News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).

Administrator changes

Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim

Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

• 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.

Technical news

• You can now see a list of all autoblocks at Special:AutoblockList.
• 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.
• Administrators, bureaucrats and stewards can now set an expiry date when granting user rights. ( discuss, permalink)

Miscellaneous

• 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.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited North End, Boston, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hanover Street. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Meriadoc Brandybuck, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rohan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC) reply

I just wanted to make sure I thanked you for the ref desk misc comment affirming my position on state/federal crimes. The problem is that I am on opiates for GI problems, and could not tell whether I had "thunk" you for your edit. (I went to thank you, but feared I had already thunk you, and the feature doesn't say!) The wort part is that I get all the memory loss and none of the high out of these pseudopiods. Sucks. But here's real evidence of my thanks. lomotil. μηδείς ( talk) 19:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC) reply

'tsallgood. -- Jayron 32 00:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi Jayron, I am one of the editors involved in the content dispute at the article Republic of East Florida‎. Thanks for your recent intervention, but your protection edit has established the contentious revision made by user EastFloridaHistorian, who by his own admission also uses different IP addresses to make his edits.

You get an idea of EastFloridaHistorian's approach to editing the article in the edit summary he made with his first addition of the disputed infobox: " Added a country box. I am starting to think that the removal of my edits is RACIST! He is showing clear bias against Floridians and our history!"). The edit was first reverted by user Jeff in CA with this edit. EFH then left a note on the article's talk page, but had no consensus to justify re-adding the disputed infobox. Consequently I reverted his re-addition, and this continued through another cycle of adding and reverting before you intervened.

I believe that consensus regarding the addition should be reached by concerned editors, but your protection edit has unfortunately established EFH's contentious infobox on the article page. I don't think there is any way to collaborate productively with this editor, who wraps his comments on the article's talk page in religiosity, and is on a mission to correct what he considers "discrimination" against "Native Floridians", whom he arbitrarily defines as members of, or the descendants of, the groups of rebels who invaded Spanish Florida in the so-called "Patriot War", or as he puts it, "those born in the Native Republic and their descendants".

His last comment on the talk page at this point is "Carlstak, I feel that I have admonished you enough. Your chance has been given. Let no one say that you were not offered one. I forgive you. From all your false accusations and put-downs. I hope you can see humanity in all humans. May God bless you, Carlstak. May the Light of St. Mary help and guide you. I will no longer edit this page I have created. People are free to see my original edits if they so choose. Carlstak, I hope you have a good life and serve Christ well.

He says he will no longer edit the page, which I hope is true, since how in the world can other editors who don't share his viewpoint collaborate with someone who has such an attitude? Carlstak ( talk) 16:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply

No, I will not be editing that article, because I am expressly forbidden from doing so per WP:PROT. My protection is not an endorsement of him; indeed if I did edit that page, I would be endorsing your version instead, which is equally as bad. That's why I didn't edit the page. If you want the page unprotected, establish a consensus at Talk:Republic of East Florida. I don't see any RFC or other attempt to bring in outside voices and establish a consensus. After I do, I will unprotect the article. -- Jayron 32 17:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC) reply

After the consensus agreed to maintain "status quo" toward WP:NFC and to declare WP:NFCC adequate, i.e. consensus deems waiting period unnecessary, I wonder whether you can undelete this non-free content and allow me to reinsert it to Jill Saward. How does BBC have commercial interests when it's funded by the government and a public service broadcaster? Also, I have waited for a response from her husband Grant for three weeks without one reply. -- George Ho ( talk) 08:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC) reply

If nothing has changed, there is no reason to undelete, as the policy which deleted the image in the first place remains the law of the land. The BBC retains copyright, and your utter and total misunderstanding of how copyright works lets me know that anything you have to say on the appropriateness of using copyright materials at Wikipedia is safe to ignore. -- Jayron 32 11:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC) reply

I do know how copyright works. It intends to preserve distribution and publication rights of an author or entity that made a work in a fixed medium. However, the time to preserve those rights is limited. For example, in the US, The Color Purple was published in 1982 with copyright notice, previously required by Copyright Act of 1976 until the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 eliminated the requirement. Alice Walker is still alive, so the novel's copyright will last until 70 years after her lifetime (forgive me for using euphemisms). In the case of the BBC video, it was first aired in 2013, and its US copyright is preserved by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. But then again, I recently read the terms regarding screenshots after your response... and the copyright terms. I have to ask BBC permission to use a screenshot and photos, do I? If so, what would happen to all pages related to EastEnders, such as the Watts family and List of EastEnders characters (1985)? -- George Ho ( talk) 17:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Also, I wonder whether you can go to Wikipedia:WikiProject EastEnders and ask its members about this. George Ho ( talk) 17:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Hmm... fair use doesn't require a permission as long as it's limited. But then again, due to the rise of Internet, there is Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which might be more effective than "fair use" on severely limiting usage of non-free content on Internet. Meta-wiki addresses copyright in its pages, including meta:Copyright and meta:Avoid copyright paranoia (essay, actually). George Ho ( talk) 17:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC) reply

I. Am. Not. Going. To. Do. This. Find. Someone. Else. May I recommend @ Moonriddengirl: who specializes in these issues and can help you out. -- Jayron 32 17:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC) reply

I specialize in image copyrights, and I am not sure this was deletion material. May I recommend that you give an explanation, rather than just pronouncing ex cathedra that George is wrong and not worth our time? I grant I am unaware of many possible previous interactions between you two. Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 03:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply

The rationale is WP:NFCC #1, also the note at WP:NFCC, near the bottom, "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created". If any other admin, including you, believe this image has satisfied WP:NFCC #1, feel free to restore. I don't believe that it has, which is why I am not restoring it, but I'm also not that important, so my opinion doesn't mean anything here, if you have a different opinion, you can restore it with no objection from me. -- Jayron 32 11:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:Jill Saward BBC interview 2013.png. 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. FASTILY 05:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply

I had two major problems:

The entities are fully incorporated CITIES, not communities. There were many "towns" and "communities" that were subsumed by Unigov. The four cities remained fully autonomous and independent from Indianapolis and each city has separate fire departments, police departments, city governments, etc. and, in fact, have differing SALES TAX RATES than Indianapolis. Those facts are extremely important distinctions. Given that these CITIES remain in the county, the certain countywide services remained. For instance, the Marion County Sheriff still has jurisdiction within the Cities as it always had. Unigov did not necessarily provide additional countywide services to those cities, rather it documented what services would continue and provided clear distinctions and limits which was important to those cities. Living in the county at the time, this was a huge change. Smaller cities and towns were absorbed into Indianapolis such as Nora, Broad Ripple, Rocky Ripple and New Augusta to name a few off the top of my head - there were many more. For example, Broad Ripple was an incorporated city but nowhere the size or clout of the four cities that remained independent. There was quite a bit of controversy with regard to those smaller cities, towns and numerous unincorporated communities. The distinction, as I said, is huge.

This was a huge point of contention when Unigov was being crafted and passed. To this day, those cities remain fully independent - NOT PARTIALLY INTEGRATED. Initially, only the Marion County Sheriff's department enjoyed reciprocity with those 4 cities (as they had before Univgov). As the Indianapolis Police force expanded into beyond the prior city limits into the county, full reciprocity became a fact. As this happened, except for some County specific duties (primarily running the Marion County Jail and certain activities related to the County Courts), the Marion County Sheriff's department has no real day-to-day law enforcement presence in Indianapolis.

This was an act passed by the State Legislature and enforced on the City/County by the State as compared to many subsequent City/County mergers (Detroit, for instance) that were done at a County & City level.

I think the extra language adds specifics that are very important distinctions and I could make the verbiage somewhat shorter but you have missed the entire point of the verbiage. At the time, Unigov was unique and became a model for other city/county mergers nationwide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondobyte ( talk • contribs) 14:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply

• I changed the word to "cities". The other information is too much detail for an overview article. I'm sure it's available in a different article on Wikipedia, and if it is, that's fine. I have no problem with you writing about it at Wikipedia somewhere. Just that one article is too bloated as it is, and the level of detail you added is unnecessary for the article you are adding it to. -- Jayron 32 14:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi there,

I'm hoping to solicit your feedback regarding a handout Wiki Ed is developing for students who want to work on articles about films: User:Ryan (Wiki Ed)/Films. It will be a print guide that supplements other resources and materials for student editors, like the interactive training and brochures that address broader aspects of editing, like etiquette, NPOV, citing sources, working in sandboxes, using the talk page, etc. This guide focuses only on aspects of editing required for contributing to articles about films assigned in classroom settings. We're hoping to get some feedback from the community by the end of Monday, so we can send it off to the printer before the end of the month. I realize that's not a lot of time so no worries if you don't get to it. There's one other draft we're looking for feedback on, for editing articles about books, if that's also/more of interest. -- Ryan (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 17:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Earlier today, a Wikipedia editor contacted me, saying that there has been a Neo-Nazi troll using the wifi network at my workplace and showed me the abuse page. It turns out that the troll happens to be one of my co-workers. I've reported him to my boss, and my boss told him that if he ever engages in his abuse at Wikipedia ever again, he's fired. My coworker has promised to stop his abuse, so if he doesn't show up in the next few days, you can delete the page. Waiter43 ( talk) 05:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the heads up, but there's no reason to delete the page. If he never comes back, that's great, but we'll keep it around for the historical record. -- Jayron 32 05:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC) reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).

Administrator changes

Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn

ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• 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.
• An RfC regarding the bot policy has closed with changes to the section describing restrictions on cosmetic changes.

Technical news

• Users will soon be able to blacklist specific users from sending them notifications.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2017 elections, the new members of the Board of Trustees include Raystorm, Pundit and Doc James. They will serve three-year terms.

I've yanked the Donald Trump picture from the main page. This image is not public domain or freely licensed. It currently has no licensing tag on Commons, and an OTRS agent is working on verifying the image is available freely. Without going into detail (due to confidentiality agreement), current signs point to the fact that this image is non-free. All images on the main page must be public domain or available under a free license. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 02:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC) reply

@ BU Rob13: if that is the case, can you also pull it from all of its other articles? If it is nonfree it doesn't belong at Donald Trump or any of the other articles it is found on. It is a bigger problem that it is currently being used in dozens of articles, and prominently so. I will help as well, by finding a replacement image for the main page. -- Jayron 32 02:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Jayron32: I agree that's a problem, and it's being sorted by an OTRS volunteer. As is usual for permissions, we provide some time before yanking an image from articles (which will happen shortly, likely). Images on the front page must have strong evidence of a license, though. This is a legal issue for the WMF and for editors who introduce non-free images to the main page. The chances of a copyright holder deciding to sue over content on the main page is much higher than for other pages. I will check on the status of the ticket tonight. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 02:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC) reply

I am not sure whether this editor's edits are disruptive.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:2.133.142.53. -- Marvellous Spider-Man 04:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Took care of it. Thanks for the heads up. -- Jayron 32 04:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Okay, if that's the way you want it: the test edits you made on ANY and Northeast blackout of 2003 were made by you only to get autoconfirmed, and your next edit after that, made after waiting the required few days, was vandalism on a semiprotected article. And you no doubt intend to vandalise more articles, since that's the only reason why anyone would do what you have been doing. So consider this a formal warning: continued vandalism will get you blocked as a "vandalism-only account"

Meh. I consider that plenty warning enough. Templates aren't the standard; good faith notification of the incoming ban hammer is the standard, and apparently actively making nonsense edits to get autoconfirmed smells like feet besides. TimothyJosephWood 21:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC) reply

WP:ROPE-- Jayron 32 18:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi Jayron32! I'm a representative of the North Carolina Triangle Wikipedians User Group. We're glad you're interested in our activities! If you'd like to stay apprised of what we're up to, we invite you to sign up for our email list. Messages are infrequent (once a month, sometimes less, very occasionally more) and will keep you in the loop about edit-a-thons, discussion topics, and other local Wikimedia-related activities and issues. Please feel free to get in touch with any questions! ~~ Sodapopinski7 ( talk) 22:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Was there really a concensus to post it at WP:ITN/C? Just curious because you gave no explanation, just "Posted." -- Pudeo ( talk) 13:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Seemed pretty good to me. If there is an inaccuracy in the blurb or an error in the article, try WP:ERRORS and explain the issue.--- Jayron 32 02:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure when you posted it, maybe when it seemed like there would be many deaths, but only one person has died. In these circumstances should you remove it? 2.102.184.54 ( talk) 11:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC) reply

The lone fatality doesn't appear to be caused by the attack. The person was on the ground receiving first aid BEFORE the attack. AQFK ( talk) 11:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Consider yourself notified. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 18:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC) reply

May I suggest that cryptic abbreviations such as "DNFT" are not the best thing to put in a hat summary, and that "see talk" would be better linked to the relevant section?

(Don't feel obliged to respond to this.) -- 76.71.5.114 ( talk) 07:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Good evening! Did you click the youtube link? There is no "posh English gentleman" voice. It's just a song video. Seems like spam to me.-- William Thweatt ^{Talk Contribs} 02:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC) reply

The rest of the IPs edits at Wikipedia indicate a long-term legitimate user. Maybe ask them, under their question, if they accidentally put in the wrong link. I know sometimes I do that.-- Jayron 32 02:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Fair enough. I've never reverted a question on the ref desks before (as far as I can recall), and I generally don't think questions should be reverted, but I was in vandalism patrol mode and that seemed like a clear-cut case of spam. Before I reverted, I did check the IP's contribution history -- which, as you say, seems legit -- but I also read the youtube comments and they all seem to indicate they were brought there unexpectedly by links on other sites. It could be an honest mistake, as you suggest, but I don't believe in coincidences and would rather not reward such behavior (even if the OP is innocent) by letting the link stay. So I reverted. You disagree and I can respect that. Just a difference of wiki-philosophy I guess.-- William Thweatt ^{Talk Contribs} 06:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC) reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

Administrator changes

Happyme22 • Dragons flight

Zad68

Guideline and policy news

• The RFC discussion regarding WP:OUTING and WMF essay about paid editing and outing (see more at the ArbCom noticeboard archives) is now archived. Milieus #3 and #4 received support; so did concrete proposal #1.

Technical news

• 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 new bot will automatically revision delete unused file versions from files in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old.

Miscellaneous

• 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.

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC) reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).

Administrator changes

Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 ^{( first RfA to reach WP:300)}

Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

• Following a series of discussions around new pages patrol, the WMF is helping implement a controlled autoconfirmed article creation trial as a research experiment, similar to the one proposed in 2011. You can learn more about the research plan at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial. The exact start date of the experiment has yet to be determined.
• A new speedy deletion criterion, regarding articles created as a result undisclosed paid editing, is currently being discussed ( permalink).
• An RfC ( permalink) is currently open that proposes expanding WP:G13 to include all drafts, even if they weren't submitted through Articles for Creation.

Technical news

• 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.

That IP 50... is getting more and more pushy IMO. If not trolling, definitely WP:POINTY. I am (as you may recall) a champion of AGF, but damn... I am happy to mostly ignore and not respond at all for now but they seem to have a subtle earnest/sea lion quality that draws a lot of our users in. I guess that's not a problem if everyone involved is having fun? Feel free to delete this if you think it may be feeding, also feel free to use my email or ignore this post at your discretion :) SemanticMantis ( talk) 03:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Thanks for weighing in on the ACTRIAL talk page. It's helpful to know that my questions and concerns aren't as lunatic as other people are acting. -- The Cunctator ( talk) 15:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Look, I was intimately involved in this process in 2011. I was one of the major proponents of ACTRIAL and campaigning for it, and working on the mechanics of how it was going to work. There was literally not a bigger proponent of the measure when it first happened. However, 6 years is an eternity in this environment. I didn't raise my point because I was trying to kill ACTRIAL. My fingerprints were all over this in 2011, and I was crushed when the foundation killed it 6 years ago, with no input from the community. In many ways, that was the first moment when the Foundation seized control over ENWIKI and changed this from a bottom-up community driven organization to a top-down foundation controlled organization. So be clear, I was a major proponent of ACTRIAL. But I'm also a mature enough person to realize that just as the Foundation killing this back in 2011 was a bad idea, "reviving" it 6 years later has its own problems; my objections were not "I want to kill ACTRIAL". My objections were "Let's not assume the community is the same as it was" This feels very much like another example of the Foundation cramming something at the community; this revival was not a community mandate, it originated with the Foundation. As such, it should be up to the community to decide to move forward or not. To summarize, I am not opposed to the ACTRIAL, and I never have been. I'm opposed to moving forward without a check on the community consensus. Revisiting a dead issue six years later seems like a good idea. -- Jayron 32 15:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC) reply

I am totally ignorant to what these are ... but I'm sending them to you anyway simply because I appreciated the conversation we had regarding the word usage. Thanks. Maineartists ( talk) 14:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

The Picture of the Day for today and yesterday has a protected version and an unprotected version, explained here. When editing the protected version, please make the same edit to the unprotected version. Otherwise, your edit may be lost when an additional edit is made and the unprotected version is copied to the protected version (which is a good argument against having two versions and I just gave Mjroots the same explanation, but it's been that way for years). I did it for you. Art LaPella ( talk) 14:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Sorry about that. Thanks for cleaning up my mess. The two versions is a bit of a useless PITA isn't it? If non-admins need the final version fixed, can't they just go to WP:ERRORS like anyone else? And if there are no admins watching the unprotected version, changes take a long time to make. Anyhoo, thanks for fixing my mistake. Maybe someday we can get this arcane system changed to something more sensible. -- Jayron 32 15:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC) reply

You participated at this RfC; the proposal has changed a bit. Just providing you notice of that. Jytdog ( talk) 17:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

...this, [1] - if you don't care, then I don't care. I suspect he'll be going back into his French underground sometime soon anyway. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC) reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).

Administrator changes

Nakon • Scott

Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

• ACTRIAL, a research experiment that restricts article creation to autoconfirmed users, will begin on September 7. It will run for six months. You can learn more about the research specifics at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial, while Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial is probably the best venue for general discussion.
• 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.
• In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

• 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.

I've reported this editor to WP:ANI as recommended. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 22:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello Jayron32, you recently made a move change from Interstate 495 (North Carolina) to Interstate 87 (North Carolina); though this was planned, it is to the wrong location. The move should have been to Interstate 87 in North Carolina, which conforms to wiki standard for primary interstate routes. Could you be kind to make another move to the correct location and also move the Talk page of I-495 onto I-87 page as well? I would appreciate that greatly. Thank you. -- WashuOtaku ( talk) 21:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC) reply

I think we've got it all cleaned up. -- Jayron 32 01:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Yes, thank you. You are the best! -- WashuOtaku ( talk) 01:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

in my Ritchie Valens CD has René Hall playing the, "Danelectro six string bass." Else where it is described as the "Danelectro Six String Bass". What's your source for the "baritone guitar?" Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 17:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

You can change it back. The difference between a Danelectro 6-string bass and a baritone guitar is a semantic one that's probably not worth arguing. Under modern terminology, it differs significantly from the construction of modern 6-string basses. In the 1950s, when it and the Fender VI was produced, the terminology didn't exist at the time for a baritone guitar. Our article on the Baritone guitar even notes that the Danelectro 6-string bass was the first such guitar produced for the mass market. In modern terminology, when one says "6 string bass", one expects one of these beauties. It's just a matter of terminology changing over the decades. It's fine though. Change it back. -- Jayron 32 18:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative ( talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi Jayron32. Thanks for closing that discussion, although I did think your edit summary was perhaps a little curt. I thought Gerda asked some pertinent questions there that remained largely unanswered. It's unfortunate that the discussion proved to be somewhat less productive than one might have hoped. I still maintain that, with limited RD slots available and no flexibility in that area, sometimes the success of nominations will be adversely affected by random factors. This is a shame as the front page ends up looking, in my view, "less encyclopedic" than it might. I really don't know what the answer is. I guess we can't really get round the fact that the Grim Reaper is in itself a bit random, no matter what the wonderful wiki process for RD might be? Thanks for your time. Martinevans123 ( talk) 12:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Gerda did raise pertinent questions. The discussion was not helpful to answering them. -- Jayron 32 23:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Yes, Gerda spends much more time improving than "complaining". There are very few editors more diligent than her, I'd say. Martinevans123 ( talk) 07:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC) reply

"...more diligent than she", Einstein. Jeesh. E Eng 11:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Pedants be gone. You are not welcome here. -- Jayron 32 11:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC) reply

I wish I was more cleverer like what you are, EEng. But I wouldn't mind one of them pendants if you've got one spare?? Martinevans123 ( talk) 12:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC) reply

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	Thank you very much for all of your hard work at the Reference Desk and elsewhere, Jayron32! Futurist110 ( talk) 02:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC) reply

I saw that you protected the Chris Cornell article for six months and only admins will be able to edit the article until there. I suggest you to take a look at this user "Sickle And Hammer" who started this edit warring months ago and kept doing it even after being warned and blocked. This person has been doing the same in other articles but somehow they are still allowed to keep trolling while other editors won't be allowed to edit the article and add useful info with reliable sources. Instead of protecting the article for six months, it would have been easier to ban the editor and its IP. Just a suggestion.

• /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Sickle_And_Hammer
• /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/101.167.39.149

Zoolver ( talk) 07:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Maybe take it to WP:ANI and see about it. I only have a short time right now, and not much time to investigate at the minute. Perhaps you're right. If it needs more of a look, ANI is a good place for that. -- Jayron 32 13:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Would you please be so kind to restore my edit and unblock my IP, thanks. -- 82.69.159.206 ( talk) 18:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply

It looks like you're editing fine. -- Jayron 32 00:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Obviously I was referring to 92.27.207.68, and to a specific edit from that IP. -- 82.69.159.206 ( talk) 18:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC) reply

In regards to your comment here, I think that you are being too harsh towards me: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous. Indeed, while adults are the focus of my sexual attraction (in other words, I am absolutely no different from the ordinary person in regards to this), I would like to point out that expecting me to forget every single moment during my childhood when girls in my class or at my school wore short shorts and/or short skirts is asking for too much. For goodness sake, I have absolutely no interest in children; however, that doesn't erase my own memories back from when I myself was a child!

Also, I am sorry if I asked that question in a clumsy way; however, that shouldn't be an excuse for jumping at me! Indeed, am I a horrible person for sexualizing girls in my class and/or at my school back when I myself was a little kid? Futurist110 ( talk) 02:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC) reply

I have no desire to carry on this discussion with you. Females of any age are not sexual objects, and their manner of dress is of no concern to you. -- Jayron 32 02:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC) reply

I never suggested that they were sexual objects, and I didn't know that I was not allowed to have an opinion on other people's clothes. Indeed, you really should write a letter to the people who, say, complain that girls' Halloween costumes are too sexualized telling them that they are not allowed to have an opinion on this topic.

Anyway, good day to you. Futurist110 ( talk) 02:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Cheers. -- Jayron 32 03:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC) reply

I've been away from AIV for a long while. Can we remove the stale, insufficiently warned reports? Dlohcierekim ( talk) 03:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC) reply

I usually leave them up for an hour or two so the reporter can see the declined report, but the standard practice is to clear out anything that's been dealt with and is at least a few hours old.-- Jayron 32 03:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC) reply

You closed it before I could point out that the story had already dropped out of the headlines. Seriously though, thanks for restoring order. -- CosmicAdventure ( talk) 10:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).

Administrator changes

Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem

Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

• 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.

Technical news

• You can now search for IP ranges at Special:Contributions. Some log pages and Special:DeletedContributions are not yet supported. Wildcards (e.g. 192.168.0.*) are also not supported, but the popular contribsrange gadget will continue to work.

Arbitration

• Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
• 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.

Hey Jayron! Technically speaking, was User:Spmt6 really block evasion? Per the hat on the original blocked username, one option is to simply choose a new username (the other being to request a change in username). While the "Sp" does echo the original username, their question does involve SPMT. Cheers! -- ToE 14:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Yes. The prior account they used to post the question was blocked. They then created a new account and then re-posted their prior question. That kind of thing is not allowed.-- Jayron 32 19:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

I don't understand. The only problem with their original question was their choice of username which violated Username Policy. They were specifically instructed, "Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below) and continue editing." And that is what they did. Where is the problem? (And yes, I do feel a bit silly coming to the defense of someone who initially showed such poor taste, and there is no particular loss in the blocking of the second account, so I won't push this.) -- ToE 19:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi Jayron32, Can you please weigh in on the discussion you began regarding overlapping articles HERE? Regards-- Eagledj ( talk) 17:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Jayron32:

Sorry to tell you this is not reasonable, you can't just block update to a page just because you don't like the updates. I know this project very well and the reason why we wants to update the page that this page has wrong details and that confirmed 100%. we are not trying to promote or advertise but we just doesn't accept to have wrong information on the web about our master-plan. we here trying to providing you with the correct data for your site but watch your behavior!!, as you must be thankful instead of blocking us. I hope that you and your team look into this reasonably and allow us to provide the right data to your site.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HussainSabaa ( talk • contribs)

I have no opinion on the updates. I've never heard of Bahrain Financial Harbor in my life, and I haven't even read a word of the article in either state. The page was the subject of an edit war and I took measures to stop that. The protection was purely about behavior. Instead of trying to force a particular version of the article through against the opposition of others, carry out discussions on the article talk page and come to a consensus. That will solve your problem. -- Jayron 32 10:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Jayron32:

with whom should I have that talk. or should I open a dispute. Bahrain Financial Harbour is the biggest & tallest building in Bahrain with aprrox. 100,000 Sqm or 1 million sq.feet lease-able area

Edit the article talk page, and explain your case there. It's at Talk:Bahrain Financial Harbour. -- Jayron 32 13:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi Jayron32, Thanks for facilitating the redirect from Lap slide guitar to Slide guitar, and also for your recent edit. I'd welcome any additional suggestions to improve the article if you have time. Regards-- Eagledj ( talk) 21:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi Jayron32. So, I wanted to discuss with you first, as to avoid any "wheel-warring", but I'm a little concerned about your protection for the Chris Cornell page. 6 months is an extremely long-time for full-protection like this, especially in this situation, where there seems to be little in the way of active discussion towards any sort of dispute or anything on the talk page either. I'm sure you had good reason to protect the page, I don't doubt that, but the length seems excessive.

I think it should be pared way back. If it helps, 1990s-to-present-modern-rock is one of my main subject areas on Wikipedia, so I can keep an eye on the article, and re-implement shorter bits of protection as needed as well.

Let me know your thoughts. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 17:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC) reply

If you're willing to monitor it to stop the edit war, I'm cool with that. The back-and-forth battle over this has still never been settled as the various parties refuse to talk about it on the article talk page. But if you feel you can make it stop without the protection, be my guest. Go ahead and unprotect it and you have my blessing. Vaya con dios. -- Jayron 32 19:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Thanks for understanding. I don't think I'll get rid of the protection yet, but maybe repeal it back to November or something, with leaving a note on the talk page that they need to work things out on the talk page prior to the protection ending, or there will be more protection/blocks. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 13:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi, Jayron. Let me preface this by saying I've never used the ref desk, primarily because it appears very unprofessional.

I voted in the RfC to shut it down but replace it. IMO, there are two problems that need to be addressed.

First, is the one that started this RfC, the drama. The solution to that is so simple...just can the forum format. Go to a mail list format and the trolls and drama whores no longer get to stoke their egos in public view.

Second, being a library was never in Jimbo's remit for what Wikipedia should be. Having a research department is a good thing, but it should be strictly limited to research towards the end of improving the encyclopedia.

I don't generally participate in big hairy RfC like this one because I don't have time to wade through it all. That's why I'm pointing out my suggestion to you. It appears you have taken the time and would know if my suggestion could gain traction. I think it is a good suggestion that could address nearly everyone's issues. Additionally, as a more senior Wikipedian than I, and the holder of a slightly more bully pulpit than I due to your mop duties, you are in a better position to both analyze and advocate than I. My !vote is here. Thanks for your time John from Idegon ( talk) 20:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC) reply

It's an interesting idea. I don't see why it could not be implemented separately from the reference desks. I see no problem with the ref desks as they run right now, it's certainly got no more drama than anywhere else at Wikipedia. I'd support your idea for sure, but as a separate project. -- Jayron 32 22:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Miscellaneous#Freddie_Mercury_and_his_mic

There was a time when you just would have left them with the Google search results of 10,000 hits, and told them to start reading. Actually explaining it is much better. Thank you. StuRat ( talk) 23:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC) reply

I've mentioned you as part of my testimony, here. μηδείς ( talk) 03:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply