User talk:Enigmaman/Archives/2015

Our star novac

Hello enigmaman, thanks for giving us light about our star novac wanted to know wether editing pages can be done as ajob. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.164.75 (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaaa

Hi. I am contacting you because you were the administrator who salted the page Aaaaa way back in October 2009. A request has been made at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects to create a redirect at that title to AaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA!!! – A Reckless Disregard for Gravity. I think the request should be accepted, because the target article does state that it is often shortened to just "Aaaaa!", so "Aaaaa" would be a likely search term for the subject. Do you think you could unsalt the page so the redirect can be created? Optionally, when the redirect is created, it can be fully protected to prevent it from being modified. Regards, Mz7 (talk) 04:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yisroel Belsky

Please see the discussion on the Talk page. The WP:RS about him focus on the sex abuse scandal. It seems that this is what he was known for at least to a broad audience much more than his career about which other than being quoted in the NY Times a few times there seems to be little WP:RS--Jersey92 (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can the article Brown be unprotected?

Hi there Enigmaman. According to the logs [1], you protected Brown all the way back in 2009. I haven't looked for the specific incident that caused protection to be applied, but given the "brown people" content that is part of the article, I'll bet that I can make an accurate guess. While vandalism of that type is a real concern that I don't care to minimize, seven years is a long time for an article to be protected without review. I have a particular edit that I would like to make, but it seemed better to me to ask about unprotection rather than just make an edit request. Any chance you can consider it? Regardless of your answer, thanks for taking the time to read this. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but if it starts up again, I'll have to reprotect or do pending changes. If you want to know why it was protected, look at the history dating back to 2008 and 2009. Enigma^msg 20:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. Thank you for responding almost immediately, as well. I'll make my edit and see if there's anything else I can improve in the article. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Enigmaman. 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. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Vektroid

Hi Enigmaman--please reconsider page protection. The unsourced transgender claims have been added persistently at least since early this year. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added pending changes. Enigma^msg 01:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Terrific. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EC- or semi-protection?

I don't know why Amy Schumer is EC-protected indef instead of semi-prot. indef. Also, what about Billy Bush? --George Ho (talk) 07:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Murray protection no longer needed

Hi, if you have the chance, could you unprotect this article? The reason for protection has disappeared (the new official tennis ranking has been published). Thanks, Gap9551 (talk) 01:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the times, you'll see it was already unprotected. "(cur | prev) 18:31, November 6, 2016‎ Enigmaman (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (238,464 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Changed protection level of Andy Murray: ranking will be official shortly, so shortening full protection ([Edit=Require administrator access] (expires 01:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)))) (undo) [automatically accepted]" It was set to expire 21:31. 3 hour protection. Enigma^msg 04:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the 01:31 expiration time, but the protection was still active well after this time, including when I posted here. There was no edit button, only 'View source', and the gold lock icon still appeared on the top of the article. Gap9551 (talk) 13:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Must be an error on your end. It was set for three hours and people started editing the article shortly after that. (cur | prev) 23:03, November 6, 2016‎ J. M. (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (238,425 bytes) (-39)‎ . . (Ranking update)18:31, November 6, 2016‎ Enigmaman (talk | contribs | block)‎ (238,464 bytes) (0)‎ (Changed protection level of Andy Murray: ranking will be official shortly, so shortening full protection ([Edit=Require administrator access] (expires 01:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)))) Enigma^msg 14:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing I could do. Wikipedia considered the page not fully protected anymore, so my changing the protection wouldn't have helped you. Enigma^msg 14:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I understand. But as I said, there was not 'Edit' button on the page even after refreshing the page, so I'm not sure what my error could have been. Gap9551 (talk) 14:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This bot removed the protection template two hours after it expired, maybe that has something to do with the edit button showing up, although two other non-admin editors made edits before this. If the problem happens again I'll look into it more. Thanks again. Gap9551 (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New deal for page patrollers

Hi Enigmaman/Archives,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Enigmaman/Archives.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Enigmaman. 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Geezpeetz meatball

Hello Enigmaman,

It appears as though you have set the block duration for this account as 3 years. Generally, (at least when I often report vandal-only accounts) they are blocked indefinitely (with no set block duration). Did you mean to have a fixed duration of 3 years, or was it supposed to be indefinite? Regards. 73.96.113.105 (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Three years looks good to me. Ends up being the equivalent of an indef block. Enigma^msg 20:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]