonline to User:Meetuonline (usurped)
2017-06-20T17:40:20Z Xeno renamed User:Amitshahid to User:Meetuonline

So the account you blocked (and Vituzzu locked) still is, but was renamed - and someone else is now using that username. Hope that helps? — xaosflux ^Talk 20:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Perfect, thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017

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

Administrator changes

Happyme22 • Dragons flight

Zad68

Guideline and policy news

The RFC discussion regarding WP:OUTING and WMF essay about paid editing and outing (see more at the ArbCom noticeboard archives) is now archived. Milieus #3 and #4 received support; so did concrete proposal #1.

Technical news

Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding ?fuzzy=1 to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.
A new bot will automatically revision delete unused file versions from files in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old.

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)

Dear Xeno,

You have been nominated to receive a free t-shirt from the Wikimedia Foundation through our Merchandise Giveaway program (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Merchandise_giveaways). Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Please email us at [email protected] and we will send you full details on how to accept your free shirt. Thanks! SHsut (WMF) Wikimedia Store

Thank you so much, and to those who nominated me. Leaving this here for reminder. –xeno^talk

Cheers, –xeno^talk 22:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Bots Newsletter, July 2017

Bots Newsletter, July 2017

Greetings!

Here is the 4th issue of the Bots Newsletter (formerly the BAG Newletter). You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding/removing your name from this list.

Highlights for this newsletter include:

BAG

BU Rob13 and Cyberpower678 are now members of the BAG (see RfBAG/BU Rob13 and RfBAG/Cyberpower678 3). BU Rob13 and Cyberpower678 are both administrators; the former operates BU RoBOT which does a plethora of tasks, while the latter operates Cyberbot I (which replaces old bots), Cyberbot II (which does many different things), and InternetArchiveBot which combats link rot. Welcome to the BAG!

BRFAs

We currently have 12 open bot requests at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, and could use your help processing!

Discussions

Efforts at WP:CHECKWIKI to identify cosmetic fixes are still ongoing.
The RFC on COSMETICBOT has concluded with "a clear consensus exists to adopt the proposed language". The new wording is now live.
The venue for bot appeals and reexaminations has been changed from WP:BRFA to WP:BOTN (see discussion)
The Wikipedia:Bot owner's noticeboard is now the Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard (see discussion).

New things

A historical correction was made to WP:BOTPOL (see discussion).
WP:HIDEBOTS now mentions how to hide all bots from your watchlist, not only specific bots.
The phabricator ticket T162685 is now closed, and we now have "#Bots-Framework" tag, so issues related to bot frameworks can be tracked.
Wikibits.js has been removed (see discussion).
21 inactive bots have been deflagged (see discussion).
WP:BOTISSUE has been updated to mention that BAG members can act as neutral mediators in bot-related disputes.
WP:INTERWIKIBOT has been updated to reflect the post-February 2013 practice of putting interwiki links on Wikidata, rather than on Wikipedia (see discussion).

Upcoming

HTML Tidy will be phased out in June 2018, or possibly earlier. This may affect some bots (see FAQ).

Wikimania

Wikimania 2017 is happening in Montreal, during 9–13 August. If you plan to attend, or give a talk, let us know!

Thank you! edited by: Headbomb 17:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

(You can subscribe or unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Splitting discussion

I've restored my comment to where it should go, as otherwise it splits the discussion making it hard to follow. Aiken D 18:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

We do not generally allow in-line responses to a candidate's answer in that section, this affords undue weight to the user who chooses to place their comments there rather than appropriately in the "Discussion" section. I have wrapped your comment into a more formal "Follow-up question" format (Special:Diff/792304549), as I suppose was your intent. –xeno^talk 19:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017

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

Administrator changes

Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 ^{(first RfA to reach WP:300)}

Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

Following a series of discussions around new pages patrol, the WMF is helping implement a controlled autoconfirmed article creation trial as a research experiment, similar to the one proposed in 2011. You can learn more about the research plan at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial. The exact start date of the experiment has yet to be determined.
A new speedy deletion criterion, regarding articles created as a result undisclosed paid editing, is currently being discussed (permalink).
An RfC (permalink) is currently open that proposes expanding WP:G13 to include all drafts, even if they weren't submitted through Articles for Creation.

Technical news

LoginNotify should soon be deployed to the English Wikipedia. This will notify users when there are suspicious login attempts on their account.
The new version of XTools is nearing an official release. This suite of tools includes administrator statistics, an improved edit counter, among other tools that may benefit administrators. You can report issues on Phabricator and provide general feedback at mw:Talk:XTools.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2017

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

Administrator changes

Nakon • Scott

Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

ACTRIAL, a research experiment that restricts article creation to autoconfirmed users, will begin on September 7. It will run for six months. You can learn more about the research specifics at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial, while Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial is probably the best venue for general discussion.
Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.

Technical news

You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
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)

La Boite Orange listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect La Boite Orange. Since you had some involvement with the La Boite Orange redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Lordtobi (✉) 20:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Inactive bureaucrat

Template:Inactive bureaucrat has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2017

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

Administrator changes

Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem

Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

Following a successful proposal to create it, a new user right called "edit filter helper" is now assignable and revocable by administrators. The right allows non-administrators to view the details of private edit filters, but not to edit them.
Following a discussion about mass-application of ECP and how the need for logging and other details of an evolving consensus may have been missed by some administrators, a rough guide to extended confirmed protection has been written. This information page describes how the extended-confirmed aspects of the protection policy are currently being applied by administrators.

Technical news

You can now search for IP ranges at Special:Contributions. Some log pages and Special:DeletedContributions are not yet supported. Wildcards (e.g. 192.168.0.*) are also not supported, but the popular contribsrange gadget will continue to work.

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)

You've got mail

Hello, Xeno. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.~ Matthewrbowker ^{Say something · What I've done} 04:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

On Template:Formerly

Thread retitled from "Template:Formerly".

Could you come to the Help Desk and explain how this template is supposed to work? It indicates that it invokes the "anchor" template, but if I say {{Formerly|ABC}} it doesn't seem to do anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Apparently it does work. But the documentation is kind of scanty. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: The way it works is to allow you to create an anchor using an old section name, if one wishes to change a header in a thread but allow section links from history to still work and also preserving any of the original author's "message" that was conveyed by the former thread title. I've actually used it in this edit as designed. It might not really be a functional demo because my talk page is short. Hope that helps. –xeno^talk 17:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I see. The difference between this and the "anchor" template seems to be that with this one the previous header is visible while with "anchor" it is not. Thank you! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: Yes, although there is also {{Visible anchor}}, "Formerly" adds stylization and the word "Formerly". –xeno^talk 13:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

It seems like those three functions could be combined into one - if there was a demand for it. Although these templates probably aren't used often enough to go to all that effort. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2017

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

Administrator changes

Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93

Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is creating an "Interaction Timeline" tool that intends to assist administrators in resolving user conduct disputes. Feedback on the concept may be posted on the talk page.
A new function is now available to edit filter managers that will make it easier to look for multiple strings containing spoofed text.

Arbitration

Eligible editors will be invited to submit candidate statements for the 2017 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 12 until November 21. Voting will begin on November 27 and last until December 10.
Following a request for comment, Ritchie333, Yunshui and Ymblanter will serve as the Electoral Commission for the 2017 ArbCom Elections.

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)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Xeno. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2017

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

Administrator changes

Joe Roe

JzG

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

Wikimedians are now invited to vote on the proposals in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey on Meta Wiki until 10 December 2017. In particular, there is a section of the survey regarding new tools for administrators and for anti-harassment.
A new function is available to edit filter managers which can be used to store matches from regular expressions.

Arbitration

Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is open until Sunday 23:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC). There are 12 candidates running for 8 vacant seats.

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) 20:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hello Xeno: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 03:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018

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

Administrator changes

Muboshgu

Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned

None

Bureaucrat changes

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

The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey results have been posted. The Community Tech team will investigate and address the top ten results.
The Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting comments on new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools for development in early 2018. Feedback can be left on the discussion page or by email.

Arbitration

Following the results of the 2017 election, the following editors have been (re)appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Alex Shih, BU Rob13, Callanecc, KrakatoaKatie, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, RickinBaltimore, Worm That Turned.

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

None

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

The Arbitration Committee has enacted a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a standardized editnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018

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

Administrator changes

Lourdes†

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

Following the 2018 Steward elections, the following users are our new stewards: -revi, Green Giant, Rxy, There'sNoTime, علاء.

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)

Bots Newsletter, March 2018

Bots Newsletter, March 2018

Greetings!

Here is the 5th issue of the Bots Newsletter (formerly the BAG Newletter). You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding/removing your name from this list.

Highlights for this newsletter include:

ARBCOM

Magioladitis 2 happened, leading to further restrictions on Magioladitis (decision, summary).
Betacommand 3 was proposed to be amended to lift the indefinite ban on Δ, but was unsuccessful (decision).
A motion concerning Crosswiki issues (mostly concerning Wikidata) was passed (see discussion).

BAG

Hersfold was removed from the BAG due to long term inactivity.

BRFAs

We currently have 6 open bot requests at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, and could use your help processing!

Discussions

While there were no large-scale bot-related discussion in the past few months, you can check WP:BOTN and WT:BOTPOL (and their corresponding archives) for smaller issues that came up.

New things

WP:BOTDICT, a dictionary of common bot-related terms (see discussion).
6 inactive bots have been deflagged (see discussion).
The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey happened. Two bot-related proposal passed, #6 deploy Article Alerts to other languages and #10 Commons deletion notification bot, although other entries may affect bots as well.
Category:Wikipedia bots and its subcategories has had some cleanup. Bot-related pages that were historically important but are no longer of interests can be found in Category:Wikipedia bots (historical)
The edit summary limit has been increased to 1000 characters (see T6715). If a bot you operate relied on the old truncation limit (255 characters), please review/update your code, as overly long summaries can be disruptive/annoying. If you want to use extra characters to have more information in your edit summary, please do so intelligently.
You will soon be able to ping users from the edit summary (see T188469). If you wish to use this feature in your bot, please do so intelligently.

Upcoming

HTML Tidy will be phased out in June 2018, or possibly earlier. This may affect some bots (see FAQ).

Thank you! edited by: Headbomb 03:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

(You can subscribe or unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2018

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

Administrator changes

331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG

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

There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

Miscellaneous

A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.

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

Nomination for deletion of Template:Iw-ref

Template:Iw-ref has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018

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

Administrator changes

None

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

The Arbitration Committee is seeking additional clerks to help with the arbitration process.

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

None

Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

Following a successful request for comment, administrators are now able to add and remove editors to the "event coordinator" group. Users in the event coordinator group have the ability to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit. Users will no longer need to be in the "account creator" group if they are in the event coordinator group.
Following an AN discussion, all pages with content related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, are now under indefinite general sanctions.

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

In early May, an unusually high level of failed login attempts was observed. The WMF has stated that this was an "external effort to gain unauthorized access to random accounts". Under Wikipedia policy, administrators are required 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.

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

Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor

Gogo Dodo

Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes

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)

Happy First Edit Day

Happy First Edit Day, Xeno, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Kpgj hpjm 00:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, how about that! Thank you :) –xeno^talk 00:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2018

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

Administrator changes

Sro23

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

The WMF Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input on the second set of wireframes for the Special:Block redesign that will introduce partial blocks. The new functionality will allow you to block a user from editing a specific set of pages, pages in a category, a namespace, and for specific actions such as moving pages and uploading files.

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

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jbhunley/Bureaucrat chat

Hello fellow bureaucrats, in regards to a current RfA that has met its time, I would like your assistance in judging the community consensus presented in the discussion at Jbhunley's RfA. Your input would be most welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jbhunley/Bureaucrat chat. Best regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Wait!

I haven't opined yet! --Aardvark Floquenbeam (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Why aren't you a bureaucrat again? –xeno^talk 20:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

He's waiting for a nominator. I was going to nominate him myself, but I have some concerns... --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll nominate. –xeno^talk 20:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Careful, it might tarnish your repuation; I think he might be a sockpuppet. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Good to see you old friend. Amazing how time flies. –xeno^talk 20:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Indeed it does. Flying by in real life, too! Too old to be this busy. Good to see you around too. It's nice to see familiar names on my watchlist when I pop in for a few minutes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Bureaucrat chat August 2018

I've now participated. My apologies for not opining sooner - not a lot I can do when my Internet is off! :D I hope you're well. :) Acalamari 20:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Likewise, thank you for dropping in! Keep in mind you can always use IPoAC if your internet is out. Can't stop the signal. –xeno^talk 20:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Bots Newsletter, August 2018

Bots Newsletter, August 2018

Greetings!

Here is the 6th issue of the Bots Newsletter. You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding/removing your name from this list.

Highlights for this newsletter include:

ARBCOM

Nothing particular important happened. Those who care already know, those who don't know wouldn't care. The curious can dig ARBCOM archives themselves.

BAG

There were no changes in BAG membership since the last Bots Newsletter. Headbomb went from semi-active to active.
In the last 3 months, only 3 BAG members have closed requests - help is needed with the backlog.

BOTREQs and BRFAs

As of writing, we have...

24 active BOTREQs, please help if you can!
5 open BRFAs and 3 BRFAs in need of BAG attention (see live status).
54 approved bot tasks since the start of 2018. Of note, Community Tech bot 5 (the #10 Wish on the 2017 Community Survey) was approved to notify users concerning problematic images and files from Wikimedia Commons.

Also

If you're a bot operator that can help with Tidy/Linter error cleanup (see discussion, discussion), please file a BRFA!
8 inactive bots have been deflagged (see discussion, discussion, discussion).

Discussions

These are some of the discussions that happened / are still happening since the last Bots Newsletter. Many are stale, but some are still active.

Use of tags by bots – Exploring the use of a new 'bot' tag.
Mass page moves – Bot policy question/clarification about mass moves.
Creation of redirects – Bot policy question/clarification about the creation of redirects.
Guidance on disruptive use of semi–automated tools? – Related to meatbots (see also MOS discussion, which resulted in small addition to MOS:VAR).
Discussion concerning WP:BOTFLAG/WP:RC – A reminder that bots should use the bot flag when it makes sense to use it (see also VPT discussion and CREATEBOT update).
Out of curiosity... (to all bot operators) – BotPasswords vs OAuth usage amongst bot operators.
Introducing Toolhub – Toolhub is looking for feedback.

New things

{{Automated tools}}, a new template linking to user-activated tools and scripts has been created. It can be used in articles previews, and can be placed on any non-mainspace page/template (e.g. {{Draft article}}) to provide convenient links to editors.
AWB 5.10.0.0 is out, after nearly 20 months without updates. If you run an old version, you will be prompted to install the new version automatically. See the changelog for what's new. Note that the next version will require .NET Framework 4.5. Many thanks to Reedy and the AWB team.
BotWatch, "a listing of editors that have made >2 edits per minute [without] a bot flag", is being developed by SQL (see discussion).
Massive updates and improvements have been made to Citation bot in the past few months (see discussions, discussions, discussions). You can activate the bot here, amongst other methods.
HTML Tidy has been phased out (see Tech News #28).
{{Newbot}} has been reorganized a bit (diff). In particular, it links to previously approved BRFAs (see discussion).
Wikipedia:Bots#See also has been reorganized a bit (diff).
The bot dictionary has two new entries, context bot and context-sensitive edit.
The bot request header has been updated to include better guidance (see discussion).
The subcategories of Category:Wikipedia bot requests for approval have been sorted in a consistent manner to make past BRFAs easier to find.

Thank you! edited by: Headbomb 15:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

(You can subscribe or unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2018

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

Administrator changes

None

Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz

Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

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)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2018

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

Administrator changes

Justlettersandnumbers • L235

Bgwhite • HorsePunchKid • J Greb • KillerChihuahua • Rami R • Winhunter

Interface administrator changes

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

Oversight changes

Guerillero • NativeForeigner • Snowolf • Xeno

Guideline and policy news

Following a request for comment, the process for appointing interface administrators has been established. Currently only existing admins can request these rights, while a new RfC has begun on whether it should be available to non-admins.
There is an open request for comment on Meta regarding the creation a new user group for global edit filter management.

Technical news

Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.

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)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2018

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

Administrator changes

Sir Sputnik

Kudpung • Liz • Lourdes

Everyking • Jackmcbarn

Interface administrator changes

Dinoguy1000

CheckUser changes

AGK • Ivanvector • Stwalkerster • TonyBallioni

Oversight changes

Amorymeltzer • Oshwah • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93

Keilana

Guideline and policy news

A request for comment determined that non-administrators will not be able to request interface admin access.
A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the Mediation Committee should be closed and marked as historical.
A village pump discussion has been ongoing about whether the proposed deletion policy (PROD) should be clarified or amended.
A request for comment is in progress to determine whether pending changes protection should be applied automatically to today's featured article (TFA) in order to mitigate a recent trend of severe image vandalism.

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-enwikimedia.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)

User:Disciple of Xeno

Not an impersonation attempt, but I thought you should be aware of this new username. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Since xeno is a fairly ubiquitous concept I don't think I can lay claim to all things xeno. As long as they don't claim association or endorsements probably just something to keep an eye on. All the best, –xeno^talk 01:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Xeno. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Xeno. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2018

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

Administrator changes

Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz

Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike

Interface administrator changes

Deryck 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

Administrators and bureaucrats can no longer unblock themselves unless they placed the block initially. This change has been implemented globally. See also this ongoing village pump discussion (permalink).
To complement the aforementioned change, blocked administrators will soon have the ability to block the administrator that placed their block to mitigate the possibility of a compromised administrator account blocking all other active administrators.
Since deployment of Partial blocks on Test Wikipedia, several bugs were identified. Most of them are now fixed. Administrators are encouraged to test the new deployment and report new bugs on Phabricator or leave feedback on the Project's talk page. You can request administrator access on the Test Wiki here.

Arbitration

Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 3 December 2018. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

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

Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (Raymond Arritt) passed away on 14 November 2018. Boris joined Wikipedia as Raymond arritt on 8 May 2006 and was an administrator from 30 July 2007 to 2 June 2008.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Infobox settlement

Hello Xeno! Thanks a lot for clean-up on Polish locations that use Infobox settlement.[2]

There are still 5000+ [3] that

use the redirect Infobox Settlement instead of the direct call
have the coordinates outside the infobox
have no pushpin map specified

For the reader most significant would be moving the coordinates into the infobox and add " pushpin_map = Poland ". While doing that, the redirect can be turned into a direct call of Infobox settlement, as your bot did in 2010.[4]

Could your go through the 5000+ and check if it could perform all three changes? Redirect replacement maybe should not be done standalone, because it may qualify as cosmetic. 92.227.45.6 (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello! You're welcome. Unfortunately I don't run this bot anymore, perhaps a posting at WP:BOTREQ might be in order? –xeno^talk 20:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bureaucrat activity/report

OH! I see what happened. the perma link Wikipedia:Bureaucrat_activity#February_2018 here sends you to a version of a page with a bad link on UninvitedCompany's line. How do we fix this? Crazynas^t 18:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Crazynas: Ah, that makes more sense - you had edited an old version of the page! So there's nothing we can really do to fix the link to Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Godsy/Bureaucrat_cha... I wouldn't worry about it too much since it is corrected in the "added" permanent link right below. –xeno^talk 18:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Self-trout Yea, I saw that updated underneath after I posted here. And didn't notice the old version hat-note. It's a bit deceiving since the current revision is still February 2018: that's why I thought I was at an archive or sub-page not an old diff. I've never seen this particular style of archiving and perma-linking before. Anyhow, sorry for the confusion! Crazynas^t 18:31, 7 December 2018‎ (UTC)

No worries, was done in good faith. No trout needed =) –xeno^talk 18:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019

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

Administrator changes

Galobtter

Orangemike

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

Bureaucrat changes

Addshore

CheckUser changes

Joe Roe • SilkTork

Euryalus • Newyorkbrad • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

AGK • Joe Roe • SilkTork

Euryalus • Newyorkbrad • There'sNoTime

Guideline and policy news

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

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.
R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.

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

Technical news

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

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

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

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

Arbitration

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

Miscellaneous

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

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

Enterprisey • JJMC89

BorgQueen

Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes

Enterprisey

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) 02:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Bat Signal

Hi Xeno, I keep meaning to but keep putting off some workarounds, but they are individual. Since pages like BN are low volume, having a secondary account configured with "Email me when a page or a file on my watchlist is changed" could be a hack (but to reset it you'd have to touch the page while logged in on the secondary account). Any other ideas? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Xaosflux I’ve never used an rSS reader or app, but wouldn’t that do the trick as well? (With the only subscription = BN). –xeno^talk 14:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking of that as well, I'll go configure it on a couple of pages - I'm not sure how quickly the back-end syndication job runs (the job that publishes the rss feeds). Most RSS clients aren't configured for notification. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019

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

Administrator changes

Evad37

There'sNoTime

Alex Shih • Brian • Mushroom • Nakon • Oscarthecat • PeruvianLlama • Ragib • Reaper Eternal • Rossami • Tom

Interface administrator changes

Evad37 • Galobtter

Ritchie333

CheckUser changes

There'sNoTime

Keegan • Ks0stm

Oversight changes

There'sNoTime

Ks0stm • Sphilbrick

Guideline and policy news

The RfC on administrator activity requirements failed to reach consensus for any proposal.
Following discussions at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Administrators, an earlier change to the restoration of adminship policy was reverted. If requested, bureaucrats will not restore administrator permissions removed due to inactivity if there have been five years without a logged administrator action; this "five year rule" does not apply to permissions removed voluntarily.

Technical news

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

Arbitration

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

Miscellaneous

Following the 2019 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Base, Einsbor, Jon Kolbert, Schniggendiller, and Wim b.

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

Thank you for changing my user name to my nickname.

I want English articles to be sent to me regularly for editing.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Ozojie (talk • contribs) 12:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome Joseph Ozojie, if you are looking for articles to edit you should consider joining a Wikipedia:WikiProject, perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Film or Wikipedia:WikiProject Music. –xeno^talk 13:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Or SuggestBot perhaps?

2405:204:130C:AF29:D932:948:F93A:A8D0 (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes! I was trying to remember the name of this bot but kept coming up with the Article Alerts Bot :) –xeno^talk 06:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

DeltaQuad's RfB

That is a ridiculous oppose and you know it. Just a link ([1]) and a sig. ~~It doesn't matter if there is an edit summary, everybody shouldn't be expected to go scouring through the history to find and match up the edit with !vote to see if there was summary.~~ The explanation should be in the !vote ~~anyway, not buried in the page history.~~ Regardless if you think or personally feel my response was "crude" or not, the analogy was apt and on point. You can't just remove responses now because you dont like them... there is already enough problems with this process as it is. You should self-revert, my response is just as valid as the others. (More-so in some cases). - wolf 15:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Added note; I had it my mind that you had said the edit summary explained the diff, in your edit summary. But now I see that I was mistaken, as there was no edit summary to explain the 'oppose'. The "diff thing" you mentioned does not explain the 'oppose' either. This makes my comment even more appropriate and your removal less so. Please put my comment back. Thank you. - wolf 16:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The diff to which I was referring was the one posted on the oppose line, not the edit summary.

You are welcome to submit a fresh comment that doesn’t call another editor’s position ~~“a pile of dog shit”~~ [edit:this was my paraphrase]. This is not appropriate for the venue. As far as explaining the oppose- it’s perfectly clear with the diff provided: DeltaQuad, an an arbitrator, chose to oppose an admonition for a bureacrat action that ignored rules. The participant is entitled to use that to make presumptions about how the candidate would act as a bureaucrat in a similar context.

From a purely strategic standpoint, pulling this explanation out of the opposer does more harm to the candidate’s chances than good. –xeno^talk 21:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

My original post was; "What is with these bizarre opposes? No explanation, no context. Just sitting there... kinda like a dog just shat on the carpeting and left". It was a passive analogy and certainly an appropriate one, when looking at the !vote; "opppose [1] sig". No explanation what-so-ever. Your assertion that I called the !vote "a pile of dog shit" is incorrect and misleading, hopefully not intentionally, but you should strike and re-phrase with a proper, correct quote.

The !vote tells us nothing. So, to try and understand the reasoning for the oppose, we're forced to look at the Arbcom case; Three admins went a little nuts at an Arbcom election with the first admin doing some pretty stupid stuff, the second and third admins kept blocking him, but he kept unblocking himself, all the while they're all edit warring with each other. Finally a Crat steps in and IAR de-sysops the first admin. The Crat then starts an Arbcom case to report his actions. The first admin gets nailed; desysop + admonishment. The other admins are warned. The Crat however gets a free pass. Only 1 of 11 Arbs voted to de-crat him. There was also a vote to admonish him, but it failed 3 to 8.

The candidate, DQ was one of the 8 and it's her vote that is linked in this RfB. It tells us nothing. Nothing at all about why the !voter feels DQ would be incompetent or disruptive as a Crat. There is obviously a history here we're not aware of and it has no legitimate relevance to this 'oppose'. The contributor might as well as posted "Oppose - because I don't like her (sig)". Which would've been removed as disruptive, just as the current, actual 'oppose' should be removed.

You advised I could post another reply. I did, hoping to solicit an actual reason for the 'oppose'. They replied, but it is one step above "Lorum ipsum...". It's nonsense. Basically, because of DQ's vote noted above, in the majority of the 8-3 decision to decline admonishing Maxim the IAR-desysop'ing-Crat, she believes that DQ doesn't have "the proper temperament or ability to gauge community consensus to be a bureaucrat". What a pile of dogshit.

"From a purely strategic standpoint, pulling this explanation out of the opposer does more harm to the candidate’s chances than good." - I'm not trying to dismiss 'oppose' !votes of candidates I support. I just think that all opposers should be able to provide solid reasoning, with diffs, that show either a pattern of problems, or a singular problem that is so egregious, that the candidates is likely to be incompetent or purposefully abusive and/or disruptive. If an opposer can clearly demonstrate that, then it should be added to the RfA/B for everyone to see, regardless if I supported or even nominated the candidate. If they can't, their !votes should be removed from the page until they can. From a purely practical standpoint, we absolutely should be pulling explanations out of opposers that are clear or lack proof in their entries, regardless of how it affects the results. - (oh, and sorry about the length) - wolf 08:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

”Passive analogy” or not, the tone and composition of your contributions are coming very close to badgering other participants and I think if your goal is to see a fresh bureaucrat appointed you would do well to simply let the discussion run its course at this point. If your goal is a thorough examination of the candidate, you could also bolster your support with actual evidence and arguments in support of the candidacy rather than simply “per all above” which does not advance the discussion much. You may not personally feel the participant’s reasoning is sound (that a single IAR desysop is "egregiously disruptive") but they are free to draw the conclusions that they’ve drawn. And in my opinion, the original oppose with the diff stood on its own but one can seek elucidation without the invective. –xeno^talk 10:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC) (add 12:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC))

The point is, Crazynas didn't "draw any conclusions"... they just posted a diff. If people are going to oppose a candiadate, the least they can do is provide some kind of explanation or rationale. (I would suggest a reasonable explanation, like Samsara has with oppose #6, but if they can't, then at least post a ridiculous explanation, such as "opposing out of revenge", like Foxnpichu has, so at least people have an idea of what the oppose is about.) But to just post a link to a diff, with no context, forcing everyone to read though an entire Arb case and decipher their intent, is patently absurd.

But you're ok with that, and at the same time you're attacking my !vote...? I "examined the candidate", as I do at all requests before giving my support or opposing them. Why would you assume otherwise? My entry is #97... what is there to say? "I support per above", as in, "I agree with the 96 people that supported ahead of me". Some supporters haven't even posted that, just simply "support". But even then, it has been widely accepted that 'support' !votes don't need explaining. They are supporting the candidate, based on their nom and/or their answers to the questions and/or their history. When you have an acceptable candidate with plenty of support, then it's the 'opposes' that need to be explained and supported with facts.

But seriously, if you're going to police that page, then police that page. You have an admin posting repeated personal attacks, even reinstating them after redaction. You have people posting comments following 'oppose' !votes that have nothing to do with with that !vote and at last look, some guy threatening to abuse user talk page warning templates, with an obvious intent to create a chilling effect on any replies they disagree with. You've removed my post. It seems you have some more work to do, if want to appear to be impartial and only looking out for the integrity of RfB process. - wolf 23:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I’m not sure I have much more to say. As I said, I don’t have a problem with seeking elucidation of oppose votes in a civil manner. Perhaps outside perspectives will help: I see there is a thread here that may provide additional advice. –xeno^talk 06:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to stalk the page xeno, but since this seems to be about me. @Thewolfchild: I check Wikipedia so infrequently now days that I didn't even see that first comment. To me at least, the idea that all we are doing in the RfX's is trying to get our fecal matter in the right location is a rather amusing one when you get into the metaphor that deeply. Part of why I left the singular diff was because I know enough about the current 'crats that I suspected deciphering my reasoning in a general sense would not be hard, I also did it, in part out of respect, because as far a I can tell otherwise DQ is a generally sensible editor; if they had turned out to be one of the three arbs that voted for the admonishment I would have been happy to support them. What I didn't say there, but I will say here is that what effectively happened in that case was ArbCom policy by fiat (and perhaps I've been inactive for long enough that that is the norm around here now, I hope not) which granted additional effective rights to the bureaucrats now granted the consensus that HJ read was narrow but the consensus and the policy have been in place for quite a while now, shifting it in the (relative) backwater of an arbcom case does not seem appropriate to me, and then a former arb (who knows full well what can be 'gotten away with without sanction)... well. I hope that clears up my reasoning a bit more, but xeno was right above, you probably would have been best to just let my vote stand. Best. Crazynas^t 09:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The supporting !vote #204 is particularly revealing in this regard. Crazynas^t 10:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

=) –xeno^talk 15:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Old and decrepit like the rest of us these days :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019

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

Administrator changes

Reaper Eternal • ThaddeusB

Bogdangiusca • Christopher Parham • Necrothesp • Schneelocke • Siroxo • Sarah

Mentifisto → Lofty abyss

Interface administrator changes

Mr. Stradivarius

Bureaucrat changes

DeltaQuad

Kingturtle

Technical news

In Special:Preferences under "Appearance" → "Advanced options", there is now an option to show a confirmation prompt when clicking on a rollback link.
The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Please see meta:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019 to provide your input on this idea.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee clarified that the General 1RR prohibition for Palestine-Israel articles may only be enforced on pages with the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} edit notice.

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)

vocabulary

Regarding this edit: can I ask that you consider using slightly less jarring language? (Perhaps it was chosen deliberately as an echo of the scrutinized edit of the candidate?) I know that the current accepted practice for Wikipedia discussions is quite permissive, so this is just an optional, freely ignorable request. Thanks. isaacl (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I can’t remember in which work of media I heard the term (and Googling for it turned NSFW real quick...)- it was meant to signal camaraderie with the new colleagues but I can see how it could be misconstrued. Thank you for the note. –xeno^talk 23:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your consideration! isaacl (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I have to say I was in hysterics when I saw this edit... WJBscribe (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

=) –xeno^talk 23:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RexxS/Bureaucrat chat

I've opened a bureaucrat chat for a current RfA. Your input would be most appreciated at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RexxS/Bureaucrat chat. Best regards, Maxim_(talk) 22:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Maxim. –xeno^talk 12:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Precious

clear thought and language

Thank you for quality articles, beginning with Highlander: The Game, then Xbox Game Pass and Shotest Shogi (pictured), for super-large-scale global renaming, for creative ubs, for working towards the mandate to create more administrators, - repeating from more than ten years ago and 26 July 2009: you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

An honour! Thank you. Laid the groundwork for the latter ones, but a shame about Highlander not making it to market- I had such plans for my first article! –xeno^talk 12:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I also remember my first well, deleted within minutes ;) - Today, I'm working on an article a friend created, and weeks later it was sent to draft space. Could you perhaps take a look if it's fit to be returned to Main space. I asked RexxS who did it the last time, and JLN who moved, but so far without response. I did it myself for Julia Kleiter, but not to everyone's liking. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Not able to give it a close read at this second, but on a glance it looks ready for prime-time to me. Keep up the great work! –xeno^talk 12:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's done. There are many more, though, which I hope to get to in due course. Too nice weather outside right now ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I was going to try and figure out the paperwork, but Serial beat me to it =) –xeno^talk 13:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

RexxS

Looks like the rules and the vote does not matter. Rules say 65% . Last five nominations were all over 90% If the powers to be want to do something the rules and guidelines are flexible. Find consensus when you want consensus. You seem to forget the extra 10% was to allow for close calls. The rule is 75% and then 10% to maybe let someone worthy to win. RexxS lost. Why have a count? Just review comments the next time. Not that many people vote anyway. The insiders do as they please. Just saying. Eschoryii (talk) 05:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I believe the difference between 64% and 65% was four votes. Bureaucrats are not mere bean counters- if the community wants mathematical precision without context or nuance, they can replace bureaucrats with bots. –xeno^talk 06:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

We could do away with the counter! 28bytes says it better: "I'm pretty confident that I would have came to the same conclusion as to whether there was consensus to promote regardless of whether the raw percentage was 63.7%, 64.1%, 65.2%, or 66.8%, assuming that the underlying arguments made by the supporters and opposers were the same. If the community wants us to hew rigidly to an arbitrary percentage rather than use our judgment to determine consensus, we will of course abide by that," ... –xeno^talk 12:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I voted support. Wikipedia needs more administrators. But why have a vote if the decision is to be made by the bureaucrats. The line is what the community wants or consensus. The truth is that things are decided by any group of editors that are active and involved. I appreciate your honesty. You wanted him to pass and he did. Its ok with me. Its just hard to believe this guy passed and the bar is lowered for the next one. Just objectively look at the bureaucrat vote. Eschoryii (talk) 22:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I’m actually not too familiar with the candidate, so I wouldn’t say I wanted him to pass, per se. I want to continue to fulfill the community mandate to create more administrators, yes. The bureaucrats have always been tasked with the decision, divined from reading the tea leaves of consensus in the discussion. It’s more art than science I’m afraid, and certainly isn’t maths. I saw consensus here and was honest with what I saw, even knowing there might be those that disagreed with my reading. There is an excellent discussion at User_talk:SoWhy#Checking_to_see_if_I'm_missing_something that explores the numerics angle a bit more and I agree with SoWhy’s analysis (Special:PermanentLink/892046119). The next bureaucrat discussion will be an entirely seperate event, with different supporting and oppositional arguments, and we don’t do “precedent” in these things, for the same reasons that they can’t be reduced to mathematics. –xeno^talk 23:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Your excellent discussion reference was so good because it lets you have discretion to go below 65%. The discussion also said those who agreed to lower the percentages thought 65% was a floor. We do not need to discuss this further. Feel free if you want the last word. Eschoryii (talk) 02:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Indeed if you can’t see past the raw numbers/percentages and consider the consensus-building discussion as a whole, then there’s not much more to discuss in such a limited venue. Wider community inputs would be required to see which of our positions (trees vs. forest) holds wider community support. Thanks for dropping by. –xeno^talk 08:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Eschoryii: See Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#New RfC: Limiting bureaucrat discretion. –xeno^talk 13:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Nowikis around UTC?

I'm curious what this edit to AN was about. I don't see any visual differences? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I was actually trying to get the bot to archive the thread. But maybe it saw through my trickery. –xeno^talk 17:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts

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

Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email
Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak
Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

A special circular? Subject of a current discussion: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Return of permissions to administrators notice of which I’ve noted. –xeno^talk 18:06, 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).

Administrator changes

HickoryOughtShirt?4 • RexxS

Necrothesp

Bratsche • Kyle Barbour • Kzollman • Madman

Interface administrator changes

Pharos

Bureaucrat changes

Primefac

CheckUser changes

Reaper Eternal

Guideline and policy news

A request for comment concluded that creating pages in the portal namespace should be restricted to autoconfirmed users.
Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

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

A request for comment is currently open to amend the community sanctions procedure to exclude non XfD or CSD deletions.
A proposal to remove pre-2009 indefinite IP blocks is currently open for discussion.

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

Request For Protected Bepanah Pyaar article

I request you to have protected this article Bepanah Pyaar because this article is many IP user try to make unhelpful changes so I request you sir accept my request and protect this article at least 1 month, Thank you. Goodd-002 ^(chatme) 10:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks like another administrator handled this. Goodd-002 in future you can post to WP:RFPP. –xeno^talk 14:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey

On reflection my comment at AN might sound like frustration with you. It isn't, it's frustration with the blocked editor's lack of minimal effort, combined with a more general frustration that there is really no way to prevent editors who aren't mature enough to edit here from disrupting things every 6 months. I do appreciate the ping. And at least it gives me an opportunity to say "Hi Xeno, hope all's well". --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Not at all, I understand where you're coming from. I've still seen you churning out excellent work though. Thanks for dropping in =) –xeno^talk 14:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

About RadhaKrishn

Please move the article as per request see discussion. Hello Sir, I request you to change the name of this article on the basis of the request made by me because I am unable to change it because it has been created several times even after it has been deleted , due to which it has been protected. Because of which I can not make changes in this. I request you to make changes in its name and thank you very much for accepting my request. Goodd-002 ^(chatme) 06:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Has the TV series actually aired now? @Premeditated Chaos and Bishonen: as they deleted and set protection. –xeno^talk 12:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes Sir, it is being broadcasted So far, 196 episodes of this serial have been shown on TV, I have referred you here on the page so that you can do that.See here. Goodd-002 ^(chatme) 14:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I've completed the request as it seemed uncontroversial. Anyone is free to reverse it if felt otherwise. –xeno^talk 15:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

OK sir thank you very much Goodd-002 ^(chatme) 15:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see, I protected it as repeatedly recreated. It's fine now, of course. I'll remove the protection. Thanks, Xeno. Bishonen | talk 17:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC).

Looks like I don't have to? My protection is still the only thing in the protection log, but clearly the article isn't protected. Bishonen | talk 17:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC).

I thought it was going to give me some kind of warning but it just let me move it in place. I guess nothing needs to be done! –xeno^talk 17:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

About Ek Shakti Ek...Aghori

Hello Sir, I need your help. I request you to change the name of this article to Aghori (2019 TV Series) by BepanahDrama but when I created it, it was made with the correct name that is called Ek Shakti Ek ...Aghori please see the move request made by me see here. Thank you Goodd-002 ^(chatme) 12:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for performing the move. Looks fine to me. –xeno^talk 11:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

About Shrimad Bhagwat

Hello Sir, I need your help. I request you to change the name of this article to Aghori (2019 TV Series) by User:Zeecolors but when I created it, it was made with the correct name that is called Ek Shakti Ek ...Aghori please see the move request made by me see here. Goodd-002 ^(chatme) 10:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Let the move request run its course and someone will move it. –xeno^talk 12:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

RexxS

Have you had any further thoughts on the "election" of the RexxS administrator. You were so certain of your position of consensus over a mathematical vote tally. There was a lot of chatter after the decision. RexxS thought he had lost and had to be talked into keeping his nomination and that fact was not discussed. You were so certain that losing by 1% could be overcome by reading how people voted in their comments. The comments were read by those who had RexxS sleep on his decision for 24 hours. Maybe he was assured that 65% could mean 64% by the bureaucrats. I am sure other things have come and gone but has time and reflection changed any of your thinking? I have changed my mind. Sleep well. Eschoryii (talk) 08:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Well the website is still running, RexxS is churning out good administrative work, and the community has not put all the bureaucrats up against the wall (yet...). Glad that your mind has changed. I still think we have a recruitment problem and need more administrators. –xeno^talk 10:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

As I watch things Wikipedia is "run" by evolving rules and people over time and a consensus standard allows that evolution. Eschoryii (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Happy adminship anniversary!

Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 03:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Once it grows into a cat, you’re taking it back though... –xeno^talk 07:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!
Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019

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

Administrator changes

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

CheckUser changes

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

The previously discussed unblocking of IP addresses indefinitely-blocked before 2009 was approved and has taken place.
The 2019 talk pages consultation produced a report for Phase 1 and has entered Phase 2.

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

Blocked admins

Hi xeno, to follow up from that RfC. I've spilled the beans on parts of this on-wiki a few times, the most notable admin function available to blocked admins is (deletedtext) and the related view functions of that nature. The "blocking" software was designed around stopping 'edits' not 'actions'; but there are new developments to the blocked software being actively worked on, though I suspect dealing with the niche of managing blocked admins will be low on the development order. There are a bunch of phab tasks related to blocked admin things, but again they are low priority as it is easy enough to remove someones admin access (in a mediawiki sense) if they are problematic. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Not a programmer but it seems like it should be an easy fix- Just have the software interpret the user right as absent when the user is blocked? Out of my depths, thanks for the follow up. Feel free to email also. –xeno^talk 15:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

(EC) I got EC with xaosflux: also note that to prevent rogue admins taking over whole wiki by blocking every admin except themselves, there is a kill switch that allows the blocked admins to block blocking admin (in this case Fram blocking WMFOffice). — regards, Revi 15:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes, that’s newer. –xeno^talk 16:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Mostly, in workflow of: (a)xeno requests an action (b) check if permission to do action exists (c) do action; they could insert a (b2) check if account is blocked. I think the "hard" part is that (b) happens in lots of disparate parts that all need to be individually updated. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Gotcha. –xeno^talk 16:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Xaosflux (ec), is that intentional or simply the fact that the code hasn't been refactored? StudiesWorld (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Likely because MediaWiki is essentially developed to allow wide adaptability. A lot of features that are here are developed exclusively for English Wikipedia and that took a lot of developer time and resources. So things that are exclusively enwiki-centric and not that important (or can be achieved with another method effectively) tend to linger for years on the bug tracking system and are often plastered with "need-volunteer" tag. Ability of blocked admin to view deleted material is quite not a problem for MediaWiki and even many other Wikimedia projects (You have to ask yourself, first how many admins are currently blocked? to see why something is just unnecessary). So even if you're to voluntarily refactor the code and submit for review it will either be vetoed or left to linger on Gerrit for some years. It's just not that important. Removing +sysop from an account is just a matter of few seconds technically —and by extension from the MediaWiki perspective. It's on the enwiki social norms that the story is completely different. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

xaosflux: What about the staff userright? See q (failed ping) : special:diff/901524072 –xeno^talk 13:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Xeno: see Special:Diff/901524696. My expectation is that the someone in the staff user group would need to unblock themselves first, but that they certainly can do that. Does that help? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Thank you! –xeno^talk 14:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Allow_bureaucrats_to_quickly_re-sysop_admins_temporarily_de-sysoped_by_WMF_for_carrying_out_out_community_consensus

I'm a bit concerned that this discussion has been closed as "no consensus", which seems to leave the question up in the air for the bureaucrats to handle, perhaps being resolved in much the same way as Floq's tool removal has been resolved - by whichever bureaucrat feels most generously toward a given desysopped admin. In reality, a rather strong consensus against appeared to be emerging before this was closed, with the count of support/oppose being a whopping 8/17, with all momentum on the "oppose" side. Could this be opened back up to allow that consensus to finish emerging? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

What if I changed “no consensus” to “not carried”? I don’t think further discussion of the proposal as written will bear fruit. –xeno^talk 13:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

While I certainly participated, my original suggestion was that it appeared to mostly be a fork of the discussion at WT:ADMIN and it may have been too soon for !voting - such that it should just have the discussion merged to the other discussion to keep it all in one place. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree. –xeno^talk 13:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I would have no objections to something closer to "consensus against the current proposal, with no prejudice against other, more refined proposals". Is that agreeable? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for being willing to discuss this and reconsider the wording. Much appreciated. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Of course, thank you for coming by :) –xeno^talk 16:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment on this week

Hello, Xeno,

I'm not sure where to post this comment. It surely would be unwelcome on the "Fram" page and all discussions on WP:BN are closed and other discussions are so lengthy it would take all day & night to catch up. I just need to say, to someone, that I cringe when I hear that any resysop/unblocking decisions are "overwhelmingly supported by the community". There has been a lot of noise, outrage and heat this week which is understandable. This is an unprecedented action.

But, you know, the majority of editors and, yes, admins, on Wikipedia are continuing to do the work they do every day, editing articles, deleting CSDs, blocking trolls, getting on with the work of the project. They either are not participating in these discussions about overreach by the WMF or they, like me, have unpopular opinions and the last thing they want to do is subject themselves to the anger of those who feel differently. So, they continue to do the necessary work of maintaining this project. You are not hearing their voices because they are not talking about this issue.

I'm NOT saying I agree with WMFOffice actions. It would have been best to have ArbCom handle all of this. I will say that I think that more editors and admins who are not participating in this discussion are willing to give WMF the benefit of the doubt in this extraordinary situation. I just wanted to let one bureaucrat know that there the vast majority of editors are continuing to edit and get on with the work of the project. And, speaking for myself, while I admire those who are willing to act out of principle, I also appreciate those who keep focused on the work. All the best, Xeno. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to write this. The work must continue. (James SA Corey) –xeno^talk 02:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

You are very kind, Xeno. I had some regrets about posting this after I did but it is, what it is. I didn't see this point of view represented in the enormous amount of talk page discussion.

I really wonder how we'll look back on all of this incident, a year+ from now. I don't want to be overdramatic, but it feels like some sort of institutional turning point in the relationship between Wikipedia and the WMF. I never really thought of the WMF Board of Trustees as mattering much but now I see they represent all of the volunteers and am curious to hear about their recent meeting. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I think this does show one way that the BoT is important, but I think that the most important thing that they do is allocate funding or supervise fund allocations by other organs of the WMF. Fundamentally, for initiatives to work, they need funding and it is important to control how those decisions are made. StudiesWorld (talk) 02:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I am afraid to say this in public...

...so after a few beers I have acquired the courage to say this here in semi-public:

If someone wants to research events leading to this and see how deep the rabbit hole goes. T&S SJW retribution for the desysop of a fellow SJW. Which would mean this mess is a lot worse than it seems. Whatevs. 85.76.66.99 (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Interesting times we live in.

How's it going Xeno? Keeping busy? «l|Promethean|l» (talk) 23:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello old friend! Certainly are. Turbulent, tumultuous, trying times. Rather busy offwiki lately, rather disheartened onwiki. Something is rotten. –xeno^talk 23:31, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed; The words putrid and rancid come to mind. But good to hear you're doing well despite the onwiki drama! Promethean (talk) 00:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Sent you an email. Promethean (talk) 01:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Edit warring and lack of consensus-seeking at Wikipedia:Office actions. Anne drew (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. The discussion was closed (permlink). –xeno^talk 02:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Not sure

I do appreciate your time and response - but I'm not really sure what you're pointing me to. I do see the page/category (with nothing beyond notice headers) - but I'm not sure how it relates to the table at wp:os. I'll think on it though. Thank you. — Ched : ? — 14:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

My belief is the under scrutiny section should just be deleted- I think it's outdated and not in active use any longer. I added a link to the page that records the Fram ban in the main text. –xeno^talk 14:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Ahhh - I see. And agree. Thank you again. — Ched : ? — 14:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019

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

Administrator changes

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.

Bureaucrat changes

28bytes • WJBscribe • Wizardman

Interface administrator changes

MSGJ • TheDJ

CheckUser changes

Beeblebrox • BU Rob13 • DoRD

Oversight changes

Beeblebrox • BU Rob13 • DoRD • GB fan

Guideline and policy news

A request for comment seeking to alleviate pressures on the request an account (ACC) process proposes either raising the account creation limit for extended confirmed editors or granting the account creator permission on request to new ACC tool users.

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

The scope of CSD criterion G8 has been tightened such that the only redirects that it now applies to are those which target non-existent pages.
The scope of CSD criterion G14 has been expanded slightly to include orphan "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).
A request for comment seeks to determine whether Wikipedia:Office actions should be a policy page or an information page.

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

In February 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) changed its office actions policy to include temporary and project-specific bans. The WMF exercised this new ability for the first time on the English Wikipedia on 10 June 2019 to temporarily ban and desysop Fram. This action has resulted in significant community discussion, a request for arbitration (permalink), and, either directly or indirectly, the resignations of numerous administrators and functionaries. The WMF Board of Trustees is aware of the situation, and discussions continue on a statement and a way forward. The Arbitration Committee has sent an open letter to the WMF Board.

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

notification

Hi. Does an editor receive any notification after 100,000 edits? —usernamekiran(talk) 18:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

~~Nothing automatic.~~ Am I there?? –xeno^talk 18:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Actually, you should get a notification of: "You just made your hundred thousandth edit; thank you for an amazing contribution!" — xaosflux ^Talk 19:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Huh... TIL! –xeno^talk 19:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks xaosflux.
mobile enwiki says Xeno has 99,188 edits. Edit counter says live 116,357, deleted 7,955, and total 124,312 edits. Once MusikAnimal had told me the reason for discrepancies but i cant recall it now. Anyways, either you missed the notification, or you will get it soon. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam 2/Bureaucrat chat

I've opened a bureaucrat chat for a current RfA. Your input would be most appreciated at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam 2/Bureaucrat chat. Primefac (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019

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

Administrator changes

Johnuniq • Kosack • Valereee

Ad Orientem • Ched • Gadfium • Jonathunder • Nick • Yelyos

Bald Zebra • Beetstra • Doug Bell • Journalist • Ruud Koot • Splash • Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

Dinoguy1000

CheckUser changes

RickinBaltimore

Oversight changes

Beeblebrox

RickinBaltimore

Guideline and policy news

Following a request for comment, the page Wikipedia:Office actions has been changed from a policy page to an information page.
A request for comment (permalink) is in progress regarding the administrator inactivity policy.

Arbitration

Editors may now use the template {{Ds/aware}} to indicate that they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for a topic area, so it is unnecessary to alert them.

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)

Bots Newsletter, August 2019

Bots Newsletter, August 2019

Greetings!

Here is the 7th issue of the Bots Newsletter, a lot happened since last year's newsletter! You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding/removing your name from this list.

Highlights for this newsletter include:

ARBCOM

Nothing of note happened. Just like we like it.

BAG

Several (1 + 12 = 13) users have been retired/resigned from the BAG due to inactivity, per our new activity requirements (discussion).

BAG members are expected to be active on Wikipedia to have their finger on the pulse of the community. After two years without any bot-related activity (such as posting on bot-related pages, posting on a bot's talk page, or operating a bot), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice. Retired members can re-apply for BAG membership as normal if they wish to rejoin the BAG.

Two BAG members retired
- Madman (talk · contribs) retired.
- BU Rob13 (talk · contribs) vanished and retired.
Three new BAG members have been voted in, welcome to the BAG!
- Primefac (talk · contribs) joined on 2018-12-12 (RfBAG). Primefac operates PrimeBOT (talk · contribs) which does a plethora of tasks.
- TheSandDoctor (talk · contribs) joined on 2019-01-21 (RfBAG). TheSandDoctor operates several bots including DeprecatedFixerBot (talk · contribs).
- Enterprisey (talk · contribs) joined on 2019-08-07 (RfBAG). Enterprisey operates EnterpriseyBot (talk · contribs), which does a plethora of tasks, RemindMeBot (talk · contribs) which posts reminders, and codes several scripts.

We thank former members for their service and wish Madman a happy retirement. We note that Madman and BU Rob13 were not inactive and could resume their BAG positions if they so wished, should their retirements happens to be temporary.

BOTDICT

Two new entries feature in the bots dictionary

Editor-hostile wikitext – describes wikitext structuring that is editor hostile, even if it renders correctly
Spectrum of usefulness – describes how tasks are deemed useful or not

BOTPOL

Activity requirements: BAG members now have an activity requirement. The requirements are very light, one only needs to be involved in a bot-related area at some point within the last two years. For purpose of meeting these requirements, discussing a bot-related matter anywhere on Wikipedia counts, as does operating a bot (RFC).
Copyvio flag: Bot accounts may be additionally marked by a bureaucrat upon BAG request as being in the "copyviobot" user group on Wikipedia. This flag allows using the API to add metadata to edits for use in the New pages feed (discussion). There is currently 1 bot using this functionality.
Mass creation: The restriction on mass-creation (semi-automated or automated) was extended from articles, to all content-pages. There are subtleties, but content here broadly means whatever a reader could land on when browsing the mainspace in normal circumstances (e.g. Mainspace, Books, most Categories, Portals, ...). There is also a warning that WP:MEATBOT still applies in other areas (e.g. Redirects, Wikipedia namespace, Help, maintenance categories, ...) not explicitely covered by WP:MASSCREATION.

BOTREQs and BRFAs

As of writing, we have...

20 active BOTREQs, please help if you can!
14 open BRFAs and 1 BRFA in need of BAG attention (see live status).
In 2018, 96 bot task were approved. An AWB search shows approximately 29 were withdrawn/expired, and 6 were denied.
Since the start of 2019, 97 bot task were approved. Logs show 15 were withdrawn/expired, and 15 were denied.
10 inactive bots have been deflagged (see discussion). 5 other bots have been deflagged per operator requests or similar (see discussion).

New things

All bot-related discussion pages now have a centralized and searchable archive box (see discussion). Discussions are searchable per noticeboard, or globally.
{{Bot}} now supports |status=expired (see discussion). This led to the deletion of Category:Indefinitely blocked Wikipedia bots as useless (see discussion).
WP:BOTREQ now mentions WP:SCRIPTREQ and WP:AWBTASKS as alternatives to bot requests.
The bot creation guide now mentions bot flags, and two new languages Awk and MATLAB. Other minor tweaks have been made.
AAlertBot has received major code updates. In particular, WP:AALERTS will now report splits, mergers, and AFC submissions.
Citation bot has received several updates (User talk:Citation bot/Archive 10/11/12/13/14/15/16/17). In particular, the bot stopped the automated removal of |publisher= from {{cite journal}}, and stopped the automated addition of CiteSeerX links, and now uses OAuth to authenticate those who make requests of the bot.

Other discussions

These are some of the discussions that happened / are still happening since the last Bots Newsletter. Many are stale, but some are still active.

See also the latest discussions at the bot noticeboard.

Thank you! edited by: Headbomb 17:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

(You can subscribe or unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding or removing your name from this list.)

A decade of protection against moving...

... because Grawp made a bad-faith page move in 2008. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Seaweed Poveglia (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019

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

Administrator changes

Bradv • Chetsford • Izno

Floquenbeam • Lectonar

DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

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

A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Miscellaneous

A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.

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

"Template:AncientEgyptBanner" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:AncientEgyptBanner. Since you had some involvement with the Template:AncientEgyptBanner redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Magioladitis (talk) 10:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Regrettably

Hi xeno, I've regrettably processed your BN request which I can only assume is related to the withdrawn RfA you co-nominated. I'd like to think you are looking for a break and are not going to completely withdraw from the project - and hope you will jump back in one day. If you want to have your 'crat access removed, you will need to post at SRP, else you can certainly continue to function as a bureaucrat without accessing the administrator tools. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 14:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the well-wishes xaosflux. You'll not be rid of me that easily, though. I foresaw this day: my only concern is my inability to view deleted revisions might impede bureaucrat work on occasion.

Although my administrative contributions have waned considerably in recent years, I still remain uncomfortable wielding the administrative toolset until the administrative community has been properly advised the rules of engagement under which they're operating, and whether existing community procedures for review of administrative actions will be respected by the Foundation. –xeno^talk 14:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, this is an unfortunate situation. Useight (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Coincidentally, your ability contribute as a bureaucrat for years (presumably without logging into your main account) confirmed my belief that the role does not require administrative privileges. So thanks for that =) –xeno^talk 15:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Ha, glad to be of service. Useight (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I echo Xaos and hope you’ll be sticking around in whatever capacity. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, someone has to keep an eye on Floquenbeam. Thanks for dropping in David. –xeno^talk 23:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

As long as you're sticking around, whether you can block me or not isn't that important. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I still have “out-of-process desysop” at my disposal if you try any funny business. –xeno^talk 23:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I've been desysopped so often it's kind of lost it's effectiveness... --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

This is the point where one needs to decide whether "can" means "has the technical ability to do, ignoring policy", or "is able to do in a policy-compliant way". By the first definition, Xeno could still block you, because Bureaucrats have the technical ability to grant themselves admin access. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Wouldn't be too surprised if that was prevented, in the same way that I can no longer unblock myself. But now you've got me curious.... Try it, Xeno! I triple dog dare you! --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
@Floquenbeam: it is not technically prevented (see testwiki:Special:UserRights/Xaosflux) — xaosflux ^Talk 23:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
The checkbox is indeed there. I could earn a desysopping and a decratting in a single check. Unless I gave 24 hours notice, I guess. –xeno^talk 23:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Xeno - of course I respect your decision to do what's best for you, but from a selfish standpoint - I'm sorry to see this. — Ched (talk) 23:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Ched. We’ll see how the global RFC goes. –xeno^talk 23:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

copied from a user talk page

@Xeno: great hypocrisy for you to ask for your admin bit to be removed but not the bureaucrat. I think you're just an attention seeker who feels like you need to do something to express your frustration after the Fram RfA. We could use less bureaucrats like yourself, bunch of silly old people who think they're so important to the community and act all WP:DIVAish when something don't go their way. 93.189.27.86 (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I think you’re the same one who was querying me on meta? My reasoning is on my talk page, but to be honest I barely used the administrative tools in the last some years. I still feel comfortable contributing as a bureaucrat, which is why I retained those privileges. Hope that helps explain. In my mind, this was not so much a “Diva” action as one done to ensure my safety until I am comfortable and trust that how editors “feel” about administrative actions (even when objectively appropriate) is not used as a rationale to impose unappealable sanctions. –xeno^talk 14:16, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I just wanted to say ...

Thank you very much for your sensible comment, as well as your earlier one in that thread. It's good to know that you understand what I was talking about.

I was unaware until I read the above that you'd stepped down as an admin. Sad to see that we've lost you in that capacity, but glad to know you'll still be around otherwise. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

No worries. I do admit I’m a bit curious, do you just find it easier to change the rollback summary vs. using the undo button? (Or was it multiple edits?) –xeno^talk 22:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

It's faster, easier, and more convenient. Using a tool similar to the ones listed at WP:Rollback#User scripts, I just click once, enter my desired edit summary, click "OK", and it's done, afterwards only displaying the diff. Undo requires more time and much more resources: the entire page's wikitext has to be loaded into the editor and the diff is shown; as an added inconvenience, depending on various factors, one may have to scroll to the end of the default summary to add custom comments; then when it's saved, the entire wikitext has to be sent to the wikiserver, and the entire page is displayed. Thus, the whole page is transferred (in one form or another) three times with undo, versus zero for rollback. I always use custom-edit-summary rollback instead of undo whenever there's a choice, unless I'm leaving a complicated summary that I want to preview.

As for that thread, I hope he follows your suggestion, because I still don't know if he understands; I wouldn't want him erroneously issuing warnings to or revoking rollback from anybody. In any case, I'm done trying. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019

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

Administrator changes

Barkeep49

Beetstra • KillerChihuahua • Kusma

Arcadian • Extraordinary Machine • Xeno

JamesBWatson → JBW

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

CheckUser changes

Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Oversight changes

Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

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

The 2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place October 4th to 10th.
The arbitration case regarding Fram was closed. While there will be a local RfC focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.

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)

Sorry to see...

...you laying down the tools. I don't know the backstory, but I've always found you to be a good admin and 'crat, fair and honest. i hope you're planning on returning at some point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken: Thank you for the kind words. My relinquishing of the administrative tools is more of a “not now” rather than a “not ever” (further reading; tl;dr: once fairness and honesty has been returned to conduct review). It’s not clear from the newsletter but I did retain the bureaucrat toolset, and will continue in that capacity. Hope all is well with you =) –xeno^talk 11:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I wasn't aware that one could be a bureaucrat without being an admin. I'm glad you'll be around for that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken: I don’t think anyone has tried it before, though Useight used to contribute as a bureaucrat via a an alternate account. –xeno^talk 02:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

An exceptional comment

In my view, the commonly held perception that people should 'learn the ropes' of adminship prior to getting the bit is deeply problematic. It is unhelpful for so many reasons. It suffices to say, for present purposes, that it leads people to participate in bureaucratic processes for the wrong reasons. Participation in those processes should be incidental to the main project goal: building an encyclopedia. Participation in those processes should not be seen as a war game or a preparatory school in adminship. People should not be there in order to build up experience to demonstrate at an RfA. Admins learn on the job after they get the bit. They can and will make mistakes. What is more foundational is understanding the project's goals, being collegiate, and demonstrating a willingness to learn and ability to adhere to policy. All of these are often fulfilled by exceptional content editors. I'm not convinced there is ever a sound basis for considering experience in 'admin areas'. It simply rises no higher than conjecture. The only time it might be relevant is where the participation in those processes is so poor as to warrant a conclusion that the editor either has a profound lack of judgement, or is not collegiate. Unsurprisingly, that is rarely the case with exceptional content editors, and it is certainly not the case here. Being an exceptionally good content editor should suffice to get adminship. No big deal and all that. It's a pity that seems to be an unpopular point of view. My $2c. 130.95.175.240 (talk) 03:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Copied from Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Kees08

feedback

Hi Xeno. You are a very experienced user I would appreciate you feedback regarding the admin recall situation. What do you think, would , if I adjusted User:EVula/opining/RfA overhaul it to current concerns raised is it time to offer it to the community with a site wide notice? Lack of consensus and a lack of users commenting there seems to be a problem. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The current concerns being barely active admins? I don’t see how it could be handled by the process there. I also still feel the criticisms are valid. –xeno^talk 19:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, barely active admins and a kind of wp:gaming the system. Thanks for that. I don't see much coming from the current chat due to the limited number of editors contributing and so have started to consider how to move forward with a proper community notified discussion for what are imo, as you said, valid concerns. Best Govindaharihari (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

What I meant was the criticisms of the outlined process are still compelling. –xeno^talk 20:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

yes. Sorry if my comment could have been clearer. I pretty much understood that, thanks for the clarification. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you...

for that. Exactly the sort of action 'crats need to be taking at RfA's and i wish i saw it sooner or more often; some of the crap that goes on there is still, after so many years of discussion, not worthy of the community. Seeing that action by you has made me happy this morning. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 07:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the note LindsayH. Certainly non-bureaucrats can do this type of clerking as well, though I understand why some might be hesitant. –xeno^talk 08:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Let's see if we can find a map

I'm continuing here (and will point here from BN after hitting publish) because it feels far less of general concern (why I posted there and not here in the first place, which I debated doing) and more about individual concerns which don't, in my view, belong on the BN. You wrote "I offered my opinion as requested by another user while confirming that DQ’s close was within policy." If that was your intent that's very much not how I read what happened. Instead I see Gerda ask a question [5]. You then answer asking your own version of the same question [6]. If you have concerns about the actions of another crat it's totally fair to ask a question about it. Gerda then asks you a follow-up question [7] to which you provide an answer in what appears to be in your crat role (and, I'll note, it reflects the conservative manner I would hope of crats) [8]. Still so far so good. You then edit this to say that you think DQ made a mistake not including a closing statement [9]. Here's where my concerns begin. If that was something you were thinking, why didn't you ask about it? Gerda has now been encouraged and asks you a further question [10] to which you reply, with full acknowledgement that you're acting in your official role, that DQ got it wrong [11]. All before you've heard from DQ. In neither of these last two diffs did you point to a policy or some other kind of precedent that suggests Amanda acted wrong. Just that you, personally, would have acted differently. To date the best justification I can find that you've offered for why you're officially suggesting this is because "<The discretionary zone is> not a hard cutoff" [12]. To which I would also point out that merely being in the discretionary zone, according to WP:CRATCHAT and contradicted by no RfC that I've seen, does not require a crat chat. In fact nothing (that I am aware of) requires a crat chat.

Has a crat chat become regular for RfAs ending in the discretionary zone since the RfC which set the new level? Yes. And so, arguably, if it finished at 65% and DQ closed it without a crat chat, the case could be made that she was not acting conservatively even though she was acting with-in the discretion offered by policy. But what you seem to be officially suggesting is both that crat chats are required for RfAs that end in the discretionary zone (arguably, but not officially, true) and that they should be had for some number of RfAs falling below the discretionary zone which, by policy, will almost always fail. From what I've read it seems like you think there should be more crat chats because discussion is good (a principle that I freuqntly argue and am thus abstractly in favor of). In that case you should get the community to endorse it rather than suggesting another crat misstepped because she stuck to policy (and convention). This kind of official criticism of Amanda's crat actions are why I suggest your actions have harmed crats as a whole and fit into what I see as a pattern of crats willing to use their powers in BOLD ways rather than conservative ways. Hope that provides a map into my thinking. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping in. Will reply shortly. I like that the edit was exactly 4000 bytes. I like round numbers. –xeno^talk 01:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I think there has been a miscommunication - I don't believe I ever said DQ was wrong in their closing, or that a bureaucrat discussion was required (and I say both of those things in the edit you've cited). I am allowed to have a different opinion as to the appropriate closure path for any given RfA than any given colleague. DQ was able to divine the consensus without going to a bureaucrat discussion while I was not so sure that having one bureaucrat "go it alone" was the best course here. That doesn't mean DQ's decision to close without sending it to a discussion was wrong or against bureaucrat procedure, but I was curious if they had considered doing so. Bureaucrats are "expected to explain the reasoning for their actions on request" (WP:BUR). My opening question to them was mainly to seek such an explanation about their consideration of closure paths and tease out DQ's summation of what I perceived to be the major turning point of the RfA, since it did not have the benefit from a wider examination on the merits. I was a bit surprised that a closing rationale had not been provided, and I think in future DQ will probably take the time to include one on knife's edge RfX's which is a positive. Personally, although I often engage as a bureaucrat during the RfA, I don't seek to divine the consensus on a potentially contentious RfA until after the timer expires - it appears the DQ's approach is different - but entirely reasonable and justified if they were following the discussion edit-by-edit and had already taken the appropriate steps to determine consensus. If I had decided I was able to close this RfA on my own, my approach would have been to put the 'on hold' wrapper on it while I went back over the entire discussion de novo (to mitigate potential bias) and composed a detailed rationale. DQ is a relatively new bureaucrat, and my goal was to gain an understanding of their thought processes both in approach and in the consensus evaluation, and I'm satisfied with DQ's approach and response following the addition of the detailed rationale even if I would have not personally taken the same approach, as reasonable minds can differ on this and DQ clearly felt more confident going it alone than I did. Bureaucrat discussions are never required if the closing bureaucrat feels they can determine the consensus without convening a bureaucrat discussion. I do consider it a best practice to include a detailed closing rationale both for the benefit of the participants and the candidate.

DeltaQuad did nothing wrong. Hopefully this helps clear things up. Feel free to follow up for further clarification. –xeno^talk 02:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I kinda forgot about this thing, I don't know if that factored into your comments- but DQ taking that stance and then closing it swiftly is still not "wrong" as such, as one could argue they were involved only bureaucratically. I still feel it was a mistake for them to act in that manner as I still believe avoiding the appearance of impropriety is important for bureaucrats. While DQ doesn't seem to share that belief, I don't intend to push the point further (after all, their mandate is fresher than mine). –xeno^talk 03:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I do appreciate the question. I've been a bit rushed this evening, and I went back over my contributions and found an unintended wording choice (Special:Diff/921135221). This may account for the miscommunication. If you had that understanding, others might have as well, so I reproduced the reply to the BN thread. –xeno^talk 02:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to respond here and BN and clarifying (and revising) your thinking. It's appreciated. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

A gentleman's nod of appreciation.

While I tried to keep my posts about the recent (for some reason divisive) RfA to a minimum, I did disagree with you on your stance and conclusion. Still - your posts were all polite, calm, courteous and often filled with very understandable logic. I found it easy to see your point of view, and I appreciate your beliefs on the subject. Discussions that are filled with posts such as yours are a pleasure to become a part of. Sadly there's all too often condescension, condemnation, insults and personal attacks filling discussions on wiki these days. This is why I wanted to make note of the 'old school' polite discussion posts that you made. Thank you. I'm glad to see there's still a few adults about the project. — Ched (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to write this, Ched, I certainly do try. –xeno^talk 00:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks also for this. Maybe it is time to break for reflection. –xeno^talk 15:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Reminder

Thread retitled from "Reminder to self: Don’t post to Joe Roe’s talk page or ping them ever again".

re: Special:PermanentLink/921177050#COI

Joe Roe: if you are not willing or too sensitive to engage in reasoned debate with others grappling with your ~~tortured~~ application of policy, please resign your commission on the Arbitration Committee. –xeno^talk 11:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I was sorry to see that discussion shut down, as I had hoped to have a back and forth discussion to find a better resolution. Everything Joe says in defense of his editing can be exactly said for Greenman's. I realize my example was a bit extreme but it's along the same road as those used against Greenman. Thanks for standing up for what you think is correct. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I’ve been asked not to post there, but I suppose you could make a new section if you remain unsatisfied with their response. Sorry I got your section shut down. –xeno^talk 11:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

No need to apologize. I won't continue that discussion with Joe based on that ugly response to you. I want to add that you've done nothing wrong. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I’m actually quite concerned about their unwillingness to engage in dialogue. I’ve raised the concern at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#Joe Roe / Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Conduct of arbitrators in Special:Diff/921201982. –xeno^talk 14:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

They confirmed I may contact them directly regarding clear matters of arbitration, so I’ve tagged it resolved. –xeno^talk 19:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

El_C: just as preposterous as my suggestion that Joe Roe was going secure all the grant money with their mainspace contributions to their respective field was Joe Roe’s suggestion that MariaDB is going to crush their competition because Greenman is keeping their version numbers up to date. It ^{seems to} follows that ~~Joe Roe~~ this stance would ~~rather~~ ^{result in} an article fall^ing into disrepair and disutility than to be uncontroversially updated by an unpaid volunteer who happens to be employed by the company that produces the software to “make it fair” for other articles that don’t have the benefit of knowledgable volunteers. Preposterous indeed. –xeno^talk 14:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC) ^{15:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)}

Well, I'm not sure they [Refactored: Joe Roe] would rather that would happen, but myself, I don't see that [Refactored: Greenman's updates] as conflict of interest or anything untoward, which is partly why I supported the RfA. El_C 15:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, quite right- so amended.
Neither do I see Joe Roe’s editing in their field to be a violation, which is indeed the thrust of the argument made. –xeno^talk 15:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Xeno - as much as I respect you - and I DO respect you - I think this thread and thread title are poor choices to make. — Ched (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Ched, I’m going to take your advice and disengage for a while (will respond to direct questions). Though as an arbitrator, I don’t think I ever told someone to leave me alone when they were seeking clarification about my interpretation of policy. I think we can leave it at that. I’m looking forward to advice from WTT (and maybe WJB) and will reflect on my actions and choices. –xeno^talk 15:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Hang in there

Hang in there or slow down, you have got to be about burnt out. Just an observer. Eschoryii (talk) 10:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Eschoryii, this was helpful. –xeno^talk 01:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

And now for something completely different...

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 community sentiment on binding desysop procedure (you're namedropped there Risker, in relation to our past discussion on this draft process). –xeno^talk 01:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

sigh

Thread borne of confusion. I suppose it goes to show that you've been a rather effective arbitrator if multiple admins think you're still on the committee after your term ends. –xeno^talk 12:04, 21 October 2019 (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.

I did NOT see that one coming. But I'll bet dollars to donuts there'll be a corresponding ACN post too. Starting to wonder if there will be ANYONE left. — Ched (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, ArbCom is trapped between a rock and a hard place. While I disagree with some of their actions, I don't envy their position. I've been considering encouraging arbitrators to simply refuse to do anything until the WMF pulls its head out of its ass and either (1) hires professionals to do the job or (2) backs off enough to let ArbCom do its job without the ironically-named Trust & Safety breathing down their necks. If the WMF takes option (1), then editors here will have more time to deal with valuable stuff like, you know, writing an encyclopedia. If the WMF goes with option (2), then hopefully we still have enough people here who are willing and capable to do the job. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

"... anyone left": yes, you, Ched, hopefully. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ched: I was really not hoping to have to edit after posting today, but it seems I need to. There is no impending ACN post about my permissions of any sort that I am aware of, everything was my choice here. It would come as a complete shock if ArbCom made a post without contacting me first to try and address the issue. I still haven't even seen a reply from ArbCom about my self-report, and if I do ever come back I intend to face whatever music is thrown at me over that. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

DeltaQuad, of course there could be no music to be played over that. I'd ask you to consider revoking, during this 24 hour hold, your request to relinquish crat. Things feel hot right now but I don't know that losing all your en permissions is the right way forward out of whatever combination of frustration with en and self-critique it seems might have driven you here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding frustration: been there; hope it improves. Regarding self critique: I sure wish hard working, productive, helpful people would cut themselves more slack. —Floquenbeam (talk) 00:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi .. Amanda (aka DQ). I'm not sure why you felt a need to respond to my post here, but if I owe you an apology, then I most assuredly will offer you one. I didn't ping you.?!? To paraphrase Rick in his world Of all the pages, in all of wiki, on all the Internet, why did she have to respond to my post? If you'll please look at the discussion following your post at BN, you'll see that I'm actually, if not defending, than at least finding no fault in your actions. To be honest, I actually went to your page with the intent of offering a "if you ever want to talk..." post. Seeing how you left things there, I then considered even emailing you, but it appeared as though you just wanted to be left alone for the time being. Still, the email and/or discussion offer are sincere, and I DO offer that here and now. Please, if you feel a need to talk to someone - my door is always open. I fully admit that I was hoping to see Ritchie unblocked, and I'm glad he has been.

Still, given all that I've disagreed with over the last few months, I don't recall finding fault with you specifically. In fact I have made a concerted effort at most junctures to make it clear that my disappointments lie in the collective body of AC, and I've had very little to say critically about the individuals. I think it's an important distinction to make, that a person does not equal the group, and the group does not equal the individual.

If you consider all the trends that this year's AC has shown, then I think you'll have to admit that resigning is certainly one of the big ones. If I'm reading your response here correctly, then personally I'm glad you're staying on at AC. As far as getting a reply from AC on your self-report - I'm not sure who's left to respond. Even Worm has posted about a need to take a break and get away from the day to day grind of Arbcom. I saw what was posted, I understood the reasons for oversight. While I've seen stronger candidates for removal - I didn't disagree with it. Not saying I've always agreed with every support/oppose you've posted - but I certainly never called for you to leave. But in fact I DO understand your need to take a break and get away. I guess I can apologize for assuming you were also going to resign from the AC, especially as you're giving up other various bits. I would think that many others figured that's where this was headed as well.

I understand that this year's AC has faced more difficult situations than most. Having never been an Arb, I can easily imagine that there have been (and are) issues that I have no clue about. I'll say again, my door is always open if you want to talk. Email? No problem. If you want to talk where there's a public record of what's said - just let me know the link and I'll come there. If you feel there is anything at all I need to answer for, please feel free to ask. Now all that said - I do wish you the very best. — Ched (talk) 02:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Ched, DeltaQuad is not an arb. – bradv🍁 02:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh? Well then - my stupidity might explain a lot then. — Ched (talk) 03:14, 21 October 2019 (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.

submission at Articles for creation: SUMAN GUPTA

Hello, I request Wikipedia Can you Please help me in creating this article. I have already Created the Draft:SUMAN GUPTA today back but Since Suman Gupta name is in Wikipedia Blacklist only experienced editor can remove that. I request the Wikipedia administrator to check it as the subject matter follows the guidelines of Notability and is worthy for moving to Article space. 2409:4064:319:3668:9989:5EDB:1B86:5CDC (talk) 00:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with this subject area and wouldn't be much help. –xeno^talk 20:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts

Hi Xeno. I thought I'd drop by. I've been following this situation since I commented on the BN thread yesterday, so I have a bit of an idea what's going on. From my outside point of view, we've got two editors I respect going at loggerheads over the CoI policy. Now, paid editing is a big deal on Wikipedia, one that has attracted a lot of debate over the past decade - so I'm not surprised that we have some strong opinions on either side. That leads to RfA's like Greenman's - anyone who might have a financial interest in editing is going to have to work very hard at managing that to become an administrator. I'm willing to debate CoI and paid editing - I see both sides of the argument - but I don't think that's the problem here.

I've stated that I don't think Joe needs to resign for shutting down a debate at his talk page. I stand by that statement, and I think that asking him to resign over a disagreement is an over-reaction. People do not have to agree on everything and it's better that you know someone's views for situations where such knowledge might be relevant.

That leaves one more thing. You seem invested in this RfA, and (as is common on Wikipedia) intent on getting the process to match your point of view. I've done it myself, mentally discounting or giving less weight to views that do not match my interpretation of policy. I don't blame you for doing so. I question, however, the way that you participated in the RfA - asking for more information of opposers. On one interpretation, you were simply clerking the RfA, as 'crats are allowed to do. When combined with your discussions after the RfA, I think it's a shame you didn't simply act as a participant. Declaring that you support or oppose, would have allowed a clear line that you were not acting as a 'crat. It would also have made it clear where you stood in subsequent discussions. The way that you clerked the RfA did lead to some questions as to your neutrality on the subject. Now, I could have completely misread the situation, I just thought you might like to see how it's come across to me. Worm^TT(talk) 16:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your perspective. I will reply in more detail after some days. –xeno^talk 19:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

(tps) WTT, People do not have to agree on everything, but if the accusation of COI hangs over an RfA (the term "doomed" was used and got me interested, I was silent until then), and not a bit of evidence was produced, that feels like the candidate was treated unfairly. Knowing the feeling, I may have overreacted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Response (Xeno)

Thanks for giving me time to compose my thoughts. I've used a numbered list, but the order of statements is not necessarily significant.

Although a community venue, Bureaucrats are the stewards of the RfX process.
From WP:RFA: Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt.
However, bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and/or !votes which they deem to be inappropriate.
Bureaucrats are charged with ensuring a civil discussion, and that both the candidate and the participants are protected from aspersions, personal attacks, and harassment.
Bureaucrats are not required to perform the review of the candidate for the participants.
Bureaucrats are tasked with determining the consensus of those participating.
Bureaucrats should not let their personal belief as to the candidate's suitability affect their judgment or actions when acting as a bureaucrat.
As volunteers offering to take on a greater duty and responsibility towards the project, candidates deserve to be treated fairly and with respect.
Absent compelling reasons or evidence to the contrary the default position is to take contributors at their their word and assume good faith.
RfX are decided on the strength of arguments, not merely the numerical support percentage.
Opinions and commentary should be germane to the candidate or candidacy.
Positions that appropriately apply relevant policies, guidelines, and community norms to support their argument will carry more weight.
Positions that are accompanied with specific diff-based evidence provided will carry more weight than unsubstantiated positions.
Ideally, a statement critical of a candidate will be constructive: providing advice that is specific, measurable, achievable, and realistic, so the candidate can be guided in their future actions.
A violation of the COI guideline (financial) generally concerns edits to the main space.
It is clear from both the TOU and the COI guideline they paid edits are those for which an editor expects to be remunerated directly for same.
The candidate had stated their edits were not paid and we are bound by an assumption of good faith.
To claim an editor is PAID without evidence is considered casting aspersions.
To claim an editor has violated the COI guideline on a particular article without referring to specific edits is at least unfair, and approaches casting aspersions.
There is wide community agreement that an editor should be given specific, diff-based, actionable evidence of their undesirable edits so they may correct their behaviour.
We had administrators, including a sitting arbitrator, suggesting the candidate’s answers were untruthful, calling the candidate a paid editor, and then only reluctantly retracting that statement.
We had editors piling on related to an issue that was not clearly communicated to the editor, nor substantiated upon polite request.
Clearly what people consider to be in violation of the COI guideline runs along a spectrum and reasonable minds can differ.
Without identifying specific edits, it is impossible for bureaucrats or the candidate to know which edits the participants felt were in violation of the guideline.
Was it the version changes? Was it the addition of a source? Was it the removal of the maintenance tag? Some other edit? The whole body of work? The candidate has no idea what any given participant has an issue with because no specific edits of concern were linked.
For people mentioning COI in a vague manner: are they concerned about the edits? Or were the edits okay but they take issue with the late disclosure? If it’s the former, the candidate can modify their editing approach. If it’s the latter, they just have to wait it out and hope for forgiveness. Without knowing, it is difficult to appropriately weigh the strength and scope of the concern.
It is rare for me to participate in an RfA except as a clerk/bureaucrat both because 1) my time is limited so an adequate review of the candidate is often not possible, and 2) to increase the number of uninvolved/available bureaucrats to attend to the closing.
Most individuals going to an RfA will be taking a position, which leaves precious few to actually ensure the candidate and participants are treating each other fairly and with respect.
Some feel I became too invested in the RfA: if I am invested in anything, it is in seeing the RfA candidates are not treated very poorly and unfairly, as was done here.
My goal was never for Greenman’s RfA to be successful, since I did not perform a full review of the candidate and without such diligence would not be able to form my own opinion.
To consider my clarifying queries to be in support of the candidacy is a misreading of my actions and a misunderstanding of my intent.
I don’t see how asking clarifying questions changes the view of one’s neutrality.
The answer to the clarifying question may cause other participants to to support or oppose depending the response, and assists the closing bureaucrat in understanding the scope of the opposition.
There are some that suggest I should have taken a position in the RfA if I felt so strongly the candidate was being treated unfairly: no - it is not a bureaucrat’s job to "put a finger on the scales of consensus” like the speaker of the house in a tie vote.
At best I could have offered a “moral” support which would change the percentage but supporting a candidate just to “cancel out an oppose” is just as inappropriate as an unsubstantiated oppose if I don’t genuinely support the candidate; and again: I did not come to any kind of personal decision as to whether the candidate should have been made an administrator.
If I was wrong in my interpretation of the COI guideline, then I need someone to help me see where the error in my thinking lies.
A sitting arbitrator in theory should be able to engage with me to work this out.
If that person felt some distress from the personalization, then I do apologize, while hoping that it allowed them to understand how the candidate must have felt to be called a paid editor (despite their assertion that they were not) or a COI violator without reasonable grounds or being providing specific evidence.
I was, at all material times, intending to participate as a clerk or bureaucrat with no personal interest in the success or failure of the candidacy.
I watched the RfA as it progressed and certainly may have become invested in trying to ensure Greenman was treated fairly. I will admit to that.
I don’t think that affects my neutrality, as I did not have a personal stake or desire as to whether they were promoted or not, only that they were given an opportunity to see exactly which edits those in opposition had a concern with.
I am perfectly capable of affording full weight to positions with which I personally do not agree that have been appropriately substantiated and grounded in a fair and measured application of policies, guidelines, pillars, and norms.

Worm That Turned: Now that I've got my thoughts to paper, I think I need further assistance in understanding how "asking for more information of opposers ... lead to some questions as to [my] neutrality on the subject". Can you help me to understand that line of thinking? Feel free to refer to any numerical statements above if you feel my assumptions, positions, conclusions, etc. are incorrect. –xeno^talk 01:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

This is an open forum, so would also like thoughts from @Barkeep49, Ched, Serial Number 54129, and El C:, other bureaucrats, interested parties, visitors, well-wishers, or distant relations. –xeno^talk 01:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Fix broken ping to Serial Number 54129. –xeno^talk 01:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Ched

Wow Xeno - that's quite a list you've collected there. Give me a day or two to digest it all, and perhaps I can think of something to say. (like being speechless has ever been a problem for me. ..:)) A couple things come to mind right off the bat. 1.) I had pretty much put all this behind me/us/them/they. 2.) My oppose wasn't based on money, or even COI (other than judgment, such as bumping right up against that guideline, and not mentioning his affiliation until a month or two before running) My oppose centered around judgment, temperament, attitude, and wp:bite. I listed 3 or 4 instances of the 4IM taggings:

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at World Rugby Rankings, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. EditorA (talk) (date stamp)

That's quite a forceful approach for someone to see that after their very first edit - and some of them were actually GOOD edits. There were quite a few more than the 3 or 4 I listed at the RfA, I can throw a dozen or so down for your right now - and only need go back a month or two to find them. A handful of them revolved around a referee being called "blind" after a sporting event, and there were even cases of an Admin following and blocking ... with no further edits after the warning; But I'm campaigning here, and that's not what you're asking for. So, 3.) I hadn't really thought about the "crat's job is to watch RfX" viewpoint - I do apologize for that slip. I can see now that you mention it how important it is for you and other crats to get this right. I try to put myself in the other person's shoes if they are seeking debate, and ~~I suppose~~ I failed ~~one aspect of that here.~~ So much of what I was reading after the RfA close came across (in my eyes and opinion) as Wikipedia:Sour grapes, which has some relevance from our article The Fox and the Grapes. Anyway - I'll read over it in the coming days, and if I have anything to add I'll let you know.

Oh - in retrospect, if I had it to do again, I would have emailed you and not posted on wiki - I'm sorry for that. — Ched (talk) 02:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
No, no, don’t apologize for calling me out in public. If it looks to you like I’m putting my Spiderman suit on and catching a cab to the Reichstag, you call me out on wiki. No hard feelings there. I agree with WTT that asking for JR’s resignation was an overreaction: I was probably heated from being made persona non grata. –xeno^talk 02:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC) (P.S. I find opposes based on substantiated WP:BITE concerns very compelling)

In all fairness, I don't think the JR postings were exactly optimal either, but everyone was having a bad day all the way around.— Ched (talk) 02:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

← I just noticed what I wrote four years ago: I still think that the difficulty a bureaucrat faces in this task ("ask[ing]... people to modify their behaviour") is that we are getting the tag-in at the conclusion of the show. Once we start stepping into the middle of it, it is very difficult to draw the line between bureaucrat and participant. The community set up this gladiatorial process and it's not entirely clear they want us to jump into the ring while the battle is ongoing. We can weigh things afterwards but if we become an active participant, then we are really no longer acting as bureaucrats - we could be seen to lose our impartiality and become involved. We can make proclamations in general from on high or in the market - wag our fingers and suggest people assume good faith and be more trusting - but that might just be seen as pontificating. If someone is being a jerk at RfA, that's a user conduct concern - not really our wheelhouse, isn't it?. Clearly my thinking and approach has evolved (devolved?) since then (probably in reaction to the RfA clerking rfc). –xeno^talk 03:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Barkeep49

Hope you're ok with me continuing this format of sectioning. I appreciate the invitation to reply and as you will soon see I've done so at some length. I hope it is helpful (and if it's not please stop reading and feel no obligation to reply). I choose to address my concerns to you initially on the big picture but unsurprisingly for those who know me I have some thoughts on this part of things too. So many thoughts I'm going to collapse them.

BK's extended thoughts

I think your numbers 1-14 are a good summation of the points they cover and hopefully all find them uncontroversial. I personally think Greenman got a bum rap on the COI bit for many of the reasons you outline - my oppose was more about being out of touch with community norms. I think there's an alternative universe where Greenman addresses the COI stuff differently and it garners a handful of opposes but not enough to sink the RfA. However, I have harder time than you seem to have at saying that so many respected editors don't understand COI.

But the bulk of my thinking starts with 28. I've written my thoughts (also at far too much length) about how I think RfA works at the moment and specifically about what I think it takes for someone to oppose. Currently, opposes, even in an RfA like this, will attract more scrutiny, questions, and expectation of follow-up discussions than supports; this already acts as a bit of a fairness balance for the candidate. I also think some number of people who if forced to cast a vote would oppose instead choose to sit out those RfAs - I can tell you that I've certainly sat out so RfAs rather than oppose and I know Beeblebrox made reference to the same idea at BN. Admittedly my oppose would have been made stronger if I'd linked to the diffs to reference what I was talking about - but how many supports would have been helped by diffs too? I think in the idea that supports or opposes are made stronger with diffs is a good one but that such an expectation shouldn't just fall on opposers. We absolutely need to be fair to the candidate but this doesn't strike me as a situation where being fair to the candidate means we need to accept unfairness to the people they've invited to participate - at least not in the current climate.

But that's all in general. In terms of your actual interactions with Joe, first I think you held him to a higher standard because of his being an arbitrator. This is both fair - he has more influence owing to his position - and unfair - he wasn't trying to use, even implicitly from what I saw, that position in this discussion and just because he's a sitting arbitrator doesn't mean he (or other arbitrators) shouldn't be able to participate in RfA (or only participate as a support in RfAs). Of course he wasn't the only prominent oppose you disagreed with. Before things started with Joe you had an exchange with Tony. This circles back to the idea that I think it's ungenerous to say veteran respected distinguished editors are expressing positions that deserve to be discounted, in part of in whole. Instead I would suggest that opinions supported by diffs deserve extra weight. So more a bonus than a demerit on those that don't have it if that makes sense.

Of course in Joe's mind, as I understand it, diffs were presented via Lourdes. And even more than that, while not presenting a diff Joe literally quoted the candidate (from that page and thus easily verifiable) so it's not like it was just vaguely thrown out there. And further when you asked him for the diff he gave you one. You, among others, found it unconvincing which fair enough.

But what happened next is what I would encourage you to think about twice in the future. You then got into a debate with him about our COI policy, but unlike Joe (in this conversation) did so from a position of authority - it's an active discussion at BN on a topic you had been suggesting should have been a crat chat and thus a situation where you would be able to weigh-in directly. You ended the conversation with Joe on BN in the right place ("I think we can agree that there are substantial disagreements as to how the COI policy should apply in this circumstance - just as you are questioning my interpretation, I am questioning your interpretation. That being said, it's not really a topic for BN and we should probably pick it up at WT:COI."). But maybe arriving there after 8 replies was a few too many given the situation at play.

In reading your response you did convince me of one thing - that you have an obligation, as a crat, to speak-up when you see someone being treated unfairly at RfA. That's a principle I can get behind - and importantly has a basis from the crat clerking RfC. It helps inform, and causes me to soften on some of my judgement on, your interaction with Amanda. But good faith editors, especially editors with a proven record of understanding policy and guidelines, really should have an expectation that you're not going to make them convince you of the righteousness of their policy interpretations in order to have their thinking be fully considered at RfA. I would suggest the bulk of evidence - including your choice to insert yourself into Mr. Ernie's topic at Joe's talk page (and thus not picking it up at a venue like WT:COI) suggests that "All [COI inspired RfA participants] were asked to do was point out the edits they found problematic. If they pointed out some of those incredibly boring version edits, then I’d say “okay, they feel the COI policy prohibits those edits” and take it at face value." wasn't the case. Instead, I read it as you wanting them to convince you that they were right and you were wrong on the policy merits. That, not your feeling that Greenman got an unfair shake of the RfA rattle, is why people were suggesting you should have participated rather than adjudicated. You had strong beliefs on a debatable issue and a desire to debate it and convince others of your position - that's all fine and good in a participant but not, in my way of thinking, of a crat acting in an official capacity. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49: thank you for your thoughtful reply (I've uncollapsed it). I need to circle back. Briefly: Did you mean to say Lourdes instead of Tony? Tony and I interacted at BN but not at the RfA. –xeno^talk 13:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Fix broken ping to Barkeep49 (one day I will get the hang of it). –xeno^talk 13:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I did mean Tony - I will admit I hadn't remember it was you who started the discussion with Lourdes and Joe during the RfA (though I did recall your ping of a bunch of people towards the end). I think the conversation in response to Lourdes as a whole demonstrates my point that participating as an oppose comes with a cost and your particular bit fits with what I've suggested above but admittedly was not on my mind with what I wrote. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49: Thank you for explaining the point of view about neutrality and application of the COI guideline. I appreciate you taking the time to write it out at length. I see where you're coming from.
In a sense, I was wrong on how the guideline would apply to the edits since I didn't notice the 2015 insertion mentioned below in WTT's section, so that certainly could have been pointed out which would have strengthened the position. I think I'll have to offer up a 'mea culpa' on this, for not keeping up with the ever-changing COI guideline and applying it from recall and brief reference rather than full re-examination.
Now, that full re-examination would have happened before any potential participation in or about a bureaucrat chat on the subject, and I probably would have noticed the error highlighted in my question to JJMC89 at that time.
I do think it's important to separate out the RfA from the BN discussion. It's a different audience, different outcome, etc. Indeed there was nothing to adjudicate anymore, once the RfA was closed. It became a discussion about generalities, and I think it was productive. –xeno^talk 15:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

WTT section

What a novelty to have so many sub sections within a user talk page!

Thanks for taking the time to put these thoughts together. I will preface this comment by saying that whilst there is debate to be had on these issues, I have seen no one act so out-right incorrectly that concerns should be raised. COI and paid editing (which are not the same, despite the overlap) are simultaneously extremely bright lines and blurry lines. If you were to take the extreme view that no remuneration or benefit-in-kind is acceptable, then this is a very easy question to answer, but the world is full of shades of grey. I am personally not on this "all paid editing is bad" end of the spectrum, I've seen text poorly written through general bias, lack of knowledge, paid editing, nationalism and many other reasons, and I don't see any one of these issues to be more important than any of the others.

Let's talk about this specific case. Greenman has stated that receives pay from MariaDB. Greenman is also the primary editor to the MariaDB article 126 edits. The next top editor has made 17. These two facts put together are sufficient to a) ask for more information from Greenman on the nature of that relationship and b) oppose no matter what his answer might be. There were more points to this issue, but I highlight these two as a high level explanation which exemplifies the issues that we are dealing with. This is one of those situations where you need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture, which shows the issue as the minutae may not.

You've asked me why your clerking actions might show a lack of neutrality. For one, you commented in the RfA - not explicitly as a voter, but in the discussion (e.g. "You've got it backwards"). One request from you that stands out to me is a request for controversial edits - yet that is a misreading of our policy. What is allowed is unambiguously uncontroversial edits, and what's more the policy gives a very specific list of what constitutes unambiguously uncontroversial. Unlike many Wikipedia policies, it is exhaustive and goes on to say Edits not covered by the above should be discussed on the article's talk page. The phrasing of the request for clarification that you put to JJMC89 gives an impression of leading the response - based on that misreading.

I hope that helps explain my statement regarding the perception on neutrality. I wouldn't want to discourage you from clerking or participating in RfAs in the future, I don't think what you did or said was WRONG^TM by any means. My concern was that it looked like you may have crossed a line into holding an opinion on the candidate which cast doubt on your ability to act as a neutral 'crat subsequently. From point 40, I see that this was largely about your perception of fairness towards the candidate and certainly helps me understand where you were coming from. Worm^TT(talk) 11:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

My immediate response is the (somewhat worrying) realization that I hadn't noticed that part of the guideline that makes it exhaustive. This is exactly why dialog is important. I do see talk page edits by the candidate though. Are they relating to the edits they made? See my point 5. And remember, I was never asking people to withdraw their opposition, merely to ground it so that the candidate can be appropriate guided and treated fairly. I will reply in more detail later as I need to digest both yours and Barkeep49's reply further. –xeno^talk 12:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Xeno, Purely looking at the numbers, Greenman has made 6 edits to the talk page, in comparison to 126 edits to the page. I'm not trying to judge him, I didn't participate in the RfA and I don't doubt that he improved the article, but from my outside point of view he did so in contravention to our community norms (I use the term to allude to point 12). But as I say, this isn't really about Greenman's RfA which I think was handled pretty much correctly in all aspects. Worm^TT(talk) 13:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I found the diff and related discussion that made the "WP:COIU" exhaustive: Special:Diff/679287706 using Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive 21#Non-controversial edits for justification. –xeno^talk 15:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Worm That Turned: Your explanation/follow-up is exemplary; a skilled demonstration of what makes you at once an excellent bureaucrat as well as an effective arbitrator. I’ve absorbed this point of view (with the help of Barkeep49 & others) and in future if I become entrenched in a discussion will explicitly recuse for greater clarity, per MSGJ’s suggestion below. Thanks again for walking me through your thinking. –xeno^talk 01:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment from Martin

A brief comment from me. I participated in the RfA, noticed your contributions and approved of them. However, at the time, I assumed you were also participating in the RfA and never imagined you were acting a bureaucrat. So even though you maintain that you remained neutral at all times, it may be that your edits were simply perceived to be non-neutral. This is sufficient to make recusal a good idea. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping the section active, I do plan to return to it. Just off the cuff, I think I’ve always been willing to recuse on reasonable request or suggestion (pretty sure I commit to that in my RfB). I’ll work on making sure I’m more clear about which hat is being worn in any given contribution (luckily I have less hats on my rack now). –xeno^talk 11:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

hi

Itchyjunk
—usernamekiran(talk) 11:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I remember that one! I think they'd have a very difficult time being appointed administrator with such a name. Looks like they're only lightly active. –xeno^talk 12:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

All over the place

Everywhere I look on my watchlist, there you are, being very helpful. Thanks for picking up on my talk page. It's always good to know you're around. Risker (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Risker. Happy to help =) That poor newbie wouldn't have been able to withstand Brad's verbosity ;> –xeno^talk 13:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Dark and stormy nights

If you enjoy "dark and stormy nights" you must have been delighted with our federal election ...LOL - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Seeing the premiere pull a disappearing act was perhaps the best part of the play! –xeno^talk 14:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

LOL - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019

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

Administrator changes

GermanJoe • Girth Summit • Kees08 • Nosebagbear

DESiegel • GB fan • MSGJ • Voice of Clam • WilyD

DeltaQuad • Fang Aili • Pakaran

Bureaucrat changes

DeltaQuad • Pakaran

Interface administrator changes

MSGJ

CheckUser changes

L235 • Mz7 • SQL • ST47

Ivanvector

DeltaQuad

Oversight changes

L235 • Mz7 • ST47 • Stwalkerster • The Blade of the Northern Lights • Xaosflux

DeltaQuad • DGG • Julia W

Guideline and policy news

An RfC was closed with the consensus that the resysop criteria should be made stricter.

The follow-up RfC to develop that change is now open at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2).

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

Arbitration

Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates for the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections. The self-nomination period will close November 12, with voting running from November 19 through December 2.

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

Hat

Hey xeno, could you take a look at this VPProp discussion and try and get it back on track. I left a message to one editor about not personalizing the discussion, but it's clearly not helped. I'd hat stuff myself but I participated higher up and given my interactions with one of them, doubt it would be received particularly well. Wug·a·po·des 23:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Wugapodes, I looked briefly at the user talk edits, thank you for trying to calm the waters there. Unfortunate response from the editor. I won’t be able to look at this in depth until the EDT nighttime. Is Floquenbeam around? They’re usually good with this stuff. –xeno^talk 12:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, usually don't edit weekends. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Samesies. –xeno^talk 16:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

So I took a look over the discussion, it definitely seems to have come off the rails a little bit with some back and forth sniping but ultimately the thread itself seemed more of a fact finding and opinion gathering rather than a formal proposal. I’ll be the first to admit that I’m less than a novice when it comes to the manual of style. What I can gather is that some people think we should go back to 100% font in those templates? Maybe a well-advertised RfC at a relevant manual of style talk page would be a good next step? (basically what Izno said) @Sturmvogel 66 and Wugapodes: Thoughts? –xeno^talk 01:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I've kinda written the VPProp thread off as a loss at this point, but I think an RfC would be a good idea. Wading through the desysop RfC is taking a fair bit of my time, but if Sturmvogel 66 sets something up I'm willing to help write up the technical bits that I mentioned at the pump. Wug·a·po·des 01:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I've never done an RFC before so give me some time to poke around so I can figure out how to do it properly. Rather than on one of MOS talk pages, it might be better to do it on the CS1 talk page since we're going to alter how the code works for the templates, based on this apparently closely related RFC. What do y'all think?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I would say it should be at WT:Citing sources which is the main MOS page. If I understand the scope correctly, the RfC would be about whether all citation styles should be rendered at 100% font height. The italics discussion you mentioned was limited in scope to Citation Style 1 while this would affect the way any non-inline citation style is rendered. Plus the change would be in MediaWiki:Common.css rather than any particular citation template (except {{Refbegin}} which uses Template:Refbegin/styles.css, but that template can and maybe should be edited to use the standard .reflist class). Wug·a·po·des 00:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, you've convinced me. Glad I asked, actually.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

100,000

So I don't normally keep track of this type of thing, but the notification system has informed me I've made my one hundred thousandth edit. Drinks and hors d'oeuvre are on me, with warm regards to all the shiny wiki people out there. –xeno^talk 01:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

And no wonder some people have told me I'm a "barely active admin". I haven't broken 30,000 across all projects yet. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions. Risker (talk) 01:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Try being a (formerly) highly active renamer. –xeno^talk 01:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Many congrats on reaching 100K Xeno. I was going to drop off an award but Chris beat me to it :-) I can leave this template {{User 100,000 edits}} in case you want to add it to your user page. Many thanks for all your work here at the 'pedia!! MarnetteD|Talk 06:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Large round numbers are auspicious

	100,000 edits Star
	Congratulations on pressing the "publish changes" button one hundred thousand times, or having a machine semi-automate part of the process. Had you stopped at 99,999 we wouldn't make much of it. I only wish I could have given you the award before you noticed. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Joining the chorus! And so many of them good edis! Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

You were quicker than me

You were right to undo my edit and I was about to do the same. Thanks for thinking for me. Regards So Why 11:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, sorry for the brusque summary- in a rush. –xeno^talk 11:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

No worries. If I make a mistake, you are right to criticize me, even brusquely.

Regards So Why 11:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 - ?

Have you considered running for ArbCom in the upcoming elections? I think you'd be an excellent candidate. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

You'd certainly have my support. — Ched (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

← Yikes.

I coined a phrase to myself earlier this year, the Newyorkbrad Index. It measures community satisfaction with the current arbitration committee by how many requests NYB gets to re-take their seat on the committee.

I'd also be pleased seeing Risker back in there, though I understand they're taken on a number of other responsibilities.

And last to throw under the bus would be Carcharoth, they should do another stint.

I'd like to see a non-administrator candidate get through as well, I think there's a number of thoughtful non-administrators that could provide balance. –xeno^talk 16:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

You're not an admin.... -Floquenbeam (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Damn, got me on a technicality. –xeno^talk 16:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Ahh geez, Xeno, and here I thought we were friends. How could you wish Arbcom on me if you were my friend???? Risker (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Ha - my initial reaction was to think back to what I'd done to wrong Reaper Eternal =) –xeno^talk 17:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Heh. I was thinking more of what you (Risker) said here ("It's a dispute resolution body, not the grand poobahs of Wikipedia. I know, I sat on Arbcom for 5 years."), here ("Yes, we need new faces"), here ("They're not political posts, they're work assignments"), here ("we as a community are almost going out of our way to avoid developing people who will be able to fill these roles 2-3-5 years down the road; in fact, we're recycling arbitrators to the point of absurdity, and doing nothing to fix that problem.") and here ("We are not renewing the committee; in other words, we are not growing new leadership. This is a significant failure on the part of the community."). Especially the last two diffs. The funny thing is, apart from not having the time, the thing that makes me least likely to run again is working with the same people as before. But it is almost impossible to run and not end up working with someone who was on ArbCom previously. The dynamic is different each time around, over and above the changes in people's personal lives and the changes in Wikipedia over the years (that makes it both an exciting and a daunting prospect). I really do hope that lots of new people step up to take on the challenge. Carcharoth (talk) 17:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I read the 'Rome' and subsequent post as well (and largely agree with Risker), yet there's something to be said for the institutional memory and experience of having a good idea of what will de-escalate and what will lead to further community discord. (And you're both 'contributors matter' people.) So yes to new faces, but with institutional memory baked in as well. Just my humble opinion. –xeno^talk 17:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I confirm that this lack of renewal and new faces is actually my biggest issue with Arbcom today. If I was looking for new blood, I'd suggest someone like Barkeep49, who's hardworking, been around a while, but is still fairly fresh-faced as an admin. If I didn't think it would turn him into a complete Wikipedia cynic, I'd suggest TheDJ as a (currently) non-admin with great tech background. But yes, Arbcom is a work assignment, not a sinecure or a political post. The longer one is on the committee, the more likely that one forgets that point. Risker (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

By all appearances, Barkeep49 would make an excellent arbitrator; but wouldn’t that risk taking a brand new matchbook and igniting the entire thing? –xeno^talk 10:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

You say that like it's a bad thing. :-) Risker (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Matchbook here - though I actually think a candle might be a better metaphor. I think of Rob as an instructive example. I wonder if he'd waited another year if he'd have burned out or if his "wax" would have had more time to firm up more and thus there'd have been more to burn over a long period of time. I don't think we have a fixed amount to give to Wikipedia because at certain times we can get refilled with purpose and so does going on ArbCom too quickly mean that we give less overall? I don't know and obviously Rob and I are different in many ways (place in life, disposition, and the fact that I have his example to think about) but I throw that out there for consideration. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, that's definitely a good metaphor. In 2013, I became an arbitrator, but I had significantly burned out by the end of 2014 and it was pure stubbornness that meant I remained. At the time I was still fairly fresh-faced and keen. A year earlier I also ran but was knocked back, I was even more keen then. I came out the other side jaded and grumpy, and it took me quite a while to find my place on Wikipedia again. This term, however, I would definitely consider my wax hardened - I have managed the whole term without only one wobble (and given the circumstances, well, I think it's justified).

If you are willing to come onto the committee, I think you'd do well there, but do be prepared for the down sides, of which there are plenty. Worm^TT(talk) 14:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

My best advice to you and any person considering ArbCom is probably the same—you will find it much easier if you disregard optics and politics and just focus on doing the job well. Most of the snafus I recall during my time (that I remember—there's a blissful haze over much of it this far removed :P) were invariably made worse by attempts to reduce drama that instead inflamed it. It's no way to stay sane. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

What is this, Ac Pointe Blank reunion, Class of 2010? Don’t feel left out David, you’re a good egg too. And “blissful haze” says it all. –xeno^talk 15:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Just noting that you would have my vote also, you're pretty much what I'd like to see in a candidate, thoughtful, articulate and willing to change your mind - though (and I could be misremembering), were you not inactive for a significant period of your last term? That might put off a few voters given the inactivity problems we've been having recently. Worm^TT(talk) 11:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

(xeno 2012 edits - live count 126) I was inactive on almost all matters (and the project generally) for the final 11 months of my 2-year term (Special:Diff/473546506) due to unforeseen life circumstances and time limitations (Special:Diff/526585850). My major contribution of 2012 was organizing the AUSC selections, where I was pleased to oversee the appointment of a non-administrator to CUOS permissions (Special:Diff/479685278) - I believe for the first time project history. (They went and acquried admin rights shortly after, the blighter.) That 1 March 2012 diff represents the final arbitration action of my term, though I may have contributed to mailing list discussions (probably very sparsely).

I appreciate the kind words from all. Life continues to keep me fairly occupied. –xeno^talk 12:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I think I should expand a bit on my "not a bad thing" comment above. The year I was first elected to Arbcom (election in 2008, seated in 2009) was also what might have been considered a "crisis" year for Arbcom. Things were going pretty wonky, at least one arb took it upon themselves to act "on behalf of the committee" without the actual consent or agreement of the committee, and Arbcom was pretty much twisting in the wind with respect to its effectiveness. We started 2009 with a committee that had only a tiny number of arbs who had sat on the committee before. But enough of ancient history. The bottom line is that this is a really important opportunity for the English Wikipedia community to renew and reinvigorate the Arbitration Committee, just as it had in 2008/09. This *is* the time for folks to put their name forward and take Arbcom in a healthier direction. It's a rare window of opportunity and we as a community need to have the courage to take the leap. Risker (talk) 16:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
An exciting prospect, to be sure. Make sure you encourage folks somewhere other than the relative backwoods of my talk page ;>. –xeno^talk 16:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, I'll take that as a hint that I should spam some other people with no Arbcom experience to suggest they consider running. That may wind up being trickier than I first thought, since I've been spending a lot of time on global projects, but I've now hit up a few. Risker (talk) 06:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Risker you and I have had the discussion before and I fully understand the reasons why you won't, but I still wish you were back on that committee. If I weren't so old and jaded I'd probably make another attempt to run. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 - break

← ...aaand we’re off. I’m still leaning heavily to sit back, especially due to time considerations. I’d be pleased to see a refresh of the committee per Risker but still would be relieved if NYB could be drafted for another sail, if only because he’s part of the hull at this point and the ship needs righting. –xeno^talk 13:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, keep in mind that you'd still do a fine job; your term was long enough ago that I'd not really consider it a repeat in the same way as someone who's completed two full terms already. But..."ACECANDY"...??? that sounds like something a creepy man in a van would offer small children... Risker (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

It’s not my creation! It makes me think of “All [You] Can Eat Candy”, though we might need such a van to round up candidates! –xeno^talk 10:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Worm That Turned is a welcome re-up and easy support. –xeno^talk 16:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I recall opening days being quiet but I think this is unusual? I’d imagine there’s a significant chilling effect in place, not wanting to be on a committee with the final outcome of the T&S consultation still awaiting closure and subsuquent digestion by the Foundation. –xeno^talk 19:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- I think it's been this slow the last couple of years. Often very very few noms until a couple of days before the deadline. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  - Makes sense. Do the late entries just get blasted with 30 questions as soon as they throw their name in? –xeno^talk 19:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
    - There is a period of a week between the end of nominations and the beginning of voting. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  - FWIW, last year's timeline was: 4 Nov: +0, 5 Nov: +3, 6/7 Nov: +0, 8 Nov: +2, 9 Nov: +1, 10 Nov: +0, 11/12 Nov: +2, 13 Nov: +5 SQL^{Query me!} 21:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
    - For anyone else, it probably would be weird to spend 30 mins writing 100 lines of code to get some stats... But here we are! SQL^{Query me!} 22:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
      - Automate all the things! –xeno^talk 22:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
        I'm thinking about feeding it to php-ml (maybe using k-NN?) to see what it would predict for this year's tallies. SQL ^{Query me!} 22:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
        SQL: Would that take into account typical withdrawal rates? –xeno^talk 13:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  Personally, I like to think that most candidates are so modest that they are waiting to see if no one better is willing to run before "sacrificing" themselves to do it. Regards So Why 17:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Stalk v hound

I've replaced some usages of the term "stalk", a word referring to an action that is considered criminal in many juridictions, with "hound" (or variants) as a clerk action. I have not replaced the usages used in general, or those used by the aggrieved parties. This action can be appealed to WP:BN. –xeno^talk 18:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
I understand your intention xeno, though I'm not convinced that "hounding" is a less offensive word to "stalking". For me, for example, "stalking" is a more neutral word than "hounding". Stalking suggests some form of surveillance which may or may not be negative. Whereas "hounding", for me, is pretty much always a negative. It is likely that the editors who have used the word "stalk" did intend to use it in a negative context, though I'm not convinced that any of them intended to use it in a legal context, and it is possible that some may have intended the softer definition of following ("stalking") rather than harassing ("hounding"). Replacing "stalk" or "stalking", a word which may or may not have negative connotations, with "hound" or "hounding", a word which does have negative connotations, though well intended, could potentially (though highly unlikely) create the very situation you are aiming to avoid. Essentially, what I am thinking is that it is not worth changing what people have said given the dubious value of doing it. SilkTork (talk) 03:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for coming here first SilkTork, but at this point I really need other bureaucrats or uninvolved clerk users to figure out what to do from here. I’d prefer to drop the words “stalk” and “hound” and instead have people just refer to what happened as an unfortunate and ill-advised “following” to other articles incident. My concern was that people might feel this is far too much “sanitization” so I went with the closest wiki-term to what was alleged to have happened.
The candidate appears to edit under their real name. My major concern is hosting a page where participants have repeatedly accused the editor of, what is in many jurisdictions, a criminal act. People searching for the candidate may come across the page and not realize that, for some users, following them to another article is a form of “stalking” in a sense of the word not reaching the level of criminality. But that is context available to users familiar with the project and our norms, which can be quite opaque to the unwashed masses who are not part of the game.
If someone wants to re-clerk my words from “hounding” to “following”, I’m fine with that. If you think it would be best to restore the word “stalker”, then please appeal to BN as suggested.
Let me know what you think. –xeno^talk 08:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
This is not a formal complaint or questioning of a Crat action, but one person speaking collegiately to another in the form of "I understand why you did that, but I'm not sure it was the right thing to do." In general on Wikipedia we don't like to alter the record of what someone has said, and altering the record to what appears at best to be no good effect, and may possibly be a negative effect, is something to think carefully about. I'm not coming down in favour of any particular action, but thought it would be helpful to share my views with you. SilkTork (talk) 09:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
It is helpful, and my suggestion for it to be appealed (or not even appealed but raised elsewhere for further study) should not be taken as a “go away and ask someone else” but as a “xeno is out here on their own and wishes more uninvolved parties would lend their voices”. I agree with you that replacing stalk with hound isn’t perfect, do you have a different word suggestion other than stalk or hound? As I said, the strength of feeling of those using these terms wouldn’t really be captured by “followed”. –xeno^talk 09:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I understand the action, and indeed think that some say "stalk" when they meen "follow", but those wo read "stalk" understand "stalk". I see aggrieved parties, and hope crats will be able to tell the difference. I'm just back from vacation, want to expand an article for Christmas (has to be today if for DYK), so have no time for this whole thing, and as I seem to have aggrieved the same parties without knowing how, I probably better stay away anyway. I follow editors, a lot, - can't write a Precious without doing so. (I believe I wrote one for all aggrieved parties, DYK?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

← Certainly if my clerk edit has introduduced more negativity than what was intended I’d be fine if any of the editors whose comments were changed would like to replace my “hound” with “follow”. –xeno^talk 09:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not a follower of any user, but that doesn't mean I haven't looked into the contributions of other users for a whole variety of reasons. However, following the contributions of someone you're in conflict with, and editing pages they are working on can be felt as an uncomfortable presence. Such following doesn't have to have a malicious or negative intention to be perceived as such by the person being followed, and changing the name or the intention doesn't always negate the way it has been perceived. Someone walking behind you on a dark lonely street at night can be creepy regardless of the intention of the person behind or what we name the walking. SilkTork (talk) 09:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Quite right. My concern is that the nuance you’re describing will be lost on someone searching for the candidate by name and stumbling on a several hundreds-Kb page referring to the person as a “stalker”. They won’t likely be able to decipher the difference. They’ll just put the candidate’s resume into the circular file, for example. –xeno^talk 09:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

← Replaced clerked insertions of “hounding” with “unwanted following” in Special:Diff/925181677 to address concerns raised by SilkTork above and Iridescent here. –xeno^talk 10:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

re: Let me know what you think. –xeno. OK, since you asked. I think all this political correctness in the world today is ~~bullshit~~ (no male cow actually defecated here) nonsense and it ~~pisses me off~~ (nobody actually urinated here) makes me wonder what &$@@ <whatever word is allowed> is wrong with (insert: some of the) people today. Note: My post is not intended to reflect on Xeno or anyone on this page, it's just a general comment about the world today. — Ched (talk) 15:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

And further: it IS real even if it's just "on the Internet". Real kids do real damage to classmates, peers, acquaintances by what they post on the web. So stalking is stalking - and I don't give a f'ing shit if it's here on wiki, or out in the real world. Trying to soft soap crap because it might "offend" someone is doing a hell of a lot more damage to kids today than the real words every could. — Ched (talk) 15:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I fully agree with you that words on the internet have real and serious real world consequences: it is exactly why I am concerned about the word choice being employed therein. –xeno^talk 16:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost reprinted a nice essay on this topic: Wikipedia is in the real world. "Stalking" is incredibly serious, and because of that we should not use it lightly. Wanton use risks semantic bleaching which lessens the perceived severity of the act denoted by the word. F¢or the reasons mentioned, this has implications both on and off Wikipedia. Participants should give this a lot of thought and words should not be chosen lightly. Even hounding, which denotes a similar intent to intimidate, carries a seriousness that we should keep in mind and be wary of weakening. I think xeno has done a good job giving people the opportunity to think more carefully about their characterization of events even if they ultimately choose to revert the clerking. Wug·a·po·des 00:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Language

Hi Xeno. Can I ask your opinion of this comment, particularly the use of the word "abused", which is highly emotive and wholly inaccurate in the context of the opposing comments at the GRuban RfA. Those offering negative comments are not being "abusive", they are justifiably giving their honest held views, that just so happen to be on the opposite side of the argument to the supporters. As lined out in the OED, the definition of "abused" means "of a person or animal, treated with cruelty or violence, especially regularly or repeatedly." As I'm sure you can appreciate, this word is fundamentally wrong in this context. For Ad Orientum to effectively call people "abusers" for daring to have a differing opinion, is disgraceful. I've posted to GRuban's talk page. Let's see where it gets me, but I really do think people, especially admins, should be more savvy when it comes to their choice of language. By the way, I come here on the back of your recent opposing views with regards to the use of the term "stalking", which upon reflection, I now happen to agree with. Best regards. Cassianto^Talk 19:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Briefly and without examining in depth because I am on a short timeframe, I agree that we should all as participants try to avoid inflammatory language when describing the other participants’ behaviour. To suggest that those raising concerns are being abusive is no better than to suggest some ill-advised unwanted following makes someone a stalker. If the intent was not malicious, using terms that inherently ascribe malicious intent is not fair. Ad Orientem would you be willing to replace the term “abused” with “treated”? Certainly lamenting about how the candidate is being treated (e.g. participants being overly critical, or slow/unwilling to forgive, and the like) is a more understandable perspective that differing reasonable minds can accept. –xeno^talk 22:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment amended. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both. –xeno^talk 03:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

We need a few more bureaucrats

Some people should run. –xeno^talk 18:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Xeno, yes I agree. Maxim_(talk) 19:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why? It's seemed to me that the crats by and large don't have much work other than routine inactivity desysops now that renaming is global. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Other than the brand new hot plate duty, maintaining appropriate tone at RfA. There are only sixteen bureaucrats, many long in the tooth. –xeno^talk 23:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

We could always use some more admins too :cough: :cough: — xaosflux ^Talk 21:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

You’ll see something hopeful in my meta thank log. –xeno^talk 23:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

? SQL ^{Query me!} 01:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

meta:Special:Diff/19526784 ← this one! –xeno^talk 09:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I heard great things about that "Xeno" guy. He should definitely run!

Regards So Why 08:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Careful what you wish for, I may run Xeno 3 to make sure I’ve not come off the rails! –xeno^talk 09:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

*goes to watchlist Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Xeno 3* So Why 09:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I've long felt Xeno clearly had too much time on his hands - between ARBCANDY and Xeno 3, that should keep him out of trouble! ;) Nosebagbear (talk) 09:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Definitely going to need some more bureaucrats if my bid is successful. While bureaucrats don’t have work all of the time, they have a lot of work some of time! –xeno^talk 11:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
So we should vote against you for ArbCom to see Xeno 3? Regards So Why 13:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
You should vote against me as an act of kindness; clearly my judgment was impaired last night. –xeno^talk 13:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Wasn't there a line about how running for office automatically disqualifies you from holding said office?
But if running means one's judgment is impaired, I really should reconsider launching a bid myself. Regards So Why 13:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
You’d be excellent in the role. But it’s rarely enjoyable, it’s a duty. –xeno^talk 13:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
We’re saved, Newyorkbrad finally realized the music stopped and he’s sitting back down. –xeno^talk 18:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

and David Fuchs! What good fortune. Typo: “than in was” → “than it was” –xeno^talk 20:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

RfA

You may have missed my reply to your comment although I pinged you. This is interesting and possibly an idea for reform that could be seriously looked at. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

If I understand it, you’re suggesting we should start signifying which arguments we feel do not carry the day during the candidacy, somehow affecting the numeric representation of the S/O percentage? It sounds complicated and potentially messy... You’ll have to explain more if I’m not getting it. The bureaucrats aren’t generally the ones looking in the sock drawer either, remember. –xeno^talk 03:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

In principle, yes, and I think the possibility, if not yet the details, should be examined. A recent informal discussion carried the consensus that RfA is a discussion, not a numerical yes/no/undecided vote. It might sound messy, but the decision to remove a vote would be at the discretion of highly trusted clerks. I do realise that the 'crats don't necessarily have access to the CU tools, but they should be able to recognise suspicious votes. A recent discussion at WT:RfA ruled out the blanket CU of all voters, but I (and others) are still not convinced that this would violate any policies. I'm naturally disappointed in the outcome of the Gruban RfA, but according to current practice, the community has spoken. I'm nevertheless still as convinced as I have been for over 10 years that something at RfA needs to be made drastically more equitable. There is a discussion here which might possibly interest you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Iw-ref

Template:Iw-ref has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 10:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Support

Hey guy, What's up

Wanna cite that I supported at elections.

Regards:

SHISHIR DUA (talk) 14:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the note :) happy editing, –xeno^talk 14:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

QAI?

Gerda Arendt do we have any way of tracking, recognizing, and thanking these large scale article improvements by students like Special:Diff/927325445? I only came across it because the article happened to be on my watchlist. –xeno^talk 02:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and you found it! The user is now on my watchlist. I'm so busy right now that I didn't get even to the Precious of yesterday, have a DYK about a Britten composition, on his birthday on St. Cecilia's day, and a SG?, same thing in German about our choir's last concert (pictured), so you will need patience for a better answer. - Want o become a member? (great company pf banned and blocked users in the cabal of the outcast ...) Then you can do it yourself ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Cookies!

Just wanted to thank you for clarifying the proposal for new !voters at the archive box TfD when I was away! I really respect your ability to change your mind about something you've had strong opinions about for a long time, it's a real sign of carefully examining the arguments before making up your mind and something I've always wanted to become better at. It's a pleasure working with you! ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Dude! Where were you years ago? Why wasn't it just fixed before? I mean, a redirect is still a wrapper, it's just the most complete wrapper we have. –xeno^talk 23:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Trialpears - now closed as merge: would you kindly do the needful? Thank you! –xeno^talk 14:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Trialpears: Looks like Wugapodes took care of the technical merge. Maybe double check. Why is this a redlink? –xeno^talk 15:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
(Oh, I see you started editing this year. Some participants might think you're too green.) –xeno^talk 15:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I've taken a look and restored to the old version temporarily, just so the 30ish that will be negatively impacted can be fixed using the tracking category. Will take care of them in a few hours when the categories are back in order. For that redlink, I'm really not ready; my tenure is very short and content creation negligible as well as no AfD or counter-vandalism work to speak of. Perhaps I'll fix that in a year or two, but right now it's just too soon. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Trialpears: Something seems broken (look to the box^) –xeno^talk 16:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Fixed now, the issue was that both the edit to Archives and Archive box had to be undone, but I only undid archive box one since I didn't think it through properly. Thanks for catching that. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 16:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for splitting the comments off: I didn't mean it to spin out into an extended conversation, but hoped that some people would self-moderate themselves not to comment on every !vote. At least where it is it can be thrashed out a bit more, but I suspect little will change. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Not your fault, it will always tend to the general in that section. I’ve always wanted to try new experimental layouts for RfA. I just don’t know how we get there with the current inertia. –xeno^talk 20:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi xeno, I'm sure I've seen a bot that allows a check up on the voting history of users. Could you point me in the general direction, or am I misremembering it? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

SQL was this your tool: https://www.toolserver.org/~sql/rfap.php and does it have an updated version? –xeno^talk 18:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah ha! Found it - https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/rfastats.html, if you're interested. (Although this doesn't seem to be working at the moment either!) - SchroCat (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Xeno, Do you remember what it used to do? SQL ^{Query me!} 04:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

SQL, as I recall, you could put in the name of the user, and it would spit out their RFA voting history, split into supports (summary number plus list of RFAs supported), opposes (summary number plus list of RFAs opposed), and neutrals (summary number plus list of RFAs with neutral vote). I think there was also some information on total number of RFAs that included RFAs that the script wasn't able to sort into one of the three categories. Risker (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019

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

Administrator changes

EvergreenFir • ToBeFree

Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

Beeblebrox

Deskana

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

Guideline and policy news

An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
Following a proposal, the edit filter mailing list has been opened up to users with the Edit Filter Helper right.

Technical news

Wikimedia projects can set a default block length for users via MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry. A new page, MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry-ip, allows the setting of a different default block length for IP editors. Neither is currently used. (T219126)

Arbitration

Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 2 December 2018 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous

The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.

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

JBW may have found my hidden pressure point: excommunicated... –xeno^talk 13:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, if even when I think I am being nice about someone I am wounding them, I may as well give up and just become evil. EH (talk) Formerly HenryJekyll 21:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Dear Admin pls review new page

Dear can you please review this page Dhanush Babu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shubhamghodke3904 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, this isn't really my area of expertise. What specifically did you want reviewed in the article? –xeno^talk 19:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Having looked at the article, I think what it needs is an expansion of sources followed by a little rewriting for better flow. {You don't need an admin for that.} You might ask for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Winter sports. Jonathunder (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Der Ring in Minden

You pinged me above, but it's no topic I'm interested in. Der Ring in Minden finally appeared on DYK today, - my opera experience of the year. Part of the hook, "... to listen to the music at the end", would be a good motto ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Top work- thank you! –xeno^talk 17:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Let’s talk about adminship

Previous discussion: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates/Xeno#Question

During the scrutineering period, I’d like to gather some candid opinions about adminship, administrative tools, and arbitration.

I’m going to place some questions and statements and anyone should feel free to post answers to the questions, or sign their name to statements, or post new statements to sign or questions to consider on this topic.

All advisory and exploratory, and if I’m elected I will take all comments into account, though some are mutually exclusive.

–xeno^talk 00:42, 3 December 2019‎ (UTC)

Those who (Newslinger—Peacemaker67—Gerda Arendt—Cassianto—WereSpielChequers—Collect—Caker18—Nosebagbear—SQL—Lingzhi2) Also who (Carrite—Praxidicae—Banedon—Piotrus—Gadfium—Volunteer Marek—Winged Blades of Godric—Jehochman—FeralOink—Robert McClenon) Also also who (Pharaoh of the Wizards—Grillofrances) asked questions: I am seeking a wider range of views on the topics below, feel free to add input and thank you for your interest in my candidacy. –xeno^talk 19:57, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Let’s talk about adminship (necessity)

Are administrative tools necessary for an arbitrator’s work? Why?

Yes.The committee is both judge and jury, but they have to weight up the community's input. It is is not unusual for community comments during a case to be speculative, indeed occasionally blatant lies. In order to check on the veracity of some statements, they will need access to deleted material (as Arbs they have already been granted the power to view oversighted content).

A judge is also responsible for order in his courtroom. Not all admins follow or participate in Arbcom cases, so it may be necessary for an Arb to block or ban a disruptive influence. However, this is just a theory because I don't know how often - if at all - this has been necessary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but that doesn't mean a candidate needs to be an admin. For the period a member is on Arbcom, they'll have the tools they need. --valereee (talk) 04:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Right, either the OS or the CU package shows deleted edits. –xeno^talk 12:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

While on the committee, I regularly look at deleted and suppressed materials. Therefore, I find the toolkit to be essential to my work. To my recollection, I've not needed to take any active admin actions since Arbcom blocks have become less common. I was in the same position as you 2 years ago and decided that it was right to pick the tools back up. Worm^TT(talk) 12:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Would OS be sufficient for this? –xeno^talk 12:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Xeno, Looking at it, perhaps yes - the OS role does cover all scenarios I think of as important admin roles. Worm^TT(talk) 14:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, at least to view deleted contributions. You need full access to the facts. Jehochman ^Talk 00:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I think this one is obvious. Volunteer Marek 06:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Administrative tools are not necessary for an arbitrator’s work (because...)

In my own imaginary ideal world it is because arbitrators should primarily focus on dispute resolution - not investigations or enforcement -- but moreso because most arbs will give themselves CU/OS and these have overlapping permissions with the admin tool set. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

+1 --valereee (talk) 04:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Quite clearly the requirements for Arbcom candidates do not stipulate that Admin. tools MUST be held. It follows that they are NOT required / necessary. [[User:

caldron|Leaky caldron]] (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

If by "admin tools" you mean +sysop, no. I doubt any arbitrator needs mergehistory or changetags to do their work. If by "admin tools" you mean the ability to view deleted material, yes, but checkuser and OS grant that ability so +sysop isn't required. Wug·a·po·des 01:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Technically, +sysop is not needed as mentioned above. In my opinion however, experience with the tools is somewhere from very helpful to needed as one of the roles of the committee is to evaluate misuse of the tools, and revocation of the tools. SQL ^{Query me!} 20:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't see arbitrators as needing to issue blocks, protect or delete pages, or change user permissions themselves, so most of the administration toolkit is not needed. Viewing deleted content I think is essential, but oversight gives that ability. I'm not sure if being able to edit a full-protected page has ever been relevant to arbs, perhaps there are full-protected templates which arbitrators need to update, but most likely that would be done by clerks.-gadfium 21:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Reading further down this page, it looks like arbs often get email requests for urgent page suppressions and protections, so perhaps protect/delete is more important for arbs than I had realised.-gadfium 21:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Not required in order to carry out the mandatory duties of an arbitrator. Whether or not one can get elected when one is not an admin is a different question, and the answer to that one may well be "yes". I assume this is a hypothetical, since I don't view you as a non-admin, but instead an admin who has elected to take a hiatus; you get the bits back 24 hours after a request, so this doesn't apply to you personally. Risker (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Valereee, Arbs are given the necessary tools, so there is no need for an Arb to already be an admin. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

No, but they are useful. Long story short, someone elected to the adminship should also got o RfAdm and apply for adminship, I find it hard to believe they'd be denied adminship at that point anyway. A case of an editor trusted to be an Arbitrator but not an admin would be pretty bizarre indeed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Philosophically, I have a problem with the only-Admins-can-be-Arbs principle. In practice, the ability to read deleted files, revision deletions, etc. has to be a very big requirement of the job. I think tools should automatically follow any non-Admin who might be elected, although the community has discussed this matter and rejected that idea previously. I think any non-Admin who happened to win a seat on the committee (and that will happen someday) should probably immediately run through the RFA process. I'm sure the sledding would be easy. Carrite (talk) 05:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Let’s talk about adminship (responsibility)

Would it be irresponsible to not re-take administrator tools as arbitration work sometimes presents urgent actionable situations requiring blocks, protections, or deletions?

No, because a user who has never been to RfA and therefore cannot "re-take administrator tools" could theoretically be elected to the arbitration committee. Requiring you to do so would, by that line of reasoning, be unfair. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC) +1 Wug·a·po·des

Quite clearly the requirements for Arbcom candidates do not stipulate that Admin. tools MUST be held. It follows that they are NOT required / necessary even by a previous holder. It would be irresponsible to re-take them, although not technically capable of being prevented in most cases (no clouds). Leaky caldron (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Leaky caldron: ~~are you missing a "not" there?~~ –xeno^talk 18:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Where would you like me to put one, Xeno? :) Leaky caldron (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Maybe not? It's irresponsible to take tools - could you unpack that one for me? –xeno^talk 19:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Based on the premise that an elected AC member is not currently an Admin., but has entitlement by virtue of some established right I do not think that they should insist on the return of the tools simply because they have gained a place on the AC. "Irresponsible" might be a bit strong - inappropriate maybe. Leaky caldron (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC) +1 Wug·a·po·des

Thank you for explaining. Based on what WTT said, they did not recall any specific instance where they had to use their admin-specific tools (CU/OS notwithstanding). It is possible that other arbitrators were simply quicker to attend to the more immediate issues sent to the mailing list that required the use of blocking or protection tools. –xeno^talk 19:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe so. If you needed something urgently deleted, protected, or blocked - I'm positive that one could find an admin (or functionary if needed) to do so quickly and easily. Either on IRC, Discord, or various mailing lists. SQL ^{Query me!} 21:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with SQL. I've always found #wikipedia-en-admins helpful in getting prompt feedback or assistance. Pressumably any non-admin arb would be welcome to join that channel.-gadfium 21:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it's better for Arbitrators not to perform blocks, protections or other actions that might be controversial because of Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?. Jehochman ^Talk 00:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

If so, doesn’t that really mean that no non-administrator should be an arbitrator, or that a non-administrator in a successful candidacy should be granted adminship pro tempore?

No, as doing so would be require granting adminship without an RfA, which is an egregious violation of procedure. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

IMO being an admin is, or should be, a prerequisite for Arbcom. However, it's debatable which of the electoral systems are the fairest or which practice the highest bar. Arbs get CU & OS without the public scrutiny which goes with applying for the jobs, but they may not have the technical knowledge for CU even if they have sufficiently mature discretion as as admins for the OS tool. But should Arbs get the sysop tool kit automatically? I don't think so. Pro tempore? No - some arbs have been known to be on the Committee for five years or more; how temporary is that? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

If the rule was that any non-admin elected to Arbcom gets the bit during their tenure, then any voter voting for that non-admin would be giving their consent for the bit with their vote–like an Arbcom election and RfA rolled in one. It's inconceivable to me that any editor who would win an Arbcom seat would not pass an RfA–like if you're elected mayor, you'd also probably get elected as dog catcher–so I don't see why bundling the bit with an Arbcom seat would be controversial. If they were bundled, I can't imagine anyone using that as a way to game the system by getting a bit without an RfA, because an Arbcom candidacy is way worse than an RfA–much more scrutiny, for a longer time. – Levivich 04:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC) +1 Wug·a·po·des

The criteria, bar, and level of scrutiny are very different for admins and arbs. There is no bar apart from 50% to being an Arb. RfA is a very demeaning process, both in the way the candidates are treated and the way the voters behave towards each other. Anyone who survives an RfA has proven themselves a worthy candidate for Arbcom. That said, the two jobs have different mindsets: Adminship is a mix of social and technical skills, while Arbcom is a mix of social skills and analysis. There are people who are reasonably good admins who I would not want on the Committee, and there are, or have been, people on the Committee whom I don't trust with the tools and discretion of admins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

KP, I'm not asking you to name names or anything, but do you really feel that there are actual editors whom you would trust with CU and OS, but would not trust with block and delete? – Levivich 04:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

You should know by now Levivich, that one of my pet hates is when people take me out of context - it causes me to yell in my own boardroom! There are admins whom I would trust with CU and OS but who I would not like making judgment calls in the Committee. There is far more to being an Arb than mashing the buttons at OS or on the CU control panel, in fact from what I understand, very few of the Committee members actually use those tools very often. I think possibly OS could be bundled with adminship, and CU a simple request at PERM for people who are already admins. There are, or have been, Committee members whose constant pattern of participation on cases (and other areas) has not impressed me at all - indeed there may be, or may have been, some whom I do not believe should have passed RfA in the first place, and in my opinion their work at Arbcom or behaviour elsewhere bears or has borne, that out. One thing is for sure, being an Arb requires demonstration of solid knowledge of policies and guidelines and experience, both social and analytical, that generally only admins (or those who want or have wanted to be admins) have accumulated. On the other hand, there are some admins whom I really wish would run for Arbcom, but don't want to. It's a different job and time commitment. And there are plenty of editors I wish would run for adminship, but who are not prepared to be thrown into a nest of vipers for 7 days. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Wait, you have a boardroom? --valereee (talk) 13:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I get board a lot... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Slightly off the topic of this discussion, but there are definitely people who I trust with CU and/or OS but who I would not support for arbitrator. An Oversighter has to deal with much less bureaucracy and read much fewer words than an arbitrator. The level of trust required is the same, but the skill-set is not the same. Thryduulf (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Here's the rub. Holding the administrator toolkit is about being trusted by the community. The tools themselves are not that big a deal - in fact you can do far more on wikipedia with or without the toolkit than you could on any other website - all the toolkit adds is blocking users (whack-a-mole), deleting content and protecting pages (permanent and temporary janitorial work). Yes, in Wikipedia circles this is a big deal, but can you imagine going on to your favourite news site and tweaking every article?
So we're back to trust and with that, the respect of the community as a whole. It's naive to believe that there is no elevation within the community - if there wasn't, it would be much easier to achieve. However, if you are able to be elected to the Arbitration Committee, surely you have that same (or higher) level of trust / respect within the community. I know the numbers don't fully tally - supermajority at RFA and majority at ACE, but they are different processes and I do see them as equivalent. Non-admins should be able to join the committee, but I believe they should be made admins at that point. Worm^TT(talk) 12:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC) +1 Wug·a·po·des
@Worm That Turned: I think a mindset difference is that we expect administrators to make immediate decisions, while we expect the committee to make decisions as a group - so there can be a lower support per person as there is already a collective balancing component to the committee. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
The principal responsibility for an Arb is to do the best they can to fulfil their role. I'm pro electing non-admin arbs. So I suppose it might be deemed irresponsible not to retake your tools only if you felt retaking them would improve your performance (or more than holding a stance would) - voters can have made a judgement on that, and you can (and should) make your own judgement on it. I wasn't particularly concerned, but others certainly could make a reasonable different stance (even if they felt you'd still be a net benefit to the committee). Nosebagbear (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
This isn't a question that gets an exact answer, because there are a small number of mandatory responsibilities for arbitrators, and a wide range of potential responsibilities dependent on the individual arbitrator's preference. The mandatory responsibilities are in reviewing cases/motions on which one is active, and voting on them. The potential responsibilities include deciding whether or not to accept an RFAR as a case, drafting cases, reviewing and commenting on requests for case review, managing advanced permissions appointment/review cycles, managing email queues, addressing requests for unblock/unban, carrying out CU and/or OS activities, monitoring CU and/or OS activities, reviewing and recommending modification of Arbcom-specific policies and procedures, selection and training of clerks, monitoring activities at the various related noticeboards and talk pages...and that's what came to my mind as quickly as I could type it. In other words, there are a LOT of responsibilities, only a few of which are required, but they all need to be done, so *someone* on the committee needs to take on the *personal* responsibility of doing each one of them. Some of those responsibilities require admin tools, but most of them don't. Risker (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
This is helpful. It reminds me there would be some fully-protected pages that an arb working on project pages might need to edit. –xeno^talk 16:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Adding here that I think it would be a bad idea to grant adminship pro tempore to new arbitrators. Presumably the community has elected them, knowing that they aren't administrators, and that may well be one of the qualities that led to supporting the candidate. They want adminship, they can run. There's more than enough for them to do on the committee without the bit. Risker (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
non-sysop ArbCom members should not be automatically sysopped, that would be an abuse of our RfA process and unnecessary, they get the tools they need when they become an Arb. FWIW I am very supportive of non-admin Arbs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
non-sysop ArbCom members SHOULD be automatically sysopped at least for the duration of their term. If the community trusts them enough to elect them to ArbCom, then they implicitly trust them to have the tools. Now about RfA... let's be honest, it's mostly a shitshow and over the years I've seen a number of good editors go down and fail it because some loudmouth had a grudge and because... well, because people like exercising the little power that they're given by shitting on others. Volunteer Marek 06:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Let’s talk about adminship (concept)

It would be an interesting exercise to have a non-administrator arbitrator

It would be an interesting exercise to have an arbitrator who had never been an administrator. – Levivich 04:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Levivich: it's more interesting to have an arb who has never been an admin. It's all well and good to give up the tools, but when you can request at any time, it's not the same. --valereee (talk) 04:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

It would be interesting - as a purely academic exercise. But as I have explained above, I hope it never happens because I firmly contend that passing RfA first is an essetial precursor to Arbship. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung, I disagree. We need arbcom to be as diverse as reasonably possible. Having non-admins on arbcom would be a good thing. --valereee (talk) 04:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Up to you Valereee if you wish Arbcom to become a simple fleapit with a peanut gallery. Arbcom has to be far superior and have far more decorum than ANI. It depends on what you call 'reasonable' and what our policy or guidelines have for a metric of 'reasonability'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung, "a simple fleapit with a peanut gallery" are very strong terms. What makes you think having a non-admin on arbcom would turn it into that? There are any number of intelligent, thoughtful editors I can think of who don't want to run an RfA but who could add valuable insight to arbcom. --valereee (talk) 05:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Valereee , there are also plenty of wannabe users who will never be admins if they tried who regularly rule the roost at ANI. And that's one of the reasons that I and many admins rarely participate there nowadays, although it's called the Administrators' noticeboard. Danger is, too many aspects of Wikipedia are a popularity contest, and those who participate a lot on the drama boards are often thought to be clever and cool. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung (not to be argumentative, we can agree to disagree if you prefer, but:) Well, yeah, there are disruptive non-admins. There are disruptive admins, too. There are jerks in the world. :) --valereee (talk) 13:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I also disagree that being an admin should be a precusor to being an arb, however I believe being elected to the committee should mean that the admin toolkit is granted. Worm^TT(talk) 12:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I disagree with Worm That Turned on this one (see my ideal scenario above) - especially if we are going to let arbcom=CUOS, we have over a thousand admins that can take care of a standard deletion or user block on "request of the committee" - WTT I'm wondering what components of the admin toolkit (that are not also in CUOS) you think committee memebers can't live without? — xaosflux ^Talk 15:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Xaosflux, I have been proved wrong on the need for the tools above, but I remain of the opinion that anyone who has been elected to the arbitration committee has proven themselves as trusted by the community and therefore should be granted. Largely, because I believe even more strongly in the converse - that any user who is not trusted with admin tools should not be trusted with the private information handled by the committee. Worm^TT(talk) 15:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I firmly disagree that all arbs should be admins (or capable of retaking the tools) - the arbs are supposed to be representative. Beyond that, there are some individuals who could pass an RfA but specifically choose not to, but would be capable. There's probably a few individuals who couldn't pass RfAs but would also be suitable for ArbCom. I therefore don't think that adminship should be granted to Arb members. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it would be particularly interesting. I'm more interested in having good arbitrators who will do the work than I am in whether or not they're admins. On the other hand...I wonder if non-admins realize what it's like to be an admin. Again, this does't apply to you, since I see you as an admin on hiatus. Risker (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm not interested in whether it would be interesting, I just believe that there are plenty of fantastic non-admin editors out there who have a strong sense of fairness and great judgement (and often with great content creation chops), who for whatever reason haven't wanted to go through RfA. Diversity is important among Arbs, and there is a deficit of real content creators on ArbCom, so I think the right sort of non-admin Arbs are a great idea. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I guess. Define "interesting"? Or do you mean like a separate seat on the committee reserved for non-admins (w/o the tools I guess)? That is indeed an interesting idea. Tribune of the people kinda thing. Volunteer Marek 06:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
As a proof of concept, maybe? Risker has all but answered my initial question: there are select arbitrator tasks that do require administrative privileges, but not all arbitrators are required to carry out all tasks at all times. –xeno^talk 14:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't count you as a non admin arb since you could have the tools back 24 hours after requesting them. But given the very big difference between an RFA and an Arbcom election it is only a matter of time before we have a "marmite candidate" elected to Arbcom. Someone who is strongly supported by a majority, perhaps over 60% of Wikipedians, but equally is opposed by a large minority, sufficient to sink an RFA. It could also happen because of the greater turnout in Arbcom elections, with a committed group of a hundred or so who would sink any RFA but could not stop someone becoming an Arb. Whether that becomes a problem on Arbcom, or a couple of years later that person passes RFA with a new record positive vote, is largely down to the individual. But given the way we run RFA and Arb elections it is bound to happen sometime. Ϣere SpielChequers 11:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I hoped that you would remain a non-administrator while on the committee: Viewing deleted revisions would be possible via OS/CU permissions

You resigned your tools on principle, and should not be made to compromise your principles because of a new role that doesn't even necessarily require +sysop. I would also like to see you return to adminship, but only when your concerns have been addressed. Wug·a·po·des 02:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
The recent statement went some ways to assuaging concerns, if tentatively. –xeno^talk 02:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I hoped that you would seek restoration of adminship: This, get back to work :) — xaosflux ^Talk 00:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Let’s talk about adminship (relevancy)

You’re not a real non-admin anyway, you just have to wait 24 hours before you can action anything. Pretender!

Mmmhmmmm. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Any set-up in which a user has technical permissions far greater than their social permissions is doomed to fail. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Could you unpack that a bit? Wouldn’t my situation be the reverse? –xeno^talk 03:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I was talking about being a non-admin bureaucrat. In that situation, were one to throw policy out the window for a moment, you have the technical ability to grant yourself adminship (didn't I discuss this exact thing on this talk page a few months ago?). That, according to the statement I presented above (which I admit is probably not widely shared by the populace) makes you functionally an admin, putting me in the "You’re not a real non-admin anyway" section. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Hm, I understand now- you did mention it at User talk:Xeno/Archive 32#Regrettably. Though there are other users with technical permissions beyond their social, such as page movers (they can technically delete pages). –xeno^talk 03:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I've G6'd my fair share of redirects with page mover, but it's not deletion in a meaningful sense. I can send the in-the-way page to jail, but a sysop still has to delete the content no matter where I put it. Wug·a·po·des 02:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Moving pages over redirects does not even require the page mover bit. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I hope you get a seat but I don't care a lick if you have the bit or not. I see it break down into two parts. First, there's the technical access to the extra buttons and features. I don't know if you need those extra buttons or not to be an Arb (other than seeing deleted content, you probably don't, as some other Arb can "push the button" when the time comes), but if you do need them, I don't see why you shouldn't or wouldn't have them. And if you do have them, but don't want to use some of them, or only want to use them for Arb stuff, I don't understand why you'd "turn them off" rather than just.. not push the buttons you don't want to push when you don't want to push them. Second, there's the social/political aspect, of being part of "the admin club". You're already there. It doesn't matter if you have access to the buttons right now or not, because (a) you can get the buttons back anytime you want, so they're not really unavailable to you in any real sense, and (b) you joined the admin club years ago, and it's not a club you can voluntarily leave. You earned the community's respect and passed RfA and have continued to maintain the community's respect and I dare say admiration. You could lose that, but not by "resigning the tools", you'd have to actually fuck up, which you haven't done, so you're still really an admin. If a cop puts away their badge and gun, they're still a cop.

I guess that leaves me deducing that there is some third, symbolic meaning for you in having or not having the sysop flag. That you feel it's a flag you're flying. I too noob to really understand that, but I'd say in that case, whether or not you should be an admin in the event you are elected would be a personal choice for you to make, based on whether or not you want to fly that flag. If it were up to me, I'd rather you had the buttons available to you, so that you could use them if and when the need arises, even if you only used them a few times a year, I think that's better than you not having them when you do need/want to use them. Since I trust that you won't fuck it up, I find that it's not a big deal to me whether or not you have them. – Levivich 03:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

You make solid points. In my mind one of the benefits would be lessening the power imbalance somewhat, such that a party can speak freely to an arbitrator without fear of being blocked by that same arbitrator. –xeno^talk 11:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Yep. I get the impulse, I appreciate it, but you can't ever really go back unless you do a new RfA. --valereee (talk) 04:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I’d have to fail too :) –xeno^talk 11:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I suppose you could declare that you will not request but would run a new RfA -- a !vote of confidence, if you will -- to regain the tools. It might be seen as a time-waster, though. Which, interestingly enough, might make such an RfA actually interesting: how many opposes would be predicated on that? Given how many DJ just had for a self-requested block... At any rate, declaring such an intent might make you an actual non-admin. :D --valereee (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee: Well, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Harrias 2 garnered a number of opposes on the basis that a reconfirmation RfA was wasting community time, and even a fair few supports mentioned it. However, that was because Harrias was already a card-carrying admin, and Xeno is not. Xeno's would be more like this one than that :) ——SN 54129 14:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Serial Number 54129, both those RfAs were pretty interesting. So if that's what we're going for... :D --valereee (talk) 15:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
There is a big difference between users on Arbcom who have never been an admin, and former, respected admins on Arbcom, who could have their bit back on a simple procedural request if they wanted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I wonder if we’ll ever see a truly non-admin arb. I thought Wug would have had a good shot. –xeno^talk 11:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I hoped you'd return your admin toolkit if you were elected. You know the sorts of emails we get, you know how quickly they are suppressed. The toolkit is useful. Worm^TT(talk) 12:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I think you meant retake? So yes that’s my main concern is that I’m the only one who sees an actionable request. I think you can supress without without deletion, but couldn’t block or protect, so might be hobbled there with a persistent bad actor. –xeno^talk 12:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Adminship is a state of mind, man...

...but to be serious for a moment, people are "administrators" before getting +sysop. I think there's an essay out there about using sysop instead of admin; I try to distinguish sysop, the technical group, and admin, the social role. The spirit of WP:NOBIGDEAL is that +sysop lets "administrators" do more stuff than they could have without the tools, just like +extendedmover lets people who already do page moves do slightly more page moves (and convoluted deletions). You're not a real non-admin because you still help with project administration (thankfully). I don't think I've seen people comment on this page who don't fit that bill. It's just a technical matter that some administrators don't have +sysop. Wug·a·po·des 02:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I like this. –xeno^talk 02:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

+1 --valereee (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I think your recent close of the AN thread on Edgar only gives more weight to this view (and/or Risker's view). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC) I wasn't invited and could potentially be an arb as well so if you feel my weighing-in inappropriate, please feel free to remove.

Yes, it appears impossible to rid myself of this meddlesome title ;>. I'll admit I've mostly enjoyed not having the toolset itself (it has been instructive), but it appears I'm still an administrator in the eyes of most editors and there have been opportunities for use. –xeno^talk 17:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it's dubious to claim that anyone who might feel concerned about talking to you as an Arb might be reduced because, at a specific moment in time, you weren't an Admin. I'm not sure if it would be any less for an "absolute" non-admin Arb, but it definitely wouldn't be for you. The stance for not having the bit is respected, but I'm dubious about there being significant benefits outside of that. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I think you're an admin on a self-imposed hiatus. Risker (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Risker. I don't want to comment on the applicability to ACE since I'm on the Election Commission, but I do think the "crat without technically being a sysop" thing is rather silly and not a very good way to prove a point: You have the presumptive right of return of the bit, and have the technical capacity to give it to yourself this instant if you wanted. That's not the same as someone who has never passed RfA or has been desysoped for cause. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

welcome to the Arbitration Committee

Congratulations on your success in the elections and welcome to the 2020 Arbitration Committee. This is the first part of your induction onto the Arbitration Committee.

Please use the EmailUser function to indicate:

the email address you'd like to use for ArbCom and functionary business, and
if you wish to assigned checkuser and/or oversight for your term.

Before you can be subscribed to any mailing lists or assigned checkuser or oversight permissions you must sign the Wikimedia Foundation's confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information. Please confirm that your username is listed on the Access to nonpublic personal data policy/Noticeboard. If it isn't, and you haven't signed the agreement, please do this promptly and let me know when you have signed it. If you have signed the agreement, but your username is not listed on the noticeboard, please let me know.

Over the coming days, you will receive a small number of emails as part of the induction process. Please carefully read them. If they are registration emails, please follow any instructions in them to finalise registration. You can contact me or any other arbitrator directly if you have difficulty with the induction process.

Thank you for volunteering to serve on the committee. We very much look forward to introducing ourselves to you on the mailing list and to working with you this term.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 17:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry

This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true.

No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well Xeno. MarnetteD|Talk 17:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations

on making it to the committee :-) ∯WBG^converse 12:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks =) I appreciate the trust shown by the community and look forward to serving. –xeno^talk 13:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Congrats!

Wake 'em up, Xeno! ArbCom should not be as dreadful as getting a root canal. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Congrats! SQL ^{Query me!} 00:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Huzzah! Going from the help you've given me, I think you'll be a great addition to the cARBal. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:52, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I am also very glad - and somewhat relieved - to see this. You're going to have your work cut out, Xeno... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Congrats xeno. Happy to see this. – Ammarpad (talk)
Congrats and Best Wishes Xeno.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Congrats man Promethean (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again, all. The work must continue. –xeno^talk 11:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

2020 Arbitration Committee

The Arbitration Committee welcomes the following new and returning arbitrators following their election by the community. The two-year terms of these arbitrators formally begin on 01 January 2020:

Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Casliber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
David Fuchs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
KrakatoaKatie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
SoWhy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Worm That Turned (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Xeno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The one-year terms of these arbitrators also begin on 1 January 2020:

Bradv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
DGG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Maxim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All incoming arbitrators have elected to receive (or retain, where applicable) the checkuser and oversight permissions. Xeno has elected not to receive administrator permissions.

We also thank our outgoing colleagues whose terms end on 31 December 2019:

Opabinia regalis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) will retain Oversight
Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) will retain Oversight

Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to retain the CheckUser and Oversight permissions, remain active on cases accepted before their term ended, and to remain subscribed to the functionaries' and arbitration clerks' mailing lists following their term on the committee. To that effect:

Stewards are requested to remove the permission(s) noted from the following outgoing arbitrators after 31 December 2019 at their own request:
CheckUser: Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos
Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to remain active on cases opened before their term ended if they wish. Whether or not outgoing arbitrators will remain active on any ongoing case(s) will be noted on the proposed decision talk page of affected case(s).
Both outgoing arbitrators will remain subscribed to the functionaries' mailing list
Both outgoing arbitrators will be unsubscribed from the arbitration clerks' mailing list at their request.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 21:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#2020 Arbitration Committee

Congrats, Xeno. I'm sure you will be a very worthy member. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I try to be my best. –xeno^talk 11:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Rosguill

Beat you to the closing, btw. Primefac (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Right, we do things in different order, and was fumbling with the template... –xeno^talk 18:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

That's why I close first! Most complicated part, might as well get fumble through it and get it out of the way. Primefac (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

#~~Han~~PrimefacShotFirst –xeno^talk 18:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays

Merry Christmas, Xeno!
Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. And for all the help you've thrown my way over the years. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Cap! –xeno^talk 11:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Be well

	Have a WikiChristmas and a PediaNewYear
	Every dragon should have two spells in the dungeon. Be well. Keep well. Have a lovely Christmas. SilkTork (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks you SilkTork, all the best of the holiday season to you as well =) –xeno^talk 13:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays


	Happy Holidays! May your winter holidays be filled with joy, laughter and good health. Wishing you all the best in 2020 and beyond.

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Be of good cheer :) –xeno^talk 15:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Xeno, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020.
Happy editing,
Thanks for your help, support, and advice this year - with a busy year coming up I wish you the best!

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thanks Nosebagbear, you forgot to sign the card though! –xeno^talk 15:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Hello Xeno: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, DBig Xrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 18:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Thanks DBigXray, hope you’re having a nice Christmas. –xeno^talk 13:02, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

+sysop

Hello xeno, per your request you have been reinstated as an administrator, welcome back! To catch up on things that you may have missed while you were gone, the Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter back issues may be helpful. As usual, we have a backlog that could use your talents. This is only mostly humorous... Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 03:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Those 90 days as a regular user were glorious. If you have the means, I highly recommend it :) –xeno^talk 04:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

All this recent arb and admin nonsense of yours is going to make the rest of us look bad... - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I think you love this place. Eschoryii (talk) 06:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Guilty as charged. (Ask me again in 12 months :) –xeno^talk 12:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←