Nothing urgent, just a note here rather than on the Floc admin page where it might seem like attention-getting
Just a comment, because I otherwise often find myself agreeing with you. Attention-seeking is a dangerous label, surely? It's semantic valency ranges from teachers who must attract the attention of distracted students (the political reflex is making a stand when no one else will: like a (Jewish: it matters in this context) mentor of mine who stopped a tradition of humiliating new boys in a Protestant prestigious college back in the 30s by stepping in to protest the custom one day. His authority came from his known gentleness of character, his excellence at sports and intellectual brilliance. I'm sure some of the bullies would have quipped: 'Ah fuck him, always grandstanding on 'ethics' to get attention), down to those who will do anything to catch the public eye.Those who are in the limelight and exercise executive powers invisible to most of us, often deride critics as trying to grab people's attention, something they themselves base their careers on. When, from within the Republican party ranks, Justin Amash took a stand against Trump, it was summarily dismissed as attention-seeking. In sum, almost every act act lends itself to interpretation as drawing attention, from a baby crying, a newspaper boy's street shouting, a farmer's alerting neighbours to an incipient bushfire, to a victim of robbery yelling 'thief', whatever the distinct and singular impulses that lead to it (unknown to us generally), can be put down as 'attention-seeking'. So I don't think one should attribute that motive to anyone unless there is a sustained prior record of exhibitionism. Regards Nishidani (talk) 12:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Ah, unlike in private work, I don't review and make stylistic revisions to what I write off the top of my head, and readers have good reason to complain. Sorry. Just, as usual, too pressed for time to be concise. No need to reply. We're all busy, or enjoying well-deserved holidays. CheersNishidani (talk) 12:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.
Hi this mobile IP address 182.18.177.106 and 115.97.181.112 is vandalizing the page by adding "Telugu cinema is ranked second based on box office ranking" there is no such thing as ranking in Indian cinema article. It is sheer pluff and fan pov. The editor is using abusive language in mobile edit summaries. Please do the needful temporary semi protection and pls block the IP.Rvls (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
@Rvls: the IP address has been blocked and there has been no vandalism in 6 hours. If it resumes please let me know or go back to RFPP. Thanks, Fish+Karate14:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Declined PP request
In regard to the note you left me about improper rollback use, just wanted to clarify a few things. First, I noticed in my RPP request (which I made using Twinkle), I selected the wrong item from the dropdown. Instead of vandalism, I intended to choose "disruptive editing". It may have seemed like a content dispute on the surface, but a closer look reveals a bit more.
All three edits are from the same IP range with the last octet changing, and it's quite clear they are ignoring/deleting the hidden text in the process (the act of deleting and even rephrasing in one case is a clear indication they see it). The first two diffs were immediately reverted by another editor, and I walked in on the third. Second, I realize my rollback's edit summary could have been better. In hindsight, labeling my revert as "rvv" was incorrect. A more appropriate edit summary would have been "rv disruptive edit" or even better:
...and followed that up with posting an explanation on the talk page. I'm usually pretty good about that, especially in situations that look like possible misunderstandings by the offending IP (this one didn't at first, but I see it now). Thank you for bringing it to my attention. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
@GoneIn60: No problem. Bear in mind the IP editor in question is trying to help improve the article. I get that they may not be doing it in the right way, and the edit they want to make may not actually improve the article, but they're not doing this to spite you, and just undoing their edits without a reasonable explanation isn't going to help them learn how to edit better. Save the "rvv" stuff for actual vandal edits, not good faith editing that just happens to be of low quality. Fish+Karate12:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Appreciate the advice, and yes, this was an anomaly and not a common occurrence. I usually follow the necessary protocols to try to reach out and explain before assuming the disruptive behavior is intentional. I think when you grow accustomed to seeing how it pans out 9 out of 10 times (i.e. the tendency for IPs to ignore you right up until they're blocked), a lax in good judgement is bound to occur from time to time. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.
A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.
Thanks for your closing summary about deleting the Infoshops template. To be honest, I was expecting this to be closed as no consensus, and I'm a bit confused by your reasoning about there being a majority since there were three Keeps, three Deletes and a Weak Delete which said "but I don't see anything problematic with keeping them either." I said keep and I didn't see very much to reply to in terms of an argument for deletion, just various statements which fail WP:NOTDUPE. Further, I haven't seen any suggestions on how to improve the template, which is a wasted opportunity.
I'd also like more clarity here if possible on why any template needs to pass all five criteria, since the policy states: "Good templates generally follow some of these guidelines." Indeed, the reason people were mentioning other templates is because very few templates do satisfy all five criteria and I'm not sure how else that could be demonstrated.
Regarding 3 (The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent) - well I think they do and the relevant literature eg Atton, Dodge, Lacey and Munson on Infoshop does link these projects together. Further, there are networks in existence for example the UK social centre network, there's reliable sources for that at Self-managed social centres in the United Kingdom.
Regarding 5, (If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the 'See also' sections of the articles) well no you probably wouldn't link all the projects in a See also section, there's too many, but you would link the ones in the same country then the navbox provides a useful navigation to other projects. I don't know how many navboxes this guideline is actually true of? It's certainly not true of the other template on the mother page ... which somehow manages to link Radical cheerleading and Somatherapy.
I also see some procedural irregularities here but that can be mentioned at review if necessary. Thanks for any answer, I see a note at the top of this page saying you aren't around much so I'll move forward if I don't hear back from you in a week or so. Mujinga (talk) 10:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Mujinga:, I've had chance to read your comment properly and have taken the time to go back and re-look at my close of this deletion discussion. I do remain happy that I weighted the strength of the arguments reasonably and such a closure was within the realms of administrator judgement. Much of the information you give above was not presented at the TFD discussion, this isn't the place to remake the argument, if you want to take this to DRV - while I would imagine my decision would be upheld - I'd have no objections, it is important that the decisions we all make on Wikipedia are held to account when required. If there are procedural irregularities please let me know what these are so I can address them; I don't frequently close TFD discussions, I was helping out clearing some backlog from WP:RFCL, and this discussion had been awaiting closure for quite some time. Thank you also for immediately undoing your inappropriate use of the rollback tool ([1]). Fish+Karate08:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer, unfortunately I was asking clarity on your decision not whether you were happy with it. Let me try again. As I understand it, you deleted this template since you found the arguments that it "failed" criteria 3 and 5 compelling, which would (I'm guessing here) mean that it "passes" criteria 1,2 and 4. Since "Good templates generally follow some of these guidelines" perhaps you can see now why I am asking for clarity, since more guidelines were being followed than not (I'm still not convinced by the "fails"). This would be useful to know since I make navboxes myself and now I am genuinely confused on what makes a good template, since 3 seems pretty subjective (thanks to "reasonable") and a hard reading of 5 would delete almost all templates. Mujinga (talk) 10:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
The arguments that it failed criterion 3 and criterion 5 were compelling. This does not mean it therefore passed criteria 1, 2 and/or 4, that is not meant to be implied; I just looked at the arguments provided and assessed a close based on those. Any inferences about the template outside of the points mentioned in my closing comment were not intentional, I just closed the discussion based on the contents of the discussion. I didn't assess the template myself, the role of the closer is to gauge consensus based on policy, not to impose their own view. Fish+Karate10:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
@Steven Crossin: I think your closure is an accurate summation of the discussions as it stands. There's a consensus to do something but not what that something is, and the Doc James line is probably the least-opposed option. While I'm not 100% sure the discussion has fully drawn to a close yet, it's definitely tailing off (only a handful of comments in the past 3 days, and all of them in the 'discussion' section). I think the close is fine to implement, very well done for being willing to pick it up. Fish+Karate09:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply and taking the time to review my proposed close. Yeah, that was my overall thoughts, agreement to do something, no rock solid consensus on what to do, but Doc James version is the preferred by most considering the objections. I decided to close this one because, well, someone's gotta. If I can give a reasoned close in line with consensus, why shouldn't I, I figure. But wanted a 2nd opinion first on this one, just in case. StevenCrossinHelp resolve disputes!11:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
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.
You can not move a category like you would move an article because each page in the category needs to be reassigned or it still appears in the original category that is now a redirect. That is why we let the bots handle this in CfD because it is such a chore to do this manually, especially if there are dozens of pages in the old category to reassign. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!17:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
@Liz: Thanks Liz. I don’t usually do CFDs and thought from the guidance that the bot would automatically fix the category redirects, as this isn’t the case could you let me know how I get the bot to sort it, or point me in the right direction? Thanks. Fish+Karate18:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
They all appear to have been sorted (thanks to Mfb and Spiderjerky for doing all the moves). Liz, do the old empty categories need to be deleted or should they be left as redirects? Fish+Karate08:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Please adjust the page protection settings on the following pages. As discussed at there is clear community consensus that ECP should not apply for "high risk templates" and nothing under WP:ECP supports such protection to this/these template(s) (example: "by request" is insufficient).
I was just wondering whether disregarding any !votes by banned users is accepted practice when closing a discussion as you did at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 22#"Manned" renaming. While it's a no-brainer when socking is involved I don't find it obvious that it's appropriate when an experienced editor gets banned for harrasment/incivility which was the case here. The !vote was well considered and cast in good faith which doesn't change because of a block. This is by no means intended as a gotcha moment; I'm just trying to learn more and become a better closer. I believe I would have closed it in the same way, but more from giving less weight to the no need comment since it didn't express any reason why the status quo was preferable to the proposal from giving higher weight to the support side supported by GNL, RfC and consistency while the strongest argument from the opposition was COMMONNAME. --Trialpears (talk) 06:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
The banned user's vote was part but not all of the rationale for the closure, I did also reference the consistency/precedent set. Discounting a banned (not temporarily blocked - indefinitely banned for serious harassment and abuse) user's votes (obviously assuming the vote was made before they were banned) is fairly common practice, and I see no problem in taking away their right to have a say in proceedings on Wikipedia, they did that themselves through their actions. Fish+Karate08:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, I haven't encountered this situation before and was uncertain how it's handled in practice. I agree that there's no problem with taking away their right to influence the discussion, but the potential problem would be in taking away a !vote that is just as likely to reflect the greater community opinion as any other. Sorry to bother you so much recently, but this was quite helpful for me. --Trialpears (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Karate withdrew from ArbCom candidacy? Sad! Enough good candidates now, really? Darwinfish is considering running together with evil twin, two in one slot. For balance good/evil! darwinfish18:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC).
Hey, regardless of how often we agree or disagree about stuff, thanks for volunteering; I know it came from an honorable desire to help. Trust me, you'll be happy you withdrew.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Mayo Clinic History
Hi Fish+Karate! I was curious if you had any questions or feedback on my requested updates to History at Mayo Clinic. If you still have some time and interest in the topic, I would really appreciate your feedback. Just a reminder that I have a COI: I'm here on behalf of Mayo Clinic. Best! Audrey at Mayo Clinic (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi Fish+Karate! An editor did come around to fix a recent erroneous edit to the History section of the Mayo Clinic article, but they did not consider my requested updates to update the entire section. I know you're busy, so I don't mean to pester you, but I'm more than happy to answer any questions you might have on my draft. Thank you! Audrey at Mayo Clinic (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
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.
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.
I'm wondering why you decided to template-protect the template documentation page Template:Supplement/doc. The vandalism seems to come only from unregistered users, and the documentation is not heavily transcluded. The parent {{Supplement}} is only semi-protected, and it seems like semi-protection would be a better idea for the documentation page too. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello Fish and karate, 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, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
A request for comment asks whether partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. If enabled, this functionality would allow administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces, rather than the entire site.
A proposal asks whether admins who don't use their tools for a significant period of time (e.g. five years) should have the toolset procedurally removed.
The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.
Technical news
Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [2]
Arbitration
Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.
Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.
Technical news
Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.
Hi, F&K - I would very much appreciate your input regarding how best to find the closed cases that were filed at ARCA & ARBCOM in the past, including denied cases. Surely there must be an easy, user-friendly index somewhere, right? AtsmeTalk📧16:33, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi @Atsme: I would start with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases, but this will only cover actual cases, not denied ones. Arbitration pages are not indexed by Google or other search engines, so that wouldn't be of any help either. Internal Wikipedia search doesn't cover page histories. You would probably have to trawl through the exceptionally lengthy history of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. Denied case requests are not easy to find, presumably by design. Fish+Karate15:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello Fish and karate! I see you are of the main editors on the steak and blowjob article.While i think this has no place here i can only respect others that think otherwise. At the other hand, Cake and Cunnilngus is a real day too , mostly in Europe with many reliable sources about, it's getting bigger and it worths an article as the real equivelant to S&B day of course.To my surprise , i see there is not a page still after years .. It is bigger and more real than S&B was when created here.
I cant beleive no one has ever created it yet , i would but it is difficult for me,may be it's time to create it ?
What's your point of view on this ? Georgeof1001 (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
It is a matter of will.I mean Metro.uk was reliable enough to support S&B day , but later they posted about C&C day and they were not reliable suddenly.. YourTango is just a blog , still is on S&B day page . I assume when you say , provide, you mean to create the article I believe , otherwise how can i provide them ? I am new here and obviously don't know how to ..
Thanks for your help, i really like to see Wiki being more reliable, ( have pages with ALL facts, and not by preference ) and not to leave some belive it biased or even sexism.
Thanks again F&K , if we could make Wiki better , that would make Mr.Miyagi happy ! Georgeof1001 (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi George, nice to put a name to an IP number. I would be happy to help create the page. You can copy and paste links to reliable sources here, if you like. Or you can go to User:Georgeof1001/Cake and Cunnilingus Day and create a page there in your user space, it doesn't need to look like a finished page, just jot down your links for now and it can be worked on there. Again, I would be delighted to help if we can find some reliable sources for it being a thing. Fish+Karate13:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello Neil, i am trying but i am also confused whether a source is reliable or not,news websites,portals, other like Metro.uk e.g. My wording might also be not decent and haven't figure how to create the page yet, still it would be nice to be there on April 14 despite the bad mood we all have due to the known situation.I know you are extremely busy for the time being but if you find some free time , please take a look at User:Georgeof1001/Cake and Cunnilingus DayGeorgeof1001 (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Fish and Karate hello again!I hope everything's ok.I would appreciate if you could take a look in my page.I am about to create the article but still have some questions concerning the 'how to'.I 've found many other links but i think they are not necessary to.As you stated, this is going to be fun.This is what i have gathered from other people too. Please , help! Georgeof1001 (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.
Miscellaneous
The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
I'm not exactly sure why I'm being attacked. The only time I ever broached the edges of the IBAN was when I asked you a question about its parameters a full year ago. All I know is that the IBAN was implemented partly to keep me from being attacked randomly like this (which, beforehand, was a regular occurrence).
The only thing I can think of that "flagrantly violate said bans and neither ArbCom nor the admin corps will lift a finger"might be referring to is this discussion at WT:AN, where I mentioned Darkknight2149 v. Hijiri88 and Curly Turkey and another unrelated ANI thread in a discussion about whether ANI headers should be neutral. It was only brought up in the context of there being a consensus for neutral headers in a past discussion. No one from that discussion was mentioned except for Drmies, and it was only brought up over this ([3], [4], [5], [6]) and this ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]). I am already dealing with another conflict as it is. The last thing I need is for this debacle to make a comeback, especially considering this. DarkKnight214906:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Fish and karate! Regarding WP:SPIDER, the thing that sets my teeth on edge a little more than the official lunacy box is the lack of a descriptive nutshell, which denies readers who might not be in the mood for wading through a bunch of silliness the option to just get the point and move on. If you have ideas for potential changes to it, I'd be interested (the current nutshell is completely redundant to the title, so it's not as though anything is being lost, and a rewrite could allow other jokes to be added to it).
Regarding my comments about WP:OWN, the wholesale reverting of minor edits without substantive explanation ("clean up aftermath of silly people"), insinuation of authorship ("check the history"), and pulling rank ("The page has been on Wikipedia for probably twice as long as you have. You can trust me on this.") all came across as textbook WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Perhaps I just need to commit to AGF more stubbornly, but the other editor is experienced enough to know what they're doing and what impression their comments give. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk16:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation announced that they will develop a universal code of conduct for all WMF projects. There is an open local discussion regarding the same.
Arbitration
A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.
The Medicine case was closed, with a remedy authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles.
Given that keep was a minority opinion I think a closing statement is needed in order to close it as keep. Could you add one? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 09:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Castle Grayskull until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
I tracked this down it transcluding the article You've got mail (about a film), which was presumably intended to be a trasclusion of Template:You've got mail.
I have been threatened by that user and will not tolerate the lies and filth.... CrossFit is my company, along with my husband's. The information is incorrect and although it may be fun for some to misprint incorrect information, it is defamation of character of the truth.
Sysops will once again be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to interface administrators when that group was introduced.
Twinkle's block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a discretionary sanctions block and/or template.
Be happy to, but out of curiosity and before I do, may I ask why? 654 transclusions is not an “only” number, and you don’t appear to have provided any rationale for your request. Fish+Karate05:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.
I was hacked and can't log in to my account. I don't use the account anymore and, whilst I don't mind seeing as I haven't logged in for a year, My user page was "edited" by said hacker.
I can revert the edits but I'd also like them revision deleted.
Also, I'd like you or any admin/sysop to suspend editing privileges for the account for at LEAST a month while I attempt to recover the account
Done and account blocked but I strongly suggest you use your correct account details in your signature, @Race To Oblivion:, it can lead to confusion and is actually against the rules (“ Do not impersonate other users”). Fish+Karate02:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorizedfor all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
A request for comment is in progress to remove F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a, which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
A request for comment asks if sysops may place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
Oh wow, that’s very awesome it made it to DYK, although I didn’t do much, just dumped some links to a subpage. Thanks for letting me know though! Fish+Karate22:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.
Technical news
When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)
The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.
Arbitration
The community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.
Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.
Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.
Technical news
IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.
Arbitration
The community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.
An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.
Technical news
Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)
A discussion is open to decide when, if ever, should discord logs be eligible for removal when posted onwiki (including whether to oversight them)
A RfC on the next steps after the trial of pending changes on TFAs has resulted in a 30 day trial of automatic semi protection for TFAs.
Technical news
The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.
Arbitration
A request for comment is in progress to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. Comments and new proposals are welcome.
Following an RfC, extended confirmed protection may be used preemptively on certain high-risk templates.
Following a discussion at the Village Pump, there is consensus to treat discord logs the same as IRC logs. This means that discord logs will be oversighted if posted onwiki.
A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.
Miscellaneous
Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.
Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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.
Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)
The already authorized standard discretionary sanctions for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), broadly construed, have been made permanent.
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
My userpage at User:Robomilk's edit history includes an unpleasant mixture of both personal identifying information (added by myself, when I was a teenager naïve to how much of a bad idea that is) and random vandalism and cyberbullying (added by similarly naïve teenage peers). Pretty much every edit from before 18 April 2007 fits into one of these two categories, and I'd quite like them to be gone for both security and sanity.
While I realise I could probably create a new account and cast that history aside, I was quite like to have these revisions (at least the ones containing personal info) hidden from public view. As this is regarding a page in the user space, I would think that the use of RevisionDelete would not require further oversight if I'm the one requesting it.
@Robomilk: No problem at all, given the reasonable request and the fact the edits are from 15 years ago (which makes me feel old, that was around the time when I started too), I’ve cleared them all out for you. Any issues let me know. Cheers, Fish+Karate08:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.
The functionaries email list (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.
A RfC is open to discuss prohibiting draftification of articles over 90 days old.
Technical news
The deployment of the reply tool as an opt-out feature, as announced in last month's newsletter, has been delayed to 7 March. Feedback and comments are being welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project. (T296645)
Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)
Following an RfC, a change has been made to the administrators inactivity policy. Under the new policy, if an administrator has not made at least 100 edits over a period of 5 years they may be desysopped for inactivity.
A public status system for WMF wikis has been created. It is located at https://www.wikimediastatus.net/ and is hosted separately to WMF wikis so in the case of an outage it will remain viewable.
Arbitration
Remedy 2 of the St Christopher case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to place a ban on single-purpose accounts who were disruptively editing on the article St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages from those pages.
Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.
The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.
An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.
Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)
Arbitration
The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.
Miscellaneous
You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.
A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.
Technical news
The impact report on the effects of disabling IP editing on the Persian (Farsi) Wikipedia has been released.
The WMF is looking into making a Private Incident Reporting System (PIRS) system to improve the reporting of harmful incidents through easier and safer reporting. You can leave comments on the talk page by answering the questions provided. Users who have faced harmful situations are also invited to join a PIRS interview to share the experience. To sign up please emailMadalina Ana.
Arbitration
An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.
Miscellaneous
The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
Following an RfC, consensus has been found that, in the context of politics and science, the reliability of FoxNews.com is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use.
The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.
Arbitration
Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case will be rescinded 1 November following a motion.
An RfC is open to discuss having open requests for adminship automatically placed on hold after the seven-day period has elapsed, pending closure or other action by a bureaucrat.
Tech tip: Wikimarkup in a block summary is parsed in the notice that the blockee sees. You can use templates with custom options to specify situations like {{rangeblock|create=yes}} or {{uw-ublock|contains profanity}}.
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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.
An RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign has been closed.
Technical news
A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)
Arbitration
Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 12, 2022 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
The arbitration case Stephen has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 1 December 2022.
A motion has modified the procedures for contacting an admin facing Level 2 desysop.
Miscellaneous
Tech tip: A single IPv6 connection usually has access to a "subnet" of 18 quintillion IPs. Add /64 to the end of an IP in Special:Contributions to see all of a subnet's edits, and consider blocking the whole subnet rather than an IP that may change within a minute.
Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.
Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.
Following a request for comment, the Portal CSD criteria (P1 (portal subject to CSD as an article) and P2 (underpopulated portal)) have been deprecated.
The Terms of Use update cycle has started, which includes a [p]roposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing. Feedback is being accepted until 24 April 2023.
The rollback of Vector 2022 RfC has found no consensus to rollback to Vector legacy, but has found rough consensus to disable "limited width" mode by default.
A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.
Technical news
Progress has started on the Page Triage improvement project. This is to address the concerns raised by the community in their 2022 WMF letter that requested improvements be made to the tool.
Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.
Technical news
Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.
Arbitration
The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.
Hello, I'm cleaning up the dwindling number of fostered content WP:LINT errors on Wikipedia, and have brought them down to 12 in user talk space. If you would be willing, on User talk:Fish and karate/Archive 29 would you add a vertical bar | before the File brackets within the Birmingham meetup section like so:
== Birmingham meetup ==
{|
[[File:Aa wikimeet 25feb12.jpg|thumb|upright|left|See you there? Well... not here... this photo is from a pub in Manchester... but that's cos there haven't been enough meetups in Birmingham.]]
to
== Birmingham meetup ==
{|
|[[File:Aa wikimeet 25feb12.jpg|thumb|upright|left|See you there? Well... not here... this photo is from a pub in Manchester... but that's cos there haven't been enough meetups in Birmingham.]]
Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.
The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.
Miscellaneous
Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.
Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.
Miscellaneous
The Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in November 2023, with 700+ drafts pending reviews for in the last 4 months or so. In addition to the AfC participants, all administrators and New Page Patrollers can conduct reviews using the helper script, Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.
Following a talk page discussion, the Administrators' accountability policy has been updated to note that while it is considered best practice for administrators to have notifications (pings) enabled, this is not mandatory. Administrators who do not use notifications are now strongly encouraged to indicate this on their user page.
Arbitration
Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were enacted in June 2009.
An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.
Technical news
Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)
Arbitration
Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.
A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
Hi Fish and karate :) I noticed you deleted this page in 2019 under G1: Patent nonsense, meaningless, or incomprehensible: redirect not referenced in target. As this page used to be an article prior to being turned into a redirect to Stefan Molyneux#Views in 2017, I was wondering if you would mind undeleting it; as - per WP:CSD - a page is only eligible for speedy deletion if all of its history is also eligible.
Hello, there isn’t much to the article (pre-redirect) and it lacked any independent referencing, it was just a phrase from a Stefan Molyneux book that offered no evidence anyone else had ever used it. If you’re really insistent that it be restored I can do so but in its present state it would likely be deleted (via AFD if CSD wouldn’t cut it).
Would it be better if I were to make a copy of the pre-redirected article in your namespace so you can have a proper look at it first before deciding how you’d like to proceed? It can then be worked on before going back into live article space, if it’s possible to do so. The red link isn’t protected or anything so there’d be no issue doing so. Let me know. Fish+Karate08:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, and for the info. I apologise if my first message came across badly or in a combative manner, and/or if I could have worded it better. (For context, I started looking into this deleted article after I noticed a post on the target article's talk page from a reader wondering why a similar redirect took them to that page.)
Given what you've said, would it be possible for it to be restored to draft namespace at Draft:Dispute resolution organization? I was hoping that the history may have contained a salvageable article (to be able to retarget the other redirects to), but I guess it's not the end of the world if it doesn't :) All the best, —a smart kitten[meow]17:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
No problem - done. If I can help any further please let me know. If you feel the article is not salvageable, please tag it for deletion or if you’d prefer you can ask me here. Best, Fish+Karate22:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! Sorry to be a pain, but for the completeness of history, would it be possible to also undelete the revisions where it was a redirect? (Or would that not be possible now that the page has already been moved?) Best, —a smart kitten[meow]22:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
(Oh and - sorry for yet another thing, but would it also be possible to undelete the talk page, and move it to draft namespace as well?) —a smart kitten[meow]22:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi Fish_and_karate! We're conducting a series of participatory workshops with Wikipedia editors, administrators, researchers, and Wikimedia employees to discuss, and hopefully improve, Wikipedia's structures for online research (see meta research page). In an effort to get the right people in the room to discuss these topics, I'm reaching out here to see if you are interested in participating as an active administrator. We'd work with you to ensure this workshop can fit into your schedule, but are targeting end of April/early May. I'm happy to discuss any of these topics further here or on our talk page. Zentavious (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)
Arbitration
An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".
Miscellaneous
Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
Hi Fish_and_karate. I noticed you deleted the page "World Shiology Forum" as its importance was not indicated. I got it. So, is it possible that I can retrieve the page so that I can add information on its importance? or how can I create a new page or article on this forum?
Regrattably, given current events I think that’s best being left as it is. You are welcome to raise this at WP:RFUP and if people there conclude it can be unprotected I won’t object. Fish+Karate06:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531
Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)
Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.
Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past.
The arbitration case Historical Elections is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.
Miscellaneous
Editors can now enter into good article review circles, an alternative for informal quid pro quo arrangements, to have a GAN reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
Following a discussion, the speedy deletion reason "File pages without a corresponding file" has been moved from criterion G8 to F2. This does not change what can be speedily deleted.
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
