News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.
- Additionally, consensus for proposal 6C of the 2021 RfA review has led to the creation of an administrative action review process. The purpose of this process will be to review individual administrator actions and individual actions taken by users holding advanced permissions.
Arbitration
- Following the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Cabayi, Donald Albury, Enterprisey, Izno, Opabinia regalis, Worm That Turned, Wugapodes.
Miscellaneous
- The
functionaries email list (functionaries-en
lists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to
the Arbitration Committee.
Hi!
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
Thank you. / Johan (WMF)
18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- The Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines have been published for consideration. Voting to ratify this guideline is planned to take place 7 March to 21 March. Comments can be made on the talk page.
Technical news
- The user group
oversightwill be renamedsuppressin around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections. - The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.
- The user group
Arbitration
- Community input is requested on several motions aimed at addressing discretionary sanctions that are no longer needed or overly broad.
- The Arbitration Committee has published a generalised comment regarding successful appeals of sanctions that it can review (such as checkuser blocks).
- A motion related to the Antisemitism in Poland case was passed following a declined case request.
Miscellaneous
- Voting in the 2022 Steward elections will begin on 07 February 2022, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2022, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
- Voting in the 2022 Community Wishlist Survey is open until 11 February 2022.
I just ran across this [1] highly problematic BLP edit by 2603:6010:5940:F000:2D7C:66CC:7E3:6C95 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) that falls into an ip block you made Feb 4. Thought you should know. -- Hipal ( talk) 17:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've extended the block to encompass the Scott Baio article. -- Jayron 32 17:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi, can you lower the protection for Battle of Diu? There has been no discussion on the talk page since December; I'm not sure full protection until June is preventing any disruption or helping encourage discussion. Thanks. Levivich 15:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Done. --
Jayron
32 16:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the quick response! Levivich 17:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
I remember you from Bug's page so long ago. I used to have fun joking in there. It's a good rule that we shouldn't link dates. For some reason though whenever I come across that story I find myself as a reader looking up that date. Is that an absolutely carved in granite rule? Slight Smile 15:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- No, but in that case it isn't needed. If you are interested in a date, the search bar works well. -- Jayron 32 15:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your vote of confidence (and for helping my bad eyes!). I agree it would be best not to have any added reasons to "yell at people", though frankly, even with a "requirement", I'd be happy to spend all of my days just jumping in there on thousands of articles and adding this spacing (as opposed to "making" others do it). I do not see it as something that people would get scolded for too badly, and something that definitely helps me a whole lot (and thus probably other people would like the look better I imagine?). Regardless, I think a suggestion is still preferable to the status quo of not mentioning it either way (which leaves open the possibility of editor disagreement based on aesthetic look alone). ♥ Th78blue ( talk)♥ 13:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Moin & Thank You for your input. The issue has shifted somewhat, but I've found out that not only my connection's not stable, appearently I'm occasionally in a blocked range and can't edit on en:wp at all - hence the delay. Just chanced that with my current uplink I can, so I wanted to say thanks and I read your reply, I just couldn't edit an answer. Regards, -- G-41614 ( talk) 16:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Re: NYT headline — UKRAINE UNDER FULL-SCALE ATTACK – Sca
- Where did I say it wasn't? You seem to be creating things I never said, and trying to argue with your imagination. Please stop that. --
User:Jayron32
- What you said was that "launches" was preferable. My point was that the invasion had gone beyond being launched and was well under way. I never said anything about what you said or might have thought about the phrase "full-scale attack" cited in the headline. Please quit distorting my comments.
- And just in case you'd like to know, current NYT headline says: FIERCE FIGHTING ACROSS UKRAINE. – Sca ( talk) 22:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi! I just want to say Thank you again for information I needed about the picture, and let you know I'm using it in upcoming Weekly contest (sv-wp "Veckans tävling"). If you want to see the page, click here. :-) // Zquid ( talk) 00:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
I am currently having an issue on this article. I really don't know who to speak to. The editors there seem biased to Liverpool and aren't even producing facts to back their claims. I have produced countless evidence and I have mentioned it under the comments of each edit. But the editors just ignore my evidence. I am not even arguing something I believe in, I am arguing with facts. The Liverpool editors are arguing that a particular trophy needs to be included in the trophy tally, and I am showing them that the official Liverpool website does not acknowledge this trophy. But they do not wish to see the website. I have even sent the official website but they refuse to look at it. Perhaps you can assist. I am a neutral and I don't support neither club. It seems like its me verse subjective Liverpool supporters. The trophy is called sheriff of London charity shield. See link : https://www.liverpoolfc.com/history/honours — Preceding unsigned comment added by HMD 1315 ( talk • contribs) 17:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- I see you just made your very first edit to Talk:Liverpool F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry. That's a good start. Give the discussion some time to develop, see where the general consensus lies, most importantly don't speculate on the motivations of other people, and try to convince people of your side using evidence and logic. -- Jayron 32 17:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately this debate has been going on from yesterday. Manchester United supporters are agreeing with me , however Liverpool supporters are literally ignoring my evidence and are just undoing/reverting my changes, without any discussion. This is a really fierce rivalry for both supporters, I really don't think this will come to an end. If you look at the edits history, you can see I have produced tonnes of evidence and explanations, but it is literally ignored unfortunately :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by HMD 1315 ( talk • contribs) 17:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm going to make this clearer for you. Make your case on the talk page. Give it some days to see where it falls. STOP referring to people who edit the article as "supporters" of one team or another. It's pointless, and rude. Also, you've made only one edit to the article talk page. That's not "producing tonnes of evidence and explanation". You've left no evidence or explanation on the article talk page. -- Jayron 32 17:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Okay I will add my evidence on the talk page, the evidence I was referring to was in the edits history page, where I was giving a summary for my edits, because I saw people talking and asking me stuff over there. Thank you so much for your advice, I will definitely heed everything you have said. Sorry for my misjudgements. Really appreciate your assitance :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HMD 1315 ( talk • contribs) 17:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Sorry if I stepped on your toes. It occurs to me that if you were already aware of the ANI thread (I assumed at the time you weren't, but now I think I was wrong) it made me look more arrogant than intended. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 19:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- It's all good. They needed to hear it from multiple people, I think. -- Jayron 32 19:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- A RfC is open to change the wording of revision deletion criterion 1 to remove the sentence relating to non-infringing contributions.
- A RfC is open to discuss prohibiting draftification of articles over 90 days old.
Technical news
- The deployment of the reply tool as an opt-out feature, as announced in last month's newsletter, has been delayed to 7 March. Feedback and comments are being welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project. ( T296645)
- Special:Nuke will now allow the selection of standard deletion reasons to be used when mass-deleting pages. This was a Community Wishlist Survey request from 2022. ( T25020)
- The ability to undelete the talk page when undeleting a page using Special:Undelete or the API will be added soon. This change was requested in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey. ( T295389)
Arbitration
- Several unused discretionary sanctions and article probation remedies have been rescinded. This follows the community feedback from the 2021 Discretionary Sanctions review.
Miscellaneous
- The 2022 appointees for the Ombuds commission are Érico, Faendalimas, Galahad, Infinite0694, Mykola7, Olugold, Udehb and Zabe as regular members and Ameisenigel and JJMC89 as advisory members.
- Following the 2022 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AntiCompositeNumber, BRPever, Hasley, TheresNoTime, and Vermont.
- The 2022 Community Wishlist Survey results have been published alongside the ranking of prioritized proposals.
See here. That IP had already been blocked for socking, and as noted the first edit summary pretty much admits it.
I have taken the liberty of blocking them for the next month. Daniel Case ( talk) 21:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. I wasn't familiar with the person so named, and didn't see any obvious vandalism, which is why I declined it. That's why it's better not to use AIV for those things. With several hundred active admins dealing with AIV, not all of us know every sockmaster on sight by behavior. -- Jayron 32 11:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello there, can you also please consider revoking TP access to the account as the sockmaster continued to edit on the aformentioned page despite being blocked due to sockpuppetry? See this recent edit which I've reverted it right away after I saw it on my watchlist. Thanks! VictorTorres2002 ( talk) 15:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nachos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Salsa.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I am requesting unprotection of Mimi Lockhart, I have made a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Decrease#Mimi Lockhart. Notifying you as the protecting admin. Thanks, Terasail [✉️] 16:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Val James /info/en/?search=Val_James
I agree that my edit of this page ("James was the first African American born in the United States") does seem redundant. The reason that it should be edited, though, is that the term African American, is often used in Canada. Yes, African Canadian is commonly seen and heard as well, but African American is often taken to mean a North American of African descent--usually from the United States or Canada. While there is a link to the page on Willie O'Ree near the bottom of the article under "See also", one could easily assume that James was the first Black player in the league. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graham.pub ( talk • contribs) 17:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- I hear you, but we need to use the correct terms, not just conform to people's misconceptions. I did add a note to the bottom of the article regarding Willie O'Ree, the first Black Canadian to appear in the NHL. Leaving Val James as "African American" is fully correct. African Americans are not African Canadians. -- Jayron 32 17:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
@ Jayron32:, I am a sockpuppet of User:Skh sourav halder. Faofln ( talk) 06:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Must have gotten tired of it all, reported himself to wp:ANI as a sock and was blocked. Adakiko ( talk) 07:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Sure, that would be Cyberllamamusic. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cyberllamamusic/Archive for the history. Cheers, -- Viennese Waltz 17:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC is open proposing a change to the minimum activity requirements for administrators.
Technical news
- Access to
Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the
deletelogentryanddeletedhistoryrights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. ( T301928) - When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. ( T284114)
Arbitration
- Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Opening of proceedings has been updated to reflect current practice following a motion.
- A arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has been closed.
- A arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been opened.
Miscellaneous
- Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines has closed, and the results were that 56.98% of voters supported the guidelines. The results of this vote mean the Wikimedia Foundation Board will now review the guidelines.
Hey Jayron32, your last post on the Humanities Desk made me feel sad so I wanted to cheer you up. You are far from an idiot! You help people here with well-researched answers and if once in a blue moon you made a mistake, you have the wonderful quality of immediately fixing it. Hope you won't be too hard on yourself. You're appreciated on the Ref Desk. Cheers, 70.67.193.176 ( talk) 18:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
While the question was answered in good faith, I have a hard time believing the OP is here for anything good. Check out his campaign site. which he himself noted here. CUPIDICAE💕 17:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, that's why I closed the discussion. We don't need to hear anything more from them. If you believe you have a valid concern over their behavior at Wikipedia, WP:ANI is thatway. -- Jayron 32 17:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi, this is just of curiosity, since you said me calling other editors who removed sourced content and added fake sourcing "vandals" constitutes personal attacks, how do you feel about me being called "pro-Putinist" and "whitewasher of war crimes". Are these OK? I'm trying my best to ignore them, but I wasn't aware that AE is a place were such abuse is condoned. Anonimu ( talk) 20:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- As long as we're not going to play the "So-and-so called me names so I can too, right?" game, yes, the person who said those things should not have said them. They are not in line with best practices for interacting with other people at Wikipedia. --
Jayron
32 16:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- No, I don't plan on calling anybody names, it just strikes me as strange that calling someone "vandal" seems to be a major offence, while these are just "not in line with best practices" and don't even deserve an admonishment.
Anonimu (
talk) 17:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think you're being deliberately obtuse about the reasons behind your ban from the AE discussion, and I don't find it productive to continue to feed the false fantasy that you seem to have created for yourself that you were banned merely minor offenses such as only misusing the term "vandal". It would be more accurate to say that you were repeatedly informed that you were misusing the term, and chose to still misuse it in the same way. And that is but one of an entire myriad of problems that appears to have led to AE in the first place. If you're going to ignore all of that; if that is the kind of understanding you have of the situation, I don't see where any further explanation on my part is likely to correct your understanding, and I consider this conversation to be done. Vaya con dios. --
Jayron
32 17:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- This was specifically about other editors throwing personal attacks at me during AE, not about whether my behaviour was problematic (you think it was, I think not really, you're an admin, you win). This was just of personal curiosity, is not like I'll get the chance to use this info as I'm getting permabanned and all.
Anonimu (
talk) 18:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- You're not permabanned; your topic banned from working on Eastern European topics. Generally, if you can establish good behavior by editing in other topic areas without the same sorts of problems for a period of time, you can appeal (usually at least 6 months). Every ban is appealable, and many people are able to come back from such bans if they can show that they don't intend to keep up the same behaviors as got them banned in the first place. It's indefinite, but it isn't permanent. -- Jayron 32 18:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- This was specifically about other editors throwing personal attacks at me during AE, not about whether my behaviour was problematic (you think it was, I think not really, you're an admin, you win). This was just of personal curiosity, is not like I'll get the chance to use this info as I'm getting permabanned and all.
Anonimu (
talk) 18:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think you're being deliberately obtuse about the reasons behind your ban from the AE discussion, and I don't find it productive to continue to feed the false fantasy that you seem to have created for yourself that you were banned merely minor offenses such as only misusing the term "vandal". It would be more accurate to say that you were repeatedly informed that you were misusing the term, and chose to still misuse it in the same way. And that is but one of an entire myriad of problems that appears to have led to AE in the first place. If you're going to ignore all of that; if that is the kind of understanding you have of the situation, I don't see where any further explanation on my part is likely to correct your understanding, and I consider this conversation to be done. Vaya con dios. --
Jayron
32 17:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- No, I don't plan on calling anybody names, it just strikes me as strange that calling someone "vandal" seems to be a major offence, while these are just "not in line with best practices" and don't even deserve an admonishment.
Anonimu (
talk) 17:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Considering the IP restored an edit from a banned user, it would not be at all surprising if the IP is yet another incarnation of that banned user. --← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.
Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:
- Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
- Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period
Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.
22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Guy Lafleur recent death nomination
Hello. Editors have been working on this article, and I just finished addressing the final "citation needed" tags. If you have a chance to take another look at the article and respond at ITN/C if your concerns have been addressed, it would be appreciated. Thank you. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 06:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Pink Floyd has an RFC
Pink Floyd has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. TSP ( talk) 13:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Hey there, thanks for closing my incident report over at WP:ANI. I really appreciate it but I don't really agree with some of the phrasing you used in the conclusion. You mention "All parties were edit warring" yet the entire discussion never mentioned me 'edit warring' or reverting edits and that was never up for contention implicitly either. I was accused of other things but not edit warring that I'm aware of. ★Ama TALK CONTRIBS 16:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. I have tweaked the wording so it doesn't imply that everyone was so edit warring. -- Jayron 32 16:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi Jayron32. Based on the edit/reversion we had on the subject, I added an item to the talk page on DC to discuss whether DC is a planned city. I hope you'll have a look and add your comments. Talk:Washington,_D.C.#Is_DC_a_planned_city? B k ( talk) 17:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello,
I wanted to follow up on this comment you made yesterday. The user appears to be engaged in edit warring on another page with the same user again. 1 2 3 4 I believe 68.234.69.27 and 68.234.69.28 are the same user, as they edit the same pages in the same unsourced manner, including the edit warring. I thought it best to bring up to you given the firm warring you gave, and that the user had received a warning for edit warring on their talk page already. Hey man im josh ( talk) 12:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm still learning so please be patient. Shouldn't this be speedy deleted? I've seen a few try to edit it and it seems like a waste of time. -- ARose Wolf 13:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that qualifies under WP:CSD#A10. Took care of it. -- Jayron 32 13:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of Spain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Basque.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
|
The Original Barnstar |
| I see you're doing a lot of good work at ANI--thank you for that. Drmies ( talk) 15:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC) |
- Thank you for your kind words! I try! I may not always succeed, but it is nice to be recognized for my efforts! -- Jayron 32 16:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi,
With regards to your recent improvements to the lead you need to tighten things a little more please. The success of Love Me Do led to them releasing a second single, Please Please Me. And the success of that single prompted EMI to push for the album of the same name. Atm it just jars. And besides, I did prefer it as it was but if you feel the need then please get it right. Thanks Patthedog ( talk) 17:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- That's why I changed it to "was followed by". We probably don't need every single listed, but noting the first two albums is sufficient. -- Jayron 32 17:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi, there's been a problem with a petition on the ANI board. I see you're active on the ANI board as an admin, so I hope you might be able to help with it. This is the petition: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1097#User:Tennisedu
It was archived earlier today, automatically, due to 72 hours of inactivity. We, the petitioners, were not aware of the 72-hour rule and we were simply waiting for our petition to be seen by an admin. So is there any way at this point to reopen the ANI? Some of those involved may not even know what's happened to the petition; and none of us are clear about what's been decided, concerning the dispute. It would be ideal if we could reopen the ANI and at least finish our discussion, so everyone is clear; or if reopening is not possible, to have a quick discussion somewhere, ideally with an admin, about how to go forward. Appreciate any help, or advice, you'd be able to give. Krosero ( talk) 02:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, I wasn't involved in that discussion. It seems a bit
WP:TLDR; I don't see any participation from anyone except the disputants, and that usually means it isn't clear what the issue is. Maybe you could start a new discussion, point to the old one, and try to make it a little more concise what the problem is and what sort of remedy we need. Sorry I couldn't be more help. --
Jayron
32 10:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- No problem, I think we can let that thread go for now. If we need to address this issue again, I'll take your advice about presenting what we think specifically is the problem. Our old thread did attract one uninvolved editor before it was archived, @ Iamreallygoodatcheckers, who said our case might be WP:Civil POV pushing. So if the case arises again we may present it as such, up front. Thank you again. Krosero ( talk) 17:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello I started a new talk page on the RFC, since you are a regular there I was wondering if you could contribute your opinions to it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:C80B:2D00:44D9:A6D5:9499:B1E7 ( talk) 02:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:C80B:2D00:4812:C99C:7BAD:92EE ( talk)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2022).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, a change has been made to the administrators inactivity policy. Under the new policy, if an administrator has not made at least 100 edits over a period of 5 years they may be desysopped for inactivity.
- Following a discussion on the bureaucrat's noticeboard, a change has been made to the bureaucrats inactivity policy.
Technical news
- The ability to undelete the associated talk page when undeleting a page has been added. This was the 11th wish of the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey.
- A public status system for WMF wikis has been created. It is located at https://www.wikimediastatus.net/ and is hosted separately to WMF wikis so in the case of an outage it will remain viewable.
Arbitration
- Remedy 2 of the St Christopher case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to place a ban on single-purpose accounts who were disruptively editing on the article St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages from those pages.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of Europe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Absolutism.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Stop assuming nationalities you absolute donkey!! 82.20.137.139 ( talk) 05:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Dear Admin, I was just going through this page Kushwaha, I think it needs addition of certain contents and even some corrections. But I see the page has been locked for some 2-3 months and there is no active talk page discussion or anything going on it. It would be very helpful if you can suggest what to do here. I would request for removing of Admin lock as there is no active discussion and so definitely chances of disruption is low. In my view, 2- 3 months lock is very big. I would be very grateful if you can see into it. RS6784 ( talk) 18:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- ( talk page stalker) The edit war was going on for 3 months that's why it seems to have been protected until July. If you really believe that there is no active talk page discussion then you can make fully-protected edit request on talk page and when there is no opposition to your requested edits then your edits will be implemented within days. You can use this opportunity because right now fully-protected edit requests are relatively small in number. [2] TolWol56 ( talk) 03:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Please use the {{ edit fully-protected}} template to make your suggested edits. WP:RFPP is the place you should go to request unprotection. -- Jayron 32 11:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello Jayron, I'm reaching you up because I need your help to protect a page from vandalism Here's the page that i wish you could help me lock it so anon can't edit it anymore. https://id.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiao_Zhan Thank you for your help 🙏🏻 Dearnurulsky ( talk) 12:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. In the future, please don't use me as your personal admin service. Requests of this nature should be posted at
WP:RFPP.
Jayron
32 12:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2022).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Several areas of improvement collated from community member votes have been identified in the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines. The areas of improvement have been sent back for review and you are invited to provide input on these areas.
Technical news
- Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. ( T307341)
- The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.
Arbitration
- Remedy 2 of the Rachel Marsden case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to delete or reduce to a stub, together with their talk pages, articles related to Rachel Marsden when they violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy.
- An arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been closed.
Recent ARCA filing closed
The ARCA you filed has now been closed, pending broader review of the DS system. See the "Arbitrator views and discussion" section for more details. For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 14:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Jayron, just contacting you as I am at a loss to know what to do here. There was a discussion on the MoS talkpage regarding the usefulness of passive voice, and the result of this was the removal of any language indicating the passive should not be employed in wikipedia. Unfortunately, the anon user whose interventions triggered the whole stramash is continuing to edit in the same way, and rejects suggestions that there is any problem with this. Any advice you could give about ways forward, with or without your admin hat on?
-- Boynamedsue ( talk) 06:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 | Happy First Edit Day! Hi Jayron32! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy 16th anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! Please accept the below invitation we forgot to give you last year. Chris Troutman ( talk) 19:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC) |
 |
Dear Jayron32/Archive 38,
I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more.
Best regards, Chris Troutman ( talk) 19:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi, just notifying you of this ANI thread connected to a discussion on the MoS talkpage. Boynamedsue ( talk) 17:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.
- Additionally, consensus for proposal 6C of the 2021 RfA review has led to the creation of an administrative action review process. The purpose of this process will be to review individual administrator actions and individual actions taken by users holding advanced permissions.
Arbitration
- Following the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Cabayi, Donald Albury, Enterprisey, Izno, Opabinia regalis, Worm That Turned, Wugapodes.
Miscellaneous
- The
functionaries email list (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to
the Arbitration Committee.
Hi!
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
Thank you. / Johan (WMF)
18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- The Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines have been published for consideration. Voting to ratify this guideline is planned to take place 7 March to 21 March. Comments can be made on the talk page.
Technical news
- The user group
oversightwill be renamedsuppressin around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections. - The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.
- The user group
Arbitration
- Community input is requested on several motions aimed at addressing discretionary sanctions that are no longer needed or overly broad.
- The Arbitration Committee has published a generalised comment regarding successful appeals of sanctions that it can review (such as checkuser blocks).
- A motion related to the Antisemitism in Poland case was passed following a declined case request.
Miscellaneous
- Voting in the 2022 Steward elections will begin on 07 February 2022, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2022, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
- Voting in the 2022 Community Wishlist Survey is open until 11 February 2022.
I just ran across this [1] highly problematic BLP edit by 2603:6010:5940:F000:2D7C:66CC:7E3:6C95 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) that falls into an ip block you made Feb 4. Thought you should know. -- Hipal ( talk) 17:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've extended the block to encompass the Scott Baio article. -- Jayron 32 17:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi, can you lower the protection for Battle of Diu? There has been no discussion on the talk page since December; I'm not sure full protection until June is preventing any disruption or helping encourage discussion. Thanks. Levivich 15:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Done. --
Jayron
32 16:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the quick response! Levivich 17:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
I remember you from Bug's page so long ago. I used to have fun joking in there. It's a good rule that we shouldn't link dates. For some reason though whenever I come across that story I find myself as a reader looking up that date. Is that an absolutely carved in granite rule? Slight Smile 15:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- No, but in that case it isn't needed. If you are interested in a date, the search bar works well. -- Jayron 32 15:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your vote of confidence (and for helping my bad eyes!). I agree it would be best not to have any added reasons to "yell at people", though frankly, even with a "requirement", I'd be happy to spend all of my days just jumping in there on thousands of articles and adding this spacing (as opposed to "making" others do it). I do not see it as something that people would get scolded for too badly, and something that definitely helps me a whole lot (and thus probably other people would like the look better I imagine?). Regardless, I think a suggestion is still preferable to the status quo of not mentioning it either way (which leaves open the possibility of editor disagreement based on aesthetic look alone). ♥ Th78blue ( talk)♥ 13:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Moin & Thank You for your input. The issue has shifted somewhat, but I've found out that not only my connection's not stable, appearently I'm occasionally in a blocked range and can't edit on en:wp at all - hence the delay. Just chanced that with my current uplink I can, so I wanted to say thanks and I read your reply, I just couldn't edit an answer. Regards, -- G-41614 ( talk) 16:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Re: NYT headline — UKRAINE UNDER FULL-SCALE ATTACK – Sca
- Where did I say it wasn't? You seem to be creating things I never said, and trying to argue with your imagination. Please stop that. --
User:Jayron32
- What you said was that "launches" was preferable. My point was that the invasion had gone beyond being launched and was well under way. I never said anything about what you said or might have thought about the phrase "full-scale attack" cited in the headline. Please quit distorting my comments.
- And just in case you'd like to know, current NYT headline says: FIERCE FIGHTING ACROSS UKRAINE. – Sca ( talk) 22:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi! I just want to say Thank you again for information I needed about the picture, and let you know I'm using it in upcoming Weekly contest (sv-wp "Veckans tävling"). If you want to see the page, click here. :-) // Zquid ( talk) 00:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
I am currently having an issue on this article. I really don't know who to speak to. The editors there seem biased to Liverpool and aren't even producing facts to back their claims. I have produced countless evidence and I have mentioned it under the comments of each edit. But the editors just ignore my evidence. I am not even arguing something I believe in, I am arguing with facts. The Liverpool editors are arguing that a particular trophy needs to be included in the trophy tally, and I am showing them that the official Liverpool website does not acknowledge this trophy. But they do not wish to see the website. I have even sent the official website but they refuse to look at it. Perhaps you can assist. I am a neutral and I don't support neither club. It seems like its me verse subjective Liverpool supporters. The trophy is called sheriff of London charity shield. See link : https://www.liverpoolfc.com/history/honours — Preceding unsigned comment added by HMD 1315 ( talk • contribs) 17:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- I see you just made your very first edit to Talk:Liverpool F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry. That's a good start. Give the discussion some time to develop, see where the general consensus lies, most importantly don't speculate on the motivations of other people, and try to convince people of your side using evidence and logic. -- Jayron 32 17:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately this debate has been going on from yesterday. Manchester United supporters are agreeing with me , however Liverpool supporters are literally ignoring my evidence and are just undoing/reverting my changes, without any discussion. This is a really fierce rivalry for both supporters, I really don't think this will come to an end. If you look at the edits history, you can see I have produced tonnes of evidence and explanations, but it is literally ignored unfortunately :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by HMD 1315 ( talk • contribs) 17:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm going to make this clearer for you. Make your case on the talk page. Give it some days to see where it falls. STOP referring to people who edit the article as "supporters" of one team or another. It's pointless, and rude. Also, you've made only one edit to the article talk page. That's not "producing tonnes of evidence and explanation". You've left no evidence or explanation on the article talk page. -- Jayron 32 17:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Okay I will add my evidence on the talk page, the evidence I was referring to was in the edits history page, where I was giving a summary for my edits, because I saw people talking and asking me stuff over there. Thank you so much for your advice, I will definitely heed everything you have said. Sorry for my misjudgements. Really appreciate your assitance :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HMD 1315 ( talk • contribs) 17:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Sorry if I stepped on your toes. It occurs to me that if you were already aware of the ANI thread (I assumed at the time you weren't, but now I think I was wrong) it made me look more arrogant than intended. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 19:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- It's all good. They needed to hear it from multiple people, I think. -- Jayron 32 19:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- A RfC is open to change the wording of revision deletion criterion 1 to remove the sentence relating to non-infringing contributions.
- A RfC is open to discuss prohibiting draftification of articles over 90 days old.
Technical news
- The deployment of the reply tool as an opt-out feature, as announced in last month's newsletter, has been delayed to 7 March. Feedback and comments are being welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project. ( T296645)
- Special:Nuke will now allow the selection of standard deletion reasons to be used when mass-deleting pages. This was a Community Wishlist Survey request from 2022. ( T25020)
- The ability to undelete the talk page when undeleting a page using Special:Undelete or the API will be added soon. This change was requested in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey. ( T295389)
Arbitration
- Several unused discretionary sanctions and article probation remedies have been rescinded. This follows the community feedback from the 2021 Discretionary Sanctions review.
Miscellaneous
- The 2022 appointees for the Ombuds commission are Érico, Faendalimas, Galahad, Infinite0694, Mykola7, Olugold, Udehb and Zabe as regular members and Ameisenigel and JJMC89 as advisory members.
- Following the 2022 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AntiCompositeNumber, BRPever, Hasley, TheresNoTime, and Vermont.
- The 2022 Community Wishlist Survey results have been published alongside the ranking of prioritized proposals.
See here. That IP had already been blocked for socking, and as noted the first edit summary pretty much admits it.
I have taken the liberty of blocking them for the next month. Daniel Case ( talk) 21:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. I wasn't familiar with the person so named, and didn't see any obvious vandalism, which is why I declined it. That's why it's better not to use AIV for those things. With several hundred active admins dealing with AIV, not all of us know every sockmaster on sight by behavior. -- Jayron 32 11:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello there, can you also please consider revoking TP access to the account as the sockmaster continued to edit on the aformentioned page despite being blocked due to sockpuppetry? See this recent edit which I've reverted it right away after I saw it on my watchlist. Thanks! VictorTorres2002 ( talk) 15:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nachos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Salsa.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I am requesting unprotection of Mimi Lockhart, I have made a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Decrease#Mimi Lockhart. Notifying you as the protecting admin. Thanks, Terasail [✉️] 16:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Val James /info/en/?search=Val_James
I agree that my edit of this page ("James was the first African American born in the United States") does seem redundant. The reason that it should be edited, though, is that the term African American, is often used in Canada. Yes, African Canadian is commonly seen and heard as well, but African American is often taken to mean a North American of African descent--usually from the United States or Canada. While there is a link to the page on Willie O'Ree near the bottom of the article under "See also", one could easily assume that James was the first Black player in the league. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graham.pub ( talk • contribs) 17:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- I hear you, but we need to use the correct terms, not just conform to people's misconceptions. I did add a note to the bottom of the article regarding Willie O'Ree, the first Black Canadian to appear in the NHL. Leaving Val James as "African American" is fully correct. African Americans are not African Canadians. -- Jayron 32 17:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
@ Jayron32:, I am a sockpuppet of User:Skh sourav halder. Faofln ( talk) 06:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Must have gotten tired of it all, reported himself to wp:ANI as a sock and was blocked. Adakiko ( talk) 07:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Sure, that would be Cyberllamamusic. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cyberllamamusic/Archive for the history. Cheers, -- Viennese Waltz 17:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC is open proposing a change to the minimum activity requirements for administrators.
Technical news
- Access to
Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the
deletelogentryanddeletedhistoryrights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. ( T301928) - When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. ( T284114)
Arbitration
- Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Opening of proceedings has been updated to reflect current practice following a motion.
- A arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has been closed.
- A arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been opened.
Miscellaneous
- Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines has closed, and the results were that 56.98% of voters supported the guidelines. The results of this vote mean the Wikimedia Foundation Board will now review the guidelines.
Hey Jayron32, your last post on the Humanities Desk made me feel sad so I wanted to cheer you up. You are far from an idiot! You help people here with well-researched answers and if once in a blue moon you made a mistake, you have the wonderful quality of immediately fixing it. Hope you won't be too hard on yourself. You're appreciated on the Ref Desk. Cheers, 70.67.193.176 ( talk) 18:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
While the question was answered in good faith, I have a hard time believing the OP is here for anything good. Check out his campaign site. which he himself noted here. CUPIDICAE💕 17:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, that's why I closed the discussion. We don't need to hear anything more from them. If you believe you have a valid concern over their behavior at Wikipedia, WP:ANI is thatway. -- Jayron 32 17:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi, this is just of curiosity, since you said me calling other editors who removed sourced content and added fake sourcing "vandals" constitutes personal attacks, how do you feel about me being called "pro-Putinist" and "whitewasher of war crimes". Are these OK? I'm trying my best to ignore them, but I wasn't aware that AE is a place were such abuse is condoned. Anonimu ( talk) 20:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- As long as we're not going to play the "So-and-so called me names so I can too, right?" game, yes, the person who said those things should not have said them. They are not in line with best practices for interacting with other people at Wikipedia. --
Jayron
32 16:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- No, I don't plan on calling anybody names, it just strikes me as strange that calling someone "vandal" seems to be a major offence, while these are just "not in line with best practices" and don't even deserve an admonishment.
Anonimu (
talk) 17:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think you're being deliberately obtuse about the reasons behind your ban from the AE discussion, and I don't find it productive to continue to feed the false fantasy that you seem to have created for yourself that you were banned merely minor offenses such as only misusing the term "vandal". It would be more accurate to say that you were repeatedly informed that you were misusing the term, and chose to still misuse it in the same way. And that is but one of an entire myriad of problems that appears to have led to AE in the first place. If you're going to ignore all of that; if that is the kind of understanding you have of the situation, I don't see where any further explanation on my part is likely to correct your understanding, and I consider this conversation to be done. Vaya con dios. --
Jayron
32 17:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- This was specifically about other editors throwing personal attacks at me during AE, not about whether my behaviour was problematic (you think it was, I think not really, you're an admin, you win). This was just of personal curiosity, is not like I'll get the chance to use this info as I'm getting permabanned and all.
Anonimu (
talk) 18:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- You're not permabanned; your topic banned from working on Eastern European topics. Generally, if you can establish good behavior by editing in other topic areas without the same sorts of problems for a period of time, you can appeal (usually at least 6 months). Every ban is appealable, and many people are able to come back from such bans if they can show that they don't intend to keep up the same behaviors as got them banned in the first place. It's indefinite, but it isn't permanent. -- Jayron 32 18:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- This was specifically about other editors throwing personal attacks at me during AE, not about whether my behaviour was problematic (you think it was, I think not really, you're an admin, you win). This was just of personal curiosity, is not like I'll get the chance to use this info as I'm getting permabanned and all.
Anonimu (
talk) 18:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think you're being deliberately obtuse about the reasons behind your ban from the AE discussion, and I don't find it productive to continue to feed the false fantasy that you seem to have created for yourself that you were banned merely minor offenses such as only misusing the term "vandal". It would be more accurate to say that you were repeatedly informed that you were misusing the term, and chose to still misuse it in the same way. And that is but one of an entire myriad of problems that appears to have led to AE in the first place. If you're going to ignore all of that; if that is the kind of understanding you have of the situation, I don't see where any further explanation on my part is likely to correct your understanding, and I consider this conversation to be done. Vaya con dios. --
Jayron
32 17:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- No, I don't plan on calling anybody names, it just strikes me as strange that calling someone "vandal" seems to be a major offence, while these are just "not in line with best practices" and don't even deserve an admonishment.
Anonimu (
talk) 17:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Considering the IP restored an edit from a banned user, it would not be at all surprising if the IP is yet another incarnation of that banned user. --← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.
Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:
- Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
- Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period
Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.
22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Guy Lafleur recent death nomination
Hello. Editors have been working on this article, and I just finished addressing the final "citation needed" tags. If you have a chance to take another look at the article and respond at ITN/C if your concerns have been addressed, it would be appreciated. Thank you. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 06:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Pink Floyd has an RFC
Pink Floyd has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. TSP ( talk) 13:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Hey there, thanks for closing my incident report over at WP:ANI. I really appreciate it but I don't really agree with some of the phrasing you used in the conclusion. You mention "All parties were edit warring" yet the entire discussion never mentioned me 'edit warring' or reverting edits and that was never up for contention implicitly either. I was accused of other things but not edit warring that I'm aware of. ★Ama TALK CONTRIBS 16:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. I have tweaked the wording so it doesn't imply that everyone was so edit warring. -- Jayron 32 16:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi Jayron32. Based on the edit/reversion we had on the subject, I added an item to the talk page on DC to discuss whether DC is a planned city. I hope you'll have a look and add your comments. Talk:Washington,_D.C.#Is_DC_a_planned_city? B k ( talk) 17:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello,
I wanted to follow up on this comment you made yesterday. The user appears to be engaged in edit warring on another page with the same user again. 1 2 3 4 I believe 68.234.69.27 and 68.234.69.28 are the same user, as they edit the same pages in the same unsourced manner, including the edit warring. I thought it best to bring up to you given the firm warring you gave, and that the user had received a warning for edit warring on their talk page already. Hey man im josh ( talk) 12:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm still learning so please be patient. Shouldn't this be speedy deleted? I've seen a few try to edit it and it seems like a waste of time. -- ARose Wolf 13:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that qualifies under WP:CSD#A10. Took care of it. -- Jayron 32 13:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of Spain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Basque.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
|
|
The Original Barnstar |
| I see you're doing a lot of good work at ANI--thank you for that. Drmies ( talk) 15:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC) |
- Thank you for your kind words! I try! I may not always succeed, but it is nice to be recognized for my efforts! -- Jayron 32 16:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi,
With regards to your recent improvements to the lead you need to tighten things a little more please. The success of Love Me Do led to them releasing a second single, Please Please Me. And the success of that single prompted EMI to push for the album of the same name. Atm it just jars. And besides, I did prefer it as it was but if you feel the need then please get it right. Thanks Patthedog ( talk) 17:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- That's why I changed it to "was followed by". We probably don't need every single listed, but noting the first two albums is sufficient. -- Jayron 32 17:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi, there's been a problem with a petition on the ANI board. I see you're active on the ANI board as an admin, so I hope you might be able to help with it. This is the petition: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1097#User:Tennisedu
It was archived earlier today, automatically, due to 72 hours of inactivity. We, the petitioners, were not aware of the 72-hour rule and we were simply waiting for our petition to be seen by an admin. So is there any way at this point to reopen the ANI? Some of those involved may not even know what's happened to the petition; and none of us are clear about what's been decided, concerning the dispute. It would be ideal if we could reopen the ANI and at least finish our discussion, so everyone is clear; or if reopening is not possible, to have a quick discussion somewhere, ideally with an admin, about how to go forward. Appreciate any help, or advice, you'd be able to give. Krosero ( talk) 02:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, I wasn't involved in that discussion. It seems a bit
WP:TLDR; I don't see any participation from anyone except the disputants, and that usually means it isn't clear what the issue is. Maybe you could start a new discussion, point to the old one, and try to make it a little more concise what the problem is and what sort of remedy we need. Sorry I couldn't be more help. --
Jayron
32 10:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- No problem, I think we can let that thread go for now. If we need to address this issue again, I'll take your advice about presenting what we think specifically is the problem. Our old thread did attract one uninvolved editor before it was archived, @ Iamreallygoodatcheckers, who said our case might be WP:Civil POV pushing. So if the case arises again we may present it as such, up front. Thank you again. Krosero ( talk) 17:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello I started a new talk page on the RFC, since you are a regular there I was wondering if you could contribute your opinions to it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:C80B:2D00:44D9:A6D5:9499:B1E7 ( talk) 02:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:C80B:2D00:4812:C99C:7BAD:92EE ( talk)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2022).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, a change has been made to the administrators inactivity policy. Under the new policy, if an administrator has not made at least 100 edits over a period of 5 years they may be desysopped for inactivity.
- Following a discussion on the bureaucrat's noticeboard, a change has been made to the bureaucrats inactivity policy.
Technical news
- The ability to undelete the associated talk page when undeleting a page has been added. This was the 11th wish of the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey.
- A public status system for WMF wikis has been created. It is located at https://www.wikimediastatus.net/ and is hosted separately to WMF wikis so in the case of an outage it will remain viewable.
Arbitration
- Remedy 2 of the St Christopher case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to place a ban on single-purpose accounts who were disruptively editing on the article St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages from those pages.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of Europe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Absolutism.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Stop assuming nationalities you absolute donkey!! 82.20.137.139 ( talk) 05:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Dear Admin, I was just going through this page Kushwaha, I think it needs addition of certain contents and even some corrections. But I see the page has been locked for some 2-3 months and there is no active talk page discussion or anything going on it. It would be very helpful if you can suggest what to do here. I would request for removing of Admin lock as there is no active discussion and so definitely chances of disruption is low. In my view, 2- 3 months lock is very big. I would be very grateful if you can see into it. RS6784 ( talk) 18:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- ( talk page stalker) The edit war was going on for 3 months that's why it seems to have been protected until July. If you really believe that there is no active talk page discussion then you can make fully-protected edit request on talk page and when there is no opposition to your requested edits then your edits will be implemented within days. You can use this opportunity because right now fully-protected edit requests are relatively small in number. [2] TolWol56 ( talk) 03:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Please use the {{ edit fully-protected}} template to make your suggested edits. WP:RFPP is the place you should go to request unprotection. -- Jayron 32 11:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello Jayron, I'm reaching you up because I need your help to protect a page from vandalism Here's the page that i wish you could help me lock it so anon can't edit it anymore. https://id.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiao_Zhan Thank you for your help 🙏🏻 Dearnurulsky ( talk) 12:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. In the future, please don't use me as your personal admin service. Requests of this nature should be posted at
WP:RFPP.
Jayron
32 12:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2022).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Several areas of improvement collated from community member votes have been identified in the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines. The areas of improvement have been sent back for review and you are invited to provide input on these areas.
Technical news
- Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. ( T307341)
- The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.
Arbitration
- Remedy 2 of the Rachel Marsden case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to delete or reduce to a stub, together with their talk pages, articles related to Rachel Marsden when they violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy.
- An arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been closed.
Recent ARCA filing closed
The ARCA you filed has now been closed, pending broader review of the DS system. See the "Arbitrator views and discussion" section for more details. For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 14:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Jayron, just contacting you as I am at a loss to know what to do here. There was a discussion on the MoS talkpage regarding the usefulness of passive voice, and the result of this was the removal of any language indicating the passive should not be employed in wikipedia. Unfortunately, the anon user whose interventions triggered the whole stramash is continuing to edit in the same way, and rejects suggestions that there is any problem with this. Any advice you could give about ways forward, with or without your admin hat on?
-- Boynamedsue ( talk) 06:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
|
| Happy First Edit Day! Hi Jayron32! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy 16th anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! Please accept the below invitation we forgot to give you last year. Chris Troutman ( talk) 19:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
Dear Jayron32/Archive 38,
I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more.
Best regards, Chris Troutman ( talk) 19:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi, just notifying you of this ANI thread connected to a discussion on the MoS talkpage. Boynamedsue ( talk) 17:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)