Open main menu

Please add items to the bottom of this page. I will normally reply on this page to any conversation started here.


/* April 2019 */Edit

List of New Zealanders by net worth Changed content with purpose to cite sources, please let me continue. Thank you>Wikimannz 03:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Find your sources first. A source from 2003 doesn't belong in a current list. If Cooper was no longer a billionaire, you could create a new section about "Historical billionaires", but I think he's still worth quite a lot.-gadfium 03:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019Edit

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

  Technical news



  • 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)

ArbCom 2019 special circularEdit

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 02:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

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)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019Edit

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.


  • 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.


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

Invitation to join the Fifteen Year SocietyEdit

Dear Gadfium,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. ​

Best regards, Urhixidur (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

P:O listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect P:O. Since you had some involvement with the P:O redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019Edit

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

  Administrator changes

  AndonicConsumed CrustaceanEnigmamanEuryalusEWS23HereToHelpNv8200paPeripitusStringTheory11Vejvančický

  CheckUser changes


  Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
  • An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
  • An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

  Technical news

  • The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
  • Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


Type of pKU taken from satayanarayan text book of biochemistry. Thanks you Prakagsh tripathi (talk) 09:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

You should add a reference at the time you add content to an article. Also, the lead section of an article is intended to be an introduction and summary of the body. See WP:LEAD. New information should therefore be added to the body, and only added to the lead as well if it belongs in a short summary.-gadfium 22:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

A sad day for WikipediaEdit

Hello old Wiki friend. I have just seen your request to the crats to remove your adminship, and it greatly saddens me. The WMF clearly has no idea of the damage they have done to the project. Good luck. Moriori (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Moriori. I still expect to be involved as an editor.-gadfium 08:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, sorry to see you hand in your bit. I just had a look at my RfA...and you voted for me all those years ago :). Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 10:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Wow. I'm gobsmacked. I'm sorry to see you leave the ranks. Maybe I should have followed this whole saga more closely. Anyway, if anything needs doing that requires advanced permissions please don't hesitate to drop me a line. Just like I always did for many years. Schwede66 12:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Lectonar and Schwede66. I'm enjoying being able to focus on articles at present.-gadfium 19:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I hope the WMF gets a grip on themselves and you recover your spirits Gadfium. You were a good administrator. – Epipelagic (talk) 03:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Epipelagic.-gadfium 03:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion about editEdit

EMU FAM here, sorry if this is the wrong place for discussion here but id just like to provide evidence for my changes to the Queenstown population and NZ Urban areas page.[1] refer to Page 6. And [2] refer to Wakatipu ward residents. Yes, I am aware of the difference between these two numbers however both demonstrate that the actual urban population of Queenstown is substantially larger than the official number on the Wikipedia page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by EMU FAM (talkcontribs)

The Wakatipu ward seems to cover a much larger area than just Queenstown, including Glenorchy, Kingston and Frankton. The priority is to show the actual Queenstown population in the article, but a population figure for a "greater Queenstown urban area" might also be appropriate. The ward population is not that figure.-gadfium 20:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019Edit

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

  Administrator changes

  28bytesAd OrientemAnsh666BeeblebroxBoing! said ZebedeeBU Rob13Dennis BrownDeorDoRDFloquenbeam1Flyguy649Fram2GadfiumGB fanJonathunderKusmaLectonarMoinkMSGJNickOd MishehuRamaSpartazSyrthissTheDJWJBscribe
1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

  Guideline and policy news

  • In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

  Technical news

  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

On the "constitutional crisis"Edit

On 10 June, a part of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) - the organisation which runs Wikipedia and related projects - called Trust & Safety (T&S) banned an administrator called Fram from the English Wikipedia for a year. This was an unprecedented action because previously T&S have only become involved in matters with legal implications, and they failed to explain why they banned Fram. Usually, problems on English Wikipedia are dealt with by the community of editors or by the elected Arbitration Committee (Arbcom). The ban created considerable unease amongst editors, which was not calmed by several statements from T&S as they were couched in bureacratic/legal language and failed to address the specifics. A way forward proposed by respected editor Newyorkbrad was rejected outright by T&S.

I followed the discussion with interest, and gave my support to Newyorkbrad's compromise proposal. When it was clear that the community's protest was not being heeded, I decided to make my own protest. On 22 June, I resigned as an administrator with the following post:

I have been dispirited by the recent action of T&S, and even more so by their refusal to explain their action in any meaningful way, to provide any mechanism for an appeal, or to negotiate on a compromise. I do not wish to hold advanced permissions on en.wikipedia in this situation. Please remove my administratorship.

More than 20 other administrators have also resigned over this. In some cases, they resigned because they disagreed with the community's opposition to T&S's action, but most resigned for similar reasons to me. Other editors stopped using administrator tools, or stopped editing articles until such time as the situation was resolved.

Others who resigned also stopped editing Wikipedia articles, but I took a different approach: I became more active in improving articles than previously. I don't know any details about Fram, and I don't particularly care whether or not they are banned, so long as the process is fair. I still very much care about the encyclopedia.

On 28 June, the WMF CEO Katherine Maher began to discuss the situation with the community on her talk page, and on 2 July, the WMF Board of Trustees issued a statement which directed T&S to work with Arbcom to review the case. Individuals on the board made it clear that Arbcom could overturn or alter the T&S ban if it saw fit. T&S provided detailed information privately to Arbcom on why they had banned Fram, and Arbcom has confirmed that although there are some redactions of names in that information, it is sufficient for them to open a case.

The three points I raised in my resignation have now been substantially addressed: T&S have explained their action to Arbcom, which will now consider the evidence and may overrule the ban, and the CEO is actively talking to the community. I will ask for my administrator position back, because I believe that the crisis is over.

I do think the WMF comes out of this badly because they failed to communicate with the community initially, and took a very long time to correct that. I think we need a management organisation which engages with the community in a more timely fashion. The turmoil of the last few weeks may be a wake-up call to them.

I am proud of the community of editors. We've been far from united on this, but in the end we succeeded in forcing the WMF to listen to us and to back down from their early refusal to compromise at all.

More information about the response to T&S's ban can be found at WP:FRAMSUM.-gadfium 04:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back to the team of administrators. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
We'll soon have you back (after the automatic 24-hour-standdown period is over). That's awesome! Schwede66 20:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
So glad to see this. Hoping for more resysops in the coming weeks. GABgab 21:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Welcome back from me as well. I regarded your resignation as being particularly serious given that we have so few admins from NZ. It was principled to quit, and it's principled to return. Nick-D (talk) 22:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
I've not been highly engaged with the constitutional crisis but I'm impressed with both your principled stand and your good sense, which adds to my long-standing admiration of your WP activity. I'll be pleased to see you with the admin tools again. Nurg (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


Tēnā Koe, Gadfium, it's Leavepuckgackle1998 here. I just wanted to thank you for your advice to help fix the Wellington article I heavily contributed to this afternoon. I read all your feedback carefully, and have corrected all the things you pointed out as being incorrect. However, I did not think it was appropriate how you reverted all my edits I worked so hard on instead of just fixing the two or three mistakes there. That's how we do it on Wikipedia. I'm sure you're a very expereinced editor, but please don't revert people's whole edits even though only 1% of them is a mistake. Please resist temptations from doing this. --Leavepuckgackle1998 (talk) 06:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Leavepuckgackle1998: I didn't say the first sentence was the only problem. Let's take the second sentence. One of the references is to a Wikipedia article. You cannot use Wikipedia articles as references for other articles. The other reference says "hundreds of years ago", not the "circa 925 CE" you give. If you are not familiar with recent developments in New Zealand archaeology, I suggest you read, which explains that earlier estimates of Polynesian settlement dates in New Zealand have been overturned by modern dating methods, and settlement prior to about 1280 CE is unlikely. More recent papers still suggest post 1300 CE dates. Unfortunately there are still many websites and history books which have not caught up to the state of research, and some Wikipedia articles which use such websites as references. We should not be propogating such incorrect material to more articles. Another issue in this sentence: It calls Kupe a Māori explorer, but the Māori culture developed in the centuries following settlement. Also, there is no historical evidence for his existence; he is a legendary figure. Kupe is according to legend a reknowned Polynesian explorer of the land now called New Zealand...
I did point out that the lead section should be a summary of the full article, rather than adding material which is not mentioned in the body. See WP:LEAD.
I suggest that you remove or rewrite all material you have added to the lede which is not supported by the body. It is not reasonable to expect other editors to do this for you. I do not have the time to go through and explain the faults in every sentence you have written.-gadfium 07:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't expect you to, I was just saying that if it was, say, BCE instead of CE (something that is clearly a typo) you could just fix that? Thanks.Leavepuckgackle1998 (talk) 10:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I have replied on Leavepuckgackle1998's talk page.-gadfium 21:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm really, really sorry, but it was an accidentEdit

Gadfium, I apologise for you for trying to rename Napier, New Zealand to Napier. I clearly didn't know how when I attempted it, but I did it in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leavepuckgackle1998 (talkcontribs) 03:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Gadfium".