Please start new message threads at the bottom of the page. Thank you! (Leave a new message)

Archives

beginning – 15 August 2005 August 2005 – 5 January 2006 January 2006 – 11 April 2006 April 2006 – 12 June 2006 June 2006 – 26 July 2006 July 2006 – 8 September 2006 September 2006 – 8 November 2006 November 2006 – May 2007 May 2007 – October 2014

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:SOFIXIT redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Brustopher (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Saxifrage. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Saxifrage.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

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

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

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

Obituaries

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

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:SOFIXIT redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Primefac (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Nocturne (PS2 game). Since you had some involvement with the Nocturne (PS2 game) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect MoS:MUSIC. Since you had some involvement with the MoS:MUSIC redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 18:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fakenes. Since you had some involvement with the Fakenes redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect FakeNes. Since you had some involvement with the FakeNes redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Template:Z152[reply]

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

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

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

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Template:Z83[reply]

You have got to be kidding me. IBAN on me and not the other two?!

Let's rehash the !votes and discount the subject's opinions (Support/oppose/neutral):

IBAN on me: (4/0/0) GoldenRing, Swarm, GMG, MI*

IBAN on IG: (4/0/0) GoldenRing, Swarm, GMG, MI

IBAN on CV: (4/0/0) GoldenRing, Swarm, GMG, MI

Let's rehash the !votes with the subject's opinions:

IBAN on me: (5/1/0) GoldenRing, Swarm, GMG, MI, CV/Buffs

IBAN on IG: (5/1/0) GoldenRing, Swarm, GMG, Buffs, MI/CV

IBAN on CV: (5/1/0) GoldenRing, Swarm, GMG, Buffs, MI/CV

*MI, inexplicably, wrote "Support per Buffs", so I'm assuming that's on everyone. I asked for clarification. He declined, so I'm guessing he's a supporter across the board but he could have meant he supported me.

Note: IG appears not to have clearly specified an opinion on the subject per se.

Lastly, your conclusion states I'm guilty of inappropriate, significant hostility, and incivility. WHERE?!?!

You've effectively given these others carte blanche to revert any/all changes of mine and I have no recourse. Buffs (talk) 03:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I’ve been expecting you, although as you’ll see I should not have. Welcome, briefly, to my talk page.

I understand that you might not approve of the outcome, and that you might be frustrated right now. Quickly, and in the heat of the moment, is not the best time to do… well, anything at Wikipedia. Note that my job as volunteer closer was not to inject my own opinion, only to summarise the existing consensus. It’s a fiddly clerking task. I’m fairly wonkish, so I care more about things running well than about the personalities or opinions involved. Getting up in my face about the execution of this task is not how to proceed.

To answer your “where” question expediently, you’ve demonstrating inappropriate hostility here already. (See below for why here is inappropriate. See WP:CIVIL [and WP:AGF] for why the content is.) If you don’t yet recognise that, then you might consider taking time for some reflection on how you post here. Apart from self-reflection, I must advise you that I’m an admin who doesn’t take personalised guff, so you probably don’t want to pursue the strategy on display in that discussion further with me directly, especially if skipping the self-reflection. See below, however, for avenues of pursuit.

The correct place to contest a discussion close is not on the talk page of the closer. See WP:CLOSECHALLENGE for the correct procedure.

Also be aware that policy is that consensus is not about votes. That’s why Wikipedia tasks uninvolved closers to evaluate consensus instead of simply counting votes, which any bot could do. As you are a strong advocate of following policy, I’m sure you’ll understand that simply counting votes would have been a dereliction of my duty.

I expect this completes our interaction on this subject. Before you are tempted to reply anyway, please review the second and especially third paragraphs of this reply, and consider not doing so, in favour of using the prescribed avenue for challenging a discussion close. — Saxifrage ✎ 04:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very confused. The proscribed procedure in Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Challenging_other_closures is "For other procedures...contact the editor who performed the closure and try to resolve the issue through discussion". Buffs (talk) 05:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was unclear. I got the impression that you wanted to relitigate the dispute, which if one reads between the lines there, shouldn’t be brought to the closing user. On second read you may be simply objecting to the accuracy of my summary, in which case bringing it to me was fine.

To be very clear though, what your question here asked does not change my evaluation of the discussion. It did not present new information or context, or point out a procedural error. It does object to the summary, but by making the argument that I miscounted the votes—but counting votes is not part of correct closing and so that is not a persuasive point. Since it lacked substance presenting new material or clear procedural errors, demanded my reasoning (which was already fully supplied in the comment on the close), and because of the yelling, I mistook it for simple objection to the outcome rather than a request for review.

Re-evaluating your question as merely a request for review, I still have to decline to change the conclusion of the close. I don’t think I made an error. In such a case where the closing user declines to reconsider, or when it’s an objection of conclusion rather than procedure, WP:CLOSECHALLENGE notesyou can request a review on the self-same Administrators’ Noticeboard. — Saxifrage ✎ 16:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in relitigating anything or even challenging the conclusion, per se, but I am confused by your rationale and would appreciate clarification. I'm not saying your summary is incorrect; it's your opinion and, by virtue of your position, it stands, I suppose. You're saying it's consensus, but I don't see how that's possible with the given evidence and positions taken by the participants. And that's what I need clarification on. It seems to me that something that IG/CV/MI said must have been more persuasive. Conversely, perhaps something I said wasn't persuasive. If so, what were they? If there is something that the community wants me to change, then I should at least know what it is, not just "Buffs has been uncivil, etc" with no specifics. How on earth can I (or others) possibly change behavior without knowing what was "wrong" or "right"?

I'm well aware of !votes (it's in my initial comments). Buffs (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A two-way IBAN was proposed. One of the people who would have been subject to it proposed a one-way IBAN instead. No-one else supported a one-way IBAN. How on earth do you find consensus for it??? GoldenRing (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I considered the substance and quality of evidence offered (as closing advice directs) and the number of people in support, for each individual under discussion. I noted that support for IBANs for everyone was too muddy for consensus. I found that the argument for Buffs behaviour being egregiously hostile was overwhelming solid, and the facts were not contested by uninvolved commentors. A one-way IBAN for Buffs was proposed as an alternative; for egregious incivility, that fit. As the only consensus that emerged was on Buffs behaviour, and IBANs were the point of the discussion, that’s the remedy for the consensus misbehaviour. That is what shook out of that mess. — Saxifrage ✎ 04:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]