User talk:28bytes/Archive 47

Following a community discussion ending August 2015, consensus was reached to remove the bureaucrat permissions of users who have not participated in bureaucrat activity for three years.

To assist with the implementation of this requirement, please see Wikipedia:Bureaucrat activity. Modeled after Wikipedia:Inactive administrators and similar to that process, the log page will be created on 1 September 2015. Bureaucrats who have not met the activity requirements as of that date will be notified by email (where possible) and on their talk page to advise of the pending removal.

If the notified user does not return to bureaucrat activity and the permissions are removed, they will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFB. Removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon the affected user in any way.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. –xeno^talk

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

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)

Hello. Can you please change my name to user392819? Regards; Have a nice day. --HakimPhilo (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

...is perfect. :) Acalamari 20:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Didn't want to keep him waiting when there's mopping to be done. :) 28bytes (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record: I have no objections to any of your actions. I have full and complete trust in your actions to do what is best for this project. I do not, and will not, apologize for my own actions however. I do thank you for taking your time to review all situations. I have the utmost respect for you 28 - you should be an Arb. Best always, — Ched :  ?  22:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Ched, that's kind of you to say. 28bytes (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

28bytes, the ANI discussion was closed prematurely in my point of view because you had unblocked RO so that she could participate in the discussion. So, I have reverted the close. I can see that the discussion is hitting a nerve with many of the participants but I think the discussion should continue even if it makes editors uncomfortable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. 28bytes (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi 28bytes - I very much need to add a few sentences to the ANI discussion to clarify that, though a psychologist, I was not offering any kind of professional opinion on RO, only my opinion as an editor on Wikipedia. To suggest otherwise would be a serious ethical violation. May I please add a few sentences - this is the only scope I will address...--Godot13 (talk) 03:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, please go ahead. 28bytes (talk) 03:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, will do now. If you find anything inappropriate, please delete it.--Godot13 (talk) 03:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

And, I would like to voice my objection over your closing statement. It kind of implied that I was "asking" to be called a "fucking moron" for bringing up Eric Corbett, whom I assume is the "uninvolved editor" you mentioned. Was it unhelpful to bring him up? Well, I think that the temper tantrums and pouting of the deniers of the egregious double standard of how people are treated for the same infractions just needs to be endured. Should we tippy-toe around that subject to allow those folks to maintain their destructive comfort zone, and stand by and let others by railroaded? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have badly misread what I wrote. Not only did I not imply you were asking to be called a "fucking moron", I explicitly stated that it was completely unacceptable for someone to call you that. 28bytes (talk) 12:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I read that. And I inferred from your next sentence that if I hadn't said something so "unhelpful" Cassianto would have controlled his mouth. I wasn't trying to goad him. Pointing out a double standard, as Kevin Gorman did with the uninvolved editor Neelix in the very same thread, is not something for which I should be chided. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Should I take that to mean that you intend to bring up uninvolved editors and unrelated disputes in future AN/I threads? 28bytes (talk) 13:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I would prefer to limit the discussion, for the time being, to this thread. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

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) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

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) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

This edit conflicted with me closing the thread. But I was going to start singing "Hello", so your close was probably better (nobody wants that). --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Well... the close was a bit hasty. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Then you will be pleased to know that someone has reopened a section for continued discussion. 28bytes (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, wrong section :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Remember, I argued to GIVE the community this kind of power (WP:RAS) , it rejected it time and time again. That qualifies as global consensus that they don't want the power, and a group of angry people at WP:AN can't override global consensus. If it passes, it will either force him to retire or end up at Arb. This isn't a good thing, and it is without any authorization or precedent. That doesn't mean I agree with his unblock, I'm just saying the process is wrong. You can't slice up the bits (we've also voted against that), either he gets all of them, or none. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from (and my hat is off to you for the efforts in putting that proposal together) but to tell the community it can't do something because the community said that it couldn't doesn't quite sit right. Stepping away from the current AN discussion and speaking more generally, if admin conduct brought up at AN results in a consensus that admin shouldn't do X, whether that's interacting with Editor Y, editing a certain topic, or using a certain administrative tool, whoever closes that discussion should say that the consensus was that the admin shouldn't do X. Is it enforceable? Well, short of blocking them we can't physically prevent the admin in question from using a tool, any more than we can physically prevent them from interacting with Editor Y or editing a certain topic, but the expectation should be that they'll honor that consensus, and if they don't, a block, ban and/or ArbCom case requesting desysop is probably in their future. 28bytes (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I still support the idea of giving the community the power to limit the user of the bits, but every time it was tried, it failed. Granting it on the fly is dangerous and foolish; you know that. Making up rules to fit the current situation is never a good idea. I'm not thrilled with how he did what he did, and said so (and said a hell of lot more in private), but once you start monkeying with the bits outside of Arb based on quick vote by a heated crowd rather than careful deliberation....allow it, and you will see. This is why I tried to pass RAS, to have enough procedure to protect and make us slow down enough to come to a calm decision. What is happening now is not a calm decision. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, keep in mind that I'm still opposing a sanction in the current discussion. I'm just less convinced than you that the community is not "allowed" to implement such a sanction. Maybe we're not; has there been a test case? I agree that quickish decisions on noticeboards aren't the calmest way of resolving disputes but if you can flat-out ban admins using that process, it seems odd not to be able to tell them not to engage in whatever problematic behavior prompted the discussion. 28bytes (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I think we now require bans to be open 24 hours, which helps. Using myself as an example for simplicity: If 25 people voted and said "Dennis, you are no longer able to use the Page Protect button" where would I appeal it? That a fraction of the number that supported me at RFA, which granted it, so it is hardly a mandate from the community. Run my RFA again? What if I passed? That means the community decision is null, right? Would Arb accept an appeal? Can they? Should they? If they don't, have we accidentally created policy? I know you opposed, my point is that we need at least a semblance of authority from the community before we do this as a community. Draw up the RFC authorizing it with clear boundaries, I'll be there. Until then, doing it would be chaos. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but wouldn't the answer to your first question be the same as if 25 people voted and said "Dennis, you are no longer able to edit pages about Donald Trump"? We don't exempt admins from editing restrictions, after all. I see several of them listed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. 28bytes (talk) 00:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Editing isn't the same as being able to block, or unblock or delete. No vetting for editing. No accountability either. I just don't want chaos when we should have a system to do it right. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

If nothing else, it presents the idea to the community for it to digest and perhaps proposals come out of it which will alleviate future problems. I would much rather sanctions than bit removal. Chicken or egg? Logically, catalyst events serving as precedents should occur before changes to policies, guidelines and procedures. If you show up without pointing to a specific problem then someone will say that you are thinking up solutions to non-existent problems. They were all made up rules to begin with.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I would rather see us have real ability to sanction admin where isn't binary. Like I said, I've worked on them before. Having an event being a catalyst is typically the reason, but doing it ad hoc in a few hours isn't as fine. Look, I agree he should have contacted you or gotten more input, told him so, and said more in email. I just disagree this is the best way to present facts and make a rational decision, as it would end up either driving him away or causing more drama. Then use this as a catalyst to get an admin sanctions policy put in place, I'm all for it. Then we have a little guidance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what this is in reference to (I'll go look now) but the community can limit an admin's use of the bit, provided they don't limit it to such an extent it's effectively a desysop. Salvio and, I think, Newyorkbrad and Risker have opined on this in the past. The community can do whatever it wants, really, unless an en.Wikipedia policy or WMF board resolution disallows it. The idea that we can't do something new (would a community restriction on an admin's tool use be new?) without having a policy that says we may is just wrong. Per 28bytes, the community is just as capable of reviewing an editor's competence to, say, block or unblock sensibly as it is to review their competence to write from a neutral point of view.

The community should be monitoring and tweaking admins' tool use where appropriate. It would take a lot of pressure off the RFA process if the !voters knew any shortcomings that become apparent later would be addressed ad hoc at AN. The community can be trusted with this, just as it can be trusted to modify other editors' behaviour, where needed. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Link to AN discussion. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'm impressed by your memory, Anthonyhcole, and you are correct. I have in the past voiced the opinion that there is nothing to stop the community from requiring that an administrator refrain from certain actions, in exactly the same vein as the community can impose any other restraints on the actions of individual editors; I also believe that other current and former arbitrators have also voiced such opinions. By implication if not actual statement, administrators who are topic-banned from editing are also topic-banned from using tools in the same areas. While I'm not persuaded that this specific situation should lead to a restriction on the administrator involved (I see at least two other admins whose actions are more questionable commenting in that thread, for example), I support the principle of requiring an individual administrator to refrain from particular actions either voluntarily or by a community (or if necessary an Arbcom) sanction. I'm fairly certain Arbcom has issued such sanctions in the past, although it may have been long ago. Risker (talk) 02:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  • The problem has been when the topic came up, the community said it can't, which is why so many people have tried to get policies past. This is why there have so many perennial proposals for community sanctions/desysop. Based on community reaction and the failure to pass any guidelines, to me that looks like we can sanction but not limit tools. Otherwise, we could ban an admin from using any tools, and effectively desysopping him, which is a problem. There are other examples. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, some middle-ground should exist between taking no action and a desysopping. Topic bans are one possibility but they focus on a content, not conduct. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I guess the community is a creature of fluid, often random, and always moody mindset. I suggest a pragmatic approach, and not excluding something because it can theoretically be extrapolated ad absurdum. Why shouldn't admins whose compass spins erratically in certain given situations be asked to relax and stay way in those situations, while remain trusted to do the right thing in other situations? Bearean Hunter's case just happened to be an extremely bad example. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I argued we needed middle ground when I proposed WP:RAS, with the help of Coren. I'm still all for the concept, even if it isn't a separate board and simply a guideline on how to conduct the discussion at WP:AN. Risker argued against it because there was another proposal at the time, but it didn't allow for sanctions, only desysop, although I don't know if she understood that at the time. It was exactly what we are talking about here. Obviously, there are other ways, even better ways to do it, but there should be structure. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

See, I'm just not convinced that "no consensus to sanction admins within a new proposed framework" translates as "global consensus that the community may not limit admin tool use at existing dispute resolution venues." Whether it's a good thing to place tool use restrictions in the same way we place editing restrictions can be argued, but I don't see how anything prohibits the community from doing so within the existing consensus-based model. I think saying that the community has prohibited itself by virtue of not endorsing a specific proposal is a bit of a stretch. 28bytes (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

It's been said by others but I think it's important that any sanctions aren't taken because solitary actions. If there are concerns, they should be able to be demonstrated with a pattern of conduct. Everyone makes mistakes and admins aren't perfect. I think the question with Ritchie was whether this was an isolated incident or a pattern of conduct and people's views on that distinction influenced whether they Opposed or Supported taking any action. What sets the bar for what establishes a pattern is pretty fuzzy though which means that any complaint has to be based in solid evidence. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

That is why a discussion that immediately asks for a ban isn't a good idea, and the reason I pushed for a system in place for submitting evidence. One that takes a few days so it isn't decided in the heat of the moment, and gives everyone a chance to present evidence, instead of talking over each other and "voting" before any evidence is presented. Not "like Arb", but a light weight system with some light duty structure and failsafes, so it will be a discussion, possibly deliberation, then a solution can be proposed. RAS was the wrong answer, but I think it had the right idea: slow down, stick to the facts. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I mostly oppose having another committee that becomes self-important and becomes increasingly disconnected from the community, Dennis. There's a good reason that the community has abandoned AUSC, pretty much. There's good reason why there aren't Checkuser and Oversight committees; we just informally poke each other when we have questions or concerns and generally any problematic behaviour changes quickly. Risker (talk) 04:16, 9 December 2015

In hindsight, I can see how another committee might not be the best solution. That doesn't mean we can't have some guideline in existing policy on how to do it properly and equitably. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Dennis, admins can appeal to arbcom if they feel they're unjustly being restricted by the community. And, yes, leaving the AN discussion open for at least 24 hours is a fairness we should extend to all editors facing possibly controversial sanctions, including admins.

Liz, as a rule we impose sanctions when a user demonstrates an ongoing problem and there's no immediate prospect of self-correction. We should and would treat admins no differently. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think Arb would take it, as that means they are overruling the community. Their job is to solve things the community can't, not to correct what they think is an error of the community. That makes it a power struggle. That is why it is important that the community get it right with some basic rules. One or two paragraphs might be enough or at least a start. If we can't even agree on a paragraph, then I would say there is no consensus to do it at all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm not familiar enough with arbcom policy. If no community-imposed sanctions may be appealed to arbcom, then you're right, these shouldn't be either. How do other users appeal community-imposed sanctions? Can't admins simply follow the same process? Why would they require a bespoke process? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know the best solution. I proposed one that failed, and like I told Risker, I see why in hindsight, but it is something that I've worked on a bit. I think we need a discussion, find out what the community wants first. Just some basic guidelines. Since admin are already vetted, I think you need a discussion to be open a few days, with NO proposals during the first 24 hours, just evidence. Let things cool down and actually gather evidence to let people decide. A little bit more structure than ANI would be good. Again, I'm talking ONLY when we are considering removing or limited tool use. If an admin edit wars, send him to AN3, what happens, happens. Right now, the community doesn't know WHAT to do. I think BH's thread where the header started out by outlining the sanction....doesn't work. But hey, I'm one guy. What we need is community input, start small, find something we all agree on. Otherwise, you see people asking for sanctions that are way stronger than the offense, so everyone opposes on those grounds, then nothing gets done, even if something lesser would have been a better option. This is a problem we have an ANI sometimes, too. Someone screws up worthy of sanction, someone drags them to ANI and wants a community ban, it gets voted down as being too much, and the first guy gets off scot free when it gets archived because the filing party overshot the sanction instead of discussing it first, and letting a solution develop from the discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and Arb will hear some appeals, like community bans, as the place of last resort, but only after the community has failed to unban them. They don't generally hear cases on lesser sanctions, leaving it to the community. ie: they do what we can't do, they won't do what we can. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I like your idea of leaving such AN threads open for evidence for a day before introducing discussion on sanctions. But I'd like to see that applied to more than just admins under the spotlight.

OK. So, if an admin appeals to the community to lift a tool use restriction and fails, then she can take it to arbcom as last resort.

This can all be done now. No need for new policy paragraphs. The next time an occasion arises where it seems appropriate to limit an admin's tool use (and I really don't expect this to be a frequent thing), propose it at AN giving them the right to appeal when they think they can demonstrate they can be trusted with the tool, and giving them the right to appeal to arbcom if the appeal to the community fails. We should probably ask arbcom for a motion on whether they're happy to consider such appeals - once the new lot are settled in. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear 28bytes,

The article on Evangelist Oral Roberts' son, Richard Roberts, has some serious issues with both grammar and content.

Given that I have penchant for editing for grammar and content; a love of researching and writing about Christian history; and a desire to clarify the unclear, would you mind if I polished up that article over the next few months?

Kindest regards...

I was browsing Wikipedia pages and I came open the page "Pig" (animal). It was some weird brown hairy pig that looks ugly as hell. Could you please change it to one that's pink or something? TheMasterLlama (talk) 05:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:AtariAge company has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Soetermans. T / C 14:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

i want to change my username, but i don't how i will do it. When i visited this page i have found your name. Can you help me, please. Because i want to create page and i want this page comply for wikipedia rules.

Thanks for your help, take care of you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeoremAyakkabi (talk • contribs) 09:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) @TeoremAyakkabi: Greetings. You want to add your request either on WP:CHUS or on Special:GlobalRenameRequest.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I haven't heard from you in AGES ... drop me line. — Ched :  ?  03:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Quick facts words of reason and moderation with the right bite ...

Four years ago ...

words of reason and moderation with the right bite
... you were recipient no. 17 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

Close

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

2 things. His main account was blocked for promotion. My block reinstated that block and he needs to appeal it. Isn't that the case? Then there are his 2 other accounts, see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of The Reptilian Agenda which he hasn't even admitted. Maybe you can talk him through this to get him unblocked. Doug Weller talk 08:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Thanks for the quick reply. He posted an explanation on Wikipediocracy of what he was trying to do here and it really looks to me like a case of someone trying to create a legit article but getting a little confused as to the process. From what I read I'm sure he'd be happy to stick to the Nevets20 account; it doesn't look to me like the multiple account creations (including the inadvertent "promotional" account name) were anything but someone unfamiliar with the interface trying to figure out how to get started. What do you think? 28bytes (talk) 08:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Unblocked, he needs a Teahouse invite and I'm off to walk my dog. Doug Weller talk 09:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Doug! I appreciate you taking another look. :) 28bytes (talk) 09:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello! I would like to change my user name. I whant to rename it to "BJulio". How can I do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpantovic (talk • contribs) 01:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 01:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

when I put the blasting barnstar on my talk, and Move Like This on my user page, in memory of its appearance on the German Main page four years ago! - In a way, you made WP:QAI possible, DYK? Be proud: it's developing from the cabal of the outcasts to a group with respected members, - bzzt: perhaps I should change teh template ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello 28bytes,

can you review my article "Bunto", please? I want to move it to the main namespace soon.

Thanks a lot.

Suriyaa Kudo (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Couronian_Toco&redirect=no

Are we sure we need it? (I may not even see answer but I'm signaling this page for being useless)

~Random user — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.152.107.35 (talk) 09:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Sir, I want to change my account's name please change my account's name to 88pixels.Sunio126 (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, because of an irritating AbuseFilter bug, we (Kaldari, MusikAnimal and I) are going to do an update next week that will affect one of your filters. We hope we'll fix all affected filters ourselves, but we're of course grateful if you want to help us. The issue is explained here; the current plan is here. The filter isn't active, but we wanted you to be aware what's happening, and you're very welcome to help out of course. I'm sending you an email with more details. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Template:Wdbln has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

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) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi 28bytes.

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) 13:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Quick facts Variedades de calabaza ...

Danke

Variedades de calabaza
Happy Thanksgiving with a variety of pumpkins

Close

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Godsy/Bureaucrat chat

I would be grateful for your input in the above discussion. Many thanks, WJBscribe via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a tricky call as the percentage is so low, and there are varied reasons why people have opposed, so I understand the difficultly in making any call, either consensus or no-consensus, and in your position I might be inclined to go for no-consensus. However, in your rationale you mention a late oppose, and you feel that the reason for that oppose is decisive enough for you. Would you look again at what you have said, and at the RfA, because your wording makes it appear as though you are casting a supervote because you agree with the oppose. The oppose was challenged as being a one off incident which happened over a year ago when Godsy was just starting to edit regularly. He was reverted, learned from the incident, and has not repeated it. Others have seen a positive from that very same incident. Added to which, three times as many folks voted support after that incident was raised as voted oppose. It might be helpful if you made some reference to these facts in your statement to acknowledge that you are aware of them and have discounted them in order to settle concerns that are starting to be raised. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I took a moment to reread my comments there, and I'm satisfied that anyone giving them a fair reading will understand the difference between the weighing of opposes and a supervote. It should go without saying that the mere fact that there were rebuttals (e.g. "he learned from it") doesn't mean those opposes should be discounted. But I'll give some thought to making that explicit once I've had a chance to see what the 'crats who haven't weighed in yet have to say. 28bytes (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I see from your talkpage-banner you are not as active nowadays, but I also see a few edits in your contribs. So just in case, if you have a few minutes, I am working on an article-rescue, of the upmerge-to-new-broader-topic variety.

For context please see recent afd of the 2004 group run by Atbashian, and the proposed new in-progress Draft_talk:Oleg_Atbashian, for sources gathered thus far to achieve the rewrite-as-BLP.

I am seeking admin help to please restore this deleted content, for myself and any others that may wish to plumb the edit-histories, into draftspace:

• Communists for Kerry --> Draft:Communists for Kerry
• Talk:Communists for Kerry --> Draft_talk:Communists for Kerry

I have asked a couple admins previously, but both were busy and have not had time to mess with these requests of mine. Ping most-recently-contacted-admin User:Addshore in case they wish to comment here, the original AfD admin was User:RoySmith (not pinging again since already discussed with them but of course they are welcome to comment further if needed). 47.222.203.135 (talk) 09:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks like RoySmith suggested that you fill out an undeletion request at WP:REFUND; I'm not sure how that led you to my page but at any rate he is correct: make your request there and an admin with more free time than I've got will be along to consider your request. 28bytes (talk) 11:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

You are the second admin in the mostly-alphabetical list in the second sentence of WP:REFUND, in the wikilink from the "(you may also make a request directly to one of the administrators listed here)" which points to Category:Wikipedia_administrators_willing_to_provide_copies_of_deleted_articles. I opted to use the category, rather than the wizard, because I wasn't sure if the wizard would make clear that I'm seeking userfication/draftspace-i-fication, and NOT a deletion-review. I will give it a whirl though, thanks for looking into this for me 47.222.203.135 (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Please remember to not move pages if there is a chance that it could be contested, like you did with Utqiaġvik, Alaska. If you believe that a page move has the slightest chance of being contested, then don't move the page and start a request for move discussion instead. This is especially true if there have been move proposals in the past.

While I do realize that the current RM is leaning in favor of your move, it was still contested, so keep the above in mind. Thank you. JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

You recently participated in a discussion regarding the title of Utqiaġvik/Barrow, Alaska. There is currently a move request discussion of the article's title at Talk:Utqiaġvik, Alaska, if you care to participate. —  AjaxSmack  20:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)