Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:54, 10 February 2015

Callanecc is busy and may not respond swiftly to queries.

User talk:Callanecc/Header

Sanction review

As the closing admin, I'd like you to review the topic ban placed on me with this being the appeal of ending it. As per the close, , I was not entirely wrong. The word "major" was added due to one of the sources I reviewed (and is also only being kept out due to lack of consensus, I think I had a right to share my deductions in forming that consensus) but most of issues were due to my opposing of blanking the term "victory" in which I was not wrong. As far as the other things such as casting aspirations go, it was recognized in the AE that all of them were not wrong rather I had recently faced enough to get to the conclusions of following based on the diffs I gave then... with that said and leaving the objections aside, my main point is that I have long ended engaging OZ and have not violated my ban. As such this is topic is closed and also reviewed which most probably is going in the closer's way.. I don't mind what sources are used as far as consensus is followed. Furthermore, I've also been banned for a around a month, it can be reduced for being stale as all that contention is stale and the sanction is no more preventive - plus my behaviour in other topics hasn't shown any disruption. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not about whether you were 'right' or not but about who you went about it. However given that the use of sources was involved I can see how you made that connection. Having said that, I'm willing to accept in good faith that you realise what you did wrong and have learnt from it. However I'm not convinced that you will make good, constructive, collaborative edits to Battle of Chawinda, so I'd be willing to replace your current topic ban with a topic ban from Battle of Chawinda until the expiry date of the current TBAN (12:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)). How does that sound? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I see the consensus finalizing that infobox anyway and I can live with that (the article was really not on my top priority, I just went after some old sock master who was reverting to completely opposite statements and fell into this mess). So your offer is fine by me. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It was not just Battle of Chawinda, but many other articles. On Operation Dwarka he continued to edit war over results and never discussed them. On Inter-Services Intelligence activities in India he edit warred over making a conspiracy theory look clean. On Operation Chengiz Khan he restored the statements that were removed a year ago because they were unsourced since 2012, and his edit summary reads "Restored consensus version.. no intermediate useful edits", misleading indeed because he had never discussed them. And a few others. Even if the topic ban is limited to Battle of Chawinda, I am certain that we will still have a number of unnecessary edit conflicts. Since the topic ban, TopGun has not made even 75 edits to main article space, I doubt that how he proved that he can edit without conflicting. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:VOLUNTEER is all I have to say to you, I don't have the time to edit that much neither should I be expected to have to satisfy your arbitrary criteria of edit count. About the sanction, I'm not going to debate my reverts to proven socks and other disruptive editors with you. I've said all I had to.. it's for Callanecc to decide. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

OccultZone your conduct on those articles is not great either. In fact having seen the reverts from both of you I'm of the opinion that it might be useful to impose 1RR on both of you for any edit which relates to the India-Pakistan conflict (with the clarification that you may only revert accounts and IPs you believe to be socks without reference to 1RR if you have reported them). Opinions? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind 1-RR for the length of my original TBAN (or a voluntary 1RR if not sanctioned)... but it will only make sense if it is symmetric to OZ or I might be effectively be blocked from making edits by simply being reverted out if OZ chooses to revert me twice every time. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking my original offer for the TBAN (ie just Battle of Chawinda until the original expiry) and 1RR (for the same period of time) for both of you long term 6 months, a year, indef (not sure yet, one of the reasons I asked). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I have never reverted more than 2 times unless it was a sock(usually Nangparbat). While TopGun usually reverts on the sight without even looking at the sources or the information. There are no instances where he would open a new thread on ATP and explain his edits or he would reply to any older thread that concerns the content. He usually sees what is actually favoring his opinion and that he would create unnecessary edit conflict. It is very hard to return to a stale version because TopGun normally never agrees with others. Not to forget that TopGun had violated his TBAN once and even if he was not aware of it, still that edit misrepresented the source. These articles had no edit conflicts for more than a month between users, which is a good sign. Although there are some instances where some of the editors have socked, its not that serious issue. I have never seen anyone actually alleging me of edit warring for ages. Considering that I have made over 170,000 edits, I have not been blocked even once. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

"TopGun usually reverts on the sight without even looking at the sources or the information" is casting aspersions and will likely get you blocked. There are three on Operation Dwarka and that's without looking at anything other than the links you gave me. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Refactored. Thank you for informing. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been reverting people even close to 3RR else where since my ban, so why would I editwar in the long term. Priors were related to well known hounding / baiting by a sock. 1RR as such will only slow down collaborative editing. I recently had a DYK approved from the military topics. I don't think I can develop articles that fast under 1RR. It can always be thrown in if an intentional editwar is seen in future though. Don't know why OZ is continuing to focus on me and mention my self reverted possible violation after clarification. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm just talking about since you're ban I'm talking long term (can be seen in OZ's links and in your final warning from last time). You shouldn't be reverting people when you write articles, if you are it means you need to stop and discuss with them. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I've already agreed to an article specific topic ban, and don't mind a 1RR for the same time. I do contend that there's been nothing new that warrants an extended 1RR as the "last time" was proven to be a deliberate socking, following and what not and all those issues are stale. I don't see how this stops an admin from putting me under 1RR when the issue arises as far as "long term" is concerned about the Indo-Pak conflicts. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Ok this is what I'll do:

• I'll replace TopGun's TBAN with a TBAN from just Battle of Chawinda for the same period of time.
• I'll log a reminder (not a warning so it doesn't need to be taken as seriously in future AEs) that any edit warring on India/Pakistan related article can be dealt with by 1RR (I'll include my wording above).

How does that sound to both of you (without repeating what you've said above)? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Fine by me, as before. I would have asked for an IBAN, but from my prior experience, even many of the most experienced admins are not good at enforcing that properly and it wastes the community's time with meta-bickering. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• That's better, considering that we have no consensus for rejecting this appeal, neither there is consensus for increasing the scope of article ban. Good luck TopGun! OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

This is AE, consensus is not needed. I appealed only to Callanecc, not to you. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking IBAN as well, but given the crossover of your editing interests, it would likely need with a TBAN for one or both of you as well. Ok I'll action my two dot points in a sec. OccultZone regarding "we" as the enforcing admin I don't need consensus to change the sanction I placed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China

Hello! Looks like User:ProfessorJane is back to very actively editing again. Can you protect this article? HkCaGu (talk) 01:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

And if you can revert also. I'm not sure whether I'm already at third in 24 hours. HkCaGu (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you give me some more evidence that those IPs are ProfessorJane, you can file an SPI if that's easier? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Always adding flagicons for PRC and ROC. Calling Taiwan "industrialized", "democratic" in the ledes. Just look at my contributions in the last few days to see what's happening with many other similar articles. All highly quickly global IP jumping. HkCaGu (talk) 01:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the earlier protection. Can you also help protect Chinese Civil War and Forbidden City? HkCaGu (talk) 05:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

And also National Palace Museum which you just edited earlier this evening? HkCaGu (talk) 05:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Another editor alerted me these two new ones: Two Chinas and Chinese Cultural Renaissance‎. Can you protect these? HkCaGu (talk) 01:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! For the personal attack going on at User talk:103.27.220.144 and User talk:69.80.99.98, what can be done? HkCaGu (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Dealt with. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all the ongoing work you're doing. There's this one that needs protection: History of science and technology in China. HkCaGu (talk) 06:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

And Ministry of Science and Technology (Republic of China). Can we protect a user talk page? His IP socks are reverting the removal of personal attacks. HkCaGu (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

And Presidential Office Building, Taipei needs protection. HkCaGu (talk) 06:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked some and protected those. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

It's continuing here: User talk:103.27.220.144. Is it time to get other admins on this battle? I wouldn't know how to do it. HkCaGu (talk) 07:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Materialscientist got it, you can always post on WP:AN or WP:ANI if you need more admin eyes. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Noticeboard closure

Can you see if something was actually wrong with this closure? That is overturned by another user. See discussion at User talk:Sunrise. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Not that I can see, however generally when something is closed by an admin discussions to overturn should be assessed by an admin as they will be inherently controversial. I'll wait and see what Sunrise says before I do or say anything more. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

True. In this case the result did seem pretty clear, and I was already following the discussion so a lot of the work had been done. But I do think I err on the side of being too willing to close potentially controversial discussions. In any case, I've replied at my talk page.

@Bladesmulti: the closure has not actually been overturned. The one at WP:AN is the one that matters in this case. Sunrise (talk) 08:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

It is formal to complete the whole process, that's what you had done by striking the closure of FTN after AN closure for preference, and I have linked it in my above post because other user considered it as 'overturn'. I think Callannecc didn't saw anything wrong with your change to FTN either. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no policy which says that consensus at WP:AN trumps the consensus at WP:FTN. If you want AN to be a court of appeals for noticeboards, you should propose that this become the case at WP:VPP, for example. Until then, it's fine to come to a consensus over issues at WP:AN, but strikethrough of good faith contributions of other editors at other places on the basis of such consensus is simply not in line with policy or guidelines of Misplaced Pages. See WP:CON and WP:FORUMSHOP for more on why this is important. jps (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

AN is the "court of appeals" for RfC closes, there's one there now for example (deletion review is the only one, I can think of quickly, which is elsewhere). See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Archive_12#Review for example and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive for a list of previous closure reviews at AN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but this is not an RfC we're talking about here. jps (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Good point, but it's the same concept as far as I'm concerned, appeals of all closes can go to AN, whether it be FTN, BLPN, PERM, etc. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

This is the first I'm hearing of this idea. I think we should have a discussion as to whether this is a good idea or not. I think that the noticeboards should be subject to consensus rather than administrator fiat. This is unlike conduct questions or questions that are formally raised to measure community consensus. Noticeboards are meant to provide content input by people who are interested in following particular content policies of Misplaced Pages. They aren't binding rulings (unlike the other examples where administrator oversight is requested) and so setting up an appellate hierarchy for noticeboard questions strikes me as being both creepy and and invitation to forumshop. jps (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

ACC #134559

Hi, I hope you are doing fine. It is about #134559 that we have received a response from requester. Please take a look when you have time (the request is presently in on-hold queue). Regards, -Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm well thank you. Could you please forward it me, I can't find it in my inbox. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Sent. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Another sock...

Hi there, Callanecc. JDPlus2 (talk · contribs) seems to be another sock of User:Jajadelera.--Jetstreamer  13:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Obvious sock is obvious.  Blocked and tagged. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: The next contact regarding the matter will be with you...--Jetstreamer  14:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

concerns

See Joe Klein edit history and Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Joe_Klein as I have concerns about editors who are absolutely insistent on labeling and categorizing a person as a "Jew" or "Jewish" in defiance of WP:BLPCAT. Joe Klein might be Jewish, but has not apparently self-identified as such,nor am I sure it is relevant to the topic of "Neoconservatism" other than to inject "Dual loyalty" into that arena especially considering that "dual loyalty" is an issue often raised in "the arena of Arab-Israeli issues. ("The 1991 Gulf War and the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq lead to such accusations against Jewish neoconservatives, vocal proponents of war against Iraq who allegedly sought to undermine Arab nations hostile to Israel (i.e., the term "Israel-firster").") Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

It looks like it's been resolved, but I'll keep an eye on it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions log

Question: DS states that "Whenever a sanction or page restriction is appealed or modified, the administrator amending it must append a note recording the amendment to the original log entry." In GamerGate, the general sanctions became discretionary sanctions. Were I to modify one of those sanctions, originally imposed by myself as a general sanction, where would I log this? The general sanctions do not appear on the DS logs. There is no urgency because I haven't modified anything at this time, I just wanted to be sure on the correct procedure if I did. Gamaliel (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I've copied them to the discretionary sanctions logs (which I forgot to do when I closed the case), so there. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, that certainly solves that issue. Thanks! Gamaliel (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Violation of Pban

On Module:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map user:pototo1 has made further edits, in apparent violation of their pban. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Wrong links in WP:EEML from August, 2012

Hi Callanecc. I was just looking up something in WP:EEML and noticed that an edit to the case by User:AlexandrDmitri on August 18, 2012 might need to be fixed. The case was amended by motion in August 2012 and the provided links point to:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=508025536#Amendment_request:_Race_and_intelligence

In my opinion those links should be going to:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=508025536#Amendment_reqest:_Eastern_European_mailing_list

The links that are in place now mention WP:ARBR&I rather than the amendment to WP:EEML that was intended. The actual change to the text of the case looks to be correct.

Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you. Are you interested in applying to be an arbitration clerk? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Clerk

Hello Callanecc, I just now saw that Arbitration Clerks Seeking New Volunteers. I'm a bit late. Is requests are still being accepted? I'm interested in volunteering. Best, Jim Carter 14:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

No not too late, feel free to submit an application to the mailing list. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Submitted. Cheers, Jim Carter 11:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015 GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors February 2015 Newsletter Drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in January's Backlog Elimination Drive. Of the 38 people who signed up for this drive, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: We were able to remove August 2013 from the general copyediting backlog and November 2014 from the request-page backlog. Many thanks, everyone! Blitz: The February Blitz will run from February 15–21 and again focuses on the requests page. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one request article. Sign up here! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for DS enforcement

Hello again! About nine days ago, at your suggestion, I submitted a request for enforcement of Discretionary Sanctions at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Theobald_Tiger. Unfortunately, there has been exactly zero administrative input or action on that request. I've had to resurrect it from the archive once, and I'd prefer not to do so again. The behaviour hasn't stopped, and it has escalated into on and off-wiki harassment. Is there anything you can suggest? I hate going to ANI, as that environment hasn't exactly been friendly in the past and there is no immediate incident to resolve. Thank you for any suggestions. --Tgeairn (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Tgeairn is telling a malicious lie. I have raised objections to the actions and the conduct of Tgeairn with respect to the Landmark (and related) stuff, but I have done it on-wiki only. I will continue to do so as long as Tgeairn's conduct does not change. You might call that 'escalation' or 'harrassment', if you so wish (of course, I do not agree), but I have certainly never caused harrassment off-wiki. Not only have I never done such thing, but I will never do it either. Theobald Tiger (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not aware of any evidence that the off-wiki activity is being performed by Theobald Tiger, and I did not intend to say that TT was the source of the activity. There is an active off-wiki campaign to discredit my on-wiki activity, including inaccurate statements being made about me and public posting of various combinations of accurate and inaccurate personal information in conjunction with my Misplaced Pages identity. That off-wiki activity specifically refers to the enforcement request, among other things, and I am treating it as a legitimate threat. I apologize to TT for any repercussions that my unclear statement above had; and I request any suggestions that you, Callanecc, have for how to proceed with enforcing the existing sanctions on the Landmark related articles and hopefully bringing this to some conclusion. --Tgeairn (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

It's on my list I just haven't got to it yet. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and thank you for the update. --Tgeairn (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here but I can't seem to find any offwiki comments on User:Tgeairn other than a passing reference in 2012 and a recent comment (not about him or her) on harassment of a "newly arrived dutch editor" on the same page. I do not like signing up to new websites so could only read what was there. Perhaps s/he could elaborate on these offwiki comments and provide links to back them up so that one could assess the validity of whether harassment is taking place there. Unfortunately things can have unexpected consequences (I can't remember which WP policy or MOS I read that in - I would use Karma) and find editing WP an enlightening, educational and entertaining process. It is an ongoing learning process and I was delighted to discover Graham's hierarchy of disagreement which is just as valid as Maslov's hierarchy of needs.Cathar66 (talk) 13:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't find anything either. I am a Dutch editor - no doubt about that, and I am not a native speaker of English. I do everything to avoid the impression that my English is below par. If so, in spite of all my efforts, I apologize in advance. Theobald Tiger (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Requesting reprieve

Hello again,
I am asking that you lift the prohibition against my editing Talk:Gamergate_controversy.
The complaint against me was made on the basis of article space edits. The only objection raised to my talk-page activity was the volume of posting, which I have committed to not repeat. You have said you think my proposed plan was inadequate, so I welcome further guidance.

As a matter of principle I also request that the prohibition on editing the article itself be lifted.
A complaint was brought against me on the basis of only a single simultaneous batch of edits, not a pattern of edits or edit warring. There was no attempt or intent to defend my changes from reversion without a new consensus. Indeed, there was no opportunity to defend or even discuss them. My accuser went directly to enforcement without seeking to resolve the dispute in any way. The edits were effectively reverted within an hour, before the complaint was even brought against me. At the very least, it was inappropriate on procedural grounds to seek a remedy for disruption that was not occurring.

More than that, the case against me was built on the mischaracterization that I was dismissive of other editors' input. The great length of the Newsweek thread is evidence of nothing other than my willingness to engage in detail with others' opinions. I have recognized that this was not best practice; however, it is not evidence of unwillingness to compromise. Throughout the discussion I proposed alternatives, while my detractors would not engage with those alternatives or propose their own. The final wording of my edit was reflective of the consensus against employing simple calculations, even if permitted by WP:OR. I was certainly writing for myself rather than my opponents, but as a foil to encourage them to better articulate their objections. The ongoing discussion on the matter shows I am not alone in finding the Newsweek article problematic.

Again, this is a matter of principle more than anything. I have no further edits to make in article space at this time. I want to clear my name of the aspersions cast against my pedestrian application of bold editing. I surmise from your original decision that you recognized the accusations of being a SPA and vandal were willfully misleading, and I hope you can recognize the same in the rest of the accusations against me.

Thank you for your time. Rhoark (talk) 06:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The history of this dispute and the remedies passed in the arbitration case encourage administrators to deal with disruption robustly especially from newer accounts, given that a topic ban had been proposed the page ban was a lesser option to hopefully achieve the same goal. That goal being to encourage you to edit in other areas so that you develop the experience in talk page consensus building necessary to edit such a controversial and intractable topic area. While ever you try to re-litigate the original reasoning for the sanction it is unlikely that an appeal will be granted, given that the evidence in question has already been examined, if you wish to appeal on that basis I suggest you following the instructions linked in the notice I gave you. Having said that I would recommend that instead, you comply with the restriction and edit collaboratively to reach consensus on other talk pages and bring me evidence of that in a month or two. At that stage I will look into lifting the restriction on editing the talk page to replace it with a less restrictive option. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Email

Another IP problem! ~ P-123 (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

To page stalker: I don't know if you are able to handle Callanecc's emails when he is absent for some time, as he indicates he is now. I would welcome your help as I am having continued problems with IP harassment. ~ P-123 (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-07

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent software changes

• You can now use {{#lsth: PageName | SectionName }} to transclude a section with its title.

Problems

• MediaWiki was reverted to the previous version on February 4. It was because of a performance issue. It was restored later.
• UploadWizard was broken on February 4 because of the revert of MediaWiki.
• All sites were broken for 30 minutes on February 5. It was due to a network problem.

Software changes this week

• The new version of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since February 5. It will be on non-Misplaced Pages wikis from February 10. It will be on all Wikipedias from February 11 (calendar).
• You can have one user page for all wikis. Your Meta user page will show if you don't have a user page on a wiki. You can test this tool on test wikis.
• You can search for media files in VisualEditor more easily. Images are bigger and you see the size and license.
• It is easier to review your changes when you save the page in VisualEditor. The window is wider.
• You can read the latest news about VisualEditor. You can now join weekly meetings with developers. During the meetings you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The first meeting is on February 11 at 20:00 (UTC).

Future changes

• Administrators will soon be able to delete change tags used fewer than 5,000 times.
• In the future you will be able to have personal lists of articles on the mobile site.

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

16:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Question about edit warring immediately after coming off a TB

Steeletrap is edit warring at Griffin, and restoring fundamental non-compliant terminology determined by the RfC closer. Can you please look into this? Atsme☯ 23:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The user who is reporting me has tried to add his changes to the Griffin page 3 times within several hours. I have reverted the page to a consensus version. I did try to add new content to the page; but have not edit warred to keep it in. (The content I added was removed from the article by Srich, and I have not tried to re-add it.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeletrap (talk • contribs) 00:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Not true. I made various improvements to the body of the article and the lead as you will see in the edit history and in the discussions on the TP. I modified the lead to conform with PAG and the RfC close regarding the article's contentious material being fundamentally noncompliant (his edits were reverted which caused him to PP the article). After working for hours to meet the compromise expectations while maintaining NPOV, I removed the NPOV tag after making other sections in the article NPOV compliant. I posted what I did on the TP. As you know, Callanecc, I have done everything I was asked to do, and made proposals for edits on the TP but no matter what I proposed, it was consistently shot down. Steeletrap came in and immediately started editing the article replacing the contentious material despite the RfC, and never discussed anything on the TP. She reverted edits with no regard for the RfC, the TP discussions, or what any other editors were trying to accomplish as I demonstrated in the above diffs. Steeletrap is not the only editor who is ignoring the RfC close. See the following: and . I only reverted Jytdog's revert . Atsme☯ 01:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Atsme: Could you please make a report at WP:AE regarding this. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Page protection

Hey Cal, you protected the article Piracy but it doesn't seem to be working. It is still being vandalised by IPs. I went back to WP:RFPP but got an automated bounce-back for that reason. Anything you could check or fix? Pending changes might be a better option if semi isn't working... St★lwart 23:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I placed it under pending changes protection so IPs can still edit but before they become live they need to be approved. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)