The original version of this page is located at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rfl and makes sense only in the context of Wikipedia.

This is Rafał Pocztarski's talk page (archive)

Please use headlines when starting new topics, adding them to the bottom of this page, and please sign your comments with ~~~~ (four tildes) even when posting anonymously. I will respond here on my talk page.

Dotonj used fake references without URL in East-West schism article. The map was modified by chauvinist romanian user:Iaaasi. (Iaaasi depicted the political dreams of ultra nationalist Great Romania Party in that map, that party tried to prove that most territory of present-day Hungary was romanian and therefore Orthodox. That laughable ultranationalist extreme national political fantasies and claims are not supported by even romanian scientific academy and academic historians too.) I removed the fake refrence ("reference" from without any URL is not reliable) Everybody can write fake citations with book titles and authors without existing URL in the citation)--78.92.110.45 (talk) 09:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove Iaaasi's map from the article, until he can't give a real reference with URL.

Stop your personal attacks. The map is well-sourced Dotonj (talk) 09:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not personal attack, the sock puppets and his maps of banned users (user:Iaaasi) must be deleted/removed from wiki, even if they changed their internet providers. Fake references without URL in the citation are not reliable references.--78.92.110.45 (talk) 09:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place where extremist ideologies (and maps) of chauvinist political organisations are spreadable. (Great Romania Party) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.92.110.45 (talk) 09:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

78.92.110.45, you removed the map from the article 6 times during one hour, without even trying to discuss it on the article's talk page. What you have done is edit warring. Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned. Go to Talk:East–West Schism, start a new topic and voice your opinions there. Thank you. —Rafał Pocztarski, Rfl (talk | contribs) 09:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget the Three revert rule. Dotonj (alias Iaaasi) was the first who stepped over this rule. (check it in the history of the article). New sockpuppet of Iaaasi and his map which was inspired by the map of "Great Romania Party" must be remove delete. Don't forget his non-reliable fake reference without any URL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.92.110.45 (talk) 09:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you written about it on Talk:East–West Schism? —Rafał Pocztarski, Rfl (talk | contribs) 09:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refresh the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:East%E2%80%93West_Schism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.92.110.45 (talk) 10:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that reason of protection is for FULL protection. pp-dispute is for full-protected pages. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 13:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am refering to the protection you made on this page. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 13:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the page could get fully protected (and still can be by other administrators) but here what I noticed was that even though it definitely was a matter of content dispute and edit warring, in this case the edit war was between registered users and what seemed to be an anonymous user connecting from many different IPs who hadn't written a single line on the article's talk page but instead removed the same content 6 times during 1 hour, only to get reverted every time. I decided to only make a semi-protection to not disrupt other edits that other editors may be doing and it turned out to be a good idea because there were few minor edits since the protection, including yours, which would be impossible if the page was fully protected, but there was no single revert and the dispute in question moved from edit warring to a discussion on the talk page where it belongs: Talk:East–West Schism#E-W schism map of Iaaasi and its unreliable reference. All in all, I think that a semi-protection was enough in this case. Best regards. —Rafał Pocztarski, Rfl (talk | contribs) 23:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The "anonymous user" from Talk:East--West Schism is in fact the banned user Stubes99. He is avoiding to create an account for a very simple reason: he knows that it will have the fate of the other tens: [1] [2]. As a consequence, he prefers editing through IPs. He is very disruptive and I have recently asked for a range block against him, but no one seemed interested in my report. Daccono (talk) 14:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daccono, your proposal was to block nearly 25 thousand (!) IP addresses that would pretty much silence the entire city just to block what you say is just a single user. You provided links to his two edits as the worst examples and the worst that I've seen from them is accusing some users of being in his opinion sock puppets of user Iaaasi. If that is the same user (and you didn't show me any proof for that and 25000 addresses across 10 different networks being controlled exclusively by one single user is a somewhat big claim you must admit) then he also accused the user Dotonj of being a sock puppet of Iaaasi here on my talk page which turned out to be true according to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iaaasi/Archive and resulted in Dotonj account being blocked indefinitely, see: User:Dotonj, so as you can see not all of his accusations are unfounded. The anonymous user from Talk:East–West Schism that you are talking about (whether this is the same user who controls your list of 25 thousand IPs or not) has already registered, has not done any edits to the article itself, and has started a civil discussion on the article's talk page. In your contributions I see almost as many posts about sock puppets, blocking and various accusations as any other serious edits. You accuse users of being sock puppets, other users accuse you of being a sock puppet, you ask administrators to block users, other users ask administrators to block you, some administrators are already getting frustrated and understandably so. I suggest that you focus more on improving the articles because at the end of the day this is what Wikipedia is really all about. —Rafał Pocztarski, Rfl (talk | contribs) 05:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article UnQL 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/UnQL 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 template from the top of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Rosetta Code has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I see no indication the site is notable per either WP:GNG or WP:WEBSITE; some links on talk page, but they do not seem to meet WP:RS.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't "consider improving the article to address the issues raised" simply because no improvement on my part could possibly make the Rosetta Code itself any more notable, but I'm glad that it was finally rewritten even though all of my original contributions were lost with the deletion. —Rafał Pocztarski, Rfl (talk | contribs) 11:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rosetta Code 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/Rosetta Code 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 template from the top of the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad the article is back online, even if without my original contributions. —Rafał Pocztarski, Rfl (talk | contribs) 11:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. WJBscribe (talk) 13:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to the mop. I am just coming back from a long break too. Chillum 04:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and best regards. —Rafał Pocztarski, Rfl (talk | contribs) 12:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article BN-76/7440-02 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/BN-76/7440-02 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. Mr. Guye (talk) 10:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article PN-83/P-55366 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No way this is notable.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mr. Guye (talk) 10:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Randi. Since you had some involvement with the Randi redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 21:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User,

As you are one of the contributors to Tunisian Arabic. You are kindly asked to review the part about Domains of Use and adjust it directly or through comments in the talk page of Tunisian Arabic.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 12:51, 30 June 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) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've left you a message at User talk:Beeblebrox, explaining that I've fixed up Rosetta Code so that your first revision is now restored to the history. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:16, 9 July 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) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rfl.

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]

Hello, Rfl. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Debian GNU/NetBSD, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

DrStrauss talk 12:23, 18 January 2017 (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)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of Polish popes. Since you had some involvement with the List of Polish popes redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

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

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

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

We really appreciate your input!

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

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

The article OpenBSD security features has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Redundant with main article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Tonystewart14 (talk) 12:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rfl,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Delete this orphan page for deletion, because it seems to be a test. Did you know that the Wikipedia Sandbox is available for testing out edits?

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can , but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Xevus11 (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, as a matter of fact, I do know that the sandbox is available for testing - I am a Wikipedia administrator since 2004. The page you are talking about was created by me as a redirect to an article almost 14 years ago - see its history. Talk to the User:USN007 who has apparently blanked my original redirect, renamed to a different title, and created another redirect of the same name and pointing to the same article as my original redirect. If you want to help then revert the mess done by USN007 instead of nominating the original page for deletion. —Rafał Pocztarski, Rfl (talk | contribs) 22:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xevus11 and Rfl the intent is to delete the redirect page and move the article to that name space, as "the Final solution to the Jewish Question" should be the title of the article, Not Final Solution which should be an disambiguation page. I have just been having difficulty with the move. USN007 (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have consensus for this move? Can someone undo the mess that USN007 has made, the original page has now been speedy deleted, this should be undone and the new page deleted if possible. Polyamorph (talk) 09:39, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RHaworth: who did the speedy, perhaps this mess can be reverted? Polyamorph (talk) 09:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• USN007, learn to provide links and learn the difference between an article title and a name space. Final Solution is the best title. No moves are needed.

Polyamorph, you are equally vague what do you mean by "original page" and "new page"? I do not see any tidying up needed. All that lurks in the deleted edits at delete this orphan page are redirects and blank pages. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Neither USN007 nor Polyamorph deserves any action but I have partially restored delete this orphan page so that Rfl can have credit for creating a redirect way back in 2005. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RHaworth: what you have done (restoring the history to show Rfl's original redirect) is exactly what I meant, sorry for my lack of clarity on this I will try and be clearer in the future. But thank you for restoring the original redirect.Polyamorph (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI this message is an automated part of the page reviewing toolset, and is not something I did manually. Xevus11 (talk) 16:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PolyamorphXevus11 and RHaworth : I disagree with all of you that "Final Solution" is the best title because "Final Solution" can mean many different things. Final solution "of what?" Therefore, "Final Solution" is a disambiguation NOT a title per WP policy defining the differences between the two. Therefore the best title is "Final Solution of the Jewish Question" because that is how it is referred to in nearly all of the historical references, and there is no reference to Hitler or the Nazis of ever having used the term "Final Solution" by itself without an adjective / adverb modifier of some kind or another. Therefore because the title represents a flagrant violation of WP policy and naming conventions, "consensus" is not needed to move it, and I intend to make the move unilaterally and immediately forthwith, absent any of you stating specific WP policy reasons to the contrary. USN007 (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what do I have to do with this? Xevus11 (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That made me lol :) Polyamorph (talk) 12:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:USN007, there is no policy regarding what you claim. There is a guideline, and there is instead a policy that we step back, discuss, and seek consensus when we become aware that one's desired edit is disputed by someone else. You are now aware that this is the case. The article-name actually has been discussed before (see archive of its talkpage, in light of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). You will be blocked if you perform this page move rather than going through the WP:RM process for contentious move proposals. This is true regardless of whether there is any policy for the naming you desire because your action is disruptive and contrary to process. You can make your case for your desired name, with links to specific policies and guidelines, in the RM discussion. DMacks (talk) 02:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DMacks Sorry, but NOPE, I'm not buying it, unless you can point me to a place where it specifically says "Guideline" NOT "Policy". And also, I'd counsel you not to violate policy as to making threats. USN007 (talk) 05:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well waddayaknow, Wikipedia:Article titles is a policy. And it's exactly on that basis that others have made a case that the current name is proper. And nobody (especially you, as you dispute the current status) has made a case that this is an exception that demands urgent and out-of-process/unilateral change (for example, WP:BLP or vandalism). So you are into page renaming process standard. Not following that process is disruptive. Disruptive editors get blocked to prevent disruption. That's not a threat, that's also a policy. DMacks (talk) 05:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DMacks First thing, you can adjust your smartaleck attitude and treat others with respect-- and yes, the way in which you made the statement can be taken, and was taken, as a threat. If you don't want to be interpreted that way, I'd suggest you choose your words carefully to be non-threatening in the future.

The exception actually is urgent and called for in my opinion, because as such, I find the current title to be deeply offensive to some on a patent and obvious basis that it propagates revisionist-dilutionist (not to mention, incorrect) history. There's nothing "disruptive" about the proposed edit as you claim. I find that such is an offensive personal attack intended by you to cause unnecessary quarreling, and I will not tolerate that kind of conduct out of you, or anyone else, so please STOP before you are reported using the appropriate grievance procedures. Thank you. USN007 (talk) 06:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to file at WP:ANI. DMacks (talk) 06:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next several days.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions have been removed.

Subject to certain time limits and other restrictions, your administrative permissions may be returned upon request at WP:BN.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Template:Test2a has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 20 § Template:Test2a until a consensus is reached. Gonnym (talk) 08:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]