This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:GraemeL

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


This is GraemeL's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to him.

  • I will reply here unless you ask me to reply somewhere else.
  • If I posted something (other than a warning) to your talk page, I probably added it to my watch list. I would prefer replies in the same page as the original post. However, feel free to reply here if you want.
  • If I missed an update on your talk page, please poke me with {{Talkback|your username}} on this page.

I am: OUT

Right arrow.svg Please click here to start a new topic. Left arrow.svg

Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18

The Signpost
15 July 2017

Genese Davis Wiki Page[edit]


I'm contacting you to ask if we may recreate Genese Davis' wiki page. It appears it was originally created prematurely but as seen in the news over the past 6 months she's released a new novel and making waves in the video game and writing industry. She's appeared in Publishers Weekly, Jace Hall, and Getty images has begun following her appearances. She's on her national book tour and in the works to publisher her novel in Germany. Below are many links referring to her contributions thus far. Thank you for your consideration.

Ericd83 (talk) 08:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Ericd83

Credit bureau page update[edit]

Hi! Was there any problem with my update of the Credit bureau page? Thanks for your reply. Martin maxa

I didn't a problem with your edit itself, it was just that reviewing your change made me see a deterioration of the section over time with red links and external links. The section is for major credit reporting agencies which should all have their own articles. --GraemeL (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I see. I was doing some research about credit reporting agencies and saw that Creditinfo is in much more countries than reported. And, of course, Creditinfo does not have its own article. So maybe if I create Creditinfo article (it is the direct competition of Experian, Equifax and TrnsUnion) we can add the countries where Creditinfo is? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin maxa (talkcontribs) 14:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Yup, once the article is there, adding it to the list for countries it operates in is fine. --GraemeL (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

My reverted changes[edit]

Hi Graeme,

Sorry I didn't put why I deleted the content. The information was removed because it was misleading and incorrect. ACT Alberta deals with ALL forms of human trafficking, and the information on the page makes it look like it deals primarily with sexual exploitation. Further, ACT absolutely does NOT see johns as the main problem behind human trafficking. ACT Alberta also does not use the term sexual slaves. Lara Quarterman also no longer works for ACT Alberta - that is quite out of date.

Further, the information I added is correct information regarding what ACT Alberta stands for, it's mission, etc. as found on its website.

Can you please reinstate my changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACTAB (talkcontribs)

I reverted them purely because you removed a large section of text without leaving an edit summary explaining why the text had been removed, so it looked indistinguishable from vandalism. Feel free to make the change again yourself, but this time include a description of why you're removing the text in question. --GraemeL (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Answering your Alert / Warning[edit]

Dear Mr Graemel,

I receive your alert and take it seriously, the "External Link" I provide was :

- Covering the topics - Non commercial (no advertising, adsense, etc... on our Blog) - Pure exclusive quality content made by reputable journalist


If these are not relevant, then I will stop doing it.

But I assume you receive lot of Spam from commercial product and probably remove them right away without even check. That's why I take the time to answer your warning.

I will wait for your answer.

Best Regards, Romain Brabant - DreamChrono Ltd — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romain at DreamChrono (talkcontribs) 12:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Your username shows that you are connected with the site that you're trying to link to and your only actions so far have been adding external links to that site. Whether the site is commercial or not is irrelevant. If you have expertise in the area of time pieces, please consider adding content to the articles instead of external links.
Thanks. --GraemeL (talk) 12:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Responding to an antisemitic comment with a refutation is a violation of arbitration[edit]

Did you even check the thread out? It is antisemitic to call Israel apartheid (indeed, this is actually a legal claim (since apartheid is defined in codified international law) under international law, so it also amounts to a libel), by the EU working definition of anti-semitism, and to any fair-minded person who simply looks at the facts. It's not fair to punish me for responding to a bigot. (My point was that surely if so many europeans believe that israel is a genocidal apartheid state, then it's clear why they might think it's the greatest threat to world peace, but both of these propositions are self-evidently absurd by simply opening one's eyes. So for him to push a ridiculous libel like that, I found the need to respond with evidence. (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I did read the thread and I have zero interest in you throwing around legal terms. If you continue to post to talk pages in a manner that is considered uncivil by community standards I will block you without further warning. Moderate your tone or be blocked, the choice is entirely yours. --GraemeL (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
The IP has apparently made their choice. See [1] and pretty much all of their recent comments. They are starting fires all over the place. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Affiliate reference[edit]

Good call. I removed a similar link from the infobox, but didn't really recognise the significance of why they were putting it in there in the first place. Your edit summary made things much clearer. AJCham 00:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I had passed over the anon's change earlier on my watchlist without comment, but seeing your edit summary mentioning dubious links made me go back and take another look. Call it teamwork. --GraemeL (talk) 10:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Blocked proxies[edit]

I noticed you blocked as an open proxy, but you made it anon only. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think even registered users should be editing through proxies for sockpuppeteering reasons. Is there any specific reason you anonblock open proxies? Ginsuloft (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Force of habit making anon blocks soft. I've changed it to a hard block. Thanks for pointing it out. --GraemeL (talk) 13:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yacht charter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tipping (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I for one welcome our robotic overlords. (Fixed the link) --GraemeL (talk) 12:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


When you salted KURUDAMANNIL, you set it to the wrong protection level. Can you adjust it to sysop? Thanks, Jackmcbarn (talk) 13:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done. It's now protected from rogue template editors. --GraemeL (talk) 14:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Al Lemos[edit]

I'm open to discussions, Al Lemos aren't, he just reverts me, don't read nothing that I've putted in the articles, ignore my sources and, bam, full revert. Where I can ask for an adiministrator to block him, if he continues with this type of thing, before 3 days? This user just wants to block me, and I don't want to do any edition war. Rauzaruku (talk) 14:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The edit warring noticeboard is the place to report edit warring. Please make sure you attempt to use the article talk pages to attempt to engage the other user in dialogue before taking your issues there. Post to the talk page why you think his/her edits are wrong and what you want to see in the article and the do your revert and add something like "Reverted changes by <user>, please see the talk page" to your edit summary. I know you both had a little bit of back and forth on your own user talk pages, but the correct place for attempting to resolve these problems is on the talk page of the article where the dispute is taking place.
You might also want to look at dispute resolution for some less disruptive ways to resolve edit warring. --GraemeL (talk) 14:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I put notices in the three discussion pages of the articles to which he is reverting me. See if it is not good. I never tryed to stop him from change my editions, since he justify anything. But he doesn't justify anything, just makes total reversal and scold me. Rauzaruku (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
That makes a good start. Now we wait and see if he's interested in talking or just going about blind reverting. Reaching out on the talk pages gives you a better position if he just comes back and reverts without talking. --GraemeL (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Discuss the content of a disputed article on the talk page of the same should be the first step. What we have seen here, however, has been an editor (Rauzaruku) trying to impose his biased point of view by force, without warning. A treacherous and cowardly attack. The name for this type of action is "disruptive editing." And what you, the administrator, proposes? That both sides go to discuss on the talk page. OK. I will do so, provided that: a) the offender makes a formal apology for his actions; b) the articles Partido da Imprensa Golpista, Instituto Millenium and Rodrigo Constantino be reversed to the latest valid edition before the bullie's intervention; c) that the offender be warned that he will be punished if he persists in his destabilizing behaviour (cyberstalking and cyberbullying). I don't believe that he will accept any of my three propositions, so here comes a warning: I will continue to create articles about topics that I consider relevant to the people of my country. I will not lower my head for a rented bullie. As for Wikipedia, if you allow that a user continue such destabilizing behaviour, you will be endorsing a "official" world view, where inconvenient truths can not be told - even if they have reliable sources. So, what to do to resolve this stalemate? My suggestion is to assign someone not involved in the discussion, who knows the subject matter and who is neutral, to decide on the validity of the versions presented by both sides. I know that it is not easy, but I believe that with good will, this can be achieved. - Al Lemos (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I've warned you both about edit warring and was technically allowed to block you both for breaking the 3RR already. I chose to try and get you both talking instead of taking that action.
Administrators always protect the wrong version in order to annoy all of the involved editors. Seriously though, I protected the version that was current at the time of my actions, reverting the article would have prevented me from protecting it as I would have then been involved in the dispute.
You have both been warned about disruptive editing. If there are two opposing views that both have reliable sources, the article has space for covering both of those views. If only one view has reliable sources, then that is the only one that should be in the article.
If you are not able to resolve your dispute on the talk pages of the articles, you might try one of several options available at the dispute resolution page. --GraemeL (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Al Lemos is confusing things. I'm open to discussion, not to submission. It makes no sense I apologize for something that is my right, edit articles. Don't have any sense I revert all the editing I did, because I added valid sources and issues related to articles he should have put, information that he knows, but he not putted because personally did not matter to him putting. I've complemented the article and he sees this as wrong , and he still asks me to remove my text, because he wants to hide relevant information. He thinks every point of view contrary to him is biased. Wikipedia articles must cite facts, and not , add pieces of information to create a false conclusion / unreal / invented / unproven things ; should not create articles with only a little information to justify a huge section of controversy , to try to defame the subject of the article. Unfortunately Al Lemos do not know for that Wikipedia serves, and purposely ignores the rules . It will be very difficult to me, and to other users, edit those articles, while he imposing absurd things like these. He acts like the Wiki Emperor, and in his mind I should kneel and kiss his feet. Rauzaruku (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
It's quite obvious that he will continue to create articles because his intention here is more than clear, after all he has said: create pages that are apparently within the rules, but always with undue weight, saying little to the article themselves, and trying to always put the largest possible section of controversy on the subject. Anyone who knows the issues that he edits, will know that he is not putting even half of what exists on the subject, and purposely hiding much relevant information. In short, Al Lemos only creates items with addiction intention. I know I sound like an annoying talking so much, but the reality is this: it would be better for Wikipedia that Al Lemos was blocked, then a real neutral editor could create these articles, certainly much better than his current... since Al Lemos is far from neutral. Rauzaruku (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, reverting to his version isn't going to happen at least until the protection expires, or some consensus is arrived at that will enable a protected edit to get the article into an agreed upon state. I am starting to get the feeling that he has a problem with owning articles. Again, I would suggest that you take the problem to WP:DR as the options there are usually looked at by editors with extensive of experience in sorting out problems of this sort. --GraemeL (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Sure. I'm open to discussions (healthy, not mad) and I want the articles have only reliable text. I'll wait to see what Al Lemos will do, first. I'm not here to fight, I want to create swimming articles. Rauzaruku (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I want to tell you something very serious: Al Lemos fled to Portuguese Wikipedia, began to create the same partial articles he created here (after ten months without editing NOTHING at Pt-Wiki), and he still calling an administrator of Wiki PT to chase me, look this: And in his words, I'm doing cyberbullying and harassment... He is so angry with me, that is trying to block me anyway, by cross-wiki harassment. He is mocking your request to talk on the talk page of the articles, and trying to prove a point of view. I pray earnestly that user need to be blocked in all Wikipedias by cross-wiki vandalism. This is totally unacceptable. Rauzaruku (talk) 01:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

copyrights violation[edit]

hi GraemeL, I understand that you rejected the article based upon its similarity to other article on net, please let me help me understand if i repost the same info but under my own words then will it be published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Testarosagpr (talkcontribs) 11:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

If you had used your own words, the article as it stood still wouldn't have met the Wikipedia standards for the notability for companies. If you feel that the company meets those guidelines, please include references to back up the claims. Doing so makes it more likely that your article will be accepted by the article for creation reviewers. --GraemeL (talk) 11:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to US Error Coins may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • unsourced|date=October 2013}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks, BracketBot!

About Eivissa/Ibiza[edit]

Ibiza is the name for the island in Spanish, and Eivissa is the name for the island in Catalan. The people of the island (before the huge Spanish immigration) speak Catalan, so Eivissa is the name for the language.

I think a Catalan understands better than you that problem. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polete 98 (talkcontribs) 19:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Ibiza is the article name and the name used in English, per WP:ENGLISH it should be used in the article with mention made of the local versions of the name. That was the format that the article was in before you decided to change it to Catalan. --GraemeL (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Local? Catalan language is a spoken by 7 milion people and 13 milion understand it. Why do you take the name for the island in Spanish (a foreign language in Eivissa) and not the local name? Would you like that, for example, England, in stead of called like that was called Angleterre? --Polete 98 talk) 20:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I've no idea why the original decision was made to use the Spanish name and not the Catalan name and the answer is probably lost in the mists of time. I'm actually from Scotland, which is Skotlando on the Spanish wikipedia and Escòcia in Catalan. If you look at those articles, you'll see the same format. They use their common name most of the time and only mention that it's Scotland in English. --GraemeL (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Social Network Analysis[edit]

I understand. We're both busy and we're both pros. This IS my field, and I'm puzzled by your rollbacks. I await your reasoning. PS: Might be better to have the convo on the Social Network Analysis talk page. Bellagio99 (talk) 23:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ecotourism in the United States, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Haw and Bluestem (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Al Lemos unreliable contributions[edit]

Notice what a partial user can do, how much he wants to force a point of view. Al Lemos puts as a source in the article Maílson da Nóbrega, a magazine completely unknown in Brazil, called "Brasileiros magazine", so I made a request in the Guild of Copy Editors to review the article, criticizing this source. Al Lemos is nuzzling my edits, and to justify the placement of this preposterous source, a magazine totally unknown to the 200 million Brazilians who have tiny drawing of 20,000 copies (here, neighborhood newspaper circulation has more than that), he goes and creates an article on the magazine, Brasileiros (magazine), thinking that it makes reliable source. Immediately, someone putted a notability tag. I've asked before to block Al Lemos, and I'm asking again. This user only tries to circumvent the rules and edit furtively enjoying that nobody is paying attention to him. Rauzaruku (talk) 12:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Now, Wikipedia has assigned a personal censor to me? This turned to be a kind of Stasi? - Al Lemos (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I would like to see you using that excuse for when an administrator starts to analyze the actions of a member to banish him. Rauzaruku (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey GraemeL. An edit I suggested was removed and I would like more information.[edit]

Hello GraemeL

You removed an edit I had made and I would like some more feedback.

You said that my site probably wasn't fit for an encyclopedia. Please let me know why, and how I can be a site fit for an encyclopedia. We have a huge survival training section of our site currently in development where we, industry experts, and survival businessmen will all be making post, writing articles, and answering questions. Is this fit for WikiPedia?

Please get back with me and let me know - I prefer to be reached by email as I am constantly in my email — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Since GraemeL hasn't replied: Adding external links to companies selling related products is usually not a useful way to contribute to Wikipedia. See WP:SPAM. -- intgr [talk] 20:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

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)

A Call to Action[edit]

Hello, I have picked you pretty much at random but I liked your style too. I belong to a UK progressive Catholic organization called A Call to Action, and I suggested to them that there ought to be a Wikipedia article on it. I wrote it (very short) in consultation at first with them but soon realized it was not very objective and rewrote. First the first it attracted a great deal of adverse comment and suggestions of deletion from right-wing Catholics. The administrator Mogdewani (sorry will find proper name ) welcomed me but -- to be frank-- soon revealed himself to be an ally of the opponents (sounds paranoid, but eg he praised the Latin Mass Society). I know there is no point in accusations of bias but I did copy out and save some of his comments, and they do reveal bias) Mog began by saying lack of notability, then said not neutral, then said conflict of interest --although I am neither an employee nor an agent of the organization). The majority were for deletion, although there were also strong opposing voices. With no notice to me it was then deleted -- I can't even find the date. I am I admit a real novice on here and not even good at the formatting, but I had a bit of help. I have now found that it was deleted by Slakr -- I can find no comments by him and ho deletion summary. Any suggestions welcome and sorry if I am troubling you. Tomcapa1 (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Scottish Fairground Culture Editathon[edit]

Hey there! As a Wikipedian in Scotland I thought you might be interested in the Scottish Fairground Culture editathon taking place on 7 May at the Riverside Museum - drop me a line if you'd like to know more! Lirazelf (talk) 10:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear, linkfail! Here's the correct one... Scottish Fairground Culture Editathon Lirazelf (talk) 10:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Bonnie Burton[edit]

I'm not sure if I'm doing this correctly, but I got some sort of block/warning just for adding a book to my author page on Wikipedia. I wasn't spamming or using this as a resume. Other authors have their books listed, so I just wanted to add my own book. Now that I know I cannot alter my own Wiki page, I will no longer do so. Sorry for the misunderstanding. ;-)

- Bonnie Burton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonniegrrl (talkcontribs) 08:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svg Hello, GraemeL. 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. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins[edit]


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)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers[edit]

Hi GraemeL.

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

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

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, GraemeL. 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)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017[edit]

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.

Admin mop.PNG Administrator changes

Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirateSchwede66K6kaEaldgythFerretCyberpower678Mz7PrimefacDodger67
Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg BriangottsJeremyABU Rob13

Green check.svg Guideline and policy news

Octicons-tools.svg 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.

Scale of justice 2.svg Arbitration

Nuvola apps knewsticker.png Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)