User talk:Enigmaman/Archives/2019

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).

Guideline and policy news

  1. G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
  2. R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
  3. G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.

Technical news

  • Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
  1. At least 8 characters in length
  2. Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
  3. Different from their username
User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.
  • Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
  • {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
  • Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thibodeau[edit]

Typo in my edit summary. I meant to reference WP:SPORTSTRANS. An anonymous "league source" is usually considered premature. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hungerford massacre[edit]

An IP edit warring against established editors on spelling would normally be semi-protection not full protection wouldn't it? -----Snowded TALK 07:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That typically merits full protection or no protection per the protection policy, unless it's clear cut. We don't automatically side with people based on whether they have accounts or how long they've been editing. Enigmamsg 22:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Envato Page[edit]

Hey there Enigmaman, I started the process of reviewing the deletion of Envato's page in Wikipedia. I had numerous discussions with people in the live chat as well sa read the comments included in the following page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Envato). I am unsure how to access the content of the page in order to build a better page. As far as I understand the issue was around notability of sources included.

On the other hand as far as I can see Envato is a globally operating business with 13 years history and I might be wrong but it seems that it's the worlds largest digital assets marketplace (?). I am confident that I have already found a large number of notable sources to add in their wikipedia page.

Anyway to access their previously built page?

Kind Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tolkinas (talk • contribs) 02:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Envato Enigmamsg 02:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have now edited and changed almost 100% of the initial sources with notable sources. Added new information as well with new sources. Hopefully this meets Wikipedia standards. Tolkinas (talk) 03:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with reverts on Ralph_Northam[edit]

Are you having similar issues as I am with a specific editor reverting spelling corrections made to the above-mentioned article? airuditious (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean but hopefully the editor will stop now. Enigmamsg 02:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).

Administrator changes

added Enterprisey • JJMC89
readded BorgQueen
removed Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes

removedEnterprisey

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
  • Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news

  • A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Locking Raiders-based articles[edit]

Would it also be a good idea to lock Oracle Park, Oakland–Alameda County Coliseum, and 2019 Oakland Raiders season for the same reason as locking Oakland Raiders? Seems like those are also getting hit with the WP:RSBREAKING edits. Yosemiter (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I did the Raiders because I was responding to a request at RfPP. Doing others now. Enigmamsg 16:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree these pages should be protected, I don’t know about them all being admin only. I don’t think there’s enough edits on any of these pages to really justify that high of a protection level.--Rockchalk717 00:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One of the people making the problematic edits was extended confirmed. The alternative to full protection would be blocking the extended confirmed accounts doing it. This causes less problems and they're not protected for long. Enigmamsg 03:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha, appreciate the explanation.--Rockchalk717 07:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Declined page protection request[edit]

Hi, in light of this recent decline for page protection, I wonder if I could ask you for some advice on what to do about the situation.

These two pages, and a number of others, have been the subject of a slow edit war for a number of months. Two blocked sockmasters seem to have firm but differing views on what the IPA pronunciation symbols for the names should be, and have been periodically reverting each other (and anyone else who changes/removes their additions), each time under a new IP address or account. SPIs have been raised, multiple accounts have been blocked (see the page histories - all of the recent contributions on both pages come either from a sock of Ragaricus or ZenZung, or someone reverting them) but the (occasional) disruption continues. I appreciate that it's only once every couple of weeks, but time is being wasted reverting, chasing up and blocking socks etc - if page protection isn't warranted, is there anything else you can suggest? Pinging @Horst Hof:, who filed the request and has been discussing this with me. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 19:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't protect a page that hardly receives any edits at all. Stefano has had 4 edits this year. Ditto for Matteo. Enigmamsg 02:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I get that, I wondered if there is anything else that you can suggest - or is it just something that we have to put up with? GirthSummit (blether) 08:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think pending changes would be appropriate. Maybe a range block if we could figure out the range? Enigmamsg 18:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Geisel[edit]

Hi. Can you tell me which speedy deletion criteria you used to delete Audrey Geisel? Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you restored the page. Thanks for that. Can you restore the talk page as well? Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing to restore unless you want me to restore an incorrect template which states she is a living person. That was the only content on the talk. Enigmamsg 03:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you were pinged there but for clarity I thought I would link you to this discussion where a response would be helpful. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The confusion stems from the article (redirect) page not being fully restored (with latest edit) when it was restored. Then it was complicated by my adding an edit that had been missed, and further compounded by a couple more edits being restored. —В²C ☎ 15:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil President Jair Bolsonaro President Dispute Edit[edit]

Hello Enigmaman,

This is AlmostValDay1996, a contributor to Wikipedia. I have happened to stumble upon the Wikipedia page for Brazil and I happened to notice that there was a dispute regarding the presidential status of Jair Bolsonaro. I checked the source to see where the person that put his presidential status as disputed and it was an article about a Brazilian actor who proclaims to be Brazil's president. However, this is completely unofficial as the sources say that he proclaims to be president, but there are no other sources nor any news about José de Abreu being recognized worldwide as Brazil's current president. Please check the below sources that I found regarding the dispute to make sure if José de Abreu is receiving recognition as Brazil's president or it is just a claim that José de Abreu created himself. Thank you for your time and have a nice night.

Sincerely, AlmostValDay1996


Sources: https://f5.folha.uol.com.br/celebridades/2019/02/jose-de-abreu-se-proclama-presidente-do-brasil-e-diz-que-se-inspira-em-guaido-na-venezuela.shtml http://www.cearamirimlivre.com/2019/02/bomba-ze-de-abreu-e-presidente-do-brasil.html https://rd1.com.br/jose-de-abreu-se-autoproclama-presidente-do-brasil-e-provoca-bolsonaro/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlmostValDay1996 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
    • paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Katie[edit]

She did edit yesterday. And she granted me EFH the day before. But mostly she's off-wiki - User:Cabayi/Clerking. Cabayi (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedure is to ask the protecting admin first unless they're clearly inactive (like if they haven't edited in months). Enigmamsg 16:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thanks for clarifying, Cabayi (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
  • As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up[edit]

You just replied to a nine and a half year old talk page post and blocked someone because of it. [REDACTED - Oshwah] 22:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. [REDACTED - Oshwah] 17:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

You're confused? Whatever, it's done. [REDACTED - Oshwah] 17:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail[edit]

Hello, Enigmaman/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.GiantSnowman 08:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom case request notification[edit]

Hi Enigmaman. This is a message to notify you that a request for arbitration will soon be filed where you are involved as a party. I'm sorry, Enigmaman....... This is not easy for me at all to do... :-( ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

responded on your talk. Enigmamsg 18:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Two things: (a) expect for a prolonged, humiliating, "drag all the skeletons out" exercise which could easily last three months (b) you're not going to be an admin at the end of it, as no-one ever, ever takes into account the thousands of good actions you may have taken, just the dozen poor ones. I would jack in the mop, and just carry on working, who needs it? Wikipedia and certain Wikipedian's lust for revenge will always mean you lose here, regardless of how noble you believe your motives were. Either resign now and render the case moot, or wait three months during which time every crevice of your time here will be wrought asunder, and still lose the mop. It's just not worth it I'm afraid, no-one ever says thanks for the things you did right as a sysop. Leave it to the ladder-climbers. Either way, good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I welcome advice as I am quite taken aback and unsure how to proceed. RfA is very difficult. I had a pretty good record and someone did something extremely inappropriate on my second RfA (and was never sanctioned for it and the individual never even apologized; it's well-documented) and managed to sabotage months of work, so on the one hand I'd rather resign to avoid the trouble but on the other hand, I'd never be admin again as I'd be viewed as damaged goods. So far two people have said just to resign and avoid it and two people have urged me to participate in the ArbCom case. Enigmamsg 20:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's just a case of knowing what you're getting into. The last-but-one Arbcom case I was involved in took months and months, and last minute changes were being made to the wording of the sanction during the Arb voting process, it was, frankly, a complete joke and an insult to the process. And it provides a wonderful forum for anyone you have ever dared to upset to come back and sling mud at you. It's a timesink, and honestly, the tools really aren't a big deal. I haven't missed them at all. Vandals get picked up eventually, errors on the main page get fixed usually (primarily because of a handful of really dedicated admins), moving on from being an admin will free you up and allow you to just be normal again. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just my opinion, but I don't think anything will ever be normal again with this "cloud". Enigmamsg 16:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well there's nothing to be done about that, but you can spare yourself the indignity of being publicly humiliated for three months while Arbcom do basically nothing but dither and indulge the community to character assassinate you. Don't give them that chance. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just wrote this below too. Please resign and let it be. You will never get the admin tools back either way for a long time. But resigning will save you from facing the community's harshest words. Lourdes 06:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not very familiar with past ArbCom cases because I rarely visit that area of the website, but I just wanted to point out that I looked at your case to see what you meant, and even though you resigned, the case still carried on for a lengthy time it seems. Enigmamsg 18:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have not linked to any ArbCom case so don’t know what you’re referring to. Thanks, Lourdes 01:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I indented and indicated in the edit summary the comment I was addressing. I accidentally put it below your comment but it was addressing the comment above it. Enigmamsg 22:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate the feedback. Given that the first advice given was to resign (I got sent wikipedia e-mail), I planned to follow that, but then I logged on and people were urging me to make a statement on ArbCom. What the point is, I don't know, but at this point most of the damage has been done. Apparently some people see resignation as "honorable", while others view it as "cowardly", based on the responses I've gotten. Enigmamsg 16:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You must be under a good deal of stress right now. I can't imagine it feels good to log on and find an ArbCom case about you. Based on my reading of the AN/I thread, there are a couple of things I suggest you put on your agenda of things that need to be done ASAP. 1. Write a statement and post it at AN/I. It needs to be a complete explanation and sincere apology. Not some trite "I made a bad block and then reversed it" but a full account including exact details of what you were thinking when you made the block, and a clear explanation of exactly what made it was a bad block, and what you will do in the future to avoid making similar mistakes. I'd suggest directly addressing the other issues raised by other users as well (like why it was bad for you to have closed the AN/I thread, and the problems of not leaving block templates, personal attacks in block summaries, etc.) 2. Next, do the same for ArbCom, directly addressing the issues raised there. Your current statement there is extremely unsatisfactory...I'd refactor the heck out of it, or just stick it inside a collapse template and start over. 3. Think seriously about whether you want to go through a full ArbCom case. You can look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman to get an idea of what you're in for (similar case about careless use of admin tools, opened on 17 December 2018, closed on 10 February 2019). The only way to avoid that, I think, would be to voluntarily resign the admin toolset, which I think many people in the community see as being the "honorable" thing to do. I can't predict how the ArbCom case would turn out...that depends a lot on you...but I can't imagine you'll come out unscathed. Best case scenario is you get placed on some sort of "administrative review" probation like they did in the GiantSnowman case. Worst case you get desysopped the "dishonorable" way. That's my opinion based on my observation of other ArbCom cases. But whatever you do, the most pressing issues are #1 and #2. ~Awilley (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frankly, based on the current evidence and your replies so far, you're going to lose the tools. That block was inexcusably bad, as are the insults in your admin logs. Nobody should have to tell you this. You can't defend most of these actions because they are indefensible. It creates an overall impression that somehow, you just don't really know what you're doing anymore and apparently don't really understand why others find it upsetting that an admin is behaving as you have been.I think if you consider what is best for both you and for Wikipedia, the correct move is to resign. As TRM said above, many former admins actually find it quite liberating to be a "regular" editor again. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


User:Anonymous editor[edit]

Stop fucking around with someone else's userpage. It doesn't matter if old userboxes aren't there any more or if the editor is no longer active. You should pay some attention to the Arb case rather than tidying up other people's pages that don't need it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to the case. Enigmamsg 19:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's good, thank you. There really are very few occasions when editing someone else's user page is valid - we really don't tidy up after people who aren't editing any more unless there's something seriously misleading (like removing the admin claim, which is fine). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Enigmaman, while I definitely would not use the words Boing has used above (I can completely understand why Boing used them; yet, I'm sorry for that), may I on good faith request you to resign your admin tools? It will probably save the community and probably you the pain of going through weeks of arguments. I extend all my help if you want to continue with the case; however, my suggestion is, please resign, hand in your tools, and just enjoy editing for now. Warmly, Lourdes 06:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain this edit, please?[edit]

Golden Tate playing for the Detroit Lions vs. the Atlanta Falcons, Wembley 2014

[1][2][3][4][5] -Guy Macon (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on your talk. He has not been assigned a number. Enigmamsg 22:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following was moved from my talk page[6], which also contains this message:

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation of the edit is in the edit summary. I am well aware of the fact that he has worn #15 in the past, which is what the links show and are completely unnecessary as there's an image in his article of him wearing #15. He joined a new team this offseason, the Giants. As I said in the edit summary, please provide a source. If you don't have a source, the space should remain blank. You linked me to NFL Shop, which is selling past jerseys of his, not his current jersey, and to two images from 2014 which are completely irrelevant. Enigmamsg 21:50, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[7] --Guy Macon (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I think I explained the edit. Enigmamsg 23:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of arbitration[edit]

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Enigmaman. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Enigmaman/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 27, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Enigmaman/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 20:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  • As regards the suggestions to you to resign. You may resign if you wish, but as a case has now been opened such a resignation will be noted in the findings, but the case will continue to conclusion. If you do resign, and at the conclusion of the case there is no decision to desysop, you may regain the tools through a RfA at any time (you would need to go through a RfA because you would have resigned under a cloud). That you resigned will be taken into account, but will not prevent the Committee from ruling on a desysop if it is felt that your actions were not appropriate. Up to you what you do, but there is no particular advantage to you to resign, just your own personal feelings on the matter. SilkTork (talk) 11:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the case could be resolved by a simple motion in the event of a resignation, as in the Andrevan case? There was a unanimous decision that a case was not needed since Andrevan handed in the permissions that were the subject of the case. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that desysopping can be assumed to be the obvious outcome of the case, otherwise we'd have gone to motion rather than open a case. While Enigmaman may not be responding appropriately right now, this may be for a variety of reasons, including being on holiday. I'd prefer we allow him, when ready, to explain himself, to set his actions in context, to balance those actions against his other admin contributions, and to assure the community that he will not repeat the behaviour that led to this case. SilkTork (talk) 10:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am here. I am not certain about what I should do. Am I supposed to add to a statement or is that phase closed? Enigmamsg 17:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The template provided above by Bradv gives you all the links and relevant dates. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make a statement here. I read the message left for me several times and I do not know if it is desired for me to open a new section on the workshop page or the 'evidence' page. It can be copied to the appropriate place. What I have to say is not evidence. If the arbitrators or anyone else have questions about specific examples, I can attempt to explain my past errors, but in general:
I am deeply sorry for my inappropriate block log messages. I was not being mindful of my capacity as an admin. The most recent block was obviously wrong and I apologize to the user and the community. In the case of Bloger, I do believe the user should have been blocked, but I was wrong to do it myself, since I was obviously involved.
I believe I am a net positive but I make occasional errors in judgment. I have been generally responsive to such errors if brought to my attention. I do not mind if other admins overturn my actions and I overturn them myself if they are pointed out to me.
I acknowledge that admins represent something more and are expected to be on their best behavior at all times. I believe I can meet these expectations if given a chance, whether by a trial period or by proving myself by editing without the tools for assigned periods.
I have been here a long time and I do not feel I have "gone off the rails" or "gone to pieces". On several occasions, I was simply not mindful of my role. I have been active continually since the community decided to trust me with the tools and I have done a lot of work at AfD and RfPP.
If it is decided that the encyclopedia is better off without me, then I understand and will abide by whatever sanctions are placed. I will be here for the next two days to respond to any specifics. This has been a busy month for me, which is the reason for my sporadic editing. For the record, I was not trying to "ignore" anyone or their concerns. I saw everything on my talk but I did not realize discussion was going on at the workshop page. I was checking Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Enigmaman. I was not aware of the procedure. To the best of my recollection, I have never been party to an arbitration case or involved with the procedures. Enigmamsg 21:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Enigmaman, the case request has been closed as accepted. The case has been opened and occurs using several specific pages. The evidence submitted is an important aspect and you may provide your own evidence regarding your administrative conduct and claims at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Enigmaman/Evidence, as well as provide comments or rebuttals to specific evidence at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Enigmaman/Evidence in your own section. You may comment on specific workshop proposals in the relevant "comment by parties" subsection, submit your own workshop proposals (on the same page), or you may engage in workshop discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Enigmaman/Workshop (also using the own section format). My advice would be to participate in the case, on the respective case pages, and respond to the various evidence submissions and workshop proposals so that your arguments may be taken under consideration. Once the evidence and workshop phase concludes (on May 4), the matter is before the Arbitration Committee for a decision. Mkdw talk 21:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

arbitration case[edit]

Hi Enigmaman, sorry to see you've been dragged into the tedium of an arbitration case. I won't take any view of how it should come out, but want to say that even if you've made errors with the admin buttons, nobody seems to want you to leave Wikipedia. I hope you'll stay on as a regular editor even if you don't get to stay an administrator.

Don't be hard on yourself either way. Wikipedia's bureaucracy is far more stringent now than it was when you became an admin (that is IMHO mostly not a good thing) and it's pretty common if you follow arb cases for admins from the early days running afoul of current expectations by doing what they were used to in another era. If you lose the bit and still want to be an admin, it's always possible to make good contributions for a while and then submit a new RFA. If you keep it, just be more careful going forward, and more receptive to adapting to current practices.

Best, 173.228.123.207 (talk) 07:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I'm still here and I'd be glad to talk to anyone who has anything to say or ask. Enigmamsg 01:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 special circular[edit]

Icon of a white exclamation mark within a black triangle
 Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a rather rude message, especially given the current circumstances. Enigmamsg 00:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was sent to all current administrators. I agree that the message itself was sub-optimal (see the correction below, even) - but I'm sure nothing was meant specifically against you. SQLQuery me! 18:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Just venting here about the timing. Enigmamsg 19:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of proposed decision[edit]

Hi Enigmaman, in the open Enigmaman arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you.  Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 19:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems the arbitrators have made up their minds. I don't think there's anything left for me to say. Enigmamsg 00:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where to post this, but I have no idea why there's a section on 'communication' in the proposed decision. My communication has been good. I have responded within 24 hours to anything of importance. If this is about the AN/I thread, that was escalated to an ArbCom case within a few hours of being posted (my gap of being offline was perhaps 10 hours and within the 10 hours, it got escalated before I could even reply), so there was hardly anything for me to say there. Enigmamsg 21:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)[edit]

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 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

  • In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
  • Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mike L Whaley[edit]

I am contesting the deletion of the page. I am requesting the review of the sources again as it didn't save properly last time. It's very unfair how this is handled and will be emailing wikipedia for review of these actions.

Tyang Mark[edit]

You might want to also delete Draft:Tyang Mark that someone moved to a draft instead of deleting it earlier. Wgolf (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's appropriate to delete it at this point. The article was deleted for cause. There's a different threshold for drafts. Enigmamsg 17:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Enigmaman closed[edit]

An arbitration case regarding Enigmaman has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedy has been enacted:

Enigmaman (talk · contribs) is desysopped for repeated misuse of administrative tools and the administrative logs, inadequate communication, and generally failing to meet community expectations and responsibilities of administrators as outlined in WP:ADMINACCT. He may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 13:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Enigmaman closed
I have removed your sysop flag. Thank you for your service. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 13:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What now?[edit]

Hi. So, the rest of us that don't swing a ban hammer contribute to Wikipedia by rolling back vandalism or writing articles. There are lots of WikiProjects with backlogs that need help. I, personally, am motivated by earning barnstars and you might be, too. Most of the effort that gets put into this wiki happens without use of the tools and I think you'll find there's a huge amount that you could help with. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 13:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Enigmaman. Sorry things turned out this way, but I hope you will stick around. As Chris notes above, there is a lot that needs doing around here and almost everybody in the Arbcom discussion called you a "net positive" for the community. So by all means take a couple days off if you feel the need. But please don't leave. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with other speakers. Your contribution to the project is much appreciated, please stay around.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. You're definitely a net positive here and I hope that you stick around. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Feeling a little disillusioned, but back to editing. Enigmamsg 17:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it's my place to say but frankly I'm amazed anyone would quibble over giving a former admin rollback rights. Anyway I see Lourdes has obliged.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Gaza–Israel clashes (May 2019)[edit]

On 8 May 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Gaza–Israel clashes (May 2019), which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

Stephen 23:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested pagemove protection for JRM's sister's page[edit]

I think that the Move protection (indefinite?) on Jacob Rees-Mogg should also be accorded to the Annunziata Rees-Mogg (and Annunziata Glanville) page(s). It was moved 3 times for dubious or dodgy bad-faith political reasons or mischief, including one back in 2011 was none other than an actual (and still presently a) Cllr in Westminster City Council. [8][9][10] I know this was 2011, but still, an elected public official against an otherwise (and as yet a) private individual British citizen... talk about bullying (and against a woman as well!) (PS: Where in the law in England and Wales or in the UK does it say that a married woman automatically assumes her husband's surname by default, that I would like to know!) -- 194.207.146.167 (talk) 10:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Favonian. As for Jacob, his protection was the result of significantly more disruption over the years. Several page protections of escalating duration. Enigmamsg 23:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your attention needed at WP:CHU[edit]

Hello. A renamer or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. -★- PlyrStar93 →Message me. ← 22:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Durant hatnote[edit]

Hi. I accidentally undid your edit at Kevin Durant without leaving an edit summary. Per Wikipedia:Hatnote#Terms_that_can_cause_confusion_with_another_topic, hatnotes are not necessarily limited to entries involving the exaact same name. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 04:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that in the majority of cases, we only use hatnotes when there are others with the same name. If we add hatnotes for every time there's someone with a similar name (Devin instead of Kevin?????), you have several million hatnotes to add. Enigmamsg 04:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!![edit]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, Mjs1991 (talk) 01:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall getting one of these when I was an admin... Enigmamsg 15:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Enigmaman/Archives/2019&oldid=1211800076"