User talk:MSGJ/2019

1319:

amazing pipeline for improving the articles on recently deceased notable figures. Please remember the ITN section is not only intended to memorialize, recognize, celebrate these people. Like everything on Knowledge, it is intended to improve the encyclopedia. Building the best encyclopedia possible is our only purpose. Everything else comes second. We also have a responsibility to make sure these BLPs are verifiable to reliable secondary sources. In the future, I hope you will take posting decisions with the same seriousness afforded closures of RfCs or deletion reviews. Consider !votes of support critically and ensure the pages meet some basic standards of neutrality and verifiability before post. You MUST review the article's references yourself to ensure that serious BLP violations don't make it to the Main Page.

2561:

female. He promptly reverted my change and accused me of vandalism. If anything he is sexist depicting a womans rights activist in this manner, insisting I was the one who was wrong. His change was shortly axed again and the page locked from editing because of him. Today there is a correct photo of the woman who looks nothing like a bearded Arabic man. He can be seen tagging others for editing things for political reasons on his page, yet this seems just as political to me, putting down a woman who fights for rights in an area of the world where they are struggling for such rights but showing her as being a man. But it turns out he now has been banned for having sock puppet accounts, so he was in the wrong after all.

4460:), such as the IP or email addresses, whether intentionally or unintentionally, is treated as an serious violation of policy and breach of confidential information and will generally result in immediate suspension of your access to the ACC tool interface. Depending on the severity of the offense, the intent, and the level of misconduct that occurred, the violation and the breach of the confidential information will be reported to the Wikimedia Foundation, which can result in further sanctions and actions being taken against you (such as being blocked, banned, or having your 3478: 1686: 911: 4666: 4608: 4381:, should the account ideally be blocked? Evidences are compelling and one unrelated user and a reviewing clerk urged to block, and more over it looks like this guy was hiding during the SPI and did not came to defend/explain himself despite being informed about it in his talk page, and neither did he left a message on the accusing user's talk. He returned to editing only after the case was closed and archived. Isn't this strange. It pretty much looks like a block evasion went scot-free. 31: 4401: 4882: 1718: 4502: 2096: 2197:, I agree that the material should not be re-added without some further consensus discussion. I imagine that some compressed version of this can be retained, but presently the entire Reception section is mostly dominated by cruft, and especially by coatracking and undue focus on LGBT stuff, that really has nothing to do with the actual production (the subject of our article), but with trivial factionalism in the fanbase, about their fanfic (especially 1625: 6059: 5748: 5713: 5628: 5537: 5184: 5086: 4946: 3933: 2702: 6003: 5885: 5366: 6052: 4717: 4987: 4048:"spygates", it does seem we aught to distinguish. Not that I think anyone is going to be confused about which spygate they are learning about when they read the article, and not that anyone isn't going to be able to find THE "spygate" they are looking for! My sympathy, though, for trying to figure out what the consensus was. My head would hurt. And probably my eyes... and my lungs, maybe my liver. 2660: 2807:

Senhaja article there was a removal of sourced information without any explanation. For my promise "I am not going to make any edit in there(articles that are related to slavery) at least for the next 6 months" as I said I didnt make any edit except in when there was an edit against consesus and I am sorry for that because I thought we had reached consensus and there is a RfC disscucsion there.--

2246:

the Reception section was divided because a lot of the controversy and heavy criticism surrounding the show focused on its LGBT representation (and to a lesser extent a “POC” death). This spilled over to the critics’ reviews where we can see where a number of the critics praise the show but criticize the show's LGBT rep. This is no longer merely “fancruft”. Let’s take this back to the talk page.

3256:. This user has a nasty habit of reformatting references to remove all spaces from them, which makes editing very hard. They have been repeatedly asked to stop this and engage in a discussion, by multiple editors over the last 3 months. You left them a message on their talk page asking them to engage in discussion. Unfortunately the have continued with their disruptive editing - for example in 5461: 4334: 2435: 1359:

moment in the sun. Once a nomination is posted, editors have little motivation to improve the page. My only advise is to let the pages have a few more moments in the limelight, to take any oppose votes more seriously, and treat singular support votes with suspicion, especially those support votes coming from editors who do not frequent ITN regularly.

73:

and I recognise that ERRORS is not meant to be a place for long discussions like that one, especially ones where progress is slow (or even glacial, at times), but stepping in when you did was poor judgement, in my opinion. I hope that you will recognise when progress is being made and consensus appears near next time a similar situation arises.

4001:. There is not a substantial difference between these and I believe the word "political" does not add much to the meaning. This was borne out by editors in the discussion because a lot supported both of those choices rather than just one of them. At the end of the day I feel a runoff is unlikely to be a good use of editors' time. — Martin 2130:

It looks like we're back to square one. I've made comments on the talk page regarding sources for the "fan behavior" section. It was ignored. I've posted an altered version of the disputed fan section with improved sourcing. It was deleted. It seems that some of our editors do not want to mention the

1461:

the last quality gate we have, and it's all too easy to just go with the two supports (for example) and blame those editors for overlooking the shortcomings of any particular article. RDs are based on quality alone, but stories need proper discussion and consensus, not just posting after a few hours

1397:

I share the view point of MSGJ here. ITN is an extremely time sensitive topic and it is blasphemous to hold back articles that are good enough as per ITN standards hoping that editors will try and bring it closer to GA. what happens that way is articles get stale. I recently got involved with ITN and

1358:

My only hope is to give you pause. I consider ITN as a carrot, a reward to editors to encourage them to improve the article. A death brings an otherwise lightly edited article to prominence and leads to heavy editing to improve it. When an RD nomination is posted too early, it undercuts the article's

916:

Thank you for welcoming new users, for gnomish work such as "fix link to dab page", for admin services, fighting vandalism, and nominating others for the job, for helping articles for creation, main page errors and ITN, for a spectacular clear user page, - Martin, repeating (22 July 2009): you are an

88:

Thanks for your message. I have struck part of my comments because I probably should have posted that on the user's talk page rather than there. but I do feel it is part of my admin role to call out inappropriate actions when I see them. Anyway I recognise and appreciate the attempts you have made to

2560:

I have seen a few weeks ago you had a run in with a user that goes by Openlydialectic regarding too many citations. This user accused me of vandalizing Nadia Murad's Knowledge page in October because I removed a photo that depicted her as an Osama bin Laden looking bearded Arabic man and she is 100%

2245:

I believe the non-encyclopedic argument you use here does not apply here primarily because of the numerous real death threats that cast and crew received. “Shipping” is indeed trivial. Repeated and numerous death threats sent to people who work on the show because of “shipping” issues are not. Also,

121:

I fully agree that the discussion should have been moved earlier. However I was not online earlier so could not personally take action. I feel I took the best action I could at that time. Yes, all editors can call out inappropriate behaviour but it is much easier for someone uninvolved to do it, and

72:

attributing blame. I have been trying to move the discussion from conflict towards a focus on the hook, and I feel like I was making good progress. Your post is, in my opinion, unhelpful and needlessly likely to provoke indignation and divert attention away from the actual issue. I'm not an admin

5119:

Hi Martin, I'm sorry about having to specify the fetchwikidata and onlysourced parameters for just a simple retrieval. I introduced them because of the insistence of several editors that infoboxes had to be opt-in by default and only show sourced data by default. To make it easier, I made shortcuts

4813:

Hi Orland, thanks for dropping by. At the risk of pointing out the obvious, it is not just an exercise in counting votes. Determining consensus is a subjective and nuanced process which involves reading all the comments, identifying common themes, balancing arguments with Knowledge policy, etc. You

1379:

I understand your point, but if an article is good enough then I don't think holding it up to encourage editors to make the article even better is part of the aims of ITN or supported by the guidelines. I suspect on the contrary, that it is eligible items going stale and not being posted that would

3971:

Hi Martin. Thank you so much for your close of the very messy Spygate move request. However I'd like to request that you take another look. At the end of your analysis, you say that the top 3 vote-getters were all basically the same title. This is in fact not accurate. If you look at the arguments

3054:

Just enquiring how you saw that discussion as a no consensus? With roughly 8 supports and 4 opposes, and also the weight of a guideline established by recent RFC behind it as well, I would have thought that was a fairly clear consensus to move. Any chance you could reevaluate, or provide some more

2288:

I believe the section isn’t “crufty” mainly because of the REPEATED DEATH THREATS made to showrunners and crew. This behavior was most certainly not “quarantined” as it plagued the latter seasons of the series’ run. Just because the show is not a major movie production doesn’t mean these repeated

139:

Given what has gone on at the re-opened nomination page, my expectation that a resolution and consensus was close has been shown to be overly optimistic. I thought I had moved things forward and that the fire was under control, and I was annoyed at what I saw as your not seeing that and risking a

3024:

Pit stop by FC Barcelona vs Chelsea and Liverpool FC Barcelona and Liverpool Street and Liverpool Street station is major railway stations on my friend is major and minor or ngabantu year and Liverpool Street my war on terror attacks on this device is not send anything from Mthatha is myself from

5790:

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it.

4448:

Please note that repeatedly failing to correctly assess and process account requests and take the correct resulting actions will result in suspension of your access to the ACC tool interface. Processing account creation requests is not a race, and each request should be handled with your upmost

3091:

I've undone my close; you were right to question me about it. I'll keep thinking about it and may reclose, or perhaps someone else will close it. Unfortunately the RfC was not that well attended and produced a rather vague outcome, otherwise it would have trumped all these discussions. — Martin

3001:

There is a "List of abbreviations" box in the upper right that has the same text and, I noticed, did display the underline properly. I suspect you were aiming to add the underline there and it tested ok, but you didn't realize that the same text string would be used in the hover box. Maybe that

1340:

Thanks for your message; you voiced your concerns constructively. I am well aware of my responsibility in posting content to the main page. I always check articles before posting, and while I am unable in the time available to check out every reference I do aim to ensure that the most important

1318:

I want to bring to your attention a concern I have with your recent contributions to ITN. I hope you will understand my criticism comes in good faith. However I do believe that your recent early postings of some RD nominations has been undercutting the mission of this project. ITN has become an

3214:

in place as that case is a little more complicated.) The RMs of 70, 11 and 13 pages have been combined into one 94-article RM (one of the original articles was instead merged and I found a new article that would qualify for a move), on which I pinged all participants in any of the RMs and also

2806:

You have reverted my edit saying per another editor(you didnt give a reason) . In the slavery article I made 2 reverts because the other editor made edits that were against consensus that I thought we had made and now there is a RfC about it. you are obviously trying to get me blocked. BTW the

3424:

many thanks for your kind words. Has it really been 10 years?! I'm not really interested in becoming a bureaucrat for two reasons: I don't think it perfectly matches my skill set, and there is not really much for the crats to do these days, so I don't think any more are needed. But thanks for

968:

Thanks for trying to remove the ugly move discussion banner. That bot is particularly stubborn, and will probably be back again. The easiest thing to do would be to close the move discussion. The discussion has run its course and I was honestly surprised that it was re-listed (and after I'd

106:

Thank you for striking. It is true that calling out inappropriate behaviour is appropriate and necessary at times, and I believe that it is part of the role of all editors, not only the place of admins. My point was that your timing was poor and that your method made your action moving the

3346:

Accusing everyone who agrees with me or of being me is bad faith. The page is left with the vandalism up because of a supposed "consensus" and whenever any use disagrees with it their vote doesn't count. How many people have to point out these edits are harassment before it stops being a

5787:, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Knowledge. 728: 4043:

here. The NFL controversy is also a conspiracy theory, and so it seems to me like this one aught to be distinguished from that one in its title by the use of the word "political". I know it seems like unnecessary disambiguation, but given the fact that there are apparently

740:

reverted it 2 times breaking the 1RR. You have blocked him as a result but his edit still stands there. Worst of all you have locked the article and you are refusing the revert back to the original. Meaning the article is stuck with the rule breaking revert now for 2 weeks.

67:

I see that you have closed the discussion re the new species hook / Trump issue and reopened the nomination. I recognise that this action is within discretion, but I think it was unnecessary given that a consensus was emerging. I am unimpressed, however, with your comment

1004:

had the wisdom to remove both of his personalizing attacks himself, I don't want to escalate to ANI or 3RR, but he seems to need to use talk pages appropriately, and gain consensus before reverting. Particularly with a controversial topic that is on the main page right

1985:, so the immediate issue of disruption seems to be over. There's substantial talk page discussion about the disputed material (and I just added a 16-point policy analysis), so I think the revert-warring won't resume. In the interim, it needs copyedits (e.g. basic 140:

flare-up. Turns out it was me that was not seeing that "under control" was more a temporary lull in the conflagration, and moving hostilities to a different location was desirable for minimising interference at ERRORS. I wanted to acknowledge that. Regards,

1651:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

1206:

I have to admit, in all my years editing, I have never before encountered an admission of edit warring as "you have lost the edit war". The problems at the Presidential crisis article have subsided, but I see the problem at Commons regarding the image is

2745:

You approved this user's unblock request, writing "You've got another chance. But it's not just slavery articles you need to be careful with - last time you were edit warring on Saudi Arabia. Stop after the first or second revert and go to the talk page"

2289:

incidents should not be mentioned. Also, I’m not sure we’ve ever had a situation where we had a fan essentially blackmail an entire studio to have two characters written to be romantically involved with each other. Let’s take this back to the talk page.

2267:, I feel that the section is too crufty to keep at all. It's a situation that while unfortunate, was quarantined enough that it doesn't meet the notability that the harassment of Kelly Marie Tran. There is very little of the section that can be salvaged-- 4467:

Please don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. Thank you for participating in the account creation process, and we're glad to have you as part of the group! Welcome to the ACC tool user team!

4038:

As the dude who wrote the original article and who has watched the whole "what to name it" argument back and forth and sighed the whole time but who has not read over all of the extensive text on that article's talk page, I have to say I agree with

3627:

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are

2968:

I think the simplest solution would be for you to undo that edit. It was a nice idea, but my guess is that almost all users of the watchlist seeing the message will be able to figure out that D stands for data without the underling hint.

107:

discussion with a side order of petrol to throw on the fire. I am hoping the MPJ-DK will choose not to respond. If you were going to step in, the time for it was much earlier in the thread, not when progress was finally being made.

2958:

Obviously the intent is to display the word "Wikidata" with an underlined "d", but the hover box isn't rendering the underline and the text actually displayed would be very confusing to a non-techie. I reported this to Phabricator

4084:

I know, I know. I was afraid to even begin getting involved there because of the morass that it was becoming. I am not always as brave as I should be sometimes. Let me see if it is too late to throw my 2¢ in there even now...

2414:

The choices are: remove the blurb, update the blurb (to what?) or move it to ongoing. As there are numerous options it would be better if this were discussed at WP:ITNC. I made a comment there recently; please add yours. — Martin

5585: 3555:. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh 303:

This is the current wording: "In an ongoing Venezuelan constitutional crisis, Juan Guaidó (pictured) and the National Assembly declare incumbent Nicolás Maduro "illegitimate" and start the process of attempting to remove him."

773:

I don't think I can demonstrate a consensus but there certainly isn't an objection, other than the user who made a rule breaking double revert and is now blocked. Do I need a consensus for you to revert rule breaking edits?

2942: 2947:

In the en Knowledge Watchlist, when hovering the cursor over a "D" symbol on the left of a history item, a small pop-up box appears with an explanation of the symbol. However the explanatory text shown in the box reads:

217:

is useful mainly for protecting ITN images, given the section's lack of a queue or timed update schedule. It's also used when replacing another section's file during or shortly before its appearance on the main page.

3619: 1456:

I'll put it more simplistically. Given the number of items that you have promoted which have to be pulled, I would urge more caution before just simply seeing some kind of consensus. As noted above, posting admins

2835:

We have solved that problem and I am not going to edit in any slavery article again. I have raised a report against the other editor who reverted against the consensus and firstly I reported the other editor here

1655:

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.

464:

level makes it appear as though the question is directed to me. It is a minor thing but can you please check and correct the indent to make it clear that you are addressing Harmanprtjhj in your question. Thanks.

4282:

There was some discussion on the semantic differences between "operate", "control" and "trigger", but without any clear resolution. In any case the wording in the policy is "edits of a specific designated type,

5217:

Hullo, I've noticed that for the Nobel Prize in Economics, the pictures are being switched for Duflot and Banerjee for "variety". Somehow, the third winner is completely overlooked. Can you rectify that? Thaks

2777:

from before their block, and particularly curious in view of their unblock request stating "I am not going to make any edit in there(articles that are related to slavery) at least for the next 6 months". (Also

5776: 5261: 3976:, I think you're supposed to evaluate those arguments and the support for them rather than simply tallying up !votes. And if it's too close a call, then I believe you could propose a runoff between the top 2. 1402:). I am upset about its non promotion and this has indeed demotivated me to nominate ITN RDs. I will steer clear from nominating stuff at ITN/RD if its not already a GA candidate or eligible for a B class. -- 4798:, where one of the voters has a solo project changing article names on a few, random norwegian place names into alledged 'english style' names, without any discussion or cooperation with other editors. Bw -- 2721: 2705: 2694: 2840:

and BTW I tagged MSGJ before making any edit and I said I am going to edit there and two days after I did revert and we have a RfC discussion now. You are assuming bad faith and obviously trying to get me

810:

I don't think it would be fair to block one side of that dispute and not the other. And he is using the talk page. I've protected the article for a week. Hopefully that helps build the discussion — Martin

3308:

Two edits today removing the allegations against established consensus, both by redlinked accounts that have edited no other articles, both with similar writing patterns to their edit summaries (and they

4994: 1268:

It would be unwise to continue the edit war, especially as it might be seen as taking advantage of the situation. However if there is a clear consensus among editors, then it should be okay. — Martin

5655:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 3726:

There's really no need to move that article imho. The reason is that many of the articles have 'of Parthia' is due to having the same name and regnal number as many other kings in the Middle East. --

2070: 4542: 529:

In the Episode list template, if a blank parameter is passed then it's converted to TBA, so we don't want to pass a blank parameter if it's not used. For example, looking at one parameter below:

5576: 4775:; the day you closed the discussion. The majority of the discussions from that day were obvious and based on consensus. There were also 5 discussions with split vote. One discussion with votes 5548: 3648:

means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

5931:

Would you mind reopening and relisting this one? I agree there was no consensus so far, but discussion was ongoing and I even had an outstanding question that wasn't answered yet. Thanks. --

2692: 1292:

Alright, thanks for the response. It's a rather obvious case and comments by other editors underline that, but I wanted to make sure I don't come off as taking advantage of the block. Best,

407: 2485:. Propose each change on the talk page, in its own section, starting with the least controversial. If there are no objections within a day or two, make the change to the article. — Martin 4509: 4495: 4108: 1187:

Since you have lost the edit war you have started by removing the sourced content I placed, you complain to a mod about my past edits. Users like you should be banned for such behaviour.

5195: 5759: 5724: 5097: 3394:. I'm sure you won't have dearth of co-noms either (count me in!). Given that the community has looked favourably to RfBs this past while, I was thinking if you might be interested. -- 5671: 2909:

Hi, there's some changes being done again, would it be ok to request a revert to the mutually agreed paragraph under 'Talk' and enable Protection on the page again? Thanks in advance

1399: 2217:

article is not dominated by any of that stuff. I've gone over additional rationales, in article talk, for why the "fan behavior toward cast and crew" stuff is also non-encyclopedic.

1768: 4287:

more than one person" (my emphasis). It seems clear to me that the bot is acting under the direction of the user that makes the request. There is a discussion on this very point at

2978: 873:

Hey, just swinging by to say thanks for the measured response to a situation that seemed like it was close to getting out of hand. That goes to everyone involved. Cheers, mate(s).

6124: 5641: 2713: 497: 4018:

Yes, there is a substantial difference between those two. Several editors argued that "Spygate (conspiracy theory)" isn't an effective disambiguation because it's confusing with

3841:

Kindly explain where you looked when you found no consensus to move from a title which is mentioned in only one of the sources for the article? Do you go by length of comment? --

5177: 4490: 3658: 4158:

The new user name will be selected as instructed. Please advise if the prior draft article which was in the editing stage restored. Thank you in advance for your assistance.

2466:

Hi. Sadly we have not been able to resolve the issues. May I ask for your contribution on the English Defence League article talk page? I don't want to seek dispute resolution.

1163:

Haha you bring up other stuff about my page stalking me? This is the biggest personal fury I've seen so far. This user is clearly trying to prove himself in a non logical way.

750: 5822: 5530: 5452: 5187: 756:

If you can demonstrate there is consensus for the change then I will gladly look into it. Please post on the article talk page, not here. I'll be over there shortly. — Martin

4957: 4445:), where a bot informs us when new account requests arrive and you can chat with the other members of the team and get real-time input, advice, and assistance with requests. 3637: 3602: 1779:

A subsequent edit by Lowercase sigmabot III has moved that entire thread into an irrelevant collapsed hatnote to the thread above. There seem to be problems on that page. -

1398:

posted 5 ITN RDs successfully, but my last ITN Eckstein went stale in spite of being ready to post simply because newer entries were already promoted. (more discussion here

5540: 3139:

and the TV RM would have been a Support, while the Radio RM would have been an Oppose (same discussion, two totally different decisions). So the decision was made to close

2675: 4378: 3944: 2724:

during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.

1124:

I also noticed that on 26 January, Jim7049 edit warred to insert India under the list of countries supporting Maduro (India is firmly neutral, still, three weeks later):

6133: 4453:

is your goal and your priority; never sacrifice accuracy and compliance of policy in exchange for quantity, or to close a high number of requests that are in the queue.

5805: 5796: 5584:

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate

5476: 5034: 5021: 1803: 918: 5741: 5706: 5613: 4386: 3036: 1254:? Or does the current version (which has been rejected by other editors on the talk page and which violates policy, ref. talk) have to stand while Jimbo is blocked? 5751: 5716: 4159: 4461: 4288: 3210:

I realized that a measure I had taken — splitting the requested move of 96 titles across four pages to make it more manageable — had the opposite effect. (I left

5079: 4939: 4125: 1822: 6159: 5434: 4412: 1362:

If I notice any editors giving support votes without good cause, I will be sure to begin similar discussions on their talk page to point it out to the user.---

374:

Hi. Just want to ask about this article being in ITN RD. I noticed that you didn't post to my talk page recognizing the nomination. Did I do something wrong? --

4949: 3926: 1989:

stuff), but the page is locked down. (I have no connection to the squabble that resulted in the protection, and arrived at the page just now rather randomly.)

432: 4349: 3151:

television) in one place. The close was not made to shut down a discussion, but to move that discussion to a place where it would make more logical sense. -

2733: 3936: 3249: 3241: 2131:

behavior of fans towards the show's cast and crew, which was poor. A number of death threats were made towards the cast and crew. This is worthy of mention.

1855: 1828: 1797: 996:

that you would keep an eye on both of them. Considering what a hot topic it is, we have had almost no aggravated problems (aside from one blocked sock) at

993: 5801:

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

3904:

I gently suggest that the facts may not be as clear cut as you perceive. I have made another comment on that page (probably my last). Best regards — Martin

6096: 5207: 5047: 4593: 3185:

No, I asked to help. You had already closed the discussion, then reopened it, making it difficult for us to combine the two discussions. I just reverted

2910: 2596: 2189:

I'm not much involved in the substance of the dispute, except observationally for a brief period (some policy-related bullet points I added in user talk).

1411: 474: 5570: 684: 3113:

has reverted me and reclosed the discussion. This is not really acceptable as I do not stand by that close anymore. There is a new discussion ongoing at

2120: 1341:

statements are all properly sourced. However isn't this is the duty of everyone commenting on a nomination and no more so of the posting admin? — Martin

5502: 1788: 4216: 2650: 2592: 457: 6025:, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the 5697: 5061:

The reason given is "Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban". Please contact the deleting admin for more details. — Martin

3961: 3873:

I've made a brief comment on the talk page. As well as being correct, you also need to be able to persuade other editors that you are right! — Martin

5771: 5736: 4325: 2140: 1961: 660:

Can you revert your latest headline? I don't see any sources claiming that a terrorist attack in Mali and diplomatic relations of Chad are related.

221:

For ITN, in addition to any upcoming images, we list the current image and at least one previous image (to accounts for possible reversions at ITN).

2964: 5109: 4240: 4167: 4153: 3651:

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

3135:

The new discussion at KCLA is a combination of the two discussions, radio and television. We actually had competing RMs going on due to a goof by

3071: 2837: 737: 2184: 6090: 4969: 3512: 1957: 1405: 828:

Sorry just stopping by after looking at the page and was going to ask. It looks like it is protected indefinitely, is that what you meant to do?

468: 4367: 2604: 3260:- and they have not engaged in a discussion of their behavior. Could you to take another look at this IP's editing? Many thanks for your help, 2290: 2262: 2247: 2192: 2151: 2132: 2030: 4854: 4094: 4076: 4057: 3640:

our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular,

89:

move this discussion forward, and hope you understand that I have not stopped the discussion but moved it to a better venue. Regards — Martin

2048:

Yeah, looks like disruption resumed immediately, before I even noticed the unprot or got around to doing any cleanup I intended over there.

1671: 1229:

I have been monitoring this editor for a while now and finally decided to take action. I hope they can improve their editing style. — Martin

1027: 3356: 3257: 882: 5962: 5355: 1949: 1442: 5907:, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the 5388:, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the 4457: 2687: 420:, which I have not edited, no longer displays sort errors -- which worked earlier in the same day it was moved... Or.. I hae been editing 5874: 1223: 1093: 1068: 1063: 1037: 987: 3040: 5618: 3363:

I see FixerFixerFixer is now blocked indefinitely and the article is protected again. Hopefully his will stop the disruption. — Martin

3341: 3300: 2984:

I have undone that edit. I imagine that it used to display properly, because I'm sure I would have tested it after deploying. — Martin

2875: 2850: 2830: 2816: 1614: 211:, which contains the next TFA, DYK, OTD and TFP files in the queue (along with TFL, if that section will appear on the following day). 5596: 4974: 4464:

revoked). If you have questions about this, or aren't sure about anything in regards to this policy, please ask a tool administrator.

3326: 2064: 1392: 1374: 1353: 1196: 1172: 1150: 1115: 647: 611: 5992: 5399: 5015: 4230: 3711: 3697: 3019: 3011: 2996: 2349: 2255: 1637: 1632: 1616: 729:

You have blocked the user for violating 1RR but now you are refusing the revert his edit and you have locked the article for 2 weeks.

5919: 5073: 3824: 3807: 3788: 3757: 2936: 1301: 1280: 1263: 1073: 1047: 1022: 1017: 1012: 5986: 4933: 4395: 4033: 4013: 3916: 3899: 3885: 3868: 2608: 2600: 2033:

has readded the "Fan Behavior" section twice without consensus and I seek to protect the page until consensus is actually reached--

1241: 957: 720: 698: 445: 344: 6038: 5411:

Do you know what happened with Pp-extended? The parameter "small" no longer works, resulting in all pages having the huge banner:

4147: 3613: 2312: 2298: 2276: 2233: 2201:) and 'shipping fantasies, which are not part of the actual content of the works. 'Shipping is arguably noteworthy in the case of 2023: 154:

I don't know if you've looked back at that page recently ... Never underestimate this website's ability to make drama :) — Martin

5956: 5841: 5446: 5249: 3375: 2779: 1888: 1763: 1648: 1106:, you really make me laugh that you report those edited out words to a mod. Can't you accept that you are in the wrong for once? 868: 854: 837: 823: 421: 246: 203:

To clarify, the bot that performs the Commons protection also includes files currently in use on the main page, so adding one to

4485: 4317: 3679: 3294: 1608: 401: 292: 5055: 4563: 4303: 2863: 2545: 2525: 2497: 1774: 1420: 1133: 1129: 1125: 1057: 1052: 1042: 1032: 4204: 3104: 3086: 2644: 2011:

Thank you for intervention over there. I am not sure that unprotection will work but I will defer to your judgement. — Martin

1919: 1905: 1739: 1547: 1533: 1512: 783: 768: 5343: 5276: 5255: 4840: 4826: 3633: 3442:

No worries, but again, crats don't need to do crat things to be crats! You'd make a good addition but I do get your point. --

3386:

I was wondering if you might consider running for RfB anytime soon. From what I've seen you have a 10+ years solid adminship

3228: 1425:

I'm afraid the talk of article class is a pure red herring. RDs are BLPs. If they are beyond stub and well referenced (and

1369: 1329: 1322:

You are the final guardian at the gate. Forgive the presumption to instruct and thank you for your service to the cause! ---

327: 319: 258: 180: 166: 149: 134: 116: 101: 5323: 5309: 5291: 5169: 5155: 3735: 3269: 2918: 2145:

For contextual purposes this section is the source of the dispute. I've included sources here for clarification purposes...

1569: 6155: 5693: 4807: 4772: 3467: 3459: 3437: 3180: 2858:

Also for the sexual slavery article I really didnt notice that it is about slavery I just noticed now I have been deleting

1867: 1840: 1809: 1708: 1561: 361: 82: 69: 3193:

closure. There is a new discussion, a combined discussion, on the exact same topic, so what are we talking about here? -

2774: 2451: 2427: 2365:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

270: 5227: 4739: 4382: 4186: 3032: 1929: 1482: 997: 523: 59: 5603: 5419:. Do parameters not reach Lua if there is a redirect? Can we move the template back until this module thing is fixed? – 4699: 4224: 2475: 6105: 5755: 5720: 5544: 5454: 5191: 5093: 4953: 4648: 4423: 4327: 3940: 2667: 2377:

MSGJ, I don't normally revert such deletions, but this is an ongoing problem on the main page and needs to be noted at

1700: 1589: 1518: 714: 671: 417: 311: 5938: 5869: 4449:

diligence, care, and attention. Closing each account request correctly, accurately, and within full compliance of the

6116: 4731: 3240: 2756:

instructive - straight back with four reverts, the first three of which repeat reverts done just before their block.

2599:

for disruptive editing (pattern of) back on February 17 and as soon as his block was expired returned to the page to

2576: 2344: 2228: 2115: 2059: 2000: 1758: 4255:. That is exactly how Citation Bot works. Users who trigger the bot are not "bot operators", and are not covered by 4239:

today. I think that the debate on that page has been based on a misunderstanding of the policy. As I just posted at

3850: 2580: 804: 6026: 5908: 5566: 5389: 5020: 4172: 3670:

Hi, Would you be able to unprotect this article? It's been protected for 8 years now and seems unnecessary. Thanks

3663: 2793: 2100: 1953: 1934: 640: 516: 5525: 4873: 3624:

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

3070:

I will take another look. It didn't help that there were three parallel discussions going on. See also my note at

1429:

is fundamental to BLP), they can be promoted. If they contain BLP violations, unverifiable claims etc, they must

624: 5689: 4776: 4691: 4274: 3606: 298: 252: 6132:

Considering Jordan Chandler doesn't have a standalone Wiki page, is it necessary to have it as a category, here

5599:

to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

3282:

Sorry for the delay. I've blocked the IP for a month. I hope this encourages them to start discussing. — Martin

2747: 2603:. He returns as soon as other restore what he did. I'm fairly certain he created a sock account right after, as 383: 5967:

Why did you remove Hong Kong protest and if your not Chinese goverment employee did they pay you to remove it

5489: 5003: 4678:

Thank you for everything. We can, I believe, pull out of this! And I look forwards to welcoming you back. Best

4567: 3332:

And now there's an enormous comment on the talkpage that seems to be skirting awfully close to a legal threat.

2459: 2213: 2005: 1471: 970: 734: 234:

Thank you for the explanation. I half worked this out yesterday but the clarification is appreciated. — Martin

4788: 2897: 2394: 1969: 1334: 935: 6045: 5212: 4912:

You have my best wishes Martin, I'm sure this project benefitted inches and miles from your contributions. --

4707: 4656: 3987: 3719: 2902: 1676: 1494: 488: 5428: 4906: 4722:

Ran out of beer. Here's falafel. Thank you for all the good work you've done for our project. Much respect.

4022:(another Spygate that involved a conspiracy theory). There was some pushback against that argument as well. 3770: 3629: 3488: 2712:. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at 2626: 2042: 1251: 5664: 4480: 3224: 1575: 1555: 208: 5858: 5851: 5848: 5845: 5844:

was completely wrong and disruptive in doing so, and has been trying to do the same thing for many years:

4780: 4390: 4131:

By looking at the history of the two pages. We have a move button which is the proper way to do that. See

982: 228: 5982: 5676: 5129: 4695: 4598: 4555: 4513: 4491: 4210: 4163: 3317:; possible sockpuppetry?). It would be greatly appreciated if you were able to swing by and have a look. 2330: 1944: 1664: 677: 4867: 4784: 1079:

Dubious text with marginal source remains in the article, pending input/consensus from others. Regards,

483: 6151: 5926: 4926: 4795: 4559: 4408: 4177:

The curse of clicking edit on a page when you're viewing an old version! Thanks for sorting it out. —

3742: 3454: 3406: 1467: 1438: 38: 1965: 1297: 1259: 4427: 4090: 4053: 3352: 3064: 2369: 1641: 1433:

be promoted to the main page. It's absolutely nothing to do with GAs or B class or any other scale.

1363: 1323: 878: 3796: 1730:

A election has been hold due to keeping democracy a good place and autocracy gets rid of elections.

5865: 5818: 3955: 3707: 3675: 3664: 3007: 2974: 2738: 1861: 1834: 1565: 1208: 791: 3129: 2211:

is independently notable because of the amount of RS material written about it (but note that the

310:

I couldn't add this to the talk page there as it is locked so apologies if this is inappropriate.

5944:

Sure. You had a full 10 days but no hard in relisting if you think it may be productive — Martin

5140: 5051: 4361: 4132: 3803: 3731: 3411: 2914: 2572: 2555: 2510: 5792: 5784: 2303:

How did the death threats plague the latter seasons? You keep making claims you cannot back up--

2156:

you are edit warring. Please do not add this section until you have consensus on the talk page.

1873: 1846: 1815: 5935: 5827: 5562: 5521: 5136: 5120:

so you can write fwd=all and osd=n to see all of the results. Hope you sorted it out. Cheers --

5011: 4902: 4236: 4110: 4071: 4028: 3982: 3973: 3895: 3846: 3834: 3502: 3201: 3159: 2460: 1659: 1219: 1146: 1089: 931: 708: 665: 315: 5652: 5331: 5272:

supports such protection to this/these template(s) (example: "by request" is insufficient).

4377:

Hi, I happened to see an interesting SPI case while visiting a user talk page. In cases like

4270: 4220: 4121: 3835: 3776:

relate to Mithridates III and which ones to Mithridates IV. Can you help with that? — Martin

3720: 3143:

discussions, notify all who had taken place and restart the entire thing all over again with

2903: 2871: 2846: 2812: 2671: 2341: 2225: 2112: 2056: 1997: 1755: 1463: 1434: 369: 5837: 3793:

Sure; these two articles are related to the actual Mithridates III of our English Knowledge

3576:

Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers.

1293: 1255: 6143: 6137: 6012: 5970: 5894: 5767: 5732: 5663:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 5554: 5507: 5375: 5223: 5203: 5105: 5089: 4757: 4636: 4589: 4262: 4256: 4086: 4062: 4049: 3348: 3337: 3322: 3314: 3028: 2784:

Plainly their unblock request was mendacious and I'd be grateful if you would take action.

2564: 2482: 1939:

Was going to post this at RfPP, then remembered the "ask the protecting admin first" part:

1476: 874: 864: 833: 801: 5443: 5425: 3972:

among them there are very specific arguments for or against one or the other. Pursuant to

389:

No, you have done nothing wrong. If it's important to you, I will do it shortly. — Martin

8: 6147: 5861: 5840:

edition of the article, which has been the most stable throughout the year. The user who

5833: 5814: 5406: 4687: 4571: 4438: 4422:. Before you begin handling any requests, please ensure you have read and understood the 4313: 4244: 3950: 3703: 3671: 3265: 3003: 2970: 2859: 2826: 2789: 2586: 1585: 703:

Yeah, it's there now. No need for an immediate revert; I'll continue to discuss on ITN.

607: 379: 266: 4135:

for more details. But please wait for that discussion to be closed by someone. — Martin

2761:- two reverts, removing material they were also reverting to remove before their block. 5485: 5114: 4965: 4853:

Hello MSGJ, though you did not explicitly request it, your IAdmin flag was removed per

4814:

ought to come to me first and asked me to explain my decision in more detail. — Martin

4749: 4354: 3799: 3764: 3727: 3025:

Mthatha and minor or uqhubeke uqhase be talking with me know if there Situation power

2541: 2471: 2322: 2308: 2272: 2038: 1735: 1696: 978: 442: 429: 3551:

Recently, several Knowledge admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were

2754: 800:

again. I would block him immediately myself, but edited the page yesterday. Thanks,

6034: 5978: 5635: 5610: 5517: 5513: 5396: 5007: 4898: 4579: 4538: 4182: 4081: 4066: 4040: 4023: 3977: 3891: 3842: 3655: 3610: 3195: 3153: 3110: 3060: 2621: 2294: 2251: 2136: 1915: 1884: 1784: 1685: 1543: 1490: 1250:

Just to avoid making any mistakes: Am I free to revert to the last stable version on

1210: 1192: 1168: 1137: 1111: 1099: 1080: 942: 927: 779: 746: 704: 661: 4525: 3168:

You should not be taking such actions, as you are not neutral on the issue — Martin

2764: 2759: 5683: 5648: 5497: 5383: 5357: 5260:

Please adjust the page protection settings on the following pages. As discussed at

5043:

What do we have to improve on it and is there something that is not correct on it?

4889: 4836: 4803: 4727: 4474: 4117: 3552: 3505:

if your Knowledge account password or email password is reused on another website,

3220: 2867: 2842: 2808: 2739: 2729: 2708:, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for 2683: 2663: 2652: 2568: 2378: 2371: 2336: 2240: 2220: 2159: 2107: 2051: 1992: 1750: 963: 896: 461: 277: 176: 145: 112: 78: 4791:

were moved. Compared to this, a vote of 4-2 should be considered decisive enough.

4437:

and following the instructions on the page. I also recommend that you join us on

4434: 1777:- although I did not receive your ping, so suspect you may not have received mine. 5932: 5902: 5876: 5763: 5728: 5558: 5339: 5319: 5287: 5219: 5199: 5165: 5125: 5101: 4628: 4585: 4450: 3966: 3333: 3318: 2382: 860: 829: 629: 505: 225: 5439: 5421: 4524:

While all constructive contributions to Knowledge are appreciated, pages may be

3495:

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

973:

to get rid of the banner). I'm an involved editor so I can't close it myself. –

910: 796:

As per the AN3 report that you closed yesterday, he has started edit-warring on

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

5951: 5660: 5589: 5493: 5304: 5244: 5234: 5150: 5068: 4920: 4857:, should you resume admining one day you can request reactivation of IAdmin at 4848: 4821: 4679: 4309: 4298: 4266: 4199: 4142: 4008: 3911: 3880: 3863: 3819: 3783: 3752: 3692: 3448: 3432: 3400: 3391: 3370: 3310: 3289: 3277: 3261: 3215:

notified the Manual of Style, Radio Stations and Television Stations projects.

3211: 3175: 3124: 3114: 3099: 3081: 2991: 2931: 2892: 2855: 2822: 2801: 2785: 2639: 2520: 2492: 2422: 2179: 2018: 1982: 1900: 1603: 1581: 1528: 1507: 1387: 1380:

rather cause editors to be discouraged and stop participating in ITN. — Martin

1348: 1275: 1236: 952: 849: 818: 763: 693: 618: 603: 451: 396: 375: 356: 339: 287: 276:

Sorry I didn't see this in time. In future you can raise requests like this at

262: 241: 196: 161: 129: 96: 47: 17: 4665: 4607: 460:, It appears to me that you have asked a question from Harmanprtjhj, but your 349:

I have copied your comment to that page and also acted on it. Thanks — Martin

6020: 5994: 5854: 5656: 5481: 5269: 5265: 4961: 4862: 4019: 3741:

Feel free to move it back. I was going for the consistent look. Nice work on

3641: 3556: 3253: 2717: 2709: 2537: 2504: 2467: 2447: 2408: 2390: 2304: 2283: 2268: 2198: 2167: 2034: 1731: 1692: 1313: 1103: 974: 439: 425: 214: 204: 197: 4756:. Counting in the nominator (me), there was a 4-2 vote to move according to 4400: 4289:

Knowledge talk:Bot policy#Clarification on "Bots operated by multiple users"

3499:

Use strong, unique passwords for your Knowledge account and associated email

2781:

is in violation of that promise, albeit not a bad edit in and of itself...)

2172:

can you make efforts to reach a compromise on the talk page please — Martin

6030: 5913: 5416: 5393: 4858: 4178: 3890:

I also replied there. I don't mean to persuade, just to point out facts. --

3620:

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

3056: 3046: 2612: 1986: 1911: 1880: 1780: 1539: 1486: 1188: 1164: 1107: 1001: 775: 742: 6138:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Michael_Jackson_sexual_abuse_allegations

4241:

User talk:Citation bot#The current block is not well-founded on the policy

3794: 2442:

but I doubt it will do any good there as it's no longer top-drawer story.

1485:. I forgot the IN. Can undo the move. Please help! Thank you in advance.-- 5606:. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic. 4832: 4799: 4753: 4723: 4469: 4372: 3381: 3216: 3136: 2725: 2679: 2203: 655: 172: 141: 108: 74: 5667:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

4881: 4578:

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the

1717: 6051: 5974: 5777:

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

5645:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

5335: 5315: 5283: 5161: 5121: 4419: 3506: 2701: 2208: 458:

Talk:Khalistan_Commando_Force#Protected_edit_request_on_13_January_2019

307:

But it doesn't say what it is he's incumbent of. Is he the President?

4433:

Please subscribe yourself to the private ACC mailing list by clicking

2821:

Note that this is an explicit admission that they broke that promise.

5947: 5627: 5300: 5240: 5146: 5064: 5040:

What is the reason about deletion and is it possible to be restored?

4914: 4817: 4294: 4195: 4138: 4004: 3907: 3876: 3859: 3856:

I will check and reply tomorrow as I am just logging off :) — Martin

3815: 3779: 3748: 3688: 3532: 3444: 3428: 3419: 3396: 3366: 3301: 3285: 3171: 3120: 3095: 3077: 2987: 2963:

and they tracked it down to this edit you made on November 7, 2017:

2927: 2888: 2635: 2516: 2488: 2418: 2175: 2014: 1896: 1599: 1524: 1503: 1383: 1344: 1287: 1271: 1232: 948: 845: 814: 759: 689: 392: 352: 335: 283: 237: 157: 125: 92: 6058: 6002: 5884: 5365: 4407:

Thank you for your interest in the account creation process. I have

207:

has no short-term effect. The same is true of files transcluded at

6083: 6068: 3002:

should be documented somewhere. Anyway, thanks for the quick fix.--

2943:

Hovering over a "D" in Watchlist produces text with embedded markup

2443: 2404: 2386: 627:

but I'm curious why this is done? Why not always default to TBA? --

2952:

Edit made at Wiki<span style="text_decoration: underline;": -->

424:, could that be nessing with some environment variables... Or...? 5468: 2769: 2591:

Quick question: Do I need to do a new, separate report regarding

859:

No issue from me, I just wanted to make sure what was happening.

5680:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 4986: 4716: 3587: 2714:

Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/Article feedback tool messages

1596:

No problem. And I have blocked the other IP now anyway — Martin

5670:

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review

5577:

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

4622:

This is for your valuable efforts for reviewing articles under

4341: 1053:

23:31 SG adds different maintenance tag to encourage discussion

1008:

Here's the succession, if you are still keeping an eye on him.

5460: 4831:

Well, then. Can you explain your decision in more detail!? Bw

4333: 3583:

How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)?

5467:

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

5412: 5268:

should not apply for "high risk templates" and nothing under

5135:

Thanks, yes I'm getting there. I left a couple of queries at

4340:

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

3573:

Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable).

3570:

Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites).

2960: 2720:

with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of

1102:

You make me laugh, the source you are calling dubious is the

408:

Could moving a script cause part of it to stop working? Or...

4794:

One should also see this in light of the editing history of

4441:. We'll be able to grant you access to our private channel ( 4215:

Thank you for your help- I really appreciate it.Newton78531(

2862:

sources from many articles per a disscussion we had in here

6134:

1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson

2333:, since these arguments have nothing to do with User:MSGJ. 2207:, because that's the fanbase that originated the term. And 797: 456:

Hi MSGJ, Thanks for your contributions and kind comment on

4771:, I've taken the effort to look at the results from other 1981:: At least one of the edit-warring parties was blocked by 1538:

Yes the "the" makes it sound like Borat speaking hahahah--

1462:

with two supports. If you need any advice, let me know.

5760: