User talk:William Pietri

Hi! If I've said something to you on your talk page, go ahead and reply there. I'm pretty good about checking out items on my watchlist, especially for people that I'm trying to chat with. Similarly, if you post a comment here, I'll reply here unless you request otherwise.

Tigers loose in the museum

Just want to leave a quick note to say how much I appreciated reading the "tiger quote" of yours that's copied here. It's wonderful stuff. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 02:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I came here to leave a very note. I loved reading your essay "beware the tigers" it is beautifully written and carefully thought out.meitme (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Flagged protection

Hi, William. I have little contact with BLPs but I am involved with a number of contentious areas relating to nationalist politics. Flagged protections could change the patterns of edit warring by taking the immediate pressure off to get the "right version" out. Some patterns that can be observed now are:

• IP sock-puppetry, leading to semi-protection
• Edit-warring between established editors (including sock puppetry), leading to full protection

I would be interested to see if flag protection would a) lead to a reduction in IP sock puppetry and b) what effect it would have on the approach of editors to edit warring.

On a), I don't know how it could be measured. If you were to try to measure it, you might measure the number of reverts by registered users against IPs that were not clear cases of vandalism (with the hypothesis being that they would drop). b) is more complex. Right now, locking a page to prevent an edit war simply stops it from being edited. Often this means that even discussion comes to an end because editors just walk away and continue the "fight" elsewhere. Some things you might consider measuring are:

• Do warring editors continue to edit a page after it has been flagged protected (given that their "right version" won't be seen by the majority of readers) or simply walk away and war elsewhere?
• Does flagged protection lead to a healthy editing pattern after protection or do editors simply continue warring? How long do they continue editing for after protections?
• Does flagged protection lead to more or less discussion on pages after protection compared to current protection?
• What frequency of editors (successfully) request that flagged protection be removed compared to normal protection (as this is an indicator that they warring has ended)? How long after the placing of protection compared to the current method? How long does it take to reach a consensus version compared to current system of protection?
• How many edits unrelated to the cause of the page becoming protected take place (i.e. what impact does the current system have for uninvolved editors)?

Some other questions may require focus groups after the period of the trial: Does flagged protection lead to a change in editing pattern altogether - More discussion? Less reverting? Do editor "game the system" either to avoid flagged protection or to cause it?

I hope these suggestions have been useful to you. Best of luck in your effort, --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Quantifying the effectiveness of flagged revisions

If the following is incoherent, I'm up to late. Ask me to explain. Apologies for the delayed response.

I view this trial as a precursor to emulating dewiki and putting flagged edits on everything. As such, during the trial I believe that articles will be flag protected and stay that way - it won't be (generally) temporary, as it is with page protection. I believe that during the trial only a limited number of pages will be flag protected. These are my underlying assumptions, some of which seem at odds with rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid's.

Regarding rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid's comments:

I do my best to steer clear of contenous stuff these days. Early on, though, I did intentionally stake out a few places where edit warring and other unsociable things were common, trying to "defend" Wikipedia from POV pushing.

In sufficiently contentious articles/topics (global warming seems to have had gangs formed with us-vs-them mentalities), you're going to see multiple editors on each side of whatever fence it is that divides them. If one of the warring sides has someone empowered to "mark as patrolled" that will skew the visible version of the article. There ought to be a way of measuring this, although it may require contextual analysis. Perhaps all it requires is a measure of what editors get their edits marked as patrolled by whom within an article (or maybe just across the whole 'pedia, indicating a bias assuming that there's a alignment of interests). Every contributor that got patrolled in one hit would have to be included.

On flagged protection leading to a healthy editing pattern after protection or do editors simply continue warring, I have a guess: because the editors can see the up-to-date version, the edit wars will continue. IPs won't continue, because they can't see their changes, but registered users will.

Many of the things mentioned by rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid for focus groups/editor interviews can actually be measured quantatively. The number of edits against the talk page of the flag-protected articles pre- and post- protection is an indicator of more discussion going on. Edit reverting can also be measured programmatically.

WP:WikiProject Vandalism studies ought to have interesting things to say, but you may need to contact the individual contributors as it seems dead there. I'd be interested in the ratio of IP-good faith edits to IP-vandalism, and the ratio of IP-good faith edits to registered-good faith edits. I'm concerned the IP-good faith edit count will go down. I have a sneaking suspicion that registered-vandalism will go up.

Given so many of these things can me analysed and measured after the fact, it would be helpful if enough data was gathered to make statisically meaningful statements. Vandalism study 1 was interesting, but they discovered after the fact that a sample of 100 articles just wasn't enough to have anything other than a fairly wide range for the vandalism rate they came up with. Assuming a sub-set of pages is marked for flagged protection during the trial, I'd encourage a substantial portion of the articles that would theoretically be begging for it - our most vandalized articles, for example - not receive this protection during the study as a control group. Same applies to BLP articles: explicitly leave some out of the trial. At the same time, include a wide, random selection of articles as flagged protected to measure what the turn-around on edits-to-patrolling is for unattractive ("boring") articles. Get a statistian/trained researcher to advise on this. I'm guessing 2000 general articles need flagging to act as controls, maybe more.

I suspect that vandals that start on a flag protected page will stop around-about there because of the lack of feedback; vandals starting on other pages will continue on to other articles.

Of interest: what happens to the use of Special:Watchlist when this protection is slapped on? My guess is that it may drop a fair bit (this may only happen when every article gets it). Is there an equivalent for unpatrolled changes: articles I care about that haven't been patrolled? Or a bit on the output of watchlist (like minor) showing unpatrolled/patrolled? A drop in watchlist usage could indicate a degree of trust in one's fellow editors.

Did dewiki gather stats, or did any researchers generate stats, on the outcomes resulting from flagged protection? Failing that, was the a broad consensus that flagged protection made the world a better place?

Must sleep now.Josh Parris 13:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Very important point re: if one "side" in contentious issue get "reviewer" status. There would need to be ground rules in who and when can mark a page as "reviewed" in the case of content disputes.

WRT to measuring "many of the things mentioned by rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid for focus groups/editor interviews can actually be measured quantitatively", that is true - but how would you interpret them? The aspects that I mean should be measured qualitatively are issues around the way flagged revisions may be a "game changing" intervention. If quantitative measures of edits go up or of discussion goes down, we can only interpret that this means in terms of the way things are now. RFC/focus groups/qualitative respondents of some kind will be needed to measure the to what degree flagged revisions change the game and and so inform us of what changes in behavior may mean. In good research, qualitative an quantitative go hand-in-hand. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you Wikimedia staff?

I don't see you listed here: wmf:Staff, which is causing confusion about whether you're actually a member of the Wikimedia Foundation staff (or perhaps just a contractor?). Erik is hell-bent on not listing contractors (why? I have NFI), though apparently now Hampton's listed on the "Staff" page to add prominence to his work. Can you clarify, please? (And if you're feeling feisty, jump into this staff index mess and butt some heads about the current idiocy going on over there?) Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 06:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I'm a contractor. I was also puzzled by the caste divisions between staff and not-staff, but as a long-time consultant, I have a non-interference policy when it comes to a lot of company culture issues like that. :-) But yes, I agree that it's confusing for the general public, and I think your desire to change that is entirely reasonable. Thanks, William Pietri (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Upraw

William

While I applaude the work you do on wikipedia, sometimes it's best to get facts straight. Yes I am high annoyed at your 'Blatent copyright infrigement comment on the newly created 'Upraw' Page created but the hobbit_of_doom.

1) I have not copied and pasted a damn thing from the myspace page.. If and I mean IF there is anything resembling it, it is pure co-inscience. 2) Everything I have written towards the page is my own words. 3) I am the drummer of the band that is putting the page up 4) therefore how can you copyright anything that is yourself?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobbit Of Doom (talk • contribs) 09:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia. Sorry the interface is so confusing; it has clearly caused some misunderstandings here. In March 2008, somebody created a page for Upraw, but they copied the text from the band's MySpace page. For legal reasons, we can't have any text copied from elsewhere. When editor Lankiveil noticed that, he marked the page for deletion; I checked his work, saw that it was a copyright violation, and deleted it.

Now jump forward to this year. It looks like you created a page on your band. An entirely different administrator, PMDrive1061, deleted the page. This time, though, it's because it didn't meet our criteria for including bands. For reasons I don't entirely agree with, we have very stiff requirements for getting your band into Wikipedia. Worse, because a zillion people have already tried to put bands they just started 5 minutes ago into Wikipedia, editors are very touchy on this subject.

If you'd like to have an article for your band here, you should make sure you meet those stiff requirements. Further, say that straight away in the article you post. And also include links to independent proof of your claims. E.g., if you've won an award, link to the award site. Or link to press articles that confirm what you say.

I hope that helps! Feel free to drop me a line if you have more questions. Thanks, William Pietri (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Biographies of Living Persons Request for Comments

Hi William, a suggestion involving Flagged Revisions was made at the currently ongoing BLP RfC, section Flagged revisions, comment by Nathan. Could you comment if what is outlined there would be feasible, and if so, what timeframe would be required? Thanks for your time. --JN466 21:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi! The current proposal, which we are making good progress on, allows administrators to decide which pages get FlaggedRevs applied; it's basically treated as another kind of protection. Which pages get protected that way during the 60-day trial is up to the community. I'm sure it will get tried out on some BLPs. If you'd like to request features beyond what you'll find in the proposal, I'd suggest putting together a separate page with a clear explanation of what you'd want to add. Estimates take time away from developing, so unless there's a strong community consensus to delay development work in favor of estimating your proposal, we'd probably have to wait until after the trial starts to give you useful numbers. Thanks, William Pietri (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

glad to here of the good progress, william :-) (and thanks for your efforts in this regard) - I don't know if it's possible, but could you put just a wee bit more meat on the bone in terms of your progress - are you maybe about half way through some stuff, so we should expect to wait perhaps 3 months or so, or is that way too long, or too short? A gentle update would be hugely appreciated :-) best, Privatemusings (talk) 10:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, PM! Most of the work we know we want has been coded, but we can't see it yet. You can see that on our Tracker page. There are operations issues with getting it deployed, and I currently don't know how long that will take to fix. Once we get it up, people will discover other things they want before public release, and I also can't say how long that will take. So I honestly don't know yet, and don't have enough data that I can make a reasonable prediction. Keep an eye on Tracker, though, and you'll know what I know. Thanks, William Pietri (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Maverick Concerts page

Dear William Pietri,

In the past I tried to create a page about Maverick Concerts in Woodstock NY. I work for Maverick Concerts, and the Board of Directors (chair Susan Rizwani (susanrizwani@nj.rr.com) has given me permission to, and in fact very much wants me to write a Maverick page for Wikipedia.

Yes, I used material from maverickconcerts.org because that is the material the board wishes to have on the Wikipedia Maverick page.

How can we get this to happen?

Thank you, Renee SamuelsHerveywhite (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC) for Maverick Concerts samuelsrenee@gmail.com newsatmaverick@aol.com

Hi, Renee. There are four issues here.

• The first is copyright violation. The copyright holder, which I presume to be Maverick Concerts, Inc, needs to donate the copyrighted materials as described in Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Mere permission to use on Wikipedia isn't enough, as all Wikipedia content must be reusable by anybody on the planet who is willing to comply with our terms of use.
• The second is your conflict of interest in creating this article; our goal is serving readers, not potential subjects. So often it's best to wait until someone with no connection to your organization thinks an article is necessary. However, if you are still eager to try to craft a useful, neutral article with no hint of marketing language or self-serving content, see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
• The third is notability. A lot more people want to have articles about themselves in Wikipedia than our community currently thinks useful or manageable. Our tool for separating them is Wikipedia:Notability. You should only re-create the article if you can demonstrate that Maverick Concerts falls above the notability bar.
• The fourth is proving your claims. Regular encyclopedias rely on selecting contributors who are experts, either about the subject or on writing about subjects they aren't themselves expert in. Since anybody can edit Wikipedia, we instead try to only have content that can be verified in reliable sources. Make sure you cite sources for any claim you include.

I hope that helps. Feel free to email or leave me a note here if you end up with more questions. Thanks, William Pietri (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Flagged Revisions

I am interested in deploying flagged revisions on a non-Wikimedia wiki as a means to allow anons to "edit" but not have their changes be visible to the casual visitor until they are approved by a small group of established editors. As I understand it, such a configuration is within the scope of the extension as it was installed on DE Wikipedia. Is that correct? Secondarily, since you are still doing development work on this, is there a good reason to wait to deploy it until later, or are the upcoming features basically irrelevant to the configuration I am interested in?

Thanks. Dragons flight (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Glad to help.

As to using the current version on another wiki, my understanding matches yours, but I haven't actually tried it on a non-test wiki myself. I don't think there's any huge reason to wait to deploy; the main upcoming changes are to allow it to be enabled on a per-page basis (as another sort of protection, basically) and a number of usability improvements. The usability improvements are surely relevant, but I think they matter a lot more at the scale of the English Wikipedia than they would on a site with a more focused audience.

Let me know if you need more detail. William Pietri (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

So I sat down to try this. However, right off, I hit a snag trying to follow the directions at mw:Extension:FlaggedRevs. There is no /maintenance/populateSha1.php in MW 1.15. Are the setup instructions obsolete / wrong? Dragons flight (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello. There will be "a number of usability improvements" before deployment, as you said. Can you give me any details about that? To be frank, I believe that the Flagged Revisions would do more harm than good because of its poor usability and interaction design. It would be one more strange thing that only power users understand to be added to Wikipedia. I love the concept of Flagged Revisions however, and I wish the Usability Initiative could work with you guys. Did you talk with the usability team about it?

I'd like to know what are the usability issues you noticed, and how you will fix them. I know the basics about usability, so I may be able to give a hand. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for asking. We have indeed been working with the Usability Initiative through Howie Fung. From an interaction design perspective, the current version is pretty close to what will launch unless big issues are brought to our attention. Try it out, and give any feedback you have there. We intend to keep revising this based on community feedback even after launch, so comments big and small are welcome. Thanks, William Pietri (talk) 00:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I reported a bug on flaggedrevs's labs.

The UI improved greatly, weel done. I believe the UI is ready now. I hope the FlaggedRevs will be implemented soon. :-) Keep up the good work! Dodoïste (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I saw the flagged revisions as default on DE Wiki. Vandalism wants attention, so the edit volume will go down after implemented, at least I expect it. I do not understand that it is not implemented yet on EN Wiki as on DE Wiki. Vandals are inverting the meaning of sentences, the encyclopedia is worthless so. You can have the impression that it is organized to get the encyclopedia meaningless. Get this thing live soon, please. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

We are definitely working as fast as we can to get this up. We're pretty close now, as you can see at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Flagged_protection:_update_for_April_22. Thanks, William Pietri (talk) 05:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

What's happening behind the scenes?

Can you explain this comment? It seems to me that a lot of FlaggedRevs-related discussion isn't happening out in the open. RobLa has stepped in and is creating his own configuration for the English Wikipedia, apparently with the help of other Wikimedia staff. Is this the case? If so, why? --MZMcBride (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no intent to do anything against community will, and we are trying hard to be transparent. Having spent a lot of time working on this, and being professionals with a lot of experience, we do have some opinions on the best way to do things, and are sharing them. I know you think we are all conspiring darkly to some malignant purpose, and given that our best efforts in the past to persuade you otherwise haven't done much good, I'm not expecting to succeed here either. But as far as I can see, everybody involved is a competent pro trying to do a good job on something they care about. William Pietri (talk) 05:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Your Wisdom has been Noted

I just wanted to let you know that one of your comments has been included (and attributed to you) as part of my Nuggets of Wiki Wisdom . Thanks, and if you object then let me know :o)   Redthoreau -- (talk) 07:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! That's very kind. If I had any idea how far that comment would have gone, I would have edited it a little more before posting! -- William Pietri (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear William Pietri,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.9.115.210 (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Drunkard's search for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Drunkard's search 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/Drunkard's search 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 good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Brad7777 (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I have commented on the more recent merger proposal, at Talk:Streetlight effect. Peter Chastain (talk) 12:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:ChoreBot-icon.gif or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

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)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, William Pietri. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

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

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi William Pietri.

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) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, William Pietri. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, William Pietri. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

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.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, William Pietri. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, William Pietri. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. 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 Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

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

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

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

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

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

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. 20:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

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)

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

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 08:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

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 00:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

		Job Done
		Awarded to William Pietri for good services as an admin, and for resigning the tools in a noble manner. SilkTork (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Euchre variations for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Euchre variations, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euchre variations (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)