This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding ?fuzzy=1 to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.
A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.
Hello Tazerdadog, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Backlog update:
The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.
Technology update:
Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
LoginNotify should soon be deployed to the English Wikipedia. This will notify users when there are suspicious login attempts on their account.
The new version of XTools is nearing an official release. This suite of tools includes administrator statistics, an improved edit counter, among other tools that may benefit administrators. You can report issues on Phabricator and provide general feedback at mw:Talk:XTools.
Hello Tazerdadog, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Backlog update:
The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
Technology update:
Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.
General project update:
The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Round 4 of the WikiCup has ended and we move forward into the final round. In round 4, a total of 12 FAs, 3 FLs, 44 GAs, 3 FLs, 79 DYKs, 1 ITN and 42 GARs was achieved, with no FPs or FTs this time. Congratulations to Peacemaker67 on the Royal Yugoslav Navy Good Topic of 36 items, and the 12 featured articles achieved by Cas Liber (5), Vanamonde93 (3), Peacemaker67 (2), Adityavagarwal (1) and 12george1 (1). With a FA scoring 200 points, and bonus points available on top of this, FAs are likely to feature heavily in the final round. Meanwhile Yellow Evan, a typhoon specialist, was contributing 12 DYKs and 10 GAs, while Adityavagarwal and Freikorp topped the GAR list with 8 reviews each. As we enter the final round, we are down to eight contestants, and we would like to thank those of you who have been eliminated for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. The lowest score needed to reach round 5 was 305, and I think we can expect a highly competitive final round.
Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best man (or woman) win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 06:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.
Technical news
You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.
Hello Tazerdadog, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Backlog update:
The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!
Technology update:
The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225
General project update:
On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Great work in closing out the AN discussion on Hidden Tempo RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks from me too for your hard work in sorting that out. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Did you initiate the move request for Enclosure? I am trying to understand how this all started (noting that MfortyoneA has now been permanently blocked as a user).
My interest is in ensuring that an appropriate name is given to this article. It does seem to me that plain "Enclosure" is a bit selfish of those interested in Agricultural History (which includes me), but we need to get the new name right.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
@ThoughtIdRetired: The timeline goes as follows: MfortyoneA made the (extremely bold) move to Enclosure (legal). This move was challenged by Chris Troutman. I then chimed in, saying that I agreed with MfortyoneA on the substance, but I agreed with Chris Troutman that we should move the page back to Enclosure while we had the debate. I then started the RM, and (I believe) Chris Troutman filed the technical move request to but the page back at its current location pending discussion. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I have to confess to being slightly less concerned now that our rogue user is out of the picture. I think my next priority is to read the book on the Agricultural Revolution that I have just bought.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I was wondering about how it came about, as all the disruption by the blocked sock has/is being mass undone. There's a few discussions like this one tidying up after, but it isn't clear from the nom the reasoning, and now I've struck the socks comments the RM looks quite bare. Widefox; talk 12:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Following a successful proposal to create it, a new user right called "edit filter helper" is now assignable and revocable by administrators. The right allows non-administrators to view the details of private edit filters, but not to edit them.
Following a discussion about mass-application of ECP and how the need for logging and other details of an evolving consensus may have been missed by some administrators, a rough guide to extended confirmed protection has been written. This information page describes how the extended-confirmed aspects of the protection policy are currently being applied by administrators.
A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
Hey, Tazerdadog. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!Lepricavark (talk) 02:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello Tazerdadog, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Backlog update:
The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.
Technology update:
Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.
General project update:
The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
A new function is now available to edit filter managers that will make it easier to look for multiple strings containing spoofed text.
Arbitration
Eligible editors will be invited to submit candidate statements for the 2017 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 12 until November 21. Voting will begin on November 27 and last until December 10.
The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.
In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:
Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a two-way tie with themselves for an astonishing five FAs in R2 and R4).
Good Article – Adityavagarwal had 14 GAs promoted in R5.
Over the course of the 2017 WikiCup the following content was added or improved on Wikipedia: 51 Featured Articles, 292 Good Articles, 18 Featured Lists, 1 Featured Picture, 1 Featured Topics, 4 Good Topics, around 400 Did You Knows, 75 In The News, and 442 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.
Regarding the prize vouchers - @Adityavagarwal, Vanamonde93, Casliber, Bloom6132, 1989, and SounderBruce: please send Godot13(talk·contribs·email) an email from the email address to which you would like your Amazon voucher sent. Please include your preference of global Amazon marketplace as well. We hope to have the electronic gift cards processed and sent within a week.
So the 2017 WikiCup has come to an end. Congratulations to the winner, to the other finalists and to all those who took part. 177 contestants signed up, more than usual, but not all of them submitted entries in the first round. Were editors attracted by the cash prizes offered for the first time this year, or were these irrelevant? Do the rules and scoring need changing for the 2018 WikiCup? If you have a view on these or other matters, why not join in the WikiCup discussion about next year's contest? Sturmvogel66(talk·contribs·email), Godot13(talk·contribs·email) and Cwmhiraeth(talk·contribs·email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Tazerdadog. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.
Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.
Technical news
Wikimedians are now invited to vote on the proposals in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey on Meta Wiki until 10 December 2017. In particular, there is a section of the survey regarding new tools for administrators and for anti-harassment.
A new function is available to edit filter managers which can be used to store matches from regular expressions.
Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.
Hello Tazerdadog, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Backlog update:
The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!
Outreach and Invitations:
If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.
New Year New Page Review Drive
A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.
General project update:
ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Hello Tazerdadog, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!
We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!
The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.
Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:
The total number of reviews completed for the month.
The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.
NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.
Have you ever thought about trying your hand at running for adminship? I've seen you around, and I think you're absolutely admin material. You've been pretty impressive with the Neelix cleanup, and you do excellent in a variety of situations. For all the talk about RfA being brutal, my own was remarkably easy and I think you've proven your worth. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, and thanks for the kind words. Wikipedia really does need more people with the mop, and I'd happily run if I thought I had a realistic chance. That said, I don't think that in true in the current climate for several reasons. Firstly, my edit count is under 8000, which is unusually small for successful candidates at RfA. Secondly, my activity is sporadic, and I can disappear for months at a time. Thirdly, I have very little content creation experience, with "my" best article currently being Dayco, and the best article that the software says I created being Throstur Thorhallsson. One of the primary ways that I contribute to Wikipedia is closing difficult RfC's, where my decisions are often controversial (schooloutcomes, daily mail, etc), and in at least one case, flat out incorrect (here). I also have next to no experience with AfD, or really any of the XfD processes.
If that still hasn't scared you off, I'd be happy to do some blatant boxcheckingbroaden my Wikipedia experience a little and thin give it a go at WP:ORCP
Understandable; when my nominative first approached me i waited for 5 months (not that you should, but it's hardly unprecedented). My content creation basically consisted of 3 decent but unremarkable articles, but I also had a few thousand more edits. If you want to go for it I'd definitely encourage you, and whenever you feel like you're ready I'll happily nominate you if you so desire. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words. I am going to wait a while on a RfA run, but I will keep your offer in mind. I want to at least create one high quality (GA+) article, and comment on a few hundred AfD's before I take the plunge. I suspect that an immediate RfA would have a lot of opposition for insufficient experience. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. And in the meantime I'm around for anything else you need, don't ever hesitate to give me a shout. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
+1 to "absolutely admin material"! - TNT❤ 03:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Talk about a coincidence, I just came here for the same reason. I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one thinking you're ready to take the leap. I'm available if you want a (co-)nom when you're ready! --Tavix(talk) 04:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Please remove your comments directing the AfD discussions, particularly regarding what should be included in the discussion and what the default consensus means. None of the was in the AN discussion. You are welcome to start an RfC on it. The AN discussion focused only on whether an Village Pump discussion could effect the deletion of articles and the answer is "no." I doubt there is much support or any for your statement regarding what "no consensus" means but it was certainly not discussed. --DHeyward (talk) 08:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree with you on the no consensus statement and have struck it from the close. It was not discussed in sufficient depth in the discussion to properly make its way to the close. I don't think it's too much of a burden to have the RfC linked in any AfD and considered by the closer, so I have left that. I don't think my close was overly long in relation to the length of the discussion. I hope this addresses your concerns. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree it was overly long and unnecessary. This is another example of closing overreach which I have in the past criticized you for. I really think you should simply stop closing discussions at this point: the role of the closer is not to dictate a nice story for people, but to provide an answer to the questions asked, and summarize consensus. There is no need to touch on anything beyond the questions asked, even if it makes things messy. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I'll give an example of how "overly wordy" goes wrong. We both agree that Beeblebrox should not be castigated for deleting the articles. We both agree that the AN discussion did not conclude any wrongdoing. In fact it wasn't discussed much. Some commented on the action. Personally, the lack of discussion and the lack of fault finding would have left me inclined not to mention it at all. But by calling it out and contradicting a few editors, it creates a condition where they may feel the need for vindication because they believe the wrong call was made. AN can't do anything to an administrator so there is no need to condemn or condone an action, only what the community will do about an action. Beeblebrox was under no obligation to act in any way and all your comment likely did is piss off the people searching for a pint of blood. I hate wiki litigation and for that reason, I would not have mentioned anything about how anyone comported themselves as that wasn't a question or option. Hopefully the blood lust has died down enough since the pages have been restored but had it lingered, there is a real chance your close comments would have been called a "coverup" or worse. Keep in mind that I actually agree with your comments but have seen such things quickly turn into a shiatshow. It doesn't matter much now so no need to update. I will boldly archive it. --DHeyward (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you both for the well-meant advice - it is helpful. I will take some time to think about what you guys are telling me before I make any more closures. I clearly missed badly on this one, and I need to understand all of the reasons why that happened before I continue in this area. One of my goals in closing statements is to address all major points that were brought up during the discussion. While I still think that should be done in a proper closing statement, I may need to recalibrate the threshold at which discussion should make it into the close. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.
Technical news
A tagwill now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.
Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee has enacted a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a standardizededitnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.
Hello Tazerdadog, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!The NPP backlog at the end of the drive with the number of unreviewed articles by creation date. Red is older than 90 days, orange is between 90 and 30 days old, and green is younger than 30 days.
Backlog update:
The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!
New Year Backlog Drive results:
We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!
General project update:
ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
This article was deleted recently as it was moved to the mainspace by now-indeffed MFriedman. I have undeleted it since I noticed that you had checked it first and moved the article, only for it to be moved back to draft moments later. Do you remember why that happened? —Xezbeth (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't remember, I reviewed a relatively large number of them a while ago. I'll take another look at it now. Tazerdadog (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Here's what happened: That article was one of the first ones draftified. The draftification was carried out in multiple steps by MusikAnimal's bot for very good reasons. I reviewed it out of the first batch moved, and moved it back to mainspace after finding it acceptable. MusikBot then caught it in the next run and moved it back. The page is acceptable. Tazerdadog (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thanks for helping me out with my lists of the prehistoric life of Russia. Abyssal (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.
Technical news
CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
The edit filter has a new featurecontains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.
Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.