User talk:Saxifrage

 Please start new message threads at the bottom of the page. Thank you! ([ Leave a new message ])

Wikipedia:SOFIXIT listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect SOFIXIT. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:SOFIXIT redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Brustopher (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (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.

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 However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less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)

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
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg 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.
 * 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

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:SOFIXIT listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect SOFIXIT. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:SOFIXIT redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Primefac (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Nocturne (PS2 game) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Nocturne (PS2 game). Since you had some involvement with the Nocturne (PS2 game) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

MoS:MUSIC listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect MoS:MUSIC. Since you had some involvement with the MoS:MUSIC redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 18:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Fakenes listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fakenes. Since you had some involvement with the Fakenes redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 01:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

FakeNes listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect FakeNes. Since you had some involvement with the FakeNes redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 01:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular
   

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:24, 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)

Can you please explain your rationale?
You have got to be kidding me. IBAN on me and not the other two?!

Let's rehash the !votes and discount the subject's opinions (Support/oppose/neutral):
 * IBAN on me: (4/0/0) GoldenRing, Swarm, GMG, MI*
 * IBAN on IG: (4/0/0) GoldenRing, Swarm, GMG, MI
 * IBAN on CV: (4/0/0) GoldenRing, Swarm, GMG, MI

Let's rehash the !votes with the subject's opinions:
 * IBAN on me: (5/1/0) GoldenRing, Swarm, GMG, MI, CV/Buffs
 * IBAN on IG: (5/1/0) GoldenRing, Swarm, GMG, Buffs, MI/CV
 * IBAN on CV: (5/1/0) GoldenRing, Swarm, GMG, Buffs, MI/CV

* MI, inexplicably, wrote "Support per Buffs", so I'm assuming that's on everyone. I asked for clarification. He declined, so I'm guessing he's a supporter across the board but he could have meant he supported me.

Note: IG appears not to have clearly specified an opinion on the subject per se.

Lastly, your conclusion states I'm guilty of inappropriate, significant hostility, and incivility. WHERE?!?!

You've effectively given these others carte blanche to revert any/all changes of mine and I have no recourse. Buffs (talk) 03:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello. I’ve been expecting you, although as you’ll see I should not have. Welcome, briefly, to my talk page.


 * I understand that you might not approve of the outcome, and that you might be frustrated right now. Quickly, and in the heat of the moment, is not the best time to do… well, anything at Wikipedia. Note that my job as volunteer closer was not to inject my own opinion, only to summarise the existing consensus. It’s a fiddly clerking task. I’m fairly wonkish, so I care more about things running well than about the personalities or opinions involved. Getting up in my face about the execution of this task is not how to proceed.


 * To answer your “where” question expediently, you’ve demonstrating inappropriate hostility here already. (See below for why here is inappropriate. See WP:CIVIL [and WP:AGF] for why the content is.) If you don’t yet recognise that, then you might consider taking time for some reflection on how you post here. Apart from self-reflection, I must advise you that I’m an admin who doesn’t take personalised guff, so you probably don’t want to pursue the strategy on display in that discussion further with me directly, especially if skipping the self-reflection. See below, however, for avenues of pursuit.


 * The correct place to contest a discussion close is not on the talk page of the closer. See WP:CLOSECHALLENGE for the correct procedure.


 * Also be aware that policy is that consensus is not about votes. That’s why Wikipedia tasks uninvolved closers to evaluate consensus instead of simply counting votes, which any bot could do. As you are a strong advocate of following policy, I’m sure you’ll understand that simply counting votes would have been a dereliction of my duty.


 * I expect this completes our interaction on this subject. Before you are tempted to reply anyway, please review the second and especially third paragraphs of this reply, and consider not doing so, in favour of using the prescribed avenue for challenging a discussion close. — Saxifrage ✎ 04:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm very confused. The proscribed procedure in Closing_discussions is "For other procedures...contact the editor who performed the closure and try to resolve the issue through discussion". Buffs (talk) 05:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry I was unclear. I got the impression that you wanted to relitigate the dispute, which if one reads between the lines there, shouldn’t be brought to the closing user. On second read you may be simply objecting to the accuracy of my summary, in which case bringing it to me was fine.


 * To be very clear though, what your question here asked does not change my evaluation of the discussion. It did not present new information or context, or point out a procedural error. It does object to the summary, but by making the argument that I miscounted the votes—but counting votes is not part of correct closing and so that is not a persuasive point. Since it lacked substance presenting new material or clear procedural errors, demanded my reasoning (which was already fully supplied in the comment on the close), and because of the yelling, I mistook it for simple objection to the outcome rather than a request for review.


 * Re-evaluating your question as merely a request for review, I still have to decline to change the conclusion of the close. I don’t think I made an error. In such a case where the closing user declines to reconsider, or when it’s an objection of conclusion rather than procedure, WP:CLOSECHALLENGE notesyou can request a review on the self-same Administrators’ Noticeboard. — Saxifrage ✎ 16:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not interested in relitigating anything or even challenging the conclusion, per se, but I am confused by your rationale and would appreciate clarification. I'm not saying your summary is incorrect; it's your opinion and, by virtue of your position, it stands, I suppose. You're saying it's consensus, but I don't see how that's possible with the given evidence and positions taken by the participants. And that's what I need clarification on. It seems to me that something that IG/CV/MI said must have been more persuasive. Conversely, perhaps something I said wasn't persuasive. If so, what were they? If there is something that the community wants me to change, then I should at least know what it is, not just "Buffs has been uncivil, etc" with no specifics. How on earth can I (or others) possibly change behavior without knowing what was "wrong" or "right"?
 * I'm well aware of !votes (it's in my initial comments). Buffs (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

A two-way IBAN was proposed. One of the people who would have been subject to it proposed a one-way IBAN instead. No-one else supported a one-way IBAN. How on earth do you find consensus for it??? GoldenRing (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I considered the substance and quality of evidence offered (as closing advice directs) and the number of people in support, for each individual under discussion. I noted that support for IBANs for everyone was too muddy for consensus. I found that the argument for Buffs behaviour being egregiously hostile was overwhelming solid, and the facts were not contested by uninvolved commentors. A one-way IBAN for Buffs was proposed as an alternative; for egregious incivility, that fit. As the only consensus that emerged was on Buffs behaviour, and IBANs were the point of the discussion, that’s the remedy for the consensus misbehaviour. That is what shook out of that mess. — Saxifrage ✎ 04:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * This is exceptionally unclear. What is the "egregiously hostile" behavior of which I am guilty? Which "facts were not contested by uninvolved commentors"?
 * As I've shown above, the 4 editors who voiced opinions NOT named in the original IBAN proposal clearly voiced in favor of IBANs for all: *  *  How was that in any way "muddy"? What you're saying doesn't seem to make sense. While I don't agree with the IBANs, if we're going to apply it, what's good for the goose is good for the gander...
 * * Involved editors
 * Clarification would be greatly appreciated. Buffs (talk) 05:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Saxifrage, I deeply apologize for posting on your talk page over this issue., stop bullying the closing admin. Stop trying to re-litigate a closed case. Stop trying to speak for me and misrepresent what I said. When I said "Support the IBAN per Buffs", it was referring to a one-way IBAN on you. It was also sarcasm if you clicked through the "per Buffs" which linked to a diff of the absurdly long post of yours directly above mine. Your current behaviour here just emphasizes your problem with bullying and harassment. Please, please stop. Mark Ironie (talk) 06:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Buffs, your incivility is overt and obvious, and has been explained before. I’m not going to read WP:CIVIL to you and do a deep dive into quotes from your posting in that discussion and in the activity linked from there. You are capable of that yourself. If others can learn what’s right and wrong by reading the page that already explains it, so should you be able. — Saxifrage ✎ 06:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the above comments, I've gone ahead and pulled the trigger for this close to be reviewed at AN. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Buffs (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * So, basically, you found no consensus and then closed with what you thought was the right outcome, discussion and consensus be damned. Right.  Good to know.  GoldenRing (talk) 09:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * No, but I would thank you to assume good faith. I saw consensus to use IBANing to resolve the broken situation, disagreement over who should get one and why, but consensus for Buffs behaviour being unacceptable. That added up to me as Buffs getting the remedy under discussion. If that’s wrong, fine, but please dispute it at WP:AN, as is normal procedure. There’s no need to be rude on my talk page. — Saxifrage ✎ 16:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm still bemused that you can't see that "consensus to use IBANing... disagreement over who... added up to me as Buffs getting" is the same as "no consensus... closed with what you thought..." At any rate, given the very clear consensus at AN that this was a supervote that didn't reflect consensus, could you please undo your closure?  GoldenRing (talk) 09:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there's some other admins around the site who can handle closing the review of the close. My desire to engage with the kind of contributions displayed by editors here, given the quality of these interactions, is somewhat south of the x axis. Fortunately, procedure has it covered and I'm not needed. — Saxifrage ✎ 16:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Please remove your close or resign
It should be readily apparent by now that your close was a supervote. I don't know why it hasn't been vacated by an uninvolved admin yet, but that needs to happen. Ideally, you would vacate it yourself as a gesture of good faith. However, as it stands right now, you seem to be able to supervote Ibans into existence and that's a huge problem. If you are unwilling to reverse your close, please resign your tools. Indeed, I think you should resign your tools regardless of whether you vacate the close as it seems apparent that you are seriously out of touch with how this community operates. If necessary, I will open a separate section at AN and call for whatever sanctions are necessary to prevent you from doing this again. Lepricavark (talk) 02:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right that neither thing you're requesting works this way. The closing admin will do their work, and should be allowed to. If my adminship needs to be reviewed, you know where that happens too. To suggest that I need to prove good faith when you haven't even extended the simple courtesy of WP:AGF to begin with is a third thing you have backwards. Thank you for doing these things with politeness though. — Saxifrage ✎ 16:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You supervoted an Iban into existence and as of yet have failed to acknowledge your mistake, so I suggest you stop pontificating about how things work. Also, I notice your response to GoldenRing in which you seem to be attempting to play some kind of victim. That will garner you little sympathy at AN, ANI, or wherever I decide to raise the issue of your administrative misconduct. Lepricavark (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You can either acknowledge that I have declined to take orders from you and use the procedures, or not. I understand you feel that you're right, and that sometimes that can feel like enough to take a position of authority. It isn't though, and I am not choosing to extend you text-activated controls over my account privileges. I don't disbelieve that you might take this to an appeal of my adminship, but your insistence is making them sound like attempted threats rather than simple statements of how things work. So, I prefer to let that unfold as it will rather than precipitously obey a self-appointed judge. You can keep pursuing this attempt to browbeat and end-run every processes you've mentioned so far, but I think I've made it clear that being some angry random person on my talk page is failing to move me. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Saxifrage. Lepricavark (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notice. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Saxifrage, just a heads up to let you know that I undid your close.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Perhaps this will put this that particular tangent of the matter to rest. I hope that the reopened discussion has a useful conclusion. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Posts
Please note I did not actually read what you posted. I simply reverted it and removed it from my talk page. I do not like my talk page clogged up with people coming and trying to be high and night or posting weird warnings, which are things I have previously removed.Also comments I am completely uninterested I remove. Please do not consider the fact I removed the comments you or anyone else posted as proof that I actually bothered reading the comments. Please also feel free to ignore this comment and remove it. Sparkle1 (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that it's Wikipedia policy that if you remove warning such as this one, you are considered to have read it. Being an admin, I therefore cannot honour your request. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Natalie Mars talk page
Please do not restore content on the Natalie Mars talk page which contains continuous material as you did. This is a violation of the BLP policy of Wikipedia. The allegations made in the comments you restored are potentially libellous and must not be re-added. The comments are all open to wide interpretation and are poorly sourced, with the person adding the comments editorialising that the subject of the article is of a certain controversial persuasion. Please do not re-add this information. The BLP policy applies to article talk pages as well as article main spaces. As you have previously said you are an Admin and I would have thought that this was bread and butter for you. I would like to assume you actually read what I removed from the talk page before you restored it. Sparkle1 (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have looked at your latest diff and I see it cites WP:BLP, so that's good. Your previous removal of Talk page material didn't explain that you thought it was a BLP issue of contentious matierial, nor did reviewing the removed link indicate that the material was obviously contentious without doing extended research into the person. That's the sort of thing that editors must cite in their edit summaries, for exactly this reason. Expect that when you leave edit summaries that don't support their edits, you open your edits to being reverted.
 * Given the BLP rationale in your new edit summary and your claim that it's contentious here, I agree with the removal now. Thanks for doing that, and please be more careful with your edit summaries when making deletions. Good edit summaries help your fellow editors understand your actions, and help you by preventing misunderstandings that can drag you into conflicts.
 * As an aside, your first version of your message here was sufficient and appropriate. Your afterthought addition borders on being an attempt to insult a fellow contributor, which is a habit that I would recommend against, since a pattern of insulting others and assuming bad faith can lead by itself to suspensions and topic bans. I'd recommend not going in guns blazing when you're interacting with other editors, just in general. I find it helps to re-read WP:TALK sometimes, especially the WP:TPYES and WP:TPNO sections. It has some very good advice for how we can each do our part to keep from unintentionally provoking our fellow editors, that even the best of us benefit from refreshing now and again. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:09, 4 May 2021 (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. 20:06, 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)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement
22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

"Mark twain" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Mark twain and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 7 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 18:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2022 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Administrative permissions and inactivity reminder
This is a reminder that established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. You are receiving this annual reminder since you have averaged less than 50 edits per year over the last 5 years.Inactive administrators are encouraged to reengage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to be engaged 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. —&thinsp;JJMC89 bot 00:25, 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. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)