News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).
Hello Samsara, last year you and I worked on protecting the page: Blue Angels ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) due to some vandals. It was set to expire on 12/22/17. Unfortunately, it seems it's still protected. The RfPP page says ask the protecting admin first so that's what I'm doing. I'm sorry if I'm going about this the wrong way. If I don't hear from you I'll post a request there as instructed in the WP:RFUP section. Thanks! - Frapsity ( talk) 15:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you the warning. I should know better. The discussion is at Talk:Assamese_people#Dravidian_element_in_Assamese_people. Chaipau ( talk) 17:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).
Interface administrator changes
Concerning Emirates Stadium...thank you for implementing the protection I thought I had applied. Lectonar ( talk) 14:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi there,
Thanks for looking over the page move warring at This is L. Inc. [ sic] but you've protected the page while it was at the "wrong" title. The move discussion at Talk:L. Inc.#Requested move 26 January 2019 opened when the page was at L. Inc.. Can you move it back there, please? 94.21.238.64 ( talk) 01:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Please can you semi-protect Ilhan Omar. The subject of this article is a living person who is currently in a large controversy in US media over a possible antisemitic remark, and this article about a living, controversial figure currently has no semi-protection to stop vandalism. There is currently a large edit war happening on this page due to the controversy. Please fix this quickly! TheNavigatrr ( talk) 21:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your quick response. TheNavigatrr ( talk) 21:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Hopefully this will end the rash of meritless AE ECP requests of late. Pinging Oshwah too because he's had to help with it. TonyBallioni ( talk) 01:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
i didn't understand your comments, please elaborate, regards. 175.137.72.188 ( talk) 10:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Samsara. I have a question about your recent edit of the Jim Acosta article. As far as I can tell, even after purging the page cache, the semi-protection icon does not show up. I'm curious what action/edit was used to hide the icon - if any. Do you know? -- 77.173.90.33 ( talk) 12:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, your helpful insertion of a historic edit prior this edit of mine that I made today made my edit moot, nosensical and misleading. Can you delete my edit, please? Thanks! -- В²C ☎ 01:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
There are too many requests ... Hhkohh ( talk) 02:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, since you semi-protected Stitch's Great Escape! do you mind removing the pending changes please, Thanks Pepper Gaming ( talk) 23:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
On the article I'm trying to edit, Ebyabe states "Non-encyclopaedic tone" - this is opinion - theirs vs. mine. If I think it's encyclopedia tone and they don't - why is theirs favored?
Also, you said I was doing "disruptive editing" in your comments for protecting the page, but when I look up the definition of disruptive editing it says, "a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time on many articles". How can you establish a pattern when you haven't let me finish the edits I wanted to do? This is my first night on a wikipedia registered account and from what I'm learning, there is a responsibility on users to first educate new people and teach them before resorting to things that block them from editing altogether. I did not make edits "over a long time" or "on many articles" so I did not do disruptive editing and I can't see why I'm being treated this way. Instead of talking to me I'm being shut out and I don't even know how to private message you or if this will reach you. I tried to use the page's talk page and it says I'm blocked from that. So what am I supposed to do now? Seems like I'm not being treated fairly or given a fair opportunity to be taught how to use this site let alone share my thoughts intelligently in a discussion with others because now I can't use the talk page either due to the protection level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcontributor777 ( talk • contribs) 06:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the page protection at Drought NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Same issue. There are people continuously adding the controversy section, even after I have tried to explain (in edit summaries and on user talk page) that the controversy section's references do not support the claims made.
I only come to you because I do not know what else to do, and that you were the last admin to look at the page.
Can you please take a look at this?
Thanks, Levvy owo? 19:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
I noticed you recently protected the Rotten Tomatoes page from vandalism which is probably a good thing at the moment. However, my edits were NOT vandalism but they were still reverted by a user named Mrschimpf without sufficient reason or explanation TWICE. Could you please look at them and restore them? You'll see they fully met the WP:PRIMARY guidelines as they simply linked to RT's statement and made absolutely no judgment call on the material itself. I'm not a regular Wikipedia user and this experience isn't exactly making me want to become one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.123.197 ( talk) 20:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Hey, can you point me to where the discussion was held regarding Template:Infobox album/genre/Sol-Angel and the Hadley St. Dreams and the change to {{ Infobox album}} to support it? -- Gonnym ( talk) 09:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
Hi Samara, the page is now protected, so I removed words here. I also sent you an email containing proofs, hope you can see I'm sincerely protecting the page from vandalism here.
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
Your article protections have been awesome. Any time I've requested protection over on RFPP, and you're around, you've been on top of it. Plus, you do really long semi-protections because of the silly IPs who will return—eg, Henry Danger and its LOE—and I think you're about the only admin who does that. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 19:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC) |
Since you have added the protection of that article, would you be so kind to take a look at what’s happening on that page? In my opinion, the high ticket prices are a reason to mention, however, others reckon it should not be included. Is there any way someone unbiased could take a look, and decide what to do, because this has became an edit war. It will be greatly appreciated! 「Robster1983」 ☞ Life's short, talk fast ☜ 10:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
@ Samsara: Please change the protection level back to Extended confirmed protected as all of the users who edit the page are not administrators and the page needs update regularly. Thank you. — Dimsar01 Talk ⌚→ 11:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
FYI the protection you added to this page is redundant: even without any special protection, only you and Interface administrators can edit JS pages in your userspace. {{3x|p}}ery ( talk) 15:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
De ster van verdienste | |
Thanks a million for giving some guidance in a nasty debate. It helped a lot. 「Robster1983」 ☞ Life's short, talk fast ☜ 23:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC) |
Hi, re: this, I'm taking it off the RfB because I'm not trying to get you to change your !vote at all but rather to clarify what the role of the ombudsman commission is. I know what the meta policy says, but what I'm saying is that the odds of the Ombudsman Commission actually taking actions involving a sysop on en.wiki that is not related to the privacy policy are less than zero, and I don't think it has ever happened in the history of it's existence. Regardless of what the written policy says, it's current role is confined to advising the WMF on what actions should be taken for violations of the privacy policy/NDA and the global CheckUser and Oversight policies, and if it still exercises any function outside of that, it would be for stuff like an admin showing up at someone's house (this happened on nl.wiki in 2014 and from what a steward has told me, before Alex Shih it was the last time the WMF advanced permissions banned someone.)
I'll ping @ Risker, Ajraddatz, and MarcoAurelio: to correct me if I'm wrong, but I really think this is an important understanding to clear up, regardless of the outcome of the RfB. If an admin on en.wiki thinks that the Ombuds commission handles things that are normally handled by the local ArbCom, there are likely others who have this impression too. That, or I'm off-base completely and the people I pinged clearing up my confusion would be helpful. TonyBallioni ( talk) 00:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
the odds of the Ombudsman Commission actually taking actions involving a sysop on en.wiki that is not related to the privacy policy are less than zero
don't think it has ever happened in the history of it's existence
Regardless of what the written policy says
it would be for stuff like an admin showing up at someone's house (this happened
If an admin on en.wiki thinks that the Ombuds commission handles things that are normally handled by the local ArbCom, there are likely others who have this impression too.
Now, I do understand the position that a candidate already has too many roles and responsibilities to grant a new role (if we're being snarky, the term "hat-collecting" might even make it into the sentence), and I personally think that's an entirely valid reason for an oppose vote. I think this might actually be a more accurate description of your concern. I don't think you've made a good case for conflict of interest in your comments, because you haven't shown a situation that is within the OC's remit where being an enwiki Bureaucrat would conflict with deliberations by the OC. Incidentally, the Ombudsman Commission is what is called a "committee of the Board of Trustees" - that is, it is responsible directly to the Board, and makes recommendations to the Board (which has in turn delegated responsibility for action on those recommendations to the WMF staff). It has no reporting duties at all, except to the designated WMF staff and the Board, and it has no mandate to act, only to recommend action. Risker ( talk) 01:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
This page has been semi-protected since 2017, and is not edited much. Any chance of unprotecting it? I'd like to make some edits. It can always be protected again if vandalism restarts. Thanks. 173.228.123.166 ( talk) 08:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Hey, could you indefinite protect the pages: Benjamin Burnley and Sam Hunt because of long-term vandalism please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.157.19.180 ( talk) 03:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Would the Blue Angels article be able to be unprotected? It has very few (if any) instances of vandalism or disruptive editing, as far as I can see, and the pending changes was placed on the article around two years ago. EggRoll97 ( talk) 07:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | |
Thanks for your help with the WP:RfPP backlog! Keep up the good work! ~Swarm~ {talk} 09:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC) |
Hi Samsara, regarding this, it looks like Admin Primefac moved a page over the protected page, which removed the create protection, then speedy deleted it. Thus the page was left unprotected. Not a technical glitch, just missed during the move/delete phase. -- kelapstick( bainuu) 16:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
The article Kst (software) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 09:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for monitor page Sophie Scholl.
From Malaysia
Alif Fizol ( talk) 07:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Please revert the edits by Drummoe. They are not sourced and the claims to Cage Match are not reliable. The site can not be used under BLP - see WP:PW sources list. It needs proper sources. As it stands the claims are controversial. 2001:8003:5901:B400:5035:B7CE:159E:E954 ( talk) 07:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kst (software) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kst (software) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
I don't understand your protection of Mistake. You said it was for persistent vandalism. It has been almost a month since the last edit. There have only been 10 edits in all of 2019. This does not look like persistent vandalism to me that needs any type of protection. ~ GB fan 11:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Review of protection at Mistake. ~ GB fan 23:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
For the double thanx, I lost my head :P - FlightTime Phone ( open channel) 17:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
You have recently stated that you believe a topic ban is necessary, and, correct me if I'm wrong, have cited the fact that I have started "yet another fire in a new venue" as one reason for such a stance. Can you please explain why taking a talk page dispute to WP:DRN is disruptive (or anything else about my actions that can be viewed as disruptive), or how it otherwise contributes to my potential future topic ban? Note that this is not a comment attacking your position, but instead a genuine question with the intention of improving my conduct. OlJa 22:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Atsme Talk 📧 22:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Administrators
must secure their accounts
The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.
|
This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
For the Arbitration Committee, - Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).
the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so
will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).
Would you mind clarifying what you meant by "should be done by actual stakeholders, which it isn't clear to me based on your userpage that you are"
[1]? I marked the page as closed after an editor mentioned that it was, which I understand may have been premature or out of process, but I'm scratiching my head as to why my status as a "stakeholder" is in question. –
dlthewave
☎ 20:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).
|
|
I will like to Inform everyone, if I should create a book Chiboy14 ( talk) 19:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I've noticed a mistake in the page for Myanmar, and I see you've protected it, so I'm asking you to edit the mistake, because otherwise Wikipedia would be giving wrong information to people and might even be closed down for that.
The problem is the fact that the first sentence of the page says, "Myanmar, officialy the...., and also known as Burma,....", while Burma is not the name of the country. Respectively, I want the part that lies people it is to be removed. I hope you take action, because if you do not, I will be forced to.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.85.61.53 ( talk) 07:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I give you one more chance to edit the mistake before I have to kill the page and later, Wikipedia as a whole. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
77.85.61.53 (
talk) 08:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Before semi-protection some IPs used to make useful contributions. Vandalism and unuseful edits can be reverted by PC reviewers. So please apply indefinite pending changes protection to this page. Thsnks. ~SS49~ {talk} 03:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
The article Mating Systems and Strategies has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Unsourced, no evidence of reliable independent sources supporting notability.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Mccapra (
talk) 21:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.
Dear Samsara/Archive19,
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) 13:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of PaintShop Pro releases is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of PaintShop Pro releases until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 23:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mirrorless interchangeable-lens camera, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Banding ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.
focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.
Please adjust the page protection settings on the following pages. As discussed at there is clear community consensus that ECP should not apply for "high risk templates" and nothing under WP:ECP supports such protection to this/these template(s) (example: "by request" is insufficient).
Thank you. Buffs ( talk) 16:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello! Wishing you a Happy Mole Day on the behalf of WikiProject Science.
|
|
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
Thank you!
-- User:Martin Urbanec ( talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).
Interface administrator changes
will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.
Can I suggest removing the protection from the article since its now been moved away from 420. It was moved away from "420" in September so now should no longer get vandalism that it used to get from people looking for the cannabis when you protected it in 2017, thanks. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 10:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Happy Holiday Cheer!! |
in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about this digitized version: *it doesn't need water *won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required. |
and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉 |
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).
Hello Samsara, last year you and I worked on protecting the page: Blue Angels ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) due to some vandals. It was set to expire on 12/22/17. Unfortunately, it seems it's still protected. The RfPP page says ask the protecting admin first so that's what I'm doing. I'm sorry if I'm going about this the wrong way. If I don't hear from you I'll post a request there as instructed in the WP:RFUP section. Thanks! - Frapsity ( talk) 15:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you the warning. I should know better. The discussion is at Talk:Assamese_people#Dravidian_element_in_Assamese_people. Chaipau ( talk) 17:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).
Interface administrator changes
Concerning Emirates Stadium...thank you for implementing the protection I thought I had applied. Lectonar ( talk) 14:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi there,
Thanks for looking over the page move warring at This is L. Inc. [ sic] but you've protected the page while it was at the "wrong" title. The move discussion at Talk:L. Inc.#Requested move 26 January 2019 opened when the page was at L. Inc.. Can you move it back there, please? 94.21.238.64 ( talk) 01:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Please can you semi-protect Ilhan Omar. The subject of this article is a living person who is currently in a large controversy in US media over a possible antisemitic remark, and this article about a living, controversial figure currently has no semi-protection to stop vandalism. There is currently a large edit war happening on this page due to the controversy. Please fix this quickly! TheNavigatrr ( talk) 21:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your quick response. TheNavigatrr ( talk) 21:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Hopefully this will end the rash of meritless AE ECP requests of late. Pinging Oshwah too because he's had to help with it. TonyBallioni ( talk) 01:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
i didn't understand your comments, please elaborate, regards. 175.137.72.188 ( talk) 10:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Samsara. I have a question about your recent edit of the Jim Acosta article. As far as I can tell, even after purging the page cache, the semi-protection icon does not show up. I'm curious what action/edit was used to hide the icon - if any. Do you know? -- 77.173.90.33 ( talk) 12:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, your helpful insertion of a historic edit prior this edit of mine that I made today made my edit moot, nosensical and misleading. Can you delete my edit, please? Thanks! -- В²C ☎ 01:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
There are too many requests ... Hhkohh ( talk) 02:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, since you semi-protected Stitch's Great Escape! do you mind removing the pending changes please, Thanks Pepper Gaming ( talk) 23:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
On the article I'm trying to edit, Ebyabe states "Non-encyclopaedic tone" - this is opinion - theirs vs. mine. If I think it's encyclopedia tone and they don't - why is theirs favored?
Also, you said I was doing "disruptive editing" in your comments for protecting the page, but when I look up the definition of disruptive editing it says, "a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time on many articles". How can you establish a pattern when you haven't let me finish the edits I wanted to do? This is my first night on a wikipedia registered account and from what I'm learning, there is a responsibility on users to first educate new people and teach them before resorting to things that block them from editing altogether. I did not make edits "over a long time" or "on many articles" so I did not do disruptive editing and I can't see why I'm being treated this way. Instead of talking to me I'm being shut out and I don't even know how to private message you or if this will reach you. I tried to use the page's talk page and it says I'm blocked from that. So what am I supposed to do now? Seems like I'm not being treated fairly or given a fair opportunity to be taught how to use this site let alone share my thoughts intelligently in a discussion with others because now I can't use the talk page either due to the protection level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcontributor777 ( talk • contribs) 06:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the page protection at Drought NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Same issue. There are people continuously adding the controversy section, even after I have tried to explain (in edit summaries and on user talk page) that the controversy section's references do not support the claims made.
I only come to you because I do not know what else to do, and that you were the last admin to look at the page.
Can you please take a look at this?
Thanks, Levvy owo? 19:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
I noticed you recently protected the Rotten Tomatoes page from vandalism which is probably a good thing at the moment. However, my edits were NOT vandalism but they were still reverted by a user named Mrschimpf without sufficient reason or explanation TWICE. Could you please look at them and restore them? You'll see they fully met the WP:PRIMARY guidelines as they simply linked to RT's statement and made absolutely no judgment call on the material itself. I'm not a regular Wikipedia user and this experience isn't exactly making me want to become one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.123.197 ( talk) 20:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Hey, can you point me to where the discussion was held regarding Template:Infobox album/genre/Sol-Angel and the Hadley St. Dreams and the change to {{ Infobox album}} to support it? -- Gonnym ( talk) 09:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
Hi Samara, the page is now protected, so I removed words here. I also sent you an email containing proofs, hope you can see I'm sincerely protecting the page from vandalism here.
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
Your article protections have been awesome. Any time I've requested protection over on RFPP, and you're around, you've been on top of it. Plus, you do really long semi-protections because of the silly IPs who will return—eg, Henry Danger and its LOE—and I think you're about the only admin who does that. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 19:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC) |
Since you have added the protection of that article, would you be so kind to take a look at what’s happening on that page? In my opinion, the high ticket prices are a reason to mention, however, others reckon it should not be included. Is there any way someone unbiased could take a look, and decide what to do, because this has became an edit war. It will be greatly appreciated! 「Robster1983」 ☞ Life's short, talk fast ☜ 10:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
@ Samsara: Please change the protection level back to Extended confirmed protected as all of the users who edit the page are not administrators and the page needs update regularly. Thank you. — Dimsar01 Talk ⌚→ 11:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
FYI the protection you added to this page is redundant: even without any special protection, only you and Interface administrators can edit JS pages in your userspace. {{3x|p}}ery ( talk) 15:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
De ster van verdienste | |
Thanks a million for giving some guidance in a nasty debate. It helped a lot. 「Robster1983」 ☞ Life's short, talk fast ☜ 23:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC) |
Hi, re: this, I'm taking it off the RfB because I'm not trying to get you to change your !vote at all but rather to clarify what the role of the ombudsman commission is. I know what the meta policy says, but what I'm saying is that the odds of the Ombudsman Commission actually taking actions involving a sysop on en.wiki that is not related to the privacy policy are less than zero, and I don't think it has ever happened in the history of it's existence. Regardless of what the written policy says, it's current role is confined to advising the WMF on what actions should be taken for violations of the privacy policy/NDA and the global CheckUser and Oversight policies, and if it still exercises any function outside of that, it would be for stuff like an admin showing up at someone's house (this happened on nl.wiki in 2014 and from what a steward has told me, before Alex Shih it was the last time the WMF advanced permissions banned someone.)
I'll ping @ Risker, Ajraddatz, and MarcoAurelio: to correct me if I'm wrong, but I really think this is an important understanding to clear up, regardless of the outcome of the RfB. If an admin on en.wiki thinks that the Ombuds commission handles things that are normally handled by the local ArbCom, there are likely others who have this impression too. That, or I'm off-base completely and the people I pinged clearing up my confusion would be helpful. TonyBallioni ( talk) 00:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
the odds of the Ombudsman Commission actually taking actions involving a sysop on en.wiki that is not related to the privacy policy are less than zero
don't think it has ever happened in the history of it's existence
Regardless of what the written policy says
it would be for stuff like an admin showing up at someone's house (this happened
If an admin on en.wiki thinks that the Ombuds commission handles things that are normally handled by the local ArbCom, there are likely others who have this impression too.
Now, I do understand the position that a candidate already has too many roles and responsibilities to grant a new role (if we're being snarky, the term "hat-collecting" might even make it into the sentence), and I personally think that's an entirely valid reason for an oppose vote. I think this might actually be a more accurate description of your concern. I don't think you've made a good case for conflict of interest in your comments, because you haven't shown a situation that is within the OC's remit where being an enwiki Bureaucrat would conflict with deliberations by the OC. Incidentally, the Ombudsman Commission is what is called a "committee of the Board of Trustees" - that is, it is responsible directly to the Board, and makes recommendations to the Board (which has in turn delegated responsibility for action on those recommendations to the WMF staff). It has no reporting duties at all, except to the designated WMF staff and the Board, and it has no mandate to act, only to recommend action. Risker ( talk) 01:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
This page has been semi-protected since 2017, and is not edited much. Any chance of unprotecting it? I'd like to make some edits. It can always be protected again if vandalism restarts. Thanks. 173.228.123.166 ( talk) 08:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Hey, could you indefinite protect the pages: Benjamin Burnley and Sam Hunt because of long-term vandalism please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.157.19.180 ( talk) 03:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Would the Blue Angels article be able to be unprotected? It has very few (if any) instances of vandalism or disruptive editing, as far as I can see, and the pending changes was placed on the article around two years ago. EggRoll97 ( talk) 07:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | |
Thanks for your help with the WP:RfPP backlog! Keep up the good work! ~Swarm~ {talk} 09:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC) |
Hi Samsara, regarding this, it looks like Admin Primefac moved a page over the protected page, which removed the create protection, then speedy deleted it. Thus the page was left unprotected. Not a technical glitch, just missed during the move/delete phase. -- kelapstick( bainuu) 16:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
The article Kst (software) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 09:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for monitor page Sophie Scholl.
From Malaysia
Alif Fizol ( talk) 07:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Please revert the edits by Drummoe. They are not sourced and the claims to Cage Match are not reliable. The site can not be used under BLP - see WP:PW sources list. It needs proper sources. As it stands the claims are controversial. 2001:8003:5901:B400:5035:B7CE:159E:E954 ( talk) 07:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kst (software) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kst (software) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
I don't understand your protection of Mistake. You said it was for persistent vandalism. It has been almost a month since the last edit. There have only been 10 edits in all of 2019. This does not look like persistent vandalism to me that needs any type of protection. ~ GB fan 11:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Review of protection at Mistake. ~ GB fan 23:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
For the double thanx, I lost my head :P - FlightTime Phone ( open channel) 17:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
You have recently stated that you believe a topic ban is necessary, and, correct me if I'm wrong, have cited the fact that I have started "yet another fire in a new venue" as one reason for such a stance. Can you please explain why taking a talk page dispute to WP:DRN is disruptive (or anything else about my actions that can be viewed as disruptive), or how it otherwise contributes to my potential future topic ban? Note that this is not a comment attacking your position, but instead a genuine question with the intention of improving my conduct. OlJa 22:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Atsme Talk 📧 22:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Administrators
must secure their accounts
The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.
|
This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
For the Arbitration Committee, - Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).
the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so
will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).
Would you mind clarifying what you meant by "should be done by actual stakeholders, which it isn't clear to me based on your userpage that you are"
[1]? I marked the page as closed after an editor mentioned that it was, which I understand may have been premature or out of process, but I'm scratiching my head as to why my status as a "stakeholder" is in question. –
dlthewave
☎ 20:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).
|
|
I will like to Inform everyone, if I should create a book Chiboy14 ( talk) 19:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I've noticed a mistake in the page for Myanmar, and I see you've protected it, so I'm asking you to edit the mistake, because otherwise Wikipedia would be giving wrong information to people and might even be closed down for that.
The problem is the fact that the first sentence of the page says, "Myanmar, officialy the...., and also known as Burma,....", while Burma is not the name of the country. Respectively, I want the part that lies people it is to be removed. I hope you take action, because if you do not, I will be forced to.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.85.61.53 ( talk) 07:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I give you one more chance to edit the mistake before I have to kill the page and later, Wikipedia as a whole. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
77.85.61.53 (
talk) 08:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Before semi-protection some IPs used to make useful contributions. Vandalism and unuseful edits can be reverted by PC reviewers. So please apply indefinite pending changes protection to this page. Thsnks. ~SS49~ {talk} 03:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
The article Mating Systems and Strategies has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Unsourced, no evidence of reliable independent sources supporting notability.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Mccapra (
talk) 21:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.
Dear Samsara/Archive19,
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) 13:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of PaintShop Pro releases is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of PaintShop Pro releases until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 23:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mirrorless interchangeable-lens camera, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Banding ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.
focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.
Please adjust the page protection settings on the following pages. As discussed at there is clear community consensus that ECP should not apply for "high risk templates" and nothing under WP:ECP supports such protection to this/these template(s) (example: "by request" is insufficient).
Thank you. Buffs ( talk) 16:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello! Wishing you a Happy Mole Day on the behalf of WikiProject Science.
|
|
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
Thank you!
-- User:Martin Urbanec ( talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).
Interface administrator changes
will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.
Can I suggest removing the protection from the article since its now been moved away from 420. It was moved away from "420" in September so now should no longer get vandalism that it used to get from people looking for the cannabis when you protected it in 2017, thanks. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 10:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Happy Holiday Cheer!! |
in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about this digitized version: *it doesn't need water *won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required. |
and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉 |