User talk:Pax:Vobiscum/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

A Barnstar for You!

		The Barnstar of Recovery
		For saving Disguised Toast from deletion. Good job! CrispyCream27 • talk • user page 22:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Gormenghast (castle) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gormenghast (castle) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gormenghast (castle) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Media coverage of Bernie Sanders

User:Wikieditor19920 has asked for a deletion review of Media coverage of Bernie Sanders. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 21:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to post this. Yes, I have proposed a review of your closure, which I believe to be in error. Thanks, Cryptic. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposed DRV for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Pacific 9010

Good morning, may I ask as to what led you to close the above as keep? All of the keep votes are nothing other than WP:ILIKEIT. Care to elaborate, please? Did you evaluate the sourcing prior to closure? Nightfury 09:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Good morning! Among the participants in the discussion, consensus was pretty clearly keep. For me to override this, there needs to be a pretty clear case that this "local consensus" goes against a broader community consensus (since obviously a handful of people cannot overthrow our core policies). Since noone questioned your characterization that there are two or maybe three marginally reliable sources I accepted that. With the existence of two or three sources it is not obvious that the subject fails our notability standards, and so I did not find it appropriate to override the consensus in the AfD. Best/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, I will take to DRV for further analysis, I appreciate your input re this, this isn't your fault but I believe the contributors may have been biased on this one. Thanks. Nightfury 11:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for reaching out so civilly! Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Southern Pacific 9010

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Southern Pacific 9010. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Nightfury 11:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Young Conservatives of Texas

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Young Conservatives of Texas. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. - There was clear consensus after the two relistings. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Need the source code

Hi, a blocked editor has nominated my articles for deletions. Can you please provide me the deleted content of National Association of Building Contractors ? Thanks in advance. Altutmir (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure! It is now available at Draft:National Association of Building Contractors. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Drafts for how article drafts work, in case you want to keep working on it there. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Associated Students of Pomona College

Greetings. And apologies for bothering you, as I rarely do this. But I just wanted to understand your rationale for closing as no consensus. Especially since another sysop relisted it once. When it was relisted I wasn't sure why, since there was a 5-1 ratio to either delete/redirect the article, the additional keep !vote doesn't use a valid rationale. My thought was the relisting was due to the 5 votes being split between merge/delete/redirect, and that editor relisted it to gain consensus as to which one it should be. But since they didn't state a reason for the relisting, that's pure supposition on my part. Is that why you gave it a no-consensus? Not criticizing the decision, just trying to understand the thinking behind it. Thanks for your time.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Greetings, and no worries for reaching out, that's what talk pages are for! I agree with your assessment that the additional !vote by Concertmusic did not add anything useful to the discussion, and neither (I would add) did the earlier comments by KidAd. The core of the issue is, in my opinion, the question of The Story of Pomona College and The History of Pomona College, 1887–1969. Sdkb made a credible argument that they should be considered (being published by scholarly independent trade publishers), despite being written by people associated with the college. The only person to address Sdkb's argument was Adamant1 who did not agree (Eddie891 thought the 1-page coverage in Sumner was too short, but didn't seem to question their reliability). The replies to the post on the reliable source noticeboard were not super clear, but did not rule the books out. With this core issue unresolved and a re-listing unlikely to improve the debate (since the last re-listing did so little), I found no consensus the most appropriate close. I appreciate you reaching out so civilly, and if you don't find my line of thinking convincing I encourage you to take the AfD to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Best wishes/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the very well-thought out response, and yes I understand your thinking on the issue. I don't think in all the AfD's I've done, I've ever taken anything to deletion review, and this certainly wouldn't qualify for my first time! Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rational Service Tester for SOA Quality

In your close, you did not address JPxG's suggestion to merge to Rational Software. This seems like a reasonable WP:ATD. Jcarlosmartins says this is not allowed but that's new to me. You are critical that I did not provide sources associated with my keep !vote. A delete !vote with "softcore ad" rational is similarly weak. ~Kvng (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Noone was able to show coverage that meets WP:GNG and that's the only reason I closed as delete, you are absolutely right that the "softcore ad" rational is no reason for deletion. The reason I didn't close as merge was because I saw no referenced content to merge. If you would like to look through the article for content to merge I would be happy to move it to draft space for you (I have also never heard of the principle Jcarlosmartins was talking about). Best/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying that if no one proves notability, deletion is the default? I don't see any strong arguments either way in this one. I was expecting redirect or no consensus.

Regardless, I would like to see what's in there that could be included in Rational Software. I have a question though: If you restore Draft:Rational Service Tester for SOA Quality space and I copy some stuff out of it into Rational Software and create a new redirect, I think we have an WP:ATTREQ problem once Draft:Rational Service Tester for SOA Quality is WP:G13 deleted. Wouldn't it be better to restore Rational Service Tester for SOA Quality to mainspace and WP:REDIRECT it and let me pull any useful stuff out of its history? ~Kvng (talk) 14:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

If no one proves notability it cannot have its own article. It does not always mean deletion in the technical sense, if there is usable content it can be merged and if a redirect is likely to be helpful that can be used. In this case I did not see any content to merge (since nothing in the article is referenced) and I did not think a redirect would get much usage. But I'm happy to restore it as a redirect so you can look and do what you think is best. Happy editing! Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, please do restore it as a redirect. ~Kvng (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Already done! Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I've created Rational_Software#Products to summarize information from these articles at risk of deletion. Would you be able to put copies of the other deleted articles in my userspace so I could do the same there?

1. Rational Application Developer
2. Rational Asset Manager
3. Rational ClearQuest
4. Rational Engineering Lifecycle Manager
5. Rational Functional Tester ~Kvng (talk) 16:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Kvng, sorry for the late response! I've restored the ones that were expired PRODs, but for Rational Asset Manager I suggest you go through WP:UNDELETE since it had an AfD. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately this project has been stalled by an edit war. ~Kvng (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Tom Rowsell

Hello, I noticed that you did not address that one of the few accounts to vote for the deletion was likely the subject of the article itself ([1]). In any case, there was no clearly consensus to delete this. Why then did you arbitrarily decide to delete the article despite a lack of consensus? Please reverse your deletion and place a vote instead. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I agree that he seems likely to be closely associated with the subject, but that is not an argument to keep the article. Closing is not only about the AfD discussion itself, but also about making sure the outcome conforms to Wikipedia policies and practices as widely accepted by the community. The article subject is currently so far from meeting our notability guidelines that closing the discussion as anything else than delete would be a violation of a very strong general consensus that we need multiple reliable sources to write an encyclopedic article (especially about a living person). As I explained in my close there was only one reliable source presented and it contained barely more than a mention. You can always take the AfD to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Mike Orlando for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mike Orlando is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Orlando until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

QuietHere (talk) 07:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Mike Orlando for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mike Orlando is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Orlando (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)