This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font>
tags, which are causing
Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.
You are encouraged to change
[[User:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">''Prodego''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">talk</font>]]</sup>
:
Prodego
talkto
[[User:Prodego|<i style="color: darkgreen">Prodego</i>]] <sup>[[User talk:Prodego|<span style="color="darkgreen">talk</span>]]</sup>
:
Prodego
talk— Anomalocaris ( talk) 10:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
The reason I reacted the way I did was the way I interpreted 65HCA7's comments, they were implying that anyone with a high edit count would pass RfA, no matter if those edits are 100% automated, BLP-violating article creations, and/or useless AfD spamming. That's simply untrue, and anyone who's spent the amount of time at RfA that they say they have should know that any one of those things alone would sink an RfA faster than the RMS Titanic, and likely result in a topic ban from the areas of disruption. To top it off, see their oppose in the current RfA, which I assume was the trigger for this. For someone ostensibly complaining about inflating standards and editcountitis, that's IMO an extremely hypocritical oppose. ansh 666 01:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I noticed 4 problems with the standard deviation image. Upon doing 5 minutes of crawling wikipedia, I found you independently found some of the same issues. So in case you want to pick this back up, here are the 4 problems I found, and I copied the discussion off of some moderator's talk page to jog your memory.
100.16.231.141 ( talk) 03:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Prodego. 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)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of unaccredited institutions of higher education. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Lurking shadow ( talk) 20:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Administrators
must secure their accounts
The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.
|
This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
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)
Ten years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
In what universe are maintenance templates (signalling undersourced BLPs and mangled English among other things, as you no doubt noticed in your thorough review) article content? In what universe is it ok to keep blindly removing templates after a final warning? Why do we even have a templated series of warnings for removal of maintenance tags, if that's a "content dispute"? -- bonadea contributions talk 15:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Can you please also block 74.178.156.219? They are now starting the same edits as the other IP you just blocked. S0091 ( talk) 00:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Template:~ has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- Bank Bank Robbery started a robbery ( 🚨) 10:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Please see WP:AN/I. 86.187.238.116 ( talk) 17:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello, you are receiving this message because you have either contributed to Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests in the past six months or are an active editor listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/verified users. I have started a discussion regarding the project's current status at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject on open proxies#Reboot, you are invited to participate in the discussion. If you are not interested in the project, no action is required on your part; this is a one-time notification and you will not receive any further messages. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 14:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC) (on behalf of User:GeneralNotability)
Category:Wikipedian VandalProof moderators has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
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)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font>
tags, which are causing
Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.
You are encouraged to change
[[User:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">''Prodego''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">talk</font>]]</sup>
:
Prodego
talkto
[[User:Prodego|<i style="color: darkgreen">Prodego</i>]] <sup>[[User talk:Prodego|<span style="color="darkgreen">talk</span>]]</sup>
:
Prodego
talk— Anomalocaris ( talk) 10:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
The reason I reacted the way I did was the way I interpreted 65HCA7's comments, they were implying that anyone with a high edit count would pass RfA, no matter if those edits are 100% automated, BLP-violating article creations, and/or useless AfD spamming. That's simply untrue, and anyone who's spent the amount of time at RfA that they say they have should know that any one of those things alone would sink an RfA faster than the RMS Titanic, and likely result in a topic ban from the areas of disruption. To top it off, see their oppose in the current RfA, which I assume was the trigger for this. For someone ostensibly complaining about inflating standards and editcountitis, that's IMO an extremely hypocritical oppose. ansh 666 01:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I noticed 4 problems with the standard deviation image. Upon doing 5 minutes of crawling wikipedia, I found you independently found some of the same issues. So in case you want to pick this back up, here are the 4 problems I found, and I copied the discussion off of some moderator's talk page to jog your memory.
100.16.231.141 ( talk) 03:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Prodego. 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)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of unaccredited institutions of higher education. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Lurking shadow ( talk) 20:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Administrators
must secure their accounts
The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.
|
This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
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)
Ten years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
In what universe are maintenance templates (signalling undersourced BLPs and mangled English among other things, as you no doubt noticed in your thorough review) article content? In what universe is it ok to keep blindly removing templates after a final warning? Why do we even have a templated series of warnings for removal of maintenance tags, if that's a "content dispute"? -- bonadea contributions talk 15:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Can you please also block 74.178.156.219? They are now starting the same edits as the other IP you just blocked. S0091 ( talk) 00:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Template:~ has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- Bank Bank Robbery started a robbery ( 🚨) 10:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Please see WP:AN/I. 86.187.238.116 ( talk) 17:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello, you are receiving this message because you have either contributed to Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests in the past six months or are an active editor listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/verified users. I have started a discussion regarding the project's current status at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject on open proxies#Reboot, you are invited to participate in the discussion. If you are not interested in the project, no action is required on your part; this is a one-time notification and you will not receive any further messages. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 14:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC) (on behalf of User:GeneralNotability)
Category:Wikipedian VandalProof moderators has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
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)