@NJA:, I'm extremely sorry that I did a mistake in creating a account using the Bot word which is generally been reserved for the technical purposes, but I didn't have any intention to violate the Wikipedia policies nor in the future I would ever do so. I admit I'm new user in Wikipedia, but I'm a good reader and from onwards I will adhere to all the policy and procedures while using Wikipedia. But I also like to apologise and would request you to tag me with all the important and relevant page regarding the polices so that in future by mistake also I don't any mistake. And thank you for believing in me and considering my request. I'm really happy that you gave time in considering by Unblock request in the winter vacation and also sad that I created a bad rapport with you all that I didn't explain and put my point on my talk page first rather than request the name change. Thanks IMBTech (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, NJA. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 12:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC). 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.
Hey, thanks for the block but it appears this editor is not here to engage with editors and has failed to respond to COI/UPE inquiries. I suspect the creator of the articles about her business is also paid (but that's another matter for COIN), anyway, my question is whether this can be extended to indefinite until they satisfactorily answer the question about their COI/paid editing. Praxidicae (talk) 11:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Praxidicae: I was drafting a note on editing restrictions when you posted here. I wasn’t happy indefinitely blocking right now, but this may be the result if there’s no dialogue. This is their chance. Feel free to report any violation of the restriction to me or another admin, N.J.A. | talk11:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to let you know the edits I submitted were not advertisements and they followed Wikipedia guidelines properly, sources are cited and there is no advertising.
Hi NJA, please could you explain why you considered the reports about User:Firmincigars and User:Uptownlogodesign not a blatant violation of the username's policy? At WP:U I read textually: "Usernames are not allowed on Wikipedia if they: [...] only contain the names of companies, organizations, websites, musical groups or bands, teams, social media or streaming channels, or creative groups". It seems that this precisely meets those situations, isn't it? Is there a different understanding of this policy? Thanks in advance, --DoebLoggs (talk) 10:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DoebLoggs: Hi, although you cite the policy correctly, the intent, when blocking for username violations, is to prevent shared use/role accounts and blatant spamming for or on behalf of someone paying you (WP:PAID). Although both these accounts are potentially editing in a way that’s a conflict, none of the edits indicate someone working at the company created the account for corporate (shared/role) purposes as opposed to an individual who may or may not work for the company. Further, none of the edits are blatant spam, e.g. editing articles to market the products of any particular brand nor have they linked to inappropriate external sources. There could be a warning given not only about username policy, but also COI and PAID, but I disagree they’re blatant violations that require an immediate block. If you’re not in agreement you may take these to WP:RFCN for community consensus on this, N.J.A. | talk10:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again NJA, no, I'm not in disagreement, I was just trying to understand the rationale behind your choice, just to improve my skills and avoid make unuseful reportings and wasting admins' time in the future. Thanks for your answer. Cheers, --DoebLoggs (talk) 10:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
About Dog insurance: get your dog a health insurance article
Hi there.
I have created my first article "Dog insurance: get your dog a health insurance article". i noticed that has deleted. I added one external link for that article and that maybe the reason to delete it. So i just want to know is that okay to remake same article and without adding any links to that. Thank you.
Hi NJA! It's good to talk to you once again! I'm messaging you to ask about the issue with this account's username? It just looks like the user took the word "Chicken Nugget", switched the 'C' and the 'N', and removed the letter 'h'... It doesn't look to me like a username that warrants an account block. Is there something that I'm not seeing? Let me know. :-) Thanks - ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)16:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On face value it's absolutely fine, and perhaps I'm too jaded from the approximately one "Chicken Nugget" themed username created daily, which is ultimately blocked for behaviour, LTA and/or socking reasons. As such I associate the name with demonstrating an intent on being disruptive. Saying this, if they ask for a review I would allow the unblock and if they even mildly seem sincere in intent I'd apologize for the block, N.J.A. | talk16:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @FormalDude: you look good to go. I’ll add the permission to your account, and although I trust you’ve done so do already, do re-familiarize yourself with the intended use of the rollback tool. Also, good job at skipping the queue and coming here for the permission assignment ;), N.J.A. | talk11:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what type of citation you want for the information I left. Rockola was originally a five piece group consisting of Lou Ann Barton on vocals. Paul Christiansen on guitar (he was also Lou Ann's boyfriend at the time). David Skinner as lead guitarist and vocals. Dennis Berganni on bass. Randy "Turtle" DeHart on drums. The band moved to Ft. Worth in 1973 and replaced Berganni with Mike "Cadillac" Johnson. They also added Richard Kline on B3. There are some Rockola recordings that have made their way into the light via Roy Ames Home Cooking label after Roy got out of federal prison. David Skinner was a 2005 inductee into the Oklahoma Jazz Hall of Fame in the Blues category as a singer and guitarist. The story of his induction mentions his time with Rockola and Lou Ann. Additionally, Cadillac's website for Michael "Cadillac" Johnson and the Revelators talks about joining Lou Ann's band in 1973. FYI, the reason I know this information to be accurate is because I WAS THERE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The 1 Big A (talk • contribs) 17:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The 1 Big A: Per the notice left on your page you need to support your changes with a reliable source. As noted in the guidance at that link a reliable source means third-party (i.e. not you, yourself), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Please review the Five Pillars to understand what is expected when editing, N.J.A. | talk17:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NJA, On projects where I have those user rights, I revdel spam on the off chance that someone clicks on those links. I'm definitely not clicking on whatsapp2020freemoney[dot]biz or whatever but I can only assume that his spam is malicious and quite possibly harmful to someone's computer. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯17:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did check the link and it currently goes to an article on "chhatrapati-shivaji-maharaj". I'm not comfy deleting under any criteria. The closest is 3, but even it says the criteria isn't for "mere spam links." Saying that, maybe I'm being overly restrictive on this and I am not opposed to you seeking a further opinion via WP:REVDELREQUEST or wherever else is appropriate, N.J.A. | talk18:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note. Although they could be editing in a COI, I’m not sure they are causing too much disruption. I will welcome them with outlines on COI and remind them to cite and use edit summaries, N.J.A. | talk10:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Username
So question, I reported an account yesterday for User:Subwayeetfresh which is basically Subway "Eat Fresh", the company name and slogan, not exactly sure how that wasn't actionable? Looks like you're active this morning so I posted here but this made no sense to me [[1]]. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the post. Can you clarify which part(s) of the username policy you believe that account name violates? I see one rationale for a soft block under username policy, but you mention "company name and slogan" so I’d like to understand your thinking. Notwithstanding the foregoing, I am blocking as a vandalism only account, but not solely for any username issue, N.J.A. | talk18:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hesitated on the vandalism only part just because they hadn't made more then that initial edit. The reasons I reported were as stated when filed it was a promotional and misleading name. I've seen some social media sites have members that have spoofed a company to make it look like it was them and reply to customers or the like. I doubt many people if any would have fell for it but there again it has happened. Was I off base? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hell in a Bucket: Unfortunately I do no share your view that the name was caught by the provisions of WP:ORGNAME. There’s no indication the user is employed by Subway (or anyone) to edit promotionally and/or was using the name as a shared account. The username policy issue I was referring to is the “yeet” part of the name, which, if you need to google it, you will find it to be disruptive and likely offensive. That, coupled with their edit summary gave good cause to block as VOA and/or NOTHERE. Had they not edited at all I may have soft blocked the name for the reasons mentioned, but not for promotional or shared reasons, N.J.A. | talk22:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No one really declined it, there was a massed deletion on several reports all at once but it was never noted showing hey this or that and why it was summarily removed. You just happened to be an administrator that had been recently active on that page so I asked you because you appeared to be active at the time of posting. It wasn't that you denied or didn't, it's often been my experience that what one administrator finds ok another may not and thus with no rationale of what was the issue it simply became expedient to ask someone that was active. Out of that username you only saw yeet (What I googles it simply meant excited so I don't get the inherent disruption)? I didn't even consider that because of how it was packaged with the name and how many times people have tried to spoof a company and then make a meme or the like after posting some stupid response to someone. I do get your point about ORG and promotional though that may have been off base. Amazing how two people can come to similar assessments for such different reasons. Anyways, appreciated the response thanks! Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi and thanks for the message. I’m familiar with protection policy and re-read it just in case, and I’m not sure what your concern is or where you see an outright prohibition from using ECP? The rationale for protection is this case is mostly vandalism from IPs. Had I intended “Full” protection I would have chose “template protection” instead, as it is a template, and per policy. Anyhow let me know the exact issue and I’ll review, I’ve amended the protection, though I'd like to know the rationale for your concern, N.J.A. | talk11:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is basically that ECP for templates has been rejected in the past. IMHO, it's a pretty inconsequential difference, but it's what we've generally agreed to as a community and we should abide by that consensus. Have a good day! Buffs (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I disagreed with you and went ahead and blocked. The user name is a typo on Fatlozz Clinic. See their contributions and spam to their website. Cheers! -- Alexf(talk)12:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the post. I’ve checked and there is no recent disruption warranting a block in my opinion, but if it picks up do report at WP:ANI, N.J.A. | talk19:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirected/protected article
An article with 50 refs, which seems to meet GNG from what I can tell, was redirected by one editor who asserted it was not notable, and then protected by you. That seems an odd, unhelpful result. How do we have public discussion on the subject? The effect of the editing by the two of you is the same as if the article were deleted. Without going through the AfD process. Thank you. --2604:2000:E010:1100:80EE:174D:AD0C:54A4 (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the post. Although I see some logic in your post, I do not agree it is the actual result (nor was it intended, directly or indirectly). The public discussion around the subject of notability may be had on the article’s talk page, which is not protected. Protection can always be amended or removed following a consensus to do so, which is to be attempted on the talk page. All the best, N.J.A. | talk01:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that is not the intended result. But to answer your point, any public discussion around the subject of notability should I think be at an AfD. Because there we can attract the editors that comment on the issue of notability of an article. They watch the AfD lists. They do not watch this talk page. Maybe the best thing for you to do would as an administrative matter nominate it for AfD? That would allow the usual editors to comment. Otherwise, as you have seen, that talk page may attract editors who are more interested in the article subject than in the notability issue.2604:2000:E010:1100:9CBD:54D6:D394:BC94 (talk) 03:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Although AfD may attract a more skilled audience, it is not meant to supplant discussion of notability issues on the talk page. You seem to be saying if the page were not protected you would nominate for AfD, but you had not done so previously. I thought about your suggestion and I am unsure an AfD is appropriate here as the person was formerly in a fairly high level role in government that arguably involved something noteworthy, and he has been and remains active in California politics. It’s a fair chance consensus will be that the subject meets minimal requirements and that there's scope to improve as opposed to delete the article. For these reasons, and per the prerequisites suggested prior to an AfD nomination, I am not comfortable nominating for deletion. I understand the annoyance, but protection was not put in place to protect the current version with redirect, it was done to prevent further disruption by various editors. Protection does have indirect effects, but discussion and consensus means an agreed change can be made further to a protected edit request. I may be inclined to reduce the period of protection (currently until March 15), but you should continue discussion on the talk page, wait for the current protection to elapse and consider whether to nominate, and/or you may seek a review of the protection by listing the page, with concise reasons why protection is inappropriate under the protection policy at WP:RFUP, N.J.A. | talk11:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note I’ve reconsidered the factors around protection and have for now decided to remove it. The rationale is on the article talk page and the matter should be discussed there, N.J.A. | talk14:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
→Hi, you say you only use the Bot account on ko.wiki. The en.wiki block does not affect use on ko.wiki, so you needn’t do anything. The en.wiki name will remain blocked unless you intend to run the bot on en.wiki, in which case you must follow the steps at WP:BRFA. All the best, N.J.A. | talk10:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. Are you sure about not just semiprotecting it? It just seems a bit active for pending changes... What do you think? El_C12:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to establish any common protective action being taken on articles dealing with the subject, but PC may be too onerous for reviewers based on activity. I’ll amend now to semi, thanks. N.J.A. | talk13:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just added an entry for XML Copy Editor in the table of XML editors at Comparison of XML editors.
When I went to create a page to satisfy the redline, I found the following note
11:56, 20 January 2010 NJA talk contribs deleted page XML Copy Editor (WP:PROD: Nominated for seven days with no objection) (thank)
The software is active and available and under maintenance (I have had a email response from the maintainer about a query I had).
What is the procedure for getting the page XML Copy Editor recovered if I undertake to update it?
I am the editor of the XML FAQ at http://xml.silmaril.ie/ and I do not have any association with the authors of XML Copy Editor (except as an occasional user).
@Frisket: thanks for your message. I have restored the page, but do note it could be re-tagged in future for discussion under the deletion policy. If the shortcomings are addressed however, then it is less likely to be deleted. All the best, N.J.A. | talk16:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
that's great thanks. are the shortcomings just the matter of context? or is there something special needed that isn't mentioned? stay safe Frisket (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded the context and the explanations, and checked the claims. I could add a lot more, but it's only a small application, and a proper review is out of place :-) Frisket (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, NJA user User:Ahmedraunaq is continuing copyright violation to the article Sylheti grammar even after tagging WP:G12 and warning about copyright. See the copyvio report. Please have a look. Thank you.
If you're still around, can you block [2] and make the necessary redactions? Hope you're well. ——Serial# 11:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for that—a ton of work for you, but a job well done :) ——Serial#11:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
one user broke 3RR, then acussed me of edit warring and claiming i changed the status que while it was the consensus version all along, now am worried he will report me, as am a new user i dont know how to defend myself the same way Gooduserdude (talk) 12:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the post. Looking at the article and the edits, I would recommend you stop reverting and use the article’s talk page to discuss the issue. Also see dispute resolution for guidance., N.J.A. | talk12:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see you being reported for edit warring, though you both warned each other about it. If you stop and stick to the article’s talk page and remain civil, you should be okay., N.J.A. | talk12:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One user has moved West Block Blues to user space. And now that it has been moved to user space, I can't move it back to article space. Can you please move it back to article space and protect it. There's so much vandalism going on. Coderzombie (talk) 11:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello NJA, I am Megan, I am currently a pending changes reviewer and rollbacker. I have familiarized myself with almost all of Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. I mostly hover around pending changes , recent changes and page curation to look for articles or edits against Wikipedia’s policies like WP:COPYVIO, WP:N. I really want to help over at NP to help with the over 9000 unreviewed articles. Regards Megan Barris(Lets talk📧)23:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I see you joined us not too long ago and you’ve been busy. Keep up the good work. In terms of your request, generally we want to see 90 days of edits, 500 undeleted edits to mainspace that clearly demonstrate knowledge of page quality control and the page moving process. Overall, far so good, but re-request around end of August, thanks, N.J.A. | talk12:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, NJA. I agree with Sjö that Kurtminrøv is an offensive name. (I have some feeling for Danish, though it's not my mother tongue.) I've softblocked the user. Just thought I'd mention it, hope you don't mind. Bishonen | tålk20:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for the note. It helps when there’s more than one opinion on a foreign term not widely used in English — unless it is and I’ve never come across it? Anyhow, all good here, N.J.A. | talk10:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted an edit I made about Anisomycin.
The study by Butler was not published in the 17th century and it should be blatantly obvious that the year was actually 1974, not 1674. People didn't even know antibiotics existed until (if you're generous) the end of the 19th century.
Hi NJA. Last month you protected Henry Cejudo due to persistent vandalism. Within hours of the protection expiring, the vandalism started again. Three anonymous users so far, all vandal edits. Doesn't look like it's going to stop. Do you think further protection would be a good idea? Thanks. JimKaatFan (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the note. That process takes a little time, but as you have sought a change of name, you will not be blocked. Thank you for taking the time to resolve this, N.J.A. | talk18:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
user I love cloy that was previously blocked seems to be back with another account
Hi, i think user I love cloy that was previously blocked by you seems to be back with another account with name Komoonyoung. because this disruptive editing on Korean drama page is exactly the same as before, changing the rating so that this user favorite dramas is at the top of the list. It's really annoying how much this user is imposing on it's own. Thank you in advance. Michaelelijahtanuwijaya (talk) 00:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I have been editing for about a year with around 7000 edits. Although I've become interested in combating vandalism recently, I have handled disruptive edits and vandalism edits using the rollback feature of WP:TWINKLE, warned users on the talk pages, made two successful reports at the WP:AIV, a handful at WP:UAA, and also filed reports WP:SPI. I would like to request the rollback permission to fight vandalism faster using WP:HUGGLE. Thank you for your consideration. --Ashleyyoursmile!17:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello NJA, 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 2021. Happy editing, Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:31, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good Article Nomination Backlog Drive The March 2021 GAN Backlog Drive begins on March 1, and will continue until the end of the month. Please sign up to review articles and help reduce the backlog of nominations!
Thanks for the note. I had noticed that afterwards (I didn’t study the time stamps in great detail), however I still thought the block is good. Not feeling encouraged they’re anything except a VOA. Thoughts? N.J.A. | talk16:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem likely they'd become a constructive editor but, well, the account wasn't as nasty as the others (probably their friends), so I figured I'd make a distinction and maybe lure them away from the bad company. Never mind, all good. Bishonen | tålk16:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]
He clutters Wikipedia with these unuseful userpages filled with false information copied and distorted from the actual articles, and occasionally vandalizes articles. I think that all these accounts should be blocked and all the userpages he created should be deleted.--37.161.14.5 (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
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.
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Bots Newsletter, December 2021
Bots Newsletter, December 2021
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
BRFA activity by month
Welcome to the eighth issue of the English Wikipedia's Bots Newsletter, your source for all things bot. Maintainers disappeared to parts unknown... bots awakening from the slumber of æons... hundreds of thousands of short descriptions... these stories, and more, are brought to you by Wikipedia's most distinguished newsletter about bots.
Our last issue was in August 2019, so there's quite a bit of catching up to do. Due to the vast quantity of things that have happened, the next few issues will only cover a few months at a time. This month, we'll go from September 2019 through the end of the year. I won't bore you with further introductions — instead, I'll bore you with a newsletter about bots.
Overall
Between September and December 2019, there were 33 BRFAs. Of these, Y 25 were approved, and 8 were unsuccessful (N2 3 denied, ? 3 withdrawn, and 2 expired).
TParis goes away, UTRSBot goes kaput: Beeblebroxnoted that the bot for maintaining on-wiki records of UTRS appeals stopped working a while ago. TParis, the semi-retired user who had previously run it, said they were "unlikely to return to actively editing Wikipedia", and the bot had been vanquished by trolls submitting bogus UTRS requests on behalf of real blocked users. While OAuth was a potential fix, neither maintainer had time to implement it. TParis offered to access to the UTRS WMFLabs account to any admin identified with the WMF: "I miss you guys a whole lot [...] but I've also moved on with my life. Good luck, let me know how I can help". Ultimately, SQL ended up in charge. Some progress was made, and the bot continued to work another couple months — but as of press time, UTRSBot has not edited since November 2019.
Curb Safe Charmer adopts reFill: TAnthonypointed out that reFill 2's bug reports were going unanswered; creator Zhaofeng Li had retired from Wikipedia, and a maintainer was needed. As of June 2021, Curb Safe Charmer had taken up the mantle, saying: "Not that I have all the skills needed but better me than nobody! 'Maintainer' might be too strong a term though. Volunteers welcome!"
(You can subscribe or unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding or removing your name from this list.)
How we will see unregistered users
Hi!
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
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.
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
BRFA activity by month
Welcome to the ninth issue of the English Wikipedia's Bots Newsletter, your source for all things bot. Vicious bot-on-bot edit warring... superseded tasks... policy proposals... these stories, and more, are brought to you by Wikipedia's most distinguished newsletter about bots.
After a long hiatus between August 2019 and December 2021, there's quite a bit of ground to cover. Due to the vastness, I decided in December to split the coverage up into a few installments that covered six months each. Some people thought this was a good idea, since covering an entire year in a single issue would make it unmanageably large. Others thought this was stupid, since they were getting talk page messages about crap from almost three years ago. Ultimately, the question of whether each issue covers six months or a year is only relevant for a couple more of them, and then the problem will be behind us forever.
Of course, you can also look on the bright side – we are making progress, and this issue will only be about crap from almost two years ago. Today we will pick up where we left off in December, and go through the first half of 2020.
Overall
In the first half of 2020, there were 71 BRFAs. Of these, Y 59 were approved, and 12 were unsuccessful (with N2 8 denied, ? 2 withdrawn, and 2 expired).
January 2020
Yeah, you're not gonna be able to get away with this anymore.
A new Pywikibot release dropped support for Python 3.4, and it was expected that support for Python 2.7 would be removed in coming updates. Toolforge itself planned to drop Python 2 support in 2022.
On February 1, some concerns were raised about ListeriaBot performing "nonsense" edits. Semi-active operator Magnus Manske (who originally coded the Phase II software|precursor of MediaWiki) was pinged. Meanwhile, the bot was temporarily blocked for several hours until the issue was diagnosed and resolved.
In March, a long discussion was started at Wikipedia talk:Bot policy by Skdb about the troubling trend of bots "expiring" without explanation after their owners became inactive. This can happen for a variety of reasons -- API changes break code, hosting providers' software updates break code, hosting accounts lapse, software changes make bots' edits unnecessary, and policy changes make bots' edits unwanted. The most promising solution seemed to be Toolforge hosting (although it has some problems of its own, like the occasional necessity of refactoring code).
A discussion on the bot noticeboard, "Re-examination of ListeriaBot", was started by Barkeep49, who pointed out repeated operation outside the scope of its BRFA (i.e. editing pages in mainspace, and adding non-free images to others). Some said it was doing good work, and others said it was operating beyond its remit. It was blocked on April 10; the next day it was unblocked, reblocked from article space, reblocked "for specified non-editing actions", unblocked, and indeffed. The next week, several safeguards were implemented in its code by Magnus; the bot was allowed to roam free once more on April 18.
Issues and enquiries are typically expected to be handled on the English Wikipedia. Pages reachable via unified login, like a talk page at Commons or at Italian Wikipedia could also be acceptable [...] External sites like Phabricator or GitHub (which require separate registration or do not allow for IP comments) and email (which can compromise anonymity) can supplement on-wiki communication, but do not replace it.
May 2020
We heard you like bots, so we made a bot that reports the status of your bots, so now you can use bots while you use bots
MajavahBot 3, an impressively meta bot task, was approved this month for maintaining a list of bots running on the English Wikipedia. The page, located at User:MajavahBot/Bot status report, is updated every 24 hours; it contains a list of all accounts with the bot flag, as well as their operator, edit count, last activity date, last edit date, last logged action date, user groups and block status.
In July 2017, Headbomb made a proposal that a section of the Wikipedia:Dashboard be devoted to bots and technical issues. In November 2019, Lua code was written superseding Legobot's tasks on that page, and operator Legoktm was asked to stop them so that the new code could be deployed. After no response to pings, a partial-block of Legobot for the dashboard was proposed. Some months later, on June 16, Headbomb said: "A full block serves nothing. A partial block solves all current issues [...] Just fucking do it. It's been 3 years now." The next day, however, Legoktm disabled the task, and the dashboard was successfully refactored.
On June 7, RexxS blocked Citation bot for disruptive editing, saying it was "still removing links after request to stop". A couple weeks later, a discussion on the bots noticeboard was opened, saying "it is a widely-used and useful bot, but it has one of the longest block logs for any recently-operating bot on Wikipedia". While its last BRFA approval was in 2011, its code and functionality had changed dramatically since then, and AntiCompositeNumber requested that BAG require a new BRFA. Maintainer AManWithNoPlan responded that most blocks were from years ago (when it lacked a proper test suite), and problems since then had mostly been one-off errors (like a June 2019 incident in which a LTA had "weaponized" the bot to harass editors).
David Tornheim opened a discussion about whether bots based on closed-source code should be permitted, and proposed that they not. He cited a recent case in which a maintainer had said "I can only suppose that the code that is available on GitHub is not the actual code that was running on [the bot]". Some disagreed: Naypta said that "I like free software as much as the next person, and I strongly believe that bot operators should make their bot code public, but I don't think it should be that they must do so".
Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:
Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period
Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.
22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
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.
Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}}[reply]
I saw that yo were in the list of dmins wlling o grant rollback rights. I am an extended cofirmed user withh abut 200 mainspace edits. I have experiene with reverting vandalism as a RCP, and I wish to advance that further into using the rollback tool to patrol recent changes. I hope you consider me for this user right. --Justyouraveragelechugatalkcontribs13:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_(cropped_to_40%25).jpg){kind=small}
_shown_in_her_laboratory_in_1947.jpg)
