An old timer. My userID is #100 and I'm now well past my 20 year anniversary. I'm an admin. I have a reputation for being tough but fair.

I spend a lot of my time editing anonymously.

		The Thrashin' Barnstar
		For your contributions to the world of skateboarding-related articles, and being one of the first people to edit the page for skateboarding back in 2001! Viva Manning Bartlett! Fun With Ahmed (EAT A REEF) 21:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't seen you around in a while :) T. Canens (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I was always here :) Just went underground for a bit. Manning (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to the surface, then :) T. Canens (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! MBisanz ^talk 16:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you're back ... Tony (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL - I never left. But I did masquerade under another username for a while, and then just went back to being an IP for many months. Good to see you again too :) Manning (talk) 13:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Manning. Firstly, welcome back to adminship.

I've just imported some old edits to your user page from the nost:Nostalgia Wikipedia. It's been possible to import edits from that site, plus Meta and some other language Wikipedias, for over a year now. My personal notes about the quirks of importing from the Nostalgia Wikipedia are at User:Graham87/Import. Because your username at the Nostalgia Wikipedia is ManningBartlett, all your edits imported from there can be found under that name in the English Wikipedia. Also, edits that were deleted before Tim Starling merged your old account with the current one can also be found under the name "ManningBartlett" (I've also undeleted quite a few of those edits BTW). Therefore, some time ago I created a redirect from User:ManningBartlett to your current talk page, and I've now updated to point to your recently restored user page.

Hope this is all OK! Graham87 06:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You rule! Cheers Manning (talk) 07:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I've just done the same thing to User:Manning Bartlett/Contributions and User:Manning Bartlett/Naughty people, since they have a large number of revisions. Speaking of the latter page, do you have anything to add to what I wrote about the history of "VANDALISM IN PROGRESS"? Graham87 03:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My only addition is that had I known that ten years later it would be written about as part of the history of Wikipedia I would have chosen a slightly less dorky name for the page :) Manning (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My 10th wikibirthday is in november or so. When's yours? Surely you can hang on 'till then? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kim - not going anywhere! Just handing in my admin bit, I'm too old and I'll make mistakes. Cheers Manning

Nah, not much has changed, just take it easy! Handing in your admin bit is always a good idea though. Means you can get away with more O:-) . --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In September, the first WikiProject ever created will turn 10 years old. To celebrate, the Signpost's WikiProject Report would like do a special report on the history of the WikiProject concept. Since you created that first project and the famous proposal that started it all, we'd like to interview you. Would you be willing to answer some questions about your original proposal and how the WikiProject concept has grown and evolved over the years? -Mabeenot (talk) 03:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still interested in doing this interview? We have it scheduled to run later this month. Remember, you don't have to answer every question. -Mabeenot (talk) 14:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Manning, I just discovered some earlier edits to the scientific method article that you mentioned on your user page. (The Nostalgia Wikipedia doesn't show that you created it; rather it shows you fixing a grammar error). They can be found at the title "Scientific Method". According to the recently unearthed Wikipedia dumps from August 2001, that article was actually created by Jpmartin on the 6th of March. The Nostalgia Wikipedia contains many many gaps, but at least it contains more old edits than the English Wikipedia. Graham87 12:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet - nice to see credit going where it belongs. My comment about Nostalgia was based on the fact that people generally assume the first entry in the history is by the article creator, even though (as you rightly note) my edit was nothing more than a grammar fix. Manning (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Manning Bartlett. Maybe I could understand your comment. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I am sorry for my rude behavior on Istanbul Pogrom page. The way I acted liked that is because I had very hard times before. I don't know if you know this event Assassination of Hrant Dink. I knew him very well. He was a really nice person. He was trying to tell the turth in Turkey and eventually he has been killed. It was not a simple killing you can read the article and see who was involved etc. After that I became really emotional and sometimes I can not keep myself calm. After this point I will try to explain everything in a calm way. Ali55te (talk) 05:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also understand that, people living far away from a place may not easily know all the details of an event happened somewhere far away. I am really sorry for what happened and I will try to make sure that it will not happen againAli55te (talk) 05:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - thanks for the apology. Manning (talk) 07:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still interested in doing the interview for the Signpost? We need to know by the end of this week so we have time to schedule another article if necessary. I think our readers would be very interested in the role you played in creating the WikiProject concept, and I hope you'll allow us to share your story in the Signpost. -Mabeenot (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Manning,

I just wanted to bring your attention to the prominence a post of yours from a couple of years ago has been given in this summary of the history of the debate about that title. I didn't see it at the time, but I appreciate it today. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was delighted to see your comments from an old-timer on the blackout discussion page. I was also delighted to reread your anti-rules, which I saw a long enough time ago that I had forgotten them. (If you have never seen m:How to win an argument, you may enjoy it.) Glad to see you still hanging around. Cheers, Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 03:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, quite a positive surprise to see you so active lately :-) Nyttend (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 08:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, thanks for stopping by; it's always pleasant to see old familiar names around. I'm very lucky to have stumbled into Wikipedia as an after-school time-filler so long ago (when I was 14!) — finding my edits accepted by adults as contributions from just another peer was incredibly encouraging and rewarding, and I'm pretty sure participating helped prepare me for my career-so-far in working with large, messy, semi-technical online communities. Somehow I never got involved with the more bureaucratic side of things here — I wonder if it's only because I had no idea how to sign up for mailing lists back then — but that may have been all for the better. :) Also, somehow my user ID is 32, and I've always wondered how that happened, because I'm sure I wasn't the 32nd user to sign up...probably more like in the hundreds. I imagine some early database migration rearranged usernames alphabetically or something. Heh! Dreamyshade (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see your opinion is about to have more weight again. :) Good to see. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, remind me... if you start with zero and double it you get, um... Manning (talk) 13:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC) PS, thanks Flo :)[reply]

Thankyou so much for undoing some of the malicious edits to this page 25 January. I half expected some sort of negative editing to Pankaj Oswal wiki page due to the subjects increased media presence at the moment. Being somewhat new to wiki editing I doubt I could have successfully dealt with yesterdays onslaught of edit changes. Again thankyou so much.A fair go (talk) 13:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why you unblocked the IP putting in the unnessacary wrestling media tags in the first place? Tech43 (talk) 08:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because the actual edit that I blocked him for was a genuine wrestling-related article. So I had no choice but to unblock. He promptly vandalized a different article and the block was reapplied. Manning (talk) 08:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that.... but he had done it to several non-wrestling articles even before that edit. I had to revert several of them. So I would know. I'm quite dissapointed that with as long as you've been around, you didn't know better. It's obvious that he was going to keep on doing it. I think you should do your research(i.e. look at all of his contributions) next time before being so generous. Just my 2 cents. Tech43 (talk) 08:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you've been around quite a while as well, you would know that it is unacceptable to block someone without first issuing a warning. I issued the warning at 08:03 UTC which was when I first became aware of the problem. I blocked shortly afterwards. Manning (talk) 08:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should at least make the black more strict. i feel like Wikipedia is way too lenient on vandals. Once a vandal, always a vandal. Rememeber that. Tech43 (talk) 08:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is noted. Feel free to run for admin and you will be able to exercise your judgement. However in my view this was not a deliberate vandal, it was merely someone with misguided enthusiasm. Every article was being tagged because it had some form of tenuous connection to wrestling. So the reasoning is comprehensible, (though certainly not desirable). I'd rather educate these people than blacklist them forever. Manning (talk) 08:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this [1] but it looks like he has just got an indefinite block from Alexf. Thank you. Cloudz679 11:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...for your note. A new editor left me a message as well; we may see more activity in the article. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I used to believe the same as you: that sources were not required for the blooming obvious. And then I got into an edit dispute with a user called Doniago. This users edit history shows that he has never contributed anything positive to Wikipedia. All he does is just trawl articles and delete anything that is unsourced (wheter tagged or not) - often 60-70 items at a sitting (Have a look [[2]]. The dispute in question was the existence of 7 pin S-Video connectors as commonly found on computer graphic cards and laptops. Doniago maintained that obvious or not, a citation was required for their existence and that he was perfectly entitled to delete the entire section as there was none. Following a complaint on the Admin noticeboard, I was duly advised that Doniago was not only perfectly correct, and that he was indeed entitled to delete unsourced content without either tagging it or discussing it. The admin pointed to WP:VERIFY, I would love to point you to the discussion on my talk page, but that was many IP addresses ago, and I can no longer locate it (though the opening shots are still on the S-Video discussion page).

Personally, I agree that it is courtesy to tag it and discuss it (good faith), but apparently Wikipedia policy is otherwise. 86.167.21.68 (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that happened to you. The actual policy is that it is OK to delete "dubious" unsourced material immediately - I think the exact words are "likely to be challenged". There's some leeway to what "dubious" means, and the rules for biographies are much stricter than for other articles but this case you describe above is nonsense, and certainly does not accord with WP:VERIFY. The editor was certainly entitled to challenge it, but wholesale removal is unproductive. It's worth noting that there are very few absolutes in Wikipedia, judgment is regularly called for. If a single Google search provide immediate supporting evidence for an issue, then I would be inclined to associate automatic deletion with pointiness, particularly if there was a pattern of such behaviour. Manning (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I appologise for the delayed response, but my Internet access failed just after I posted the above and I have only just got it back.

I take your points made above. I note that the User:Doniago is still deleteing anything unsourced without following, the 'good faith' procedure that we seem to agree on above. I note that in his recent tranch of deletions is this diff [[3]] (not a unique example by any means). Nothing contentious here, whowever added it may well believe it's true - 10 seconds on Google confirms it ([[4]]). But Doniago just deletes it within 10 minutes of its addition, not even a ^{[citation needed]} tag - so not even an opportunity for anyone to provide sources. It may help many frustrated users if you were to explain the good faith issues on his talk page. Thanking you in advance. 109.145.21.107 (talk) 13:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Manning,

Sorry to bother you again with the situation regarding Lecen. The problem he has (or had) with Sandy aside, the user still has other complaints against his behavior by other users [5] (Wee Curry and I). Even if the ANI resolution resolves the Lecen-Sandy problem (doubt it), there is still this matter regarding Lecen's aggressive behavior revolving the discussion at Talk:Paraguayan War (which the WQA complaint summarizes up to a certain point; Lecen never presented his side of the story). Considering that Lecen will inevitably return (assuming the process in WP:DIVA is correct), I fear that he will simply continue to exhibit the same kind of behavior as discussed by Wee Curry and myself. My guess is that nothing can be further done at this point and the WQA will end up archived since Lecen is already blocked. Assuming that Lecen continues behaving in the same manner (which is for some reason apparently being encouraged by the "Lecen was wronged" posts), I hope that this message (which you do not have to reply to) can stay in your memory in case any further problems arise with the user. Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:MarshalN20 - understood. When I deal with an AN/I issue I try to stay focused on only the precise matter at hand. I am often aware of much more, however if I start raising separate issues I am implicitly inviting everyone else to do so as well, which only leads to chaos. AN/I is a beast of a place, and anything I can do to reduce the clutter is a good thing. (This may well be a futile effort, but oh well, whatever). Of course anyone is free to leave relevant details on my talk page (as you did), they are always appreciated. Manning (talk) 05:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may not mean much, but I thought you handled the matter perfectly (or as close as it can get to perfect). You should keep enforcing your method and hopefully others will soon find it to be a more-efficient way of doing things as well.

I honestly wish the situation could have been resolved in a much more pleasant manner. I remember even asking Lecen to talk to me on my userpage so that we could discuss any specific problems he had with me. Instead, he went to his "friends", and they in turn acted as enablers by either encouraging his behavior or simply ignoring the behavior. Wee Curry Monster and I were apparently unlucky enough to get into an issue larger than ourselves (and which, by the looks of it, will continue), just when the bubble was ready to pop.

On the larger spectrum, this whole matter seems to involve competing factions (is that where Wikipedia is ultimately heading?). As a historian, I know that individuals generally don't fare well in such situations. So, for the time being I think it would be best for me if I stepped as far away from this issue as possible. Thank you Manning for taking into account the information. Cordially.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 06:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the general topic of "how I handled it"... I've recently returned from a long Wikibreak and I've received a few comments congratulating me on "the way I handled <whatever>". I'm more than a bit disturbed by this. I assure you, there is nothing special to my method, it used to be the default manner across the entire admin body. If that culture has changed (and I'm not saying it has), well then it is time to return to it. As far as competing factions... I joined WP in 2001 and we had competing factions back then. We'll survive :D Thanks for your kind words. Manning (talk) 07:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of unacceptable edits… Alarbus (talk) 12:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC) <and I'm off;>[reply]

Sorry, I've only just seen this, some 9 hours after you posted it (you posted at 11:35 PM my local time and I'd gone to bed). I'm at work now but I'll try to look into it if I get time during the day. Manning (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have been dealt with for this week, at least. It was gonna get noticed on a place like ANI. There seems to have been rather more on his talk. FWIW, Lecen is a nice guy, who's been hard-pressed for some time. Alarbus (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

inappropriate use of talk page while blocked

• seems pretty clear-cut

Alarbus (talk) 05:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of this. I am also aware of efforts being made by others to diffuse the situation, hence for the moment I'm electing to not get involved any further, other than to support Salvio's actions. A small degree of post-block, talk-page ranting is generally tolerated (though that IS limited). Most importantly, in my opinion if I do anything now it will not achieve anything constructive and only make things worse. While I don't always succeed, I do try to use my admin tools to achieve positive outcomes, and try to avoid making bad situations worse.

I have no issue with Lecen. I expect he'll be back soon enough, and then we can try to resolve the various issues at play. ("try" being the operative word, I'm no miracle worker). Manning (talk) 06:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also left Salvio the above diff; Wehwalt, too. User:Bbb23 also alerted Wehwalt. I didn't see it until after; I expect it was while I was leaving the others. Anyway, Ceoil has made a lot more attacks than that; he called me dangerously stupid on ANI and nothing happened. He's called me a prick at least a dozen times. I noted this at the arbcom civility case request and nothing seems to have happened. Simply put, civility enforcement is selective. Lecen makes a joke and is blocked for a week. Ceoil flames-on, though. Truthkeeper called User:Diannaa and I fucking cunts and nothing, even though I alerted Prodego to it later that day.

Lecen is retired; a last straw, I expect. The edit summary in his block log is 'battleground mentality' which is a direct personal attack. Lecen has written nine FA on Brazilian topics despite hostility from the FAC clique (Empire of Brazil, Pedro II of Brazil…). I believe he feels his reputation is destroyed, here. Someone came along after the fact and says wait and is ignored. This isn't defusion, it's free pass to those with a lot of political connections. This stinks.

You wanted to separate the issue of Lecen's joke from Sandy's hostility; ok, he's toast. What about her lit flamethrower? Alarbus (talk) 06:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alarbus - you probably aren't that familiar with how I operate as I have only just recently returned from a long break from admin duties. Anyway, I mean no offence, but I avoid in-depth discussion of anyone or anything on my talk page. If you have a specific issue you want to raise, log it at the appropriate forum and feel free to drop me a link to ensure I see it. Regards Manning (talk) 07:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am unclear about that part. The rest is very clear.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"If so you prove to lack any sense." (diff). That's an insult in my book. Manning (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In mine as well. Yes, not seeing the forrest through the trees.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Manning, a thread has just been archived at ANI, and I would like to restore it. Do you know how I do this? It is about the WP:RS closure. I didn't know about the 24 hours archive procedure. Granateple (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the archive box next to the table of contents. The AN/I archive is the second set, we're current on page 737. Press the edit tab, copy the entire section you want, close (without saving!) and paste the entire text back into AN/I as a new section. I'm not suggesting that you would ever do this, but for the record, failure to copy the entire original section is a big no-no. Manning (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the detailed description. I think I will manage. I am new to Wikipedia. The WP:RS closure was brought before ANI for review. Do you know why almost nothing happened? Granateple (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, no idea, never even looked at it. You can only do what you can. I spent most of yesterday trying to mow the lawn after weeks of summer rain. Manning (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds nice. Here in Oslo we shovel snow. I will ask the other user:olive involved in the discussion for advice. Granateple (talk) 01:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for being a nit-picker, but you should at least be pleased I read your user page so carefully. In the first two paragraphs, you almost repeated this phrase: "I was in the first group of admins ever appointed." If you want my opinion, I would eliminate the first instance and keep the second.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arrgh. Your advice has been followed to the letter. Manning (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toddst1 (talk) 06:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I express the upmost gratitude towards you. I highly thank you for unblocking me. -Jibajabba

You're welcome. Play nice and there won't be any future problems. Manning (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Manning, and apologies if this is not the right place, but I am going to try you anyway! The PROD process seems to be broken, do you know why Category:Proposed deletion still contains 12-day-old PRODs and they aren't marked with the automatic tagging of Category:Expired proposed deletions? Thought you might know. Thank you. Cloudz679 14:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns have been noted. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Half Barnstar
	Please accept this Half Barnstar in recognition of the fact that while we may not agree with each other on some matters, you showed a degree of civility and a willingness to listen that I could not let pass without notice. Doniago (talk) 03:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After your recent contribution to WT:FILM - Dude, I think I love you. :) Doniago (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Manning My name is Ashish Acharjee, art historian and curator.

I had edited an article on 'writism', which was existent om wikipedia for the last couple of years - adding some material from the official website 'www.writism.net, with full permission from the copyright holder, Mr Thomas Abraham. The material was originally removed from Wikipedia, by 'fastily' on 13 Jan 12 , and we wrote to him. After editing the matter we put in the matter again. This time it was removed by 'material scientist' . but in the meanwhile, between 13 Jan and 27 Jan 2012, we had got permission from the copyright holder in writing. He had also sent the permission in writing to Wikipedia in the prescribed format, giving full right to put the matter in the public domain. We communicated this to 'material scientist' last evening. However, today we see that the matter was deleted by you citing that the matter was deleted earlier, so cannot be uploaded. However , the situation on the ground has changed substantially, since the date of the first deletion on 13 Jan 12, as we had in the interim, got the copyright holder to put the matter in the public domain. If needed we can send you a copy of the legal copyright held by Mr Thomas Abraham as well as a copy of his letter sent to Wikipedia giving permission to put the matter in the public domain. We noticed that once we write to one administrator/contributor and convince him/her, somebody else deletes it.Could you suggest how we can avoid deletion in the future, as the process has been going on, back and forth for weeks ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ideaworldwide (talk • contribs) 12:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved to User_talk:Ideaworldwide#Writism. Manning (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hi manning

wrote to you earlier, but the 'talk' doesn't seem to reflect on the page...perhaps forgot to save it. so writing to you again

the entry on Wikipedia on writism existed way before i edited it in Jan 12. i thought it needed to reflect changes in the artists oeuvre over the last couple of years, since Wikipedia carried the writism article.

this is not a self promotion article. i am an independant art curator, academic and historian, alumnus of IIT and head of SPREAD , an entity dealing in promotion of heritage - both traditional and contemporary.i dont want an article on myself or my organization. But i think equus gazing's work is among the most challenging and astounding i ve encountered any where in quite a while

as for the Times Of India article, both in their daily newspaper on 29 Jan 12 and in their coffee table book TRAILBLAZERS,released the week prior, i could send you a scanned copy of the articles

Ashish Acharjee — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ideaworldwide (talk • contribs) 13:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. Manning (talk)

For one, thanks for stopping to look at it. Two, I'm so glad you said I documented well. I'm a fanfiction author, and authors have the tendency to not appreciate their work, and the whole time I was writing that post, I kept thinking to myself "There's not enough sources, and I sound too mean, and this that and the other...", so I'm glad to hear that. Also, should I remove the information, wait for 74.207 to verify sources, or what? (My guess is the second option, but I just want to verify.) SmallCheez (talk) 05:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The policy says "anything that is likely to be challenged" can be either tagged as unsourced, or removed. It's a judgment call based on how far from the truth you think the material is. Hence if you feel something is VERY questionable, then by all means remove it. If the material can be sourced then it is easy enough to reinstate it. Manning (talk) 05:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Urgh, it's very far. For instance, in one episode, something scares them (Martin and Aviva), and in trying to run away in different directions, smack into each other, and that's supposed to be proof. Yet, there are multiple episodes where she's hugged another man named Jimmy, but that's not proof that those two are in love. (Yet she's never hugged Martin just to hug him!) Ergo, I'm going to remove it. Like I said, it doesn't let WK newbies decide for themselves. SmallCheez (talk) 06:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fine. As I said at AN/I, drop me a line if you need any assistance. Manning (talk) 06:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They did it again, 90 minutes after you left the talk page message.[6] I reverted and left a level-2 unsourced template on their talk page, and am informing you. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 09:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. A block will be next, all attempts at negotiation seem to be failing. Manning (talk) 09:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Manning Bartlett.

09:06, 27 January 2012 Manning Bartlett (talk | contribs) deleted "New Art Form" ‎ (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion, identical OR content, different article name)

Your references to deletion policy and XfD are not very helpful. Can you please tell me which specific deletion discussion relates to the content of the delted page New Art Form. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is perfectly valid, and I should have provided more info in the edit summary. However, as a matter of personal policy, I ignore all questions that are not phrased in a kind and friendly manner. Wikipedia needs to become a more friendly and enjoyable place, and treating each other with such acidity is damaging. Thank you, Manning (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Manning Bartlett,

You seem to have performed a delete last week or so, as indicated by the following log entry.

09:06, 27 January 2012 Manning Bartlett (talk | contribs) deleted "New Art Form" ‎ (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion, identical OR content, different article name)

New Art Form is listed as a CSD notification at [[User talk:Writism1]. I am reviewing the now deleted article Writism with respect to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Writism1. Was New Art Form written by User:Writism? Was it identical to Writism. I'm wondering, because it is not entirely obvious to me that Writism was non-notable, it may have just been written very poorly and with no attention to providing third party references. New Art Form may have been different attempt at covering the same subject but from a different angle. Your deletion tag indicates a previous deletion discussion. Could you please point me to that discussion? Was it Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Writism? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the text was word for word identical to the Writism article. I did an online check for references and could find none outside of the author's own website. Since there there may have been coverage (see discussion above) in a major Indian newspaper but I've been unable to find it. Regards, Manning (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I expected so, but was hoping otherwise. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. With all the complaining about the edits on and off Wikipedia (people were complaining on the bands/singer's facebook page as well) I was starting to feel like the bad guy, even though I was in the right as far as Wikipedia goes. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 19:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't let it get to you. I have no doubt the information they're trying to add is correct, however if we set a precedent of "Facebook is a reliable source" then we will basically open the floodgates to hell. They don't see it that way, obviously, but we can't help that. Keep up the good work, and shout out if I can ever be of assistance. Cheers Manning (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 06:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 05:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to the post you made at AN - and then went back and read through the discussions. Are you thinking about a page where it's maybe fully protected so only admins. can edit there? Sort of a "gather around the water-cooler and discuss the flow and mood of things every Friday afternoon and Monday morning" type of thing? If so, I just very well may be open to such a thing. I'd think it would have to be viewable by all, and even an open talk page - but I think it could be very workable. Welcome back by the way - I really like what you're adding to things .. I hope you and your experience can help pull us back from the brink. — Ched :  ?  19:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ched - I'm at work and while I've made a few attempts to reply to you, I just haven't yet found the time to make the measured response your post deserves. My apologies, and I will respond properly at first opportunity. Manning (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you sir. Absolutely no rush, we all live in different places, with different responsibilities - I'll be out this evening to throw darts, and if I end up having any adult refreshments, I won't get on WP until the next day, but I will be back. Cheers and best. — Ched :  ?  23:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC) .. perspective: I'm east coast USA. — Ched :  ?  23:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm east coast Oz - 14 or 15 hours ahead. Throwing darts is a very worthwhile activity, I was unaware that Americans engaged in such refined pursuits. I doff my hat to you, sir. Manning (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

East coast OZ, eh? Me too! Where abouts? 203.35.135.133 (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see you're in Sydney. Bummer. (In melbourne) Steve Public (talk) 00:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve, sorry for not replying sooner (was putting out fires elsewhere). Yes, I live in rain-soaked, summer-free Sydney. Cheers Manning (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean now you've unretired you'll make it to one of these? (says me who makes it to about one a year or less....) (chuckle) there is an impromptu meetup tonight but I am stuck and couldn't make it (dessert's probably been eaten now anyway...)Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The last one I went to ('09 sometime) you didn't attend. Ya schmuck! :-) Good to see you, cheers Manning (talk) 10:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Ched - AFAICT there is no way under policy to create a page only accessible to admins. However, there might be a way to create a watercooler without violating policy. Create a userpage, eg: User:Manning_Bartlett/Admin Water Cooler and invite all admins to participate there. Because this is covered by WP:NOBAN, I would be within my rights to request all non-admins to refrain from editing the page. However there will be a section within the community which will vehemently oppose this idea, no matter what. Manning (talk) 08:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey if you are serious about reforming things I think newyorkbrad's post was more an "enough is enough" post and leaving it up to everyone else to decide what to do so I wish you the best of luck, reading it from the outside, it doesn't look like anyone really is going to do anything, but I thought I should comment to you in case it helps you out, delete if too spammy:

When I was blocked I came up with an idea of having a decentralised way of people reporting incidents, like the new WikiLove bar thing or the MoodBar for new editors (e.g. those that don't "do forums" which is most people! in shouty, forum-like environments you hear the minority because the environment drives away the more meek people and a lot of women are not as thick skinned as me and I was accused of being too thin skinned... seriously most people just do not want to go into a shouting match with a load of guys constantly... wikipedia has a hyperaggressive culture overall from the whole culture of reverting people without requiring to talk to them first, most people don't fight back... it turns into the loudest win which is just sad)

that might be the best way, also kinda similar to how people report stuff on a forum, e.g. stuff is reported to the people that can action it and someone chooses to do something about it, but without making a thread for drama. but yeah, it should probably have an extra step put to it where it where the user is also notified and sees the report and can file a counter report if they want - it should all be public for transparency but a more formalised log trather than a thread to be piled in by anyone who wants a say, if people have formal objections to raise they would file them to the log. I dunno, anything along those lines, it'd have to be made very carefully to avoid cliqueism, but it seems like something along those lines would be a step forward from how it seems at the moment

... good luck with anything you try (other than well, giving the people that abuse others the worst powers...), that stuff is of course probably pipedreams at least for quite a while since it needs developery people and more consensus on "yes, we need to change this" probably... in the meantime I think you could improve Wikipedia by a whole lot suddenly if the No personal attacks and Remove personal attack rules were actually enforced, maybe it would take rewording the policies I don't know, but it seems like no one cares about them, removing stuff like this which can't be taken any other way than goading/trolling needs to become the norm rather than something to shout at people for, and anyone actually going out of their way to another user's talk page to harass them there should be blocked immediately... this is the kind of stuff you need to do if you want an atmosphere where professional people and more female editors feel comfortable in editing in, not a battleground but an encyclopaedia like it says on the cover page --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 12:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops sorry for deleting a load of stuff when I put that in the first time, thanks Acalamari (talk · contribs)! I didn't even notice thought I was just editing a section or something, I suspect when I crashed Firefox earlier while in the middle of writing this and it restored it maybe only the stuff I had typed, or got section and main page cnfused or something when I was trying to salvage things, I'm not sure. Woops, sorry MB --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 12:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am remembered of an event circa. 2009, where an administrator used the phrase "little shit" (Bishonen). Jimbo jumped in and blocked Bish, and brought forth the phrase "toxic" (environment, or personality? I don't recall the exact quote). The incident created quite a dust-up, which culminated in a request at AC. Anyway .. a page was created in user-space and fully protected. Both Bishonen (as an administrator), and Jimbo (founder) had the technical abilities to edit the page. (it was clearly stated that this page was for use by only those two - so while any administrator had the ability to edit - I doubt anyone would be foolish enough too). The point: We have the technical ability to create, and fully protect the page so that only admins can edit it. You're point about how well it would be accepted however, is an entirely different matter. Bottom line: If you set something in motion, I am more than willing to try to help, contribute, and follow along.

I was introduced to throwing darts 2 years ago - and thoroughly enjoy it. Not only for the competitive aspects (which I'm not particularly good at yet :)) - but the people I've met are the most wonderful folks as well. Much more friendly than the pool (pocket billiards) groups of people that I had known for years. — Ched :  ?  14:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, the Jimbo-Bishonen stoush, I was an arbcom clerk at the time - see here. MBizanz handled the clerking, I remember doing something on it, no idea what though.

Yes we could create a user page and page protect it so only admins could edit it. But that would violate WP:UPROT, and we would be met with a howl of protest from 'Group b' (see below).

IMO our own policies are being hijacked to disable the admin corps. We are unable to move except by the will of the "community", but the "community" is really just whoever wants to discuss admin-related matters, which largely consists of (a) the remaining admins who haven't yet given up in despair and (b) those with an axe to grind against the admins (or against WP in general). As group (b) is now considerably larger than group (a), we cannot achieve a consensus to do anything positive. (I already noted on the Bugs ban discussion the huge discrepancy between the admin and non-admin vote.)

The answer is... hell, I don't know. I'll keep thinking. More when I get time. If you ever get the chance to watch "World Series Darts" on TV (British) it's well worth it - quite hilarious at how intense it all gets. Cheers Manning (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To me as someone who has returned after a while it seems like the atmosphere has changed a lot, it used to be that people were always complaining about administrators abusing their power to block people they didn't like on whims etc, these days because there are so many more administrators and they are generally level-headed people that have been subjected to a kind of maturity test it seems like things have evened out a lot and the generally good nature of people is really starting to win through on Wikipedia and it is really, really, lovely to see. These days the problem seems to be less administrators now but more a complete reverse, it seems the more mature administrators agree everything needs cleaning up whilst the people who haven't been maturity-tested are fighting against it... I don't think anyone could have predicted this years ago, I think Jimmy Wales would be proud I just wish I could do more but all I'm going to say is you should be proud --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 02:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the "what's going on" post of NYB. I have never been able to capture his attention. I fully appreciate that he is a very busy man, so that's not a "he won't talk to me" comment - just an observation. Perhaps if you wanted to mention to him several examples as of late. You are familiar with the Risker/Bugs (block/unblock) situation. (example 1). We now have this situation which you may or may not be aware of. (example 2). Not long ago I noticed a block issue, and due to the mentoring I received in my early days, I thought this was considered the proper procedure. (example 3)

Now everyone is always eager to assist those that they consider good and valuable editors. I am wondering however if some sort of motion by the Arbitration Committee and broadly displayed can help reduce this inconsistency across the admin. community - perhaps it's worth consideration. My understanding has always been:

1. User blocked. (if an administrator feels this is in error ...)
2. approach the blocking admin and discuss. If the blocking admin is unavailable or unresponsive ...
3. post to AN/I a request for consensus to unblock.
4. I'm not sure where I have this concept, but I always believed that it took a minimum of 24 hours to establish consensus.

Now one issue I'm not fully confident in is when the blocked editor actually does post the unblock request - to that, I'll need to do some further reading of current standards.

Now, if a request of some sort must first be presented to AC before they are able to act on it - then I am willing to present that. I would however greatly appreciate any assistance in the proper format, venue, and structure etc. It is NOT my desire to get anyone blocked, banned, stripped of tools, or sanctioned in any fashion what-so-ever; but rather an attempt to stem this tide of reckless behavior. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you Manning - I'm getting the very strong impression I'm going to be very glad I approached you. (sorry for the tl;dr, but there's been much on my mind as of late) — Ched :  ?  14:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support everything you've said above. However AFAIK Arbcom won't even consider the matter unless it involves a "party a" vs "party b" situation. They do not have the remit to set policy (although in practice, many policy changes have occurred as a result of their decisions.) Again, there's a lot more to discuss here than I can do this very moment... An admin water-cooler is looking better and better by the day. It already exists (or at least existed, I haven't been there in 2 years or more) in the IRC channel, but that is inherently exclusive. We just have to figure out how we can go about establishing it. Manning (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added your talk page to my watchlist - but I often miss things too. Feel free to ping me anytime (on any topic). Thank you again for your time. A real pleasure. — Ched :  ?  00:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, drop me an email when you get the chance. I've got some other various comments & ideas but I'd prefer to discuss them OW (I'd email you but I say your note about emails). Cheers Manning (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ... sorry about that - just better to step away from a few conflicts. Feel free to pass my email along to any of the older (or perhaps I should say trusted) editors as well. Look forward to hearing from you. — Ched :  ?  02:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that; it's a good move. But you can't always be around. Such removals should occur regularly and should only be done by more trusted people, which means admins (anyone can consider themselves an "experienced editor". /more/ chaos that way). I had an idea and offer it for your consideration. Have a bot full-protect ANI for 10 minutes every half hour, say at 00–10 and 30–40. During this time admins would be able to clean up with out endless edit conflicts. It would also serve as brief cool-downs for all others. Such culling and breaks would take the heat out of things at regular intervals, which would be beneficial to all. Alarbus (talk) 05:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a VERY intriguing idea. Thanks for sharing. Manning (talk) 07:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Run with it ;-) Alarbus (talk) 07:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You participated in a related discussion before. The current one is here. Japinderum (talk) 11:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously consider bringing a Civility Enforcement 2 to ArbCom just so they can pass WP:Discretionary sanctions for ANI (participation), i.e. giving to any admin the power to topic ban an editor from ANI, if just temporarily. A less tortuous alternative would be to request the community equivalent, WP:General sanctions, which I see are now being discussed for the Indian caste topic area. Presumably, I should propose this at WP:AN. Thoughts? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ASCII posted the diff of this on my talk page and asked for comments. ArbCom and its ways is not something I have any knowledge or experience of so I can't give an opinion on whether they'd go for it. Personally I'd prefer something lower key, less formal as a starter at AN/I. For example, only today admins have been more assertive in calling time on discussions, with no big guns like a topic ban up their sleeves and it seems to have been working. Could we see if informal processes do the job first? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm not entirely certain why this discussion is on my talk page, but no problem :-) Regardless, I can certainly see where Ascii is coming from. I'm not at this point convinced that Arbcom is the answer, mainly because they will probably seek to avoid it from the outset.

Kim, you and I (and others) have already made efforts to get AN/I back on track, and I think there are signs of progress there. We haven't yet got full traction on the reform process, but as you noted, there are already signs of improvement. Of course there was Anthonyhcole's sincere (but misguided) attempt to enforce civility on AN/I. This came about by the lack of clearly defined standards of behaviour.

Ascii's idea about Topic Bans has definite merit, although the parameters would need to be clearly defined. It would definitely be a tool of last resort, and would need (say) 3-4 admins to approve, we don't need any more chaos from cowboy admins. Alarbus raised an interesting notion (see above) about fully-protecting the page for short periods.

Anyway, I think we need to open a full "AN & ANI Reform" discussion at RFC, as all of this is just too wide in scope for AN. We need to look at standards of conduct, proper usage of collapse, striking and redacting, making the place less intimidating for newcomers, and dealing with drama-mongers (to name but some of the issues). We can arrange to get it covered in the Signpost for next week to increase the participation.

If either of you agree and want to proceed with setting up the RFC, feel free to use User:Manning Bartlett/AN Reform prep as a sandbox. Or just dive on in. I'm at work for the next seven hours so my input will be minimal. Cheers to you both, Manning (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I think this might be a good idea, I think (a) we should fly it at the current discussion we're all having and (b) that it might be worth waiting a few days to see how the situation at AN/I pans out - whether it goes well or badly, we'd have more data to take to RfC. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I continued an existing discussion, I did not start a new one. We don't need to notify someone every time we add a subheading to a discussion. Also to my knowledge I've never had any contact with Jasper Deng, so I'm not even sure why you think I had contact with him weeks ago. I was adding newly discovered evidence to a very recent incident to show that this behaviour was not a one-off issue for him. It was to show that it was an on-going behavioural issue of which this was only the latest incident, despite his behaviour twice generating consensus that his editing had serious issues, including the issues he just displayed in this incident.--Crossmr (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, it was a misunderstanding on my part. I've added a comment at AN/I. Manning (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At m:Requests for comment/Meta-wiki requests for comment on users. Maybe you care to offer your own interpretation. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. The whimsical musings of crusty old-timers are hardly a rational basis for policy decisions. Manning (talk) 05:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I guess should mention too then that I linked your stuff on User_talk:Jimmy_Wales#Exodus_of_top_editors_from_Wikipedia RE your attempts at reform and the ongoing WT:AN stuff --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 06:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No prob MSK - referencing an on-wiki post is always fine as the context is preserved. The WR quote was presented somewhat out of context however, so I appreciated the heads-up from Ascii. Manning (talk) 06:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Nodnod* I'm not involved in any of that stuff either just trying to help

I'm thinking about maybe we should encourage people to not use the same name on Wikipedia Review as Wikipedia, warn more loudly about possibly about talking openly maybe being used against people on here possibly open up an anonymous posting forum carefully if some way to stop sockpuppets (although it would be a shame because it would not make it as useful to social science researchers I think Wikipedia/the internet is very useful for them so I want to try keep that stuff in mind, as plenty of other smart people have said[7], the internet is simply human nature magnified) ...so you don't have this situation where people are having what they write on Wikipedia Review history treated as if it's their WP history as if it were a different namespace of Wikipedia rather than a totally unaffiliated random outside site that could well be someone's personal facebook/myspace/blog for how much right people on Wikipedia have to say what people can say elsewhere --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 06:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. As for me I just try to never say anything that I don't want quoted. Even with the WR quote mentioned above, nothing I said there was untrue. It's just been ten years since it was even vaguely relevant. Manning (talk) 06:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I noticed that you edited Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AMS Neve several times, and them deleted your comment altogether. Could you please restore it in order for other editors, who may further participate in this discussion could make a more informed decision on the topic? Thanks in advance! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No - why bother? You've nominated the single most important company in professional sound recording for deletion. If that is where WP is headed, then my contributions aren't worth anything. Manning (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May be I was wrong in nominating it. If so, I would like to find it out before this AfD is closed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, you make judgment on whole Wikipedia's direction just because some editor nominated for deletion an article that you think should definitely stay? Really? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, this was just one of many, many issues about the current state of WP that is making me lose faith. I didn't intend any criticism of you personally - my apologies if you took it this way. Manning (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never take anything on-line too personally. Thanks for restoring your comment: as I see, the article will be definitely kept. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User:Manning Bartlett/Moni3 ANI analysis#Coding the first few items from ANI729. Hopefully this fits somehow into your project of ANI improvement through data analysis. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know anyone who you could recommend? I had an argument with mine about someone sockpuppeting and they posted they don't want to talk to me anymore kinda thing, I thought you might be a good person to ask? Thanks for any help --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 13:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Honorsteem again. Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diff #13, Diff #15, and Diff #18 are your 26 January 2002 edits. Dru of Id (talk) 09:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, look like bad dates in the database, all of those edits are also in Nostalgia, which only goes up to Dec 2001. Manning (talk) 13:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting your close of the DS AN/I thread just now. As you no doubt observed, my comment came exactly one minute after your close. I hadn't been aware of your close as I was composing it, and I consider it especially worthy of some comment of admiration for you doing so, given that I'd opposed your opinion of the matter. With all possible regard, never mind our divergent opinions on this particular issue, I dare say some other admin will come along and re-close before long ( although I'd prefer to see it roll to archives by the default process, personally ) but I appreciate your obvious good will in reverting your close. I hadn't noticed your "Well a few hours have gone by" in-line, preliminary-to-close comment, of course, when I began my edit. I'm surprised, actually, that I didn't get an edit conflict. In any case, you have my sincere respect for your behaviour. It's representative of the best kind of collaborative good will among editors of opposing opinions. Thank you. --OhioStandard (talk) 09:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, no dramas. The issue had sat untouched for quite a few hours, and it smacks of block-shopping to me, which is why I closed it. Your comment caught me by surprise, but I was perfectly happy to unarchive. I don't think this issue is over, and I have a feeling admin action will eventually be necessary. However I want to see at least some attempt at standard content dispute resolution before we weigh in. Manning (talk) 09:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

::Mard is anti indian? Darknesshines has created pov articles by the ton and has been blocked 20 times for it so how can you even call yourself an admin when you completely ignored Darknesshines history and attacked mard look at the comments by users who checked Darknesshines attempt at a DYK he was rightly referred to as a "bigot" and pov pusher Itemsplot45 (talk) 09:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC) — Itemsplot45 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Striking comments by sock of banned User:Nangparbat[reply]

(ec)Manning, just to let you know Itemsplot45 is probably a sock of User:Nangparbat Darkness Shines (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Manning (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had an (edit conflict) with you at ANI, please check the reply--DBigXray 12:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in my RfA. I appreciate the sentiments expressed there and hope to better myself as a Wikipedian so that next time I run, it'll go better.

By the way, it's great to see you back. For a while I'd thought you left Wikipedia for good. It's always great to see editors from the "dark ages" of Wikipedia still active right up to today. =) Kurtis (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, read my user page - I've never been away from the site for more than a week in 11 years. But I'm not big on the "social" aspect of WP (or on "edit count obsession") so I keep a very low profile (usually as an IP). Good luck with your next RFA. Cheers Manning (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of this — your account has over 7,000 edits, yet I suspect your actual edit count is at least two or three times larger than that number based on how much IP editing you allegedly do. Kurtis (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me second the above, I was pleasantly surprised just now to see your name show up in a discussion! Good to know you're still about! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Dear Manning,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards, — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Because every time I see this I laugh so hard I forget to give you a barnstar. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

.

While I disagree with the change you made based on how I've seen the title written elsewhere, I would normally be 100% okay with you making the change. That said, I'm not sure if you were aware, but you made the edit through protection. Can you undo your edit until it can be discussed? If you feel it was appropriate to make through protection, I'm willing to discuss it with you here. If I'm unable to convince you that it was inappropriate, feel free to leave it in. I have no intention of taking it/you to any other noticeboards as it's a relatively minor issue. Ryan Vesey 01:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since another administrator got trigger happy as well, I sort of brought it up at a different venue, requesting that the protection be reduced [8]. Ryan Vesey 01:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan - yeah sorry for that, didn't pay enough attention to the banner and am thus guilty of (unintentional) abuse of privilege. I've posted an apology on the talk page. It's all moot now, thankfully. Cheers Manning (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, have a good day! Ryan Vesey 03:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Manning Bartlett. You are invited to join WikiProject Breakfast, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of breakfast-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Manning. We met more than a year ago. I was blocked on 28 January 2012 by Salvio giuliano for "battleground mentality)" (see my block log) or this). That's an unfair description. I was blocked because I made this comment:[9] (you can see here). As you can see here and more precisely in here I did not talk with the person about whom I made the comment. I was actually ignoring her while she harassed me across Wikipedia. Thus, it cannot be described as "battleground mentality". I came here to ask you to change the description. You can name it "inappropriate tone", "inappropriate words", "inappropriate language" or anything alike, but "battleground mentality" has no relation with what occurred. --Lecen (talk) 10:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... There is no way for me to change a block description made in the past. I can block you very briefly now in order to put a note about the issue on your block log (as per this section in the policy). I'd need your explicit consent to do that. Manning (talk) 11:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That will probably bring me further troubles down the road... But let's try it out. You can do it. But please be clear that this "second" block is used to fix something and not because I deserved yet another block. --Lecen (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check your log. Also let me know that you able to edit - the dame time parameters are localised apparently (I entered the expiry as UTC, but it interpreted it in my local time). Manning (talk) 12:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's all okay. Hard to believe that I was blocked for an entire week because of a single comment. But I really appreciate what you did. I came for you because I remembered that back then you looked like a reasonable person. It's good to see that I was not wrong. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't say that, everyone knows that admins are all self-righteous power-abusing megalomaniacs. Stay groovy. Manning (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Lecen is currently in an ArbComm discussion which concerns, among other things, his behavior history. I find this request a highly inappropriate gaming of the system (given the context of the request); added that Salvio is the person who made the block. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the target of an ArbCom case. You and your friend Cambalachero have been caught pushing the political views of Anti-Semitic Fascists across several articles and now the Arbitrators will decide what to do with both of you. --Lecen (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User:MarshalN20 - I assessed Lecen's request and found it worthy. There was no gaming of the system, I was involved in this blocking matter from the very beginning. Salvio is an excellent admin, but in hindsight, that declaration was excessive, as I noted. Lecen was well out of line in that incident, but not engaging in "battleground mentality". Manning (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And to both of you - do not bring your interpersonal dispute to my page. Ever. I've been here way too long to ever be swayed by any statement that begins with "I find this request highly inappropriate...". Manning (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For Salvio to have used such an "excessive" tone, a good reason must have existed. In fact, the mere phrase "Do you believe she is capable of taking a flight to Brazil and try to kill me?" ([10]) justifies the battleground mentality block.

Anyhow, I still do not consider it proper to re-evaluate a block at a time such as this, when Lecen's behavior is again a subject of discussion. Lecen only bothered to seek a "fix" to the block only after being accused once again of inappropriate "battlefield mentality" behavior, and that action speaks much for itself.

I will not reply to your second paragraph. Just please don't take out your stress of being "here way too long" on me. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Regardless, you are clearly motivated by personal issues which I have no interest in. Hence I will not engage in further discussion with you on this matter. Manning (talk) 00:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite alright. It was an honor to just have gotten a message from you. All the best.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very good to see you active again in the admin. boards ... greatly appreciated. — Ched :  ?  06:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I come I go. Nothing to do with the project - it will always be close to my heart - but real life intervenes at times. Nice to see you again though. Manning (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		Your review and closure of the Charlize Theron nationality RfC was appreciated. NickCT (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a response to your inquiry. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking care of the article. Nick Levinson (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	This Barnstar is for your dedication to improve the Wikipedia and for defusing the conflicts. Keep it up! — Sourov0000 (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Amal Alamuddin. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. - Pointillist (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Manning Bartlett: fyi you can find the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Amal Alamuddin. - Pointillist (talk) 22:40, 30 April 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]

Biggest German news agency dpa and biggest German News mag confirmed his death. No rumour anymore. VINCENZO1492 11:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Modern Drummer has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Per notability. Only depending on its own website.

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. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She didn't step foot in the US until she was 18. There's many actors/actresses that have lived in the US for decades yet are still by and large considered "british, austrailian" etc. There's no consistency with the wikipedia if you were to list that. Saying she has obtained american citizenship is fine, but this whole ideology that she's both south african and american is not consistent. I know actors that started acting back in the 30s and 40s (golden era hollywood) that spent most of their lives int he US and had citizenship yet were never called "american actresses" in their wikis. I looked at the talk page and their was a lot of back and forth. There are many actresses in hollywoods goldren age (30s, 40s) that still remained "british actress, irish actress/etc while hacing duel citizenship and living inthe US for decades. It's inconsistent and makes no sense to just have Theron as some lone example. If she had by and large grown up in the US I would be even more tolerant towards this. But she didn't even move to the US until she was 18. There absolutely needs to be consistent rules with this amongest the wikipedia I feel. It makes no sense to randonly tack this on with certain actresses. It will just confuse people. SubzeroMK2 (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read my closing summary. Talk:Charlize_Theron#Closing_summary. This isn't physics, with hard-and-fast rules that dictate every situation. How a person self-identifies is also a significant factor, eg Nicole Kidman explicitly and repeatedly self-identifies as exclusively Australian, despite being born on US soil. Manning (talk) 23:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	How long? 13 years!? WOW! t 1234567890Number c 17:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meh - nowhere near as active as I used to be - life has a habit of getting in the way :) But yeah, still tinkering when I get the chance. Manning (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Halal snack pack 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/Halal snack pack 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. Laber□^T 12:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was wondering if you'd be interested in setting up Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Turkey), based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). Now it's not a contest in itself, it's designed to motivate people to inspire others to improve content and build something which demonstrates the hard work going into the country which is visible. The focus is more on quality improvements but new articles are welcome too. Eventually a Turkish National Contest could be created to fuel it, like Wikipedia:Awaken the Dragon, in which contestants can choose to keep the Amazon vouchers themselves to buy their own books for more articles or put them into book fund to help editors further improve Turkish-related topics by giving them the books they want. It will begin though as purely an improvement drive. If interested, or you think anybody else might be interested, alert them and sign up on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Turkey talk page at the bottom. Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:20, 20 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) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Manning Bartlett.

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]

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)

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

Administrator changes

Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13

Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

Guideline and policy news

• A recent RfC has redefined how articles on schools are evaluated at AfD. Specifically, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
• AfDs that receive little participation should now be closed like an expired proposed deletion, following a deletion process RfC.
• Defender, HakanIST, Matiia and Sjoerddebruin are our newest stewards, following the 2017 steward elections.
• The 2017 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Góngora, Krd, Lankiveil, Richwales and Vogone. They will serve for approximately 1 year.

Technical news

• A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
• Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
• A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.

---

As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery

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

Administrator changes

TheDJ

Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
• The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
• An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
• After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

• After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
• Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.

---

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

Administrator changes

Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim

Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
• Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.

Technical news

• You can now see a list of all autoblocks at Special:AutoblockList.
• There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
• Administrators, bureaucrats and stewards can now set an expiry date when granting user rights. (discuss, permalink)

Miscellaneous

• Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.

---

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

Administrator changes

Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn

ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC proposing an off-wiki LTA database has been closed. The proposal was broadly supported, with further discussion required regarding what to do with the existing LTA database and defining access requirements. Such a tool/database formed part of the Community health initiative's successful grant proposal.
• Some clarifications have been made to the community banning and unblocking policies that effectively sync them with current practice. Specifically, the community has reached a consensus that when blocking a user at WP:AN or WP:ANI, it is considered a "community sanction", and administrators cannot unblock unilaterally if the user has not successfully appealed the sanction to the community.
• An RfC regarding the bot policy has closed with changes to the section describing restrictions on cosmetic changes.

Technical news

• Users will soon be able to blacklist specific users from sending them notifications.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2017 elections, the new members of the Board of Trustees include Raystorm, Pundit and Doc James. They will serve three-year terms.

---

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

Administrator changes

Happyme22 • Dragons flight

Zad68

Guideline and policy news

• The RFC discussion regarding WP:OUTING and WMF essay about paid editing and outing (see more at the ArbCom noticeboard archives) is now archived. Milieus #3 and #4 received support; so did concrete proposal #1.

Technical news

• Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding ?fuzzy=1 to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.
• A new bot will automatically revision delete unused file versions from files in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old.

Miscellaneous

• A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
• A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
• Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.

---

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

Administrator changes

Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 ^{(first RfA to reach WP:300)}

Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

• Following a series of discussions around new pages patrol, the WMF is helping implement a controlled autoconfirmed article creation trial as a research experiment, similar to the one proposed in 2011. You can learn more about the research plan at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial. The exact start date of the experiment has yet to be determined.
• A new speedy deletion criterion, regarding articles created as a result undisclosed paid editing, is currently being discussed (permalink).
• An RfC (permalink) is currently open that proposes expanding WP:G13 to include all drafts, even if they weren't submitted through Articles for Creation.

Technical news

• LoginNotify should soon be deployed to the English Wikipedia. This will notify users when there are suspicious login attempts on their account.
• The new version of XTools is nearing an official release. This suite of tools includes administrator statistics, an improved edit counter, among other tools that may benefit administrators. You can report issues on Phabricator and provide general feedback at mw:Talk:XTools.

---

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

Administrator changes

Nakon • Scott

Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

• ACTRIAL, a research experiment that restricts article creation to autoconfirmed users, will begin on September 7. It will run for six months. You can learn more about the research specifics at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial, while Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial is probably the best venue for general discussion.
• Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.

Technical news

• You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
• Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
• In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

• Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.

---

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) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem

Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful proposal to create it, a new user right called "edit filter helper" is now assignable and revocable by administrators. The right allows non-administrators to view the details of private edit filters, but not to edit them.
• Following a discussion about mass-application of ECP and how the need for logging and other details of an evolving consensus may have been missed by some administrators, a rough guide to extended confirmed protection has been written. This information page describes how the extended-confirmed aspects of the protection policy are currently being applied by administrators.

Technical news

• You can now search for IP ranges at Special:Contributions. Some log pages and Special:DeletedContributions are not yet supported. Wildcards (e.g. 192.168.0.*) are also not supported, but the popular contribsrange gadget will continue to work.

Arbitration

• Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
• A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

---

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

Administrator changes

Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93

Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is creating an "Interaction Timeline" tool that intends to assist administrators in resolving user conduct disputes. Feedback on the concept may be posted on the talk page.
• A new function is now available to edit filter managers that will make it easier to look for multiple strings containing spoofed text.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors will be invited to submit candidate statements for the 2017 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 12 until November 21. Voting will begin on November 27 and last until December 10.
• Following a request for comment, Ritchie333, Yunshui and Ymblanter will serve as the Electoral Commission for the 2017 ArbCom Elections.

Obituaries

• The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.

---

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

Administrator changes

Joe Roe

JzG

Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news

• Wikimedians are now invited to vote on the proposals in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey on Meta Wiki until 10 December 2017. In particular, there is a section of the survey regarding new tools for administrators and for anti-harassment.
• A new function is available to edit filter managers which can be used to store matches from regular expressions.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is open until Sunday 23:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC). There are 12 candidates running for 8 vacant seats.

Miscellaneous

• Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
• The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.

---

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.

---

Started a stub for "Dolly" Everett - Suicide of Amy Everett. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 21:16, 21 January 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 (October 2020).

Guideline and policy news

• Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.

Technical news

• Sysops will once again be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to interface administrators when that group was introduced.
• Twinkle's block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a discretionary sanctions block and/or template.
• Sysops will be able to use Special:CreateLocalAccount to create a local account for a global user that is prevented from auto-creation locally (such as by a filter or range block). Administrators that are not sure if such a creation is appropriate should contact a checkuser.

Arbitration

• The 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections process has begun. Eligible editors will be able to nominate themselves as candidates from November 8 through November 17. The voting period will run from November 23 through December 6.
• The Anti-harassment RfC has concluded with a summary of the feedback provided.

Miscellaneous

• A reminder that standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. (American Politics 2 Arbitration case).

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).

Administrator changes

Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

Interface administrator changes

Izno

Guideline and policy news

• There is a request for comment in progress to either remove T3 (duplicated and hardcoded instances) as a speedy deletion criterion or eliminate its seven-day waiting period.

Technical news

• Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 7 December 2020 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).

Guideline and policy news

• Speedy deletion criterion T3 (duplication and hardcoded instances) has been repealed following a request for comment.

Technical news

• You can now put pages on your watchlist for a limited period of time.

Arbitration

• By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
• Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).

Arbitration

• The standard discretionary sanctions authorized for American Politics were amended by motion to cover post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people, replacing the 1932 cutoff.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2021 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2021, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2021, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Wikipedia has now been around for 20 years, and recently saw its billionth edit!

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).

Administrator changes

TJMSmith

Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

Interface administrator changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
• A request for comment is in progress to remove F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a, which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
• A request for comment seeks to grant page movers the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at Wikipedia:Page mover/delete-redirect.
• A request for comment asks if sysops may place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
• There is a discussion in progress concerning automatic protection of each day's featured article with Pending Changes protection.

Technical news

• When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
• When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
• There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).

Arbitration

• By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
• The Kurds and Kurdistan case was closed, authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2021 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AmandaNP, Operator873, Stanglavine, Teles, and Wiki13.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).

Administrator changes

Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
• Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.

Technical news

• When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
• Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)

Arbitration

• A community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure is open until April 25.

---

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Intactivism. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 28#Intactivism until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).

Administrator changes

Enchanter • Carlossuarez46

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, consensus was found that third party appeals are allowed but discouraged.
• The 2021 Desysop Policy RfC was closed with no consensus. Consensus was found in a previous RfC for a community based desysop procedure, though the procedure proposed in the 2021 RfC did not gain consensus.

Technical news

• The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.

Arbitration

• The community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).

Administrator changes

Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless

Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)

Guideline and policy news

• Consensus was reached to deprecate Wikipedia:Editor assistance.
• Following a Request for Comment the Book namespace was deprecated.

Technical news

• Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.

Arbitration

• After a Clarification request, the Arbitration Committee modified Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case. This means sourcing expectations are a discretionary sanction instead of being present on all articles. It also details using the talk page or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to discuss disputed sources.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).

Guideline and policy news

• Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
• An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.

Technical news

• IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.

Arbitration

• The community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.

Technical news

• Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)

Arbitration

• Following an amendment request, the committee has clarified that the Talk page exception to the 500/30 rule in remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case does not apply to requested move discussions.

Miscellaneous

• You can vote for candidates in the 2021 Board of Trustees elections from 4 August to 17 August. Four community elected seats are up for election.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).

Administrator changes

Jake Wartenberg

Emperor • Viridian Bovary

Ashleyyoursmile → Viridian Bovary

Guideline and policy news

• Feedback is requested on the Universal Code of Conduct enforcement draft by the Universal Code of Conduct Phase 2 drafting committee.
• A RfC is open on whether to allow administrators to use extended confirmed protection on high-risk templates.
• A discussion is open to decide when, if ever, should discord logs be eligible for removal when posted onwiki (including whether to oversight them)
• A RfC on the next steps after the trial of pending changes on TFAs has resulted in a 30 day trial of automatic semi protection for TFAs.

Technical news

• The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is in progress to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. Comments and new proposals are welcome.

Miscellaneous

• The 2021 RfA review is now open for comments.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, extended confirmed protection may be used preemptively on certain high-risk templates.
• Following a discussion at the Village Pump, there is consensus to treat discord logs the same as IRC logs. This means that discord logs will be oversighted if posted onwiki.

Technical news

• DiscussionTools has superseded Enterprisey's reply-link script. Editors may switch using the "Discussion tools" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features.

Arbitration

• A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
• Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
• The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.

Miscellaneous

• Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
• The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).

Guideline and policy news

• Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.

Technical news

• Toolhub is a catalogue of tools which can be used on Wikimedia wikis. It is at https://toolhub.wikimedia.org/.

Arbitration

• GeneralNotability, Mz7 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections. Ivanvector and John M Wolfson are reserve commissioners.
• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves to stand in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections from 07 November 2021 until 16 November 2021.

Miscellaneous

• The 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of five new CheckUsers and two new Oversighters.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2021).

Administrator changes

A Train • Berean Hunter • Epbr123 • GermanJoe • Sanchom • Mysid

Technical news

• Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
• The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections is open until 23:59, 06 December 2021 (UTC).
• The already authorized standard discretionary sanctions for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), broadly construed, have been made permanent.

---

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)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your 20+ years of service. ^_^ QuantumRealm (meow • pawtrack) 20:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).

Guideline and policy news

• Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

• Additionally, consensus for proposal 6C of the 2021 RfA review has led to the creation of an administrative action review process. The purpose of this process will be to review individual administrator actions and individual actions taken by users holding advanced permissions.

Arbitration

• Following the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Cabayi, Donald Albury, Enterprisey, Izno, Opabinia regalis, Worm That Turned, Wugapodes.

Miscellaneous

• The functionaries email list (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.

---

Hi!

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

Guideline and policy news

• The Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines have been published for consideration. Voting to ratify this guideline is planned to take place 7 March to 21 March. Comments can be made on the talk page.

Technical news

• The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
• The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration

• Community input is requested on several motions aimed at addressing discretionary sanctions that are no longer needed or overly broad.
• The Arbitration Committee has published a generalised comment regarding successful appeals of sanctions that it can review (such as checkuser blocks).
• A motion related to the Antisemitism in Poland case was passed following a declined case request.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2022 Steward elections will begin on 07 February 2022, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2022, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Voting in the 2022 Community Wishlist Survey is open until 11 February 2022.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).

Guideline and policy news

• A RfC is open to change the wording of revision deletion criterion 1 to remove the sentence relating to non-infringing contributions.
• A RfC is open to discuss prohibiting draftification of articles over 90 days old.

Technical news

• The deployment of the reply tool as an opt-out feature, as announced in last month's newsletter, has been delayed to 7 March. Feedback and comments are being welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project. (T296645)
• Special:Nuke will now allow the selection of standard deletion reasons to be used when mass-deleting pages. This was a Community Wishlist Survey request from 2022. (T25020)
• The ability to undelete the talk page when undeleting a page using Special:Undelete or the API will be added soon. This change was requested in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey. (T295389)

Arbitration

• Several unused discretionary sanctions and article probation remedies have been rescinded. This follows the community feedback from the 2021 Discretionary Sanctions review.

Miscellaneous

• The 2022 appointees for the Ombuds commission are Érico, Faendalimas, Galahad, Infinite0694, Mykola7, Olugold, Udehb and Zabe as regular members and Ameisenigel and JJMC89 as advisory members.
• Following the 2022 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AntiCompositeNumber, BRPever, Hasley, TheresNoTime, and Vermont.
• The 2022 Community Wishlist Survey results have been published alongside the ranking of prioritized proposals.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open proposing a change to the minimum activity requirements for administrators.

Technical news

• Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
• When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)

Arbitration

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Opening of proceedings has been updated to reflect current practice following a motion.
• A arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has been closed.
• A arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been opened.

Miscellaneous

• Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines has closed, and the results were that 56.98% of voters supported the guidelines. The results of this vote mean the Wikimedia Foundation Board will now review the guidelines.

---

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2022).

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, a change has been made to the administrators inactivity policy. Under the new policy, if an administrator has not made at least 100 edits over a period of 5 years they may be desysopped for inactivity.
• Following a discussion on the bureaucrat's noticeboard, a change has been made to the bureaucrats inactivity policy.

Technical news

• The ability to undelete the associated talk page when undeleting a page has been added. This was the 11th wish of the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey.
• A public status system for WMF wikis has been created. It is located at https://www.wikimediastatus.net/ and is hosted separately to WMF wikis so in the case of an outage it will remain viewable.

Arbitration

• Remedy 2 of the St Christopher case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to place a ban on single-purpose accounts who were disruptively editing on the article St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages from those pages.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2022).

Guideline and policy news

• Several areas of improvement collated from community member votes have been identified in the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines. The areas of improvement have been sent back for review and you are invited to provide input on these areas.

Technical news

• Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
• The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.

Arbitration

• Remedy 2 of the Rachel Marsden case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to delete or reduce to a stub, together with their talk pages, articles related to Rachel Marsden when they violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy.
• An arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been closed.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2022).

Technical news

• user_global_editcount is a new variable that can be used in abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users. (T130439)

Arbitration

• An arbitration case regarding conduct in deletion-related editing has been opened.

Miscellaneous

• The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2022).

Administrator changes

Valereee

Anthony Appleyard (deceased) • Capitalistroadster • Samsara

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
• An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.

Technical news

• The Wikimania 2022 Hackathon will take place virtually from 11 August to 14 August.
• Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)

Arbitration

• The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

• You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
• Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
• Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
• An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.

Technical news

• The impact report on the effects of disabling IP editing on the Persian (Farsi) Wikipedia has been released.
• The WMF is looking into making a Private Incident Reporting System (PIRS) system to improve the reporting of harmful incidents through easier and safer reporting. You can leave comments on the talk page by answering the questions provided. Users who have faced harmful situations are also invited to join a PIRS interview to share the experience. To sign up please email Madalina Ana.

Arbitration

• An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
• The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

• The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
• Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.

---

I have nominated Emperor Norton for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 01:29, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Established policy provides for the removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. Your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to the required activity level before the beginning of January 2023.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to engage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for re-engaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to re-engage with 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 08:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Established policy provides for the removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. Your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to the required activity level before the beginning of January 2023.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to engage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for re-engaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to re-engage with 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 00:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Established policy provides for the removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. 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 02:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, fuck you and everyone here. There has never been any problem with my account, it has never been used improperly or been the cause of any problem. But a bunch of weeny admins with no regard for the history of the project felt entitled to strip me of something that was bestowed on me the very day that the account option was even created. I watched it happen quietly, and did not protest, because there is no point. I always thought I would return when the opportunity arose, but I will never be back now. Manning (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You should be well aware of our policy against making personal attacks on other editors, continued personal attacks may result in your account being blocked. I don't think I've interacted with you any time recently, and was simply processing a batch of removals following established community processes. You may always re-request sysop access at WP:RFA. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies for the perceived personal attack, it was intended as a generalised "fuck you" sense to the entire admin community. But please go ahead and block my account, as I no longer care. Plus you well know that RFA is a deeply flawed process which is almost impossible to survive, so your suggestion that I engage in that is frankly offensive.

I created so much of this damn project, I defined many of the core policies and I created Wikiprojects. I was an admin for over 20 years. And as I said, my account has NEVER been a problem, so this was a measure that has no demonstrable benefit to the project. Your assertion of "established community processes" is nonsense and you know it, this was a policy created only last year with no impact other than to further diminish an already depleted admin pool. But I am not going to fight it in any way.

Enjoy your (collective, not personal) sad pettiness. Manning (talk)

I understand you are frustrated by this, thank you for the apology and clarification. Please note the latest activity changes were implemented following a community RFC. I have been an advocate of ways to make RFA easier to pass and will continue to in the future, largely by trying to make +sysop not be a status symbol (easy come, easy go). Having or not having the sysop flag is not meant as an indicator of one's value to the project. If you do want to continue contributing to the encyclopedia you are most welcome to, and if there are certain tools in WP:PERM that will help you do it better, feel free to ping me on any requests you put there. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 11:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't look like you wanted to lose admin rights. --The Cunctator (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't, but what can you do? People love finding solutions to problems that don't exist. Hope you are well Manning (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Chugging along ... If you care, it looks like it's easy to get admin rights restored with a note at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard. The Cunctator (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2023).

Guideline and policy news

• A community RfC is open to discuss whether reports primarily involving gender-related disputes or controversies should be referred to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

Technical news

• Some older web browsers will not be able to use JavaScript on Wikimedia wikis starting this week. This mainly affects users of Internet Explorer 11. (T178356)
• The rollback of Vector 2022 RfC has found no consensus to rollback to Vector legacy, but has found rough consensus to disable "limited width" mode by default.
• A link to the user's Special:CentralAuth page will now appear in the subtitle links shown on Special:Contributions. This was voted #17 in the Community Wishlist Survey 2023.

Arbitration

• The Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case has been closed.
• A case about World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been opened, with the first evidence phase closing 6 April 2023.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2023).

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.

Technical news

• Progress has started on the Page Triage improvement project. This is to address the concerns raised by the community in their 2022 WMF letter that requested improvements be made to the tool.

Arbitration

• The proposed decision in the World War II and the history of Jews in Poland case is expected 11 May 2023.

Miscellaneous

• The Wikimedia Foundation annual plan 2023-2024 draft is open for comment and input through May 19. The final plan will be published in July 2023.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2023).

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
• As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.

Technical news

• Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.

Miscellaneous

• Following a community referendum, the arbitration policy has been modified to remove the ability for users to appeal remedies to Jimbo Wales.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023).

Administrator changes

Novem Linguae

• Deckiller
• Electionworld
• MBisanz
• Penwhale
• Raul654
• Roadrunner
• Viridae
• Yannismarou

Bureaucrat changes

MBisanz

Guideline and policy news

• Contributions to the English Wikipedia are now released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0) license instead of CC BY-SA 3.0. Contributions are still also released under the GFDL license.

Technical news

• Discussion is open regarding a proposed global policy regarding third-party resources. Third-party resources are computer resources that reside outside of Wikimedia production websites.

Arbitration

• Two arbitration cases are currently open. Proposed decisions are expected 5 July 2023 for the Scottywong case and 9 July 2023 for the AlisonW case.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2023).

Administrator changes

Firefangledfeathers

• AlisonW
• Amberrock
• Closedmouth
• Scottywong

Interface administrator changes

Novem Linguae

Technical news

• The tag filter on Special:NewPages and revision history pages can now be inverted. This allows hiding edits made by automated tools. (T334338)
• Special:BlockedExternalDomains is a new tool that allows easier blocking of plain domains (and their subdomains). This is more easily searchable and is faster for the software to use than the existing MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. It does not support regex (for complex cases), URL path-matching, or the MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. (T337431)

Arbitration

• The arbitration cases named Scottywong and AlisonW closed 10 July and 16 July respectively.
• The SmallCat dispute arbitration case is in the workshop phase.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2023).

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
• A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.

Technical news

• Special:Contributions now shows the user's local edit count and the account's creation date. (T324166)

Arbitration

• The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.

Miscellaneous

• Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2023).

Administrator changes

0xDeadbeef

Tamzin

Dennis Brown

Interface administrator changes

Pppery

• Ragesoss
• TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

• The WMF is working on making it possible for administrators to edit MediaWiki configuration directly. This is similar to previous work on Special:EditGrowthConfig. A technical RfC is running until November 08, where you can provide feedback.
• There is a proposed plan for re-enabling the Graph Extension. Feedback on this proposal is requested.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 12 November 2023 until 21 November 2023 to stand in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections.
• Xaosflux, RoySmith and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee Elections. BusterD is the reserve commissioner.
• Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
• Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
• Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
• Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
• An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.

Miscellaneous

• The Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in November 2023, with 700+ drafts pending reviews for in the last 4 months or so. In addition to the AfC participants, all administrators and New Page Patrollers can conduct reviews using the helper script, Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2023).

Guideline and policy news

• Following a talk page discussion, the Administrators' accountability policy has been updated to note that while it is considered best practice for administrators to have notifications (pings) enabled, this is not mandatory. Administrators who do not use notifications are now strongly encouraged to indicate this on their user page.

Arbitration

• Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
• The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
• Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 11, 2023 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.

---