User talk:Feezo

Welcome to my talk page. Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page. Please sign and date your entry by adding "~~~~" at the end. Please indent your posts with ":" if replying to an existing topic (or "::" if replying to a reply). I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply. Start a new topic.

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback|your username}} on my talk. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|Feezo}} on your talk. Please click here to leave me a new message.

	Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Dear Feezo, I am pretty much at loss about what to do after your closure of the Lutici/Pomerania-Medcom. Per its own definition, Medcom is the final step in content dispute resolution, so there are no other steps in DR to pursue at this point. What I had preferred was the mediated RfC you suggested, what I am missing is a statement pointing out the course of action that needs to follow now. If the dispute can not be resolved even with a mediator, it is even more unlikely to be resolved without a mediator, and if the final stage of DR is aborted, it seems pointless to start the DR process anew. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skäpperöd—this dispute is unusual in that up to this point it has been almost entirely between you and VM. Most cases that are accepted for mediation involve more than two editors. There is little that a mediator can do when one side is unwilling to participate. Per Medcom policy, mediation is a voluntary process.

There are still a number of avenues of dispute resolution open, with the best option being RfC. Unfortunately, I do not believe you will receive much cooperation from VM in running it. His proposed question "why hasn't Skapperod presented any sources but just keeps endlessly arguing in circles" indicates that either he is not taking the dispute resolution process seriously, or that he is treating this as a user conduct issue. In either case, mediation is no longer appropriate.

If you wish to proceed with an RfC, I will be happy to review your proposed wording—your outline is a good start. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 08:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did/do take the process seriously and I rather think that the inability to provide sources (despite repeated requests) would be more indicative of "not taking the dispute resolution process seriously". And like I said at the page, if the central question is the reliability of Michalek as a source, then the natural thing to do would be to re-list it at WP:RSN.Volunteer Marek 17:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response, Feezo. I have copypasted the thoughts I presented on the Medcom page for an RfC draft [1] to a sandbox page - User:Skäpperöd/MedcomRfC - and intend to go from there atp, per your advice. And yes, I would appreciate it very much if you reviewed/advised there, feel free to edit that page as you want.

VM, are you willing to participate in preparing the RfC draft? There are more issues than merely the reliability question, so RSN again would not resolve the dispute. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would help to resolve the part of the dispute that we keep getting stuck on. I think it might also be worth while to try RSN regardless of whether an RfC happens or not.Volunteer Marek 20:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the issue can be resolved by RSN alone. For example, if the consensus is that Michalek is reliable, how do we resolve the perceived conflicts between Michalek and other sources? If Michalek is found unreliable, it doesn't necessarily mean the map is inaccurate. These are the judgement calls for which we should seek consensus through an RfC. RSN isn't really intended for dispute resolution.

Note that closing the mediation doesn't mean I've given up on this — just that I considered a continuing back-and-forth discussion unlikely to succeed. If we focus on accurately and neutrally framing the issues, I think we can make progress. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But there are no conflicts between Michalek and other sources. That's the key thing here. And if Michalek's reliability isn't question then that should be dropped from the RfC. Reliability of sources shouldn't be determined by RfC, which in my experience is often driven as much by various political alliances and fillibustering as well as consideration of policy.Volunteer Marek 03:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not necessary for there to be conflicts in order to ask this question—the only condition is that conflicts are perceived. In any case, it is not necessary to try to persuade me. My role as mediator—now in unofficial capacity—means that I am restricting myself to defining the parameters of the dispute. Clearly, Skäpperöd believes that Michalek conflicts with other sources, or his inclusion would not be an issue. He may be right, or he may be wrong. But either way, we must present both your cases to the community so that a consensus may be reached. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Feezo, I have not noticed that a discussion had continued here, and it seems moot to comment there now. I am about done with the draft, it took me longer than I had initially thought (RL), and I appreciate that you had tweaked it a bit. You are welcome to make changes. I am not certain how we proceed though, since VM has not proposed anything until now. I again asked him on his tp but so far I got no response. I think the best course of action would be to wait some time for a response (VM) and allow further tweaking (two days?), and then run the RfC either on the Medcom page or on talk:Pomerania during the High Middle Ages (that article would be affected by all proposals, whereas Lutici is only affected by the 1121/map proposals)? Maybe the 1121 proposal won't be challenged by VM though and could be implemented w/o RfC. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the discussion on VM's talk page since the above, we may be able to proceed once his concerns are resolved. It might be confusing to run the RfC on Medcom, since it's technically a closed case, so I agree that the talk:Pomerania during the High Middle Ages is probably the best place. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arthur Bowen 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/Arthur Bowen until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. DoctorKubla (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Feezo,

I'm wondering why Entertainment Publications page was deleted. We value our Wikipedia page and want people to know about the business. We just obtained it and the text of the old Wikipedia page is of sentimental value to us.

Thanks, MP 198.228.228.158 (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there—

The primary reason I deleted the page is that it appeared to contain material taken from the company's website. Wikipedia's copyright policy requires that content be published under two particular free licenses to be used on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information.

There is another issue—Wikipedia's function is that of an encyclopedia, not a business directory or marketing service, and articles are expected to be written from a neutral point of view. I encourage you to read our FAQ for organizations for more information. You will also find instructions there on how to proceed should you wish to recreate the article.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 05:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of the status of Puerto Rico, I'm not exactly a newbie, but the discussion is off the rails. I'm accused of being the IP who started the discussion unreasonably, when I tried to make it reasonable. My instinct now is to do more research and return to the topic in a year, except other editors keep bringing it up on United States, Puerto Rico, Insular articles. In this round, I suggested to Ahnoneemoos that language be crafted for a RfC, he ran it to a DRN, and no volunteer took it. Four editors showed up for unequivocal “unincorporated” without notice of a controversy, three editors showed up for allowing a statement of the controversy without losing “unincorporated”. It seemed to be a runaway train without a volunteer. That can't be good.

At the article Puerto Rico it reports its status as “unincorporated”, which it is for some purposes, as sourced, such as the revenue clause of the Constitution at the Downes" Supreme Court case. I source the existence of a scholarly controversy over the status of Puerto Rico at Foreign in a Domestic Sense, p. 17, and an element of the controversy “incorporated” at Boston College Law Review, p.1175 which is not currently reflected in the article.

To me, the issue revolves around including sourced material in the article narrative. -- Whether to allow both sides of a controversy into the article introduction -- how PR is "unincorporated" and "incorporated" as alternately sourced. And the bias of WP should be to include sourced information. But I am missing something, it cannot be easy, TransporterMan recused himself at the DRN.

The response of opposing editors is, there is no controversy but my original research and soapboxing. If I point out editors here have not supported the “unincorporated” with scholarly sources, -- including articles found in “Foreign in a Domestic Sense” -- the answer seems to be that scholarly sources have no place in the discussion in the face of their individual interpretation of online “official” sources. At some basic level I sought to improve the article with reliably sourced information, and I got my hat handed to me. What do you think is reasonable for a maturing editor to do? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tony the Marine's post on your talk page explains the situation pretty well, I think. Political disputes are among the most difficult to resolve, since viewpoints tend to be inflexible and subjective. For this reason, I've found that structured processes like RfC, which can establish consensus within a larger body of editors, tend to be more successful than freeform debate in the original group. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 10:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I kicked off an RfC at Puerto Rico, but for this round I don't think there is much more that I can say on the subject to be more persuasive. I placed a notice of the RfC on the project pages which list Puerto Rico as priority, Puerto Rico, Latin America, United States, to publicized it. In the mean time I want to double check my interpretation of sources with a notice on reliable sources noticeboard. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Feezo,

I noticed you were an on the Mediation Committee. I appreciate your guidance. I have politely the discussed a recent addition to the article Israel on the talk page. Some editors Talk:Israel#Palestinian state are refusing to cooperate in any form of dispute resolution. One is willing, but only if the resolution is binding. I strongly believe this issue requires the assistance of an admin and I favor dispute resolution and/or mediation, but their resistance is bring us to a standstill. I strongly support resolving this issue peacefully and I ask for your assistance and/or advice.

You may read the talk page yourself. If you would like my summary of the dispute, I say it as follows:

There is currently a dispute as to how to describe the geography of Israel in the lead of the article. Originally, the article read that Israel shared borders with the West Bank and Gaza Strip (among other borders). Some editors have insisted on adding "the Palestinian territories (or State of Palestine) comprising the West Bank and Gaza Strip on the east and southwest respectively," ignoring WP:UNDUE for the lead.

All reliable secondary sources put forward do not refer to the territories of the West Bank and Gaza as Palestine. In addition, encyclopedias and other sources that have country profiles for Israel do not refer to Israel as bordering "Palestine," nor do they have entries on any country called Palestine. (See, e.g., Encyclopedia Britannica; Encyclopedia Columbia; Library of Congress Country Studies, Washington Post Country Profiles; Infoplease). All sources indicate a Palestinian state is yet to be established, and it does not appear on any mainstream maps. AP, NY Times. The sources likewise never use terms like "president of Palestine," etc. In addition, they identify incidents originating there as from the West Bank or Gaza Strip, never as Palestine. Same with most Wikipedia articles.[2]

Indeed, discussion of the status of Palestinian statehood is important, and it is included in the following paragraph, where it discusses the status of Israeli–Palestinian negotiations in the lead. Further explanation is included in the body. The intro describing Israel's geography should be kept neutral and factual. Reliable secondary sources guide us and they are in agreement with their terminology (using West Bank & Gaza Strip, or Palestinian territories).

--Precision123 (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello—I notice that Georgewilliamherbert has imposed a temporary editing restriction on you regarding the article in question. While your frustration is understandable, I highly suggest allowing it to expire before deciding whether to pursue this topic further. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Freezo, I see that you have monitored the edit request page of the Handcuff article. Could you please consider the proposed edit that I posted there on Feb. 28, 2014. Thank you.

Include "Robotic Handcuff" Article

Dear Wikipedia, I would like to resubmit my Robo Restraint article for inclusion in the Handcuffs page. It was removed because the remover said it was a failed technology. I don't think that was a fair appraisal for removal, in that many items discussed in Wikipedia are not in use at the present time. The USPTO has issued a patent on this device and it has been demonstrated successfully at several law enforcement trade shows. Additionally, I don't think that the article is written as an advertisement and would ask that any lines that sound like an advertisement be pointed out to me specifically. I also would like to upload a picture of the device for the article. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Article as follows: A recent development in restraint technology is robotic handcuffs. According to Officer.com magazine, the device is mounted to the inside rear window sill of a police vehicle. The automated restraint system is operated by the officer activating a belt worn remote control. The system allows the officer to maintain a safe distance, while commanding the suspect to place his hands in the extended Kevlar loops. He then closes the loops, using the remote control. [1] The loops automatically tighten, until they contact the wrists, and then the bands are loosened slightly to achieve the correct fit. This takes place in about 1/2 second. The officer can then proceed with his investigation, or turn his/her attention to a second suspect. The officer can subsequently, apply standard handcuffs to the suspect and then releases him/her from the robo restraint for transport. Robo Restraint can be used in conjunction with a law enforcement or military robot to restraint an individual without officer intervention. [2] Bshul (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bshul (talk • contribs)

Sorry for the delay in replying — you're correct that a failed or obsolete technology may be valid for inclusion in Wikipedia. However, to avoid the problem of giving the technology undue weight, you'll need to demonstrate its significance: for example, did the it result in some kind of social change, or spur further technical advancement? This would have to be supported by reliable, third party sources; a patent and a magazine article probably aren't sufficient. Let me know if you have any questions. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 21:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

My Wiki page Telford Memories was deleted, using the speedy deletion option, what can I do to get my page re-instated? The Telford Memories page is of great importance in the Telford area of Shropshire in the UK, in a time of economic downturn & recession, this page has lifted the spirits of a whole town, most Facebook pages have around 1,000 Members, Telford Memories is fast approaching 10.000 Members, this Local History page has stirred up some kind of self pride & community spirit among it's residents, would the inclusion of a local press release added onto the page about how the page came to prominence ?

Because of this page, it is expected that on 21st September 2014, that over 21,000 people will assemble at the base of the Wrekin Hill in Shropshire Uk to break four Guinness World Records on the same day, Telford Memories has started something that will go down in the History of the Uk.

Regards

Irishbrummie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irishbrummie (talk • contribs) 12:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! — I deleted the page under Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion A7 — no disrespect intended towards Telford or this organization.

Although anyone is allowed to create an article, the page needs to demonstrate that the subject meets the relevant notability guidelines to be eligible for permanent inclusion. In this case, the guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (web) — particularly, the criteria section. If you think you can show that the page meets the criteria, feel free to submit an articles for creation request or create a userspace draft. I can recover the deleted contents for you if you like, but it would probably not be a good idea to recreate the article until another editor has had a chance to review it. Wikipedia:Your first article may be helpful in getting started. If it turns out that the website doesn't meet the notability requirements, you could help improve the Telford article instead.

Feel free to ask me any questions, or place {{help me}} on your talk page for assistance. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 20:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

dear freezo, May I please have the wiki definition of "failed invention"...without a stated wiki definition, wouldn't labeling my newly patented invention as a "failed invention" seems arbitrary and invalid....please advise.

sincerely, Burt184.227.225.245 (talk) 01:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Failure alone doesn't disqualify an invention from inclusion, but a section on a "failed invention that did not have a substantive or lasting impact documented by secondary sources" (my interpretation) would likely constitute undue weight. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 05:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is an unnecessary re-direct if there is no blurb there like Jason Adam, Lane Adams or Cheslor Cuthbert have. His name just being mentioned shouldn't prevent a G8 in my opinion.--Yankees10 23:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I see this would be consistent with the rest of the players in the table. You might want to check Special:WhatLinksHere/Miguel Almonte. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Včelka Mája 2 (talk · contribs · block log) seems like a rather obvious sockpuppet of Vačice Vejvančice (talk · contribs · block log), a user you already blocked for sockpuppetry. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, blocked. I've also semi-protected Maya the Bee (character). Let me know of any further mischief. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 19:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at this too. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you'd already noticed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The user Blokni mě, whom you blocked about a month ago, is using their talk page to make personal attacks [3] - it might be a good idea to remove their editing rights to that page. Cheers, --bonadea contributions talk 10:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done. I have zapped the page and reblocked the account with no talk page access. De728631 (talk) 10:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

could you do the page "List of Turkic dynasties and countries" protected, those who are not logged destroys only. Mehmeett21 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehmeett21 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I ask for your input at RfM/Ayers Rock. It has been almost a month since your last entry.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feezo, I have added the Pro case for using M's quote. However, could you please sign your RfC draft proposal so that other editors don't get the idea that I put that forward. Btw, I think the draft looks good.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to add the RfC to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian music/Article alerts listing?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added a wikiproject banner; that should take care of it. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 08:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a few years back you helped me out by semi-protecting my userpage (at the time it drew ire from vandals due to anti-vandalism work). Nowadays I work in quieter areas so I think it'll be fine as unprotected, if you wouldn't mind. Many thanks, benmoore 15:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 19:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just writing to say sorry, but I don't think I'll be chiming in on the RfC. I'm a bit frazzled from my own months-long, drawn-out battle over content on a different page, and I will be quite busy this month with offline concerns. Chubbles (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feezo, my undiluted thanks to you for your patience, wisdom, and above all the enormous amount of time given to the RfM. You could see that I was getting cabin fever due to the extended nature of the negotiations. It was like being in a meeting at work for six months! I don't like meetings. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 01:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! What happened here? Breed names are invariably capitalised in WikiProject Agriculture. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was scanning WP:TOPRED and I noticed Anthony Ilott, which says you said it was deleted from a deletion discussion. Is that accurate? I didn't see a deletion discussion linked there, as is normally done on redlink pages. I'm not 100% sure the guy is notable, but google news threw out some hits. For example: www.ex@miner.com/article/british-actor-anthony-llott (bl@cklisted) Because you said it was deleted as a result of a deletion discussion, do I need special permission to re-create it? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 21:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having dealt with CPD in an adversarial situation I may not be impartial in judging whether he has crossed over from being a general editor at Ayers Rock to display conflicts of issue. He has acknowledged communicating, via intermediaries, with former band members and a family member of one. He has modified content in the article based on those communications and on discussions held with individuals he acknowledges are OR. Some of this is discussed at the talkpage's subsection How close? I proposed that a template be added to the talkpage to alert editors to the situation. CPD has not yet responded to that request.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feezo, following your participation at Ayers Rock (band), there has been a growing level of cooperation between the warring parties. With more work having been done, and issues resolved, I have written a draft of the new lead, which you may read at the sandbox. Your thoughts, and opinions are sought on every aspect re suitability as the new lead. Thanking you in advance. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 10:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feezo, a hostile atmosphere has descended at Ayers Rock, in that editors are refusing to listen to each other (again), and the situation has escalated to the extent that the participation of an administrator or a very experienced editor is required. Discussion/arguments have centred on proposed major changes to the structure of the article. These discussions became deadlocked. Recently, I have requested that shaidar cuebiyar participate with me in "some form of mediation or RfC or Third Party opinion process." See [4] In spite of this, and the fact that he does not have a consensus for such change, shaidar cuebiyar has forged ahead regardless, dismissing my opposition. These important changes require a more thorough examination by the community, or the opinion of an expert Third Party. shaidar cuebiyar's actions of 21 May (see these diffs [5], and [6]) in radically altering the structure are examples of behaviour described in Examples of disruptive editing point 4. Could you or another suitably qualified editor please join us to restore order? Could you advise, please, if I should take further action such as posting at ANI? CaesarsPalaceDude 06:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I dispute CaesarsPalaceDude's contention here, I believe he himself made changes to the structure of the article while a discussion was in progress between three editors. Myself, CaeserPalaceDude and Nøkkenbuer.

During that discussion, CaesarsPalaceDude attempted to limit my responses both in time and in position on the article's talkpage.

I supported Nøkkenbuer's call for the article to be more in tune with best practices at FA and GA music articles on artists. Hence a consensus of two editors against a third had been reached.

CaesarsPalaceDude's phrase "I have guillotined the discussion, and taken pre-emptive action by transfering the proposed article into article space" some five days ago summarises his position.

I pointed out that he was not listening to the advice of two others: both Nøkkenbuer and I preferred a different structure to the article's or to his more recent proposal but he forged ahead with his preferred option without stopping.

Once he made the changes he wanted, he called on me to not edit the article from its then-form for some three weeks. I refused to adhere to his injunction.

I believe CaesarsPalaceDude is attempting to exert ownership of the article and its talkpage.

I believe I have the right to present the article in a better style than it was and one which is more in tune with FA and GA music article criteria than the one which existed at that time.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shaidar cuebiyar update: the last paragraph of his latest post contains wording which is very close to taunting. How far does this editor need to go before he is sanctioned? CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CaesarsPalaceDude, I think Shaidar cuebiyar's concerns over the namespacing of the draft are worth consideration. The principle I think applies here is "be bold, but not reckless". Perhaps it was worth trying to jump-start the discussion—we're always free to admit that it didn't work and go back, after all. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 01:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feezo, thankyou for your thoughtful reply, which I will continue to study, and consider. The recent activities at this article are like some people's golf swings; there is so much which is wrong that it's difficult to know where to start. Viewed from another angle, the "very early" placing of the draft into namespace precipitated a large amount of editing, and much more focused discussion at the Talk page. I'm interested in your comment: "we're always free to admit that it didn't work and go back". I don't wish to focus on "didn't work", but rather on "go back". I'm not sure I understand, and could you, please, expand on that thought? Also, is the discussion about the structure of the article dead, and does Shaidar cuebiyar's flimsy majority count as a consensus now that he has gone ahead, and changed the article to his structure without my agreement? The benefit of your experience would be greatly appreciated. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 02:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Onion 64x64.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and MusikAnimal ^talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zhatim/Michel Fattouche, a page which created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Zhatim/Michel Fattouche and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Zhatim/Michel Fattouche during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

A page I created, Niyya Farms. Sorry if it did not meet Wikipedia's guidelines. I will remove every biased reference and make the article very neutral if you can please restore it and give me pointers where necessary.

Thank you

No, I am not an affiliate of the company but I did lift content from their website. That was poorly done now that I have ready the copyright policy. How do I fix this?

Stephen King 10:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for Creation is a good place to start. You can get feedback there before moving the page into the main article space. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 01:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi how are you?

I seen your post on your page regarding reasonable rollback requests. --Giooo95 (talk) 20:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to provide a little more information; are you asking for the rollback userright? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 07:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, sorry just remembered to check this. Yes I was interested in asking for rollback. I know my numbers are down but I am interested in helping out more and as the holidays have passed, I will have more time to assist. :) --Giooo95 (talk) 05:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The standard minimum is 200 mainspace edits. Your contributions look good so far, but I don't see a lot of reversion work yet. I recommend you keep using Twinkle and then ask again after building a record of good reverts. Let me know if you have any questions. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 17:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have today deleted the OC&C Strategy Consultants page and I'd like some clarity on why. The user who put the page up for speedy deletion said it replicated an earlier deleted page, while it is based on some of the same content (it is a company, it's core business is just that and can't be changed) it has had an overhaul. The content is factual, has multiple links, increased notability which is all verifiable. What is the reason for deletion other than it speaks of the core business as per a previous page? (Alltherightthings (talk) 08:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

For being promotional in nature. Wikipedia policy requires articles be written from a neutral point of view. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can I access the deleted page to update it rather than having to recreate the page? Alltherightthings (talk) 09:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the draft version (which I moved to Draft:OC&C Strategy Consultants) has the deleted material. If it's not up to date, I can provide the deleted version. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The content has now been updated and bias removed - if you can review and move out of draft that would be great. Alltherightthings (talk) 09:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to have to say this, but the article does not currently come close to meeting Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Regarding the references, Wikipedia doesn't consider itself a citable source. For information about contributions connected with a business, see Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 21:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've just gone to edit the draft and it says it has now been deleted? Can you please make this draft available again so it can be updated. ThanksAlltherightthings (talk) 12:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 02:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feezo, I have added external links to the draft page and removed promotional content. Does the page now meet the guidelines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alltherightthings (talk • contribs) 13:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that you read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Then tell me what you think. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your continued support to help us get this right. I've read the additional links you shared and have again reviewed the content and also run a comparison against other consultancy pages. Hopefully you will agree this is a purely fact based page that can be promoted back to the live site. ThanksAlltherightthings (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The lead looks a lot better, but several other sections look like corporate PR. I would also try to reduce the article's reliance on primary sources, in order to show that it meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Also, note that I have no more authority than any other editor over whether the page is included, and can only offer my opinion on whether it complies with Wikipedia's content guidelines/policies. If you'd like to seek additional input, feel free to ask on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 21:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:MOVER. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:MOVER redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 16:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason I am accused of making edits on Wikipedia. I read Wikipedia, but I have never edited it. I just wanted you to clear that up, please. Either that, or someone is using my IP to do some stupid stuff.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.83.155 (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi — if you didn't make the edits, then don't worry about the warnings. We know that IP addresses, especially mobile ones, are often shared. If people are making bad edits on an address you share, the worst that's likely to happen is a temporary block from editing. You can avoid this in most cases by creating an account. Let me know if you have any further questions or concerns. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 04:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is being sent to you because you are listed as an emeritus member of MedCom and an examination of your contribution page suggests that you are still active at en-Wikipedia. MedCom is currently down to three or four active members (there are more than that on the active member list, but some of them have not edited Wikipedia in quite awhile). We have a current case awaiting a mediator which is receiving no response from the request for a mediator sent on the MedCom mailing list a couple of days ago, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Expulsion of Cham Albanians. Would you please consider reactivating your membership, taking that case, or both? If you're interested in doing so and are not still on the MedCom mailing list, please just let me know and I'll reactivate you and add you to the list. Best regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) 19:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC) (current MedCom chairperson)[reply]

Hi, sorry for the delay in responding — I'm glad you found a volunteer, as I don't have the time to commit to a mediation case right now. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The online custom framing page should not have been deleted. Online custom framing is not an alternative to picture framing (like block printing) it is the process of ordering a custom picture frame through an online retailer. Please reinstate the page. Thanks, Zach — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacharysegal (talk • contribs) 18:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of deletion, the article, in its entirety, read:

Online Custom Framing refers to the growing market in the United States of getting art, photography, memorabilia custom framed via online retailers.

If you'd like to create an article on this subject, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Your first article. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 02:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Feezo.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

not sure why you deleted my page? was in process of working on it. not sure why it violates any rules. was just going to state what the company is and what we do, just like any other company on wikipedia. perhaps i am confused as i have never created a page before....if you can help me that would be great thank you.

See our conflict of interest and Your first article pages. You might be better served by Articles for creation. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 14:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Please check Special:WhatLinksHere/Talk:?Oumuamua also User talk:Sphilbrick#Talk:?Oumuamua, and undelete the page. I created that redirect for a very good reason: so that people could reach the RfC from the notifications that Legobot is scattering about. See for example Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology or User talk:Maproom#Please comment on Talk:?Oumuamua. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

Muboshgu

Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned

None

Bureaucrat changes

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

• The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey results have been posted. The Community Tech team will investigate and address the top ten results.
• The Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting comments on new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools for development in early 2018. Feedback can be left on the discussion page or by email.

Arbitration

• Following the results of the 2017 election, the following editors have been (re)appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Alex Shih, BU Rob13, Callanecc, KrakatoaKatie, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, RickinBaltimore, Worm That Turned.

---

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors. Also, your signature uses a font color control that has no effect because it is overridden by automatic wikilink colors.

You are encouraged to change

<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, serif;" color="#BBAED0">[[User:Feezo|Feezo]] <font size="-2">[[User_talk:Feezo|(send a signal]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Feezo|watch the sky]])</font></span> : Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky)

to

<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, serif;">[[User:Feezo|Feezo]] <span style="font-size: x-small">[[User_talk:Feezo|(send a signal]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Feezo|watch the sky]])</span></span> : Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky)

—Anomalocaris (talk) 11:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for updating your signature! —Anomalocaris (talk) 02:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you selected the wrong option when blocking Special:Contributions/107.77.241.11, 'cause they're blocked indefinitely. Given that it was the first block and over four months ago, I've unblocked the IP. I'll monitor their contributions for a few days, but please let me know if for some reason you did mean to indef an IP. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up - I don't recall any special reason for an indef block other than the continuing bad behavior after multiple Cluebot warnings. But I agree with your reasoning, so I have no objection to removing it. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
• Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

• A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has enacted a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a standardized editnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).

Administrator changes

Lourdes†

AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V

† Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

• The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
• Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
• A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
• A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news

• CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
• The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2018 Steward elections, the following users are our new stewards: -revi, Green Giant, Rxy, There'sNoTime, علاء.

Obituaries

• Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018).

Administrator changes

331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG

Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando

Guideline and policy news

• Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
• Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
• The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
• The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

Technical news

• There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

Miscellaneous

• A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
• The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Chochopk • Coffee • Gryffindor • Jimp • Knowledge Seeker • Lankiveil • Peridon • Rjd0060

Guideline and policy news

• The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
• A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

Technical news

• AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
• When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
• The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
• There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee is seeking additional clerks to help with the arbitration process.

Obituaries

• Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful request for comment, administrators are now able to add and remove editors to the "event coordinator" group. Users in the event coordinator group have the ability to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit. Users will no longer need to be in the "account creator" group if they are in the event coordinator group.
• Following an AN discussion, all pages with content related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, are now under indefinite general sanctions.

Technical news

• IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
• There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
• It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration

• A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous

• In early May, an unusually high level of failed login attempts was observed. The WMF has stated that this was an "external effort to gain unauthorized access to random accounts". Under Wikipedia policy, administrators are required to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

---

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:MOVER. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:MOVER redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. B dash (talk) 08:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2018).

Administrator changes

Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor

Gogo Dodo

Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes

Andrevan • EVula

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
• A request for comment closed with a consensus that the {{promising draft}} template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

Technical news

• Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
• Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon () in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
• IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.

Miscellaneous

• Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2018).

Administrator changes

Sro23

KaisaL • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

• After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
• Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.

Technical news

• The WMF Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input on the second set of wireframes for the Special:Block redesign that will introduce partial blocks. The new functionality will allow you to block a user from editing a specific set of pages, pages in a category, a namespace, and for specific actions such as moving pages and uploading files.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz

Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

Amorymeltzer • Mr. Stradivarius • MusikAnimal • MSGJ • TheDJ • Xaosflux

Guideline and policy news

• Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.

Technical news

• Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
• Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
• Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2018).

Administrator changes

Justlettersandnumbers • L235

Bgwhite • HorsePunchKid • J Greb • KillerChihuahua • Rami R • Winhunter

Interface administrator changes

Cyberpower678 • Deryck Chan • Oshwah • Pharos • Ragesoss • Ritchie333

Oversight changes

Guerillero • NativeForeigner • Snowolf • Xeno

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the process for appointing interface administrators has been established. Currently only existing admins can request these rights, while a new RfC has begun on whether it should be available to non-admins.
• There is an open request for comment on Meta regarding the creation a new user group for global edit filter management.

Technical news

• Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
• The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
• Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, amended the procedure on functionary inactivity.
• The community consultation for 2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments has concluded. Appointments will be made by October 11.
• Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
• Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment determined that non-administrators will not be able to request interface admin access.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the Mediation Committee should be closed and marked as historical.
• A village pump discussion has been ongoing about whether the proposed deletion policy (PROD) should be clarified or amended.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether pending changes protection should be applied automatically to today's featured article (TFA) in order to mitigate a recent trend of severe image vandalism.

Technical news

• Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
• A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
• The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
• The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018).

Administrator changes

Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz

Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike

Interface administrator changes

Deryck Chan

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
• A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
• A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.

Technical news

• Administrators and bureaucrats can no longer unblock themselves unless they placed the block initially. This change has been implemented globally. See also this ongoing village pump discussion (permalink).
• To complement the aforementioned change, blocked administrators will soon have the ability to block the administrator that placed their block to mitigate the possibility of a compromised administrator account blocking all other active administrators.
• Since deployment of Partial blocks on Test Wikipedia, several bugs were identified. Most of them are now fixed. Administrators are encouraged to test the new deployment and report new bugs on Phabricator or leave feedback on the