Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,
Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi Gadfium.
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 However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less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.
Hello, Gadfium. 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.
Hello, Gadfium. 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.
Hi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Oceania/The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/The 5000 Challenge are up and running based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. The Australia challenge would feed into the wider region one and potentially New Zealand could have a smaller challenge too. The main goal is content improvement, tackling stale old stubs and important content and improving sourcing/making more consistent but new articles are also welcome if sourced. I understand that this is a big goal for regular editors, especially being summertime where you are, but if you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Oceania and Australia like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1700 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for the region but fuelled by a series of contests to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. The Africa contest scaled worldwide would naturally provide great benefits to Oceania countries, particularly Australia and attract new editors. I would like some support from existing editors here to get the Challenges off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile and potentially bring about hundreds of improvements in a few weeks through a contest! Cheers.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please stop stalking my edits. Its really annoying you are deleting my work, which is a sign of vandalism.
Re Goldcorp
I have recently did an article Re Goldcorp Exchange Limited (in receivership): Kensington v Liggett, and I have since discovered another article simply called Re Goldcorp. As this is a double up, could you delete my article. Could you please change the title of the other artilce to "Re Goldcorp Exchange Limited (in receivership): Kensington v Liggett", as that is the proper legal citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwisheriff (talk • contribs)
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.
JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
A recent RfC has redefined how articles on schools are evaluated at AfD. Specifically, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.
You know that even blocked editors can remove their block notices, right? What they can't remove is declined unblock appeals while blocked. --NeilNtalk to me07:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see WP:REMOVE, which is a guideline not a policy. I was under the impression that a blocked editor could not remove block notices, and clearly I am out of date (or just plain wrong) on this. I'll do better in future.-gadfium07:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.
Technical news
After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.
She's a BLP troll magnet. Last time you protected the article for a week. The day after it expired, IPs were back at it. Why only a month? Headbomb {t · c · p · b}14:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably the same person, or a small group of them, playing games on this article. There's a reasonable chance they'll have found some other game in a month's time, and forgotten about this article. If not, I or someone else can semi-protect for longer.-gadfium18:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. I rated it in August 2012, when it was three paragraphs and three refs, with no structure or infobox. It now has almost three times as much content, nine refs, several sections and an infobox. I'd say that's a clear start class. I've upgraded it. As you are an established editor, I don't see a problem with you changing article assessments yourself, at least for the lower assessments (stub, start, C), even if you have made substantial edits to the article.-gadfium01:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the upgrade. I think there's a conflict of interest when a heavily-involved editor upgrades the class, so I'd prefer to have oversight by a more senior editor. Cheers. Akld guy (talk) 01:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Akld guy, I'd say that upgrading an article from a stub to start class is never a problem for an editor who's done the hard work. What I suggest is that you have a good read of Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Assessment, and in particular the section on quality scale. I'd also encourage you to do some assessments of WPNZ articles to help clear the backlog of 4,600 articles that either need importance, quality, or both assessed. And once you've got a good amount of experience, I suggest that even higher quality assessments would be just fine, even if you've improved the article yourself. And if there's anybody giving you a hard time over assessing your own work, be in touch and I'll back you. If you do some assessment and are not sure what the most appropriate class is, just give me a ping and I shall offer an opinion. Class can be much more objectively done than importance, I'd say. Keep up the good work. Schwede6608:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Schwede66: I've read the Assessment article, and appreciate your encouragement to start assessing WPNZ articles. It's possible that I might start off in a small way. Thank you for your words of support. Akld guy (talk) 05:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Edit war about to reach 3RR over editor having fun
At The Strand Station, User:Bennyaha deleted the statement that the Northern Explorer train leaves from the station in this edit. I reverted the edit because the statement is true - the train does leave from there. Bennyaha didn't leave an edit summary, so I assumed he was simply mistaken or deleting duplicate info stated elsewhere in the article. However, Bennyaha and I have reverted each other a couple of times since, and it's obvious he's playing a game because his latest edit summary says: "The northern explorer train leaves from britomart not from this station)".
The train does leave from The Strand, as can be seen from the company's advertising page here. Note that the page is dated 2017. The train has been leaving from The Strand for several years. What can we do about this editor who is being disruptive? Akld guy (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Akld guy and Bennyaha: You should be using the article talk page. Edit summaries aren't enough when you have a content dispute. Also, you should add your source to the article. I suspect Bennyaha remembers when the train left from Britomart and isn't aware the location has changed.-gadfium22:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Gadfium. I have reinserted the statement with source (KiwiRail Scenic Journey's Northern Explorer timetable page). Akld guy (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First of all I do not play games and I am extremely offended that is suggested. I do not have fun and I do not Vandalize Wiki as I take my wiki editing very seriously. I do not play games like a high school student. Secondly out of all my edits I have never had a situation like this so I never had a procedure or knew what to do in instances like today. Thirdly gadfium you are 100% correct, I use to take the train often but i haven't taken the train for a while. I do apologies for the situation and I don't mean to create quite a disturbance. --Bennyaha (talk) 03:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bennyaha: I gave you the benefit of the doubt on your first deletion because I assumed you were mistaken. Your subsequent reverts asserted strongly that the information was wrong, when a little bit of checking in the same article would have told you why the terminus was moved. Next time, check your facts thoroughly before asserting so strongly that you were correct. It looked like you were contemptuously dismissing my reverts. Akld guy (talk) 03:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Schwede66: OK, Bennyaha was mistaken, but with a name like that (which seemed like a joke name but maybe is a real name), and saying in an edit summary that he has taken the train all his life (all of 24 years according to his User page)... well you figure it out. You, Schwede66, are commenting on this with hindsight after Bennyaha has explained. Put yourself in my shoes at the time: a possible joke name, a 24 year old saying he's taken the train all his life...is it any wonder I thought that here's a jokester having fun. Hindsight is a wonderful thing Mr Schwede66. May I ask how you happened to turn up here to comment? Akld guy (talk) 06:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you may ask, Akld guy. I've had Gadfium's page on my watchlist for many years. And I may suggest that hindsight has nothing to do with all of this. Before you make wild assumptions about other users and their joke names, why not simply look at their contributions? Schwede6609:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.
There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.
In this edit, you changed to role of the RNZAF to "aerial warfare", but this has not been their role for many decades, and they no longer have attack aircraft. I doubt you will be able to find current reliable sources which claim that this is their role.-gadfium19:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that I changed it is that aerial warfare is the all encompassing role of an air force in all functions relating to an air force (transport, ISR, patrol, attack, etc.), just as land warfare is to an army, and naval warfare is to a navy. As such I felt that it was not just a statement on their current lack of attack or fighter aircraft, but their stated function, rather than just limiting to maritime patrol and transport in the role section, which was stated in the article. Does this make my change make sense in this light? The defininition of Aerial warfare used by a citation on the aerial warfare page backs this view up "See John Andreas Olsen, ed., A History of Air Warfare (2010) for global coverage since 1900.
Kia ora Gadfium. All Survivor editions in the United States, as well as the recent Australian Survivor (2016) and many other international versions of the format do not include local sources from the NZ Herald as 'verified sources' to tell what days people were voted out, and who was voted out when. It makes the graphs look different to the other versions and more clogged. I suggest you peruse these Wikipedia pages, and if you feel desperate to change this for the Survivor NZ page, perhaps one clear link to the official TVNZ site, which includes recaps and links to the full episodes, will suffice? Rather than a local newspaper review? Kiwi_Jaden10:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
hi there I wanted to remove the content as I'm about to start a new project and don't want the old project to come up on google when you search my name.. please keep removed content removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djeisan (talk • contribs)
An RfC proposing an off-wiki LTA database has been closed. The proposal was broadly supported, with further discussion required regarding what to do with the existing LTA database and defining access requirements. Such a tool/database formed part of the Community health initiative's successful grant proposal.
Some clarifications have been made to the community banning and unblocking policies that effectively sync them with current practice. Specifically, the community has reached a consensus that when blocking a user at WP:AN or WP:ANI, it is considered a "community sanction", and administrators cannot unblock unilaterally if the user has not successfully appealed the sanction to the community.
Hello, I'm the wikipedian in residence at the Auckland War memorial museum and I've been told you are a good person to talk to about setting up editathons? I've just started in this role this week ( going to be here for five weeks in total) and we were considering hosting an editathon in the final week of my placement, 10th-14th July. I was wondering if you had any advice on this? There is more information on what we are doing at our page GLAM/Auckland MuseumI'm quite new to Wikipedia so if you see anything we need to add to this page or clarify please let me now. Susan Tol (talk) 00:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Susan Tol:I haven't done the organising for an editathon. You could ask @Ysuh8890: about her experience organising the Art and Feminism editathon a few months ago. I'd be happy to come in to Auckland Museum and talk to you about how I can help you in your role. I'm free Monday, Thursday and Friday this coming week. When would suit you?-gadfium04:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you could come to the museum that would be great. The only time I can offer on Monday is before 12 or after 4, would that suit? If not I can do anytime on Thursday or Friday.Susan Tol (talk) 05:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, me again, hope you don't mind me continuing under the same heading. I've been working on a new page for a jeweller Elena Gee and I was wondering if you would mind having a look at it. We have her CV that she made in 1997 which is where I've been able to source most of her lists of exhibitions and works but not sure if I've referenced everything right. I've added additional references where I've been able to find them but if there appears to be no reference that means its from her CV. User:Susan Tol/Eléna Gee It's looking a bit messy so I thought I'd seek help. Susan Tol (talk) 23:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a good start. I can't evaluate the sources as none of them are online. That's not a problem for the article, just hinders me taking a quick look at it.
Is the "Craft Board of Australia" the same as the "Crafts Board" in Australia? Is it an earlier name for the same organisation?
The body of an article should not usually contain embedded external links. See Wikipedia:External links. If the external links directly support the article content, they should be references, otherwise link to the Wikipedia article on the subject, if any, or a red link if the subject is clearly notable, or leave unlinked. Does that make sense?
I fixed a few spelling errors. I suggest you add a NZ dictionary and spell checker to your web browser. They're available for Firefox and I would expect for most other browers. However, there is a problem that some countries spell "Jewelry" and others "Jewellery". The article should be consistent, but references need to be spelled as the original source has it. I may have gotten some of these wrong.
@Crngegod:. You need to be published in a reliable source. We don't accept original research. These are safeguards to ensure both accuracy of information, and a basic standard of notability for the details we include. The upgrade of the WiFi at your school meets neither of these.-gadfium04:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding ?fuzzy=1 to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.
A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.
Hi Gadfium, I noticed you removed the external link I added to William Rolleston. I'm new in editing Wikipedia and would be interested to learn about my mistake? --Guigus60 (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Guigus60:It would appear that all the edits you have made to Wikipedia are links to 3D models at the website skfb.ly, and not all these links, e.g. the one at moai, appear to assist a reader in a greater understanding of the subject. It looks as if the primary purpose of your edits is to drive traffic to the website rather than build the encyclopedia. If I'm wrong, then I apologise, and I look forward to seeing you contribute without focussing on such external links.-gadfium19:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings from France. When dealing with Torygreen84's problematic edits (e.g. Winston Peters), can you please leave a note on the editor 's talk page? You have to look at the talk page history to see all the warnings. The editor simply does not learn from these warnings and I can only see this heading towards a site ban. Hence, further notices will either reduce the time until the editor gets blocked or maybe they will suddenly get it. Schwede6610:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Torygreen's edits are sometimes problematic, but he appears to be an editor in good faith, and the edit I reverted at Winston Peters was not of sufficient concern to warrant a warning, in my opinion.-gadfium19:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I really Do not want to be problematic I Really do Love editing wikipeaida, i am doing my best work i can do with wikipeaida. Torygreen84 (talk) 14:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IPv6 rangeblock
Hello Gadfium,
Regarding your question... Many, if not most, wired broadband providers allocate a /64 to each customer, so blocking that range is unlikely to cause any collateral damage. —DoRD (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gadfium, I understand you put a message on my talk page and I'm in New Zealand, and you're a member of the New Zealand WikiProject. In the kids programming block from Saturday-Sunday, as I said on TVNZ 2. Aidancuckoo (talk) 23:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted you to find a source for the reasons you added why TVNZ renamed TV2. The broadcast of Playtime doesn't appear to fit in the "History" section.-gadfium23:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. The broadcast of kids songs ended when TVNZ 2 switched over to the new logo.
User:Cacrats is going from athlete to athlete and deleting and changing categories. I picked this up at Jack Lovelock, but his contribs show dozens of edits today that are damaging. Akld guy (talk) 23:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC) His contribs hereAkld guy (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stand down on that. He removed the category Commonwealth Games, apparently not aware that it was formerly named British Empire Games (from 1930-1950) in which Lovelock did compete. I've restored the category and left a note on Cacrat's Talk page telling him about it. Akld guy (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, since I told you to stand down, it has become apparent that Cacrats was not mistaken about the British Empire Games - he is going from one NZ athlete to another and removing Category:Commonwealth Games competitors for New Zealand (and many other countries including Australia and Canada). Looks like disruptive behaviour to me. He justified the Lovelock deletion as " (Please see WP:Overcategorisation), then when I reverted him again, deleted it again with the edit summary "(It's the exact same reason my edit to Milkha Singh got deleted)". I can find no recent edit by him at Milkha Singh. I think he's playing with us. Akld guy (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to see this as a miscommunication rather than bad faith. I've left a message for them which might help, and a warning about 3RR. You should read WP:3RR as well.-gadfium04:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So was my edit correct back on March 2014 on the Milkha Singh article? There's only one answer here. In sum, I can't be wrong then, and also wrong now. If we are to err, let us err on the side of reducing redundancy. Cacrats (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you still care so deeply about an edit three years ago, take it up with the editor who reverted you. You will need evidence that the competitor was in events they didn't win as well as the one in which they got a gold medal, to make it a comparable case.-gadfium20:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cacrats: Redundancy is not the issue. Read carefully this, which is what I told you on your Talk page: What you do not appreciate is that while there are people who decide to go to the categories pages from Lovelock's article, there are also those who browse the categories and come backwards to Lovelock's article. You have removed the opportunity for people browsing the Commonwealth Games competitor category to see Jack Lovelock.Akld guy (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Paul.g.griffiths block
I've changed the block on the above user to indef to match your comment on his user talk. If perchance I've misunderstood something here - let me know. Vsmith (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
LoginNotify should soon be deployed to the English Wikipedia. This will notify users when there are suspicious login attempts on their account.
The new version of XTools is nearing an official release. This suite of tools includes administrator statistics, an improved edit counter, among other tools that may benefit administrators. You can report issues on Phabricator and provide general feedback at mw:Talk:XTools.
Your threat to block me is a waste of your time. I use a completely unlimited number of Internet Protocol numbers. R. Neil Marshman has already been accused of advertising by another. If you accused me of Outing, that would be more like a reasonable thing to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.220.191.8 (talk) 09:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As you have previously had involvement with the Current events page, I would appreciate your participation in the discussion, if it is convenient for you. Thank you for your time. — RossO (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, really glad to see you're coming along to the NZ Insect Cards edit-a-thon. If you haven't already, could you make sure you've enrolled via this Google form, for catering purposes? We'll send out a last-minute email with transportation and parking information. Look forward to seeing you on Sunday. Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.
Technical news
You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.
Following a successful proposal to create it, a new user right called "edit filter helper" is now assignable and revocable by administrators. The right allows non-administrators to view the details of private edit filters, but not to edit them.
Following a discussion about mass-application of ECP and how the need for logging and other details of an evolving consensus may have been missed by some administrators, a rough guide to extended confirmed protection has been written. This information page describes how the extended-confirmed aspects of the protection policy are currently being applied by administrators.
A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
hi, I'm going to be doing quite a bit of editing on kate sheppard soon. trying to make things a bit tighter and be helpful but please let me know if I'm breaking any style guide rules 01:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susan Tol (talk • contribs)
He's certainly very close to the line. Someone not previously involved with the article should be the one to take action, if they consider that appropriate.-gadfium17:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A new function is now available to edit filter managers that will make it easier to look for multiple strings containing spoofed text.
Arbitration
Eligible editors will be invited to submit candidate statements for the 2017 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 12 until November 21. Voting will begin on November 27 and last until December 10.
The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.
Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.
Technical news
Wikimedians are now invited to vote on the proposals in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey on Meta Wiki until 10 December 2017. In particular, there is a section of the survey regarding new tools for administrators and for anti-harassment.
A new function is available to edit filter managers which can be used to store matches from regular expressions.
Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.
Hello, Gadfium. 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.
"(rv, pov. The ref given has a discussion about the ethics of rodeo but not a criticism of O'Connor.). "
Alright, if you think the SPCA's response to his comments doesn't count as a criticism, I won't split straws on that. But why not edit the comment, rather than delete the remainder entirely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.184.91 (talk) 10:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's enough in the source to warrant addition to the article. If you can find a source to justify your addition that he "has a history of involvement with rodeo", and if you can phrase it neutrally, then you are welcome to add it to the article. If you add material which is not supported by the source and not worded neutrally, I'm not going to take the time to rewrite it.-gadfium17:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
