Wikispecies:Administrators' Noticeboard/Archive 2016

This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.

We processed your request #m15010138 and are happy to let you know that your delivery is now ready to be picked up. -- Rillke (talk) 00:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rights assigned and this has been added to my watchlist. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed thanks a lot, I saw first now that you had installed the script, I already tried it out, and assigned a user as AP. Best regards, Dan Koehl (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan Koehl: A word of warning though. As already stated on List of autopatrolled candiates it is important that administrators carefully evaluates candidates individually, and doesn't take for granted that a high edit count equals suitability for the autopatrol right. For instance, edits such as this are downright destructive, and must be taken into consideration. It was made by one of the users currently listed as an autopatrol candidate. Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist:, I absolutely agree with you, although errors like that, or typos like this (same two mentioned users involved) may occur, because we are humans. As long as the error is not intentional, and often repeated (like this), i guess such an error may fall in some gray zone, where destructive may be a strong word, if the user did not had a destructive intention. I guess the bottom line is that a user have demonstrated an understanding of Wikispecies policies and guidelines. (Speaking about this, I think Ill run some spell-check with AWB... ) Dan Koehl (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked IP now infinitely for repeated vandalism. --Murma174 (talk) 09:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should not block IPs indefinitely except under exceptional circumstances because IPs rotate and some IPs are dynamic. I have reduced it to 1 year. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but this appears to be a static IP (see edit-history) --Murma174 (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with OhanaUnited here, although it seems to be a pattern it has only been happening for 4 months on limited pages with only one warning. Permanent block is not warranted and may only encourage worse behavior. Faendalimas talk 01:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree, because my experience (in another WP project) is a different one. But if Wikispecies wants to be more considerate with vandals (this IP doubtless is a vandal), then I will reduce my activity in this area. Other admins possibly are more skillful in dealing with 'deviant behaviour'. --Murma174 (talk) 09:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Murma174 in this case. I cannot see the point in a year block for such a serious case of vandalism. In addition, it is highly unlikely that this person will be valuable contributor on WS. My experience on WS is that we can not afford to be lenient with vandals or deviants, why should we differ from other WP projects? Andyboorman (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to invite those who disagree to take a look at the technical explanation on why blocking IPs to stop vandalism is tricky, if downright near impossible. I won't post here on how to circumvent an IP block (takes no more than 2 mins) in case the vandal is reading this page and give him/her ideas. But if you are interested to know, send me an email. The vandal doesn't come back as soon as the block expired in late September, but rather went dormant until late December. However, the vandal returned on the second "go around", as soon as the second block's been lifted. This suggests revenge vandalism and would only escalate if we go heavy-handed. Moreover, the damage seems to be limited to a few particular page and we still have the option of semi-protecting the page itself even if the vandal succeed in circumventing. And I actually disagree the assessment of "highly unlikely that this person will be valuable contributor". The same IP vandalized English Wikipedia and was blocked up to 3 months. But the user returned few days ago and contributed positively. Issuing blocks is a fine art and requires finesse. When done correctly, some will rehabilitate (but of course not all). When done incorrectly, it can lead to "long term abuse" and waste everyone's time because it turns into a cat and mouse game. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comprehensive reply and the link! --Murma174 (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise Andyboorman (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Other projects in the sidebar

I just started deleting the {{Wikidata}}-template in several pages, as it is not necessary anymore. There are ~ 50 pages left, that can easily be done manually.

P.S. Deleting done. --Murma174 (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

And then I read about the implementation of Other projects in the sidebar, which is a Beta-feature at the moment. (Try it. It works.) Does it mean, we don't need the {{commons}}-template anymore here on Wikispecies? Is Wikispecies also affected by this change? If so, we'd need a bot to delete the {{commons}}-templates.
--Murma174 (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but to some degree also no. The {{Commons}} template produces the exact same link as the one in the sidebar (automatically provided by Wikidata), and should be removed from all pages and ultimately deleted altogether. See for instance Tichodroma muraria and compare the sidebar URL with the one provided by the {{commons}} template, and you will find that they are identical. Then again tens of thousands of Wikispecies' pages employ the {{Commonscat}} template instead. It works in more or less the same way as {{commons}} except it links to a Commons category rather than to a page in the main namespace. This of course results in two different links, thus the {{commonscat}} template should not be deleted. See for instance Danio rerio for an example of this.
To complicate matters, the links from both templates are visually presented in exactly the same way, and at a quick glance it can be difficult to differentiate between them. The actual URL's they target are of course very different though. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]
@Murma174: @Tommy Kronkvist: I have to say that I object to this: the sidebar is small and easy to miss but a footer template makes it more likely that someone will interact with it: this is especially useful for these two projects as they are multi-lingual. I appreciate your work and willingness to help but did you consult with anyone else before removing these? Was there any other discussion or consensus to be had? —Justin (koavf)TCM 14:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: We are talking about two different matters, right?
1. Removing Wikidata links. I'm referring to Wikispecies:Project_Wikidata#Templates. This template was introduced before it was clear, that Wikispecies should be integrated into Wikidata. That is done now. And the template was used only in ~ 50 pages. Do you see any purpose in this template for Wikispecies? If so, it should be discussed, whether this template should be introduced in all Wikispecies pages with a Wikidata link (and not in 50 arbitrary ones only).
2. Commons link. I understand your argument. This is a question, we should discuss. --Murma174 (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: @Murma174: Personally I neither use the {{Commons}} nor {{Commonscat}} template: in my opinion they aren't very useful from a taxonomical standpoint, and clutter the page is all they do. However I see no real harm in them and will not object if they remain. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]
@Murma174: There are a few things at play: one is the classic wiki problem of bold editing versus consensus. I'm not alleging you did anything wrong but simply asking if you got anyone else's feedback before removing the template(s). Another is the issue of whether or not we should encourage cross-editing of our sister projects. I 100% think we should. This is particularly the case in the multilingual projects (Commons, Wikidata, Wikispecies) where users may not know a particular language, so linking to a language-dependent version (such as a Wikipedia article) can be more confusing than helpful. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: Removing Wikidata links was one item on our common To Do List. Maybe you didn't know that. Describing my activity as bold editing against consensus is very disrespectful. I expect your apology now! --Murma174 (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Murma174: I wrote the exact opposite above: "I'm not alleging you did anything wrong but simply asking..." How is that disrespectful? —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Edit And I am familiar with Wikispecies:Done and to do. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Finally This page said nothing about deleting or removing the Wikidata template... you just added the part about "Inline Wikidata-links removed." I'm asking if there was consensus or discussion about this, which there evidently was not. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: I don't understand you anymore. I did not remove the Wikidata template, I removed the inline links. --Murma174 (talk) 08:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Murma174: What you wrote at the beginning of this section was "I just started deleting the {{Wikidata}}-template in several pages" but now you are saying "I did not remove the Wikidata template"...? Those can't both be true. And you did, in fact, remove the template. There was no discussion of removing this template anywhere that I can see and it was not a task on the to do list. Can you explain this? —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: You are right, above I didn't explain exactly, what I actually did. I removed the inline links. But I - in fact - did not remove the template: Template:Wikidata. --Murma174 (talk) 08:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admin rights

As you can see above, my command of English language obviously is not sufficient to understand the criticism towards my activity properly. And I'm not willing to spend my time with this sort of discussion. It's hurting me.
Thanks to all, who showed confidence in me. Unfortunately I can't fulfil the expectations. Please remove my admin rights.
--Murma174 (talk) 09:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Murma174: I would urge you not to act in haste and take a little time before asking for this removal. You can just go quiet for a bit then re-engage, perhaps. @Koavf: I think that you need to calm down and show a some respect as well and not overuse bold it is very disconcerting. There was no maliciousness in Murma174's edits afteral. I also think some folks need to appreciate that the majority of editors engage with WS to improve the breadth, depth and quality of taxonomic data not to broaden the wiki projects per se. I use commons and other cross links (not really WP) as they improve the appeal and hit value of WS. Andyboorman (talk) 12:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Murma174:, @Andyboorman: Agreed: you shouldn't have to know English to be an administrator at a multi-lingual project. It's your right to know the languages that you know and you do fine work. If you don't want to be am admin, then that is bad for this project--you are a good editor. —Justin (koavf)TCM 14:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf:If you truly think, I'm a good editor, why do you then start such a flaming? Just for fun, or what? --Murma174 (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Murma174: has got my full support, and I think he is well suited to be an admin. That said, I want to make it clear that I have the same opinion regarding both @Koavf: and @Andyboorman:. Misunderstandings can of course occur, but we have to deal with them in the best way possible. I think it is important that we all assume good faith (in German: geh von guten Absichten aus), rather than pick a fight. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC), 23:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]
P.S. As for "bold editing", my guess is that Koavf is referring to the Wikipedia guideline named Be bold (sei mutig) which encourages users to be bold when updating the encyclopedia, but also states that a certain amount of politeness is required. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Other projects in the sidebar (2)

Update from Wikimedia Tech News 2016/07:
There is a beta feature that adds links to the subject on other Wikimedia projects. The plan was to have it leave beta testing and be enabled for everyone in January. It will happen on 16 February instead. Wikis that don't want this can decide to have it disabled. --Murma174 (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Sidebar. I definitely support having all of the sister projects link to one another extensively. I think this will only improve our ability to work together. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sidebar. I also support this. Dan Koehl (talk) 07:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sidebar. By all means! This is a great idea, and I support it. Also, in order for our sister projects to have a link to Wikispecies in their sidebars, the page MediaWiki:Wikibase-otherprojects-wikispecies should be created at MediaWiki. (Shown in blue here, but as of now nevertheless not yet created.) The only content of the page should be the text string "Wikispecies" (without the quotes). That page should then be linked to from this MediaWiki page, in the subsection "Link texts". Unfortunately I do not have the proper MediaWiki permissions needed to create it.
    Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Request I have requested a mw admin create it: mw:Topic:Syi3sdlhh04g0604. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Presentation Request

I just wanted to let other admins here know. I have been asked to present at the World Congress of Herpetology on several issues. Apart from my own talk on phylogenetics, I will be presenting on Taxonomic Vandalism. However, as of yesterday I have been requested to do a presentation on the role of WikiMedia Foundation in presenting taxonomy, so in particular Wikispecies, its relationships to other projects and how it can be utilised as a possible tool for encouraging a stable nomenclature in Herpetology. The conference is in August so we have some time. I hope some admins from Wikidata also see this. If anyone has any comments or suggestions please feel free to either reply here, on my talk page, or email me if you prefer ( I am interested in hearing what others have to say. The issue for herpetology is dual nomenclatures developing because of the nomenclatural chaos caused by vandalism. They are looking at tools with International impact for the dissemination of correct nomenclature for species, and how they can interact with each other. Cheers Faendalimas talk 13:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I work on Wikidata - I'm not an admin there, but I'm not sure that's relevant. I suggest you post at d:Wikidata talk:WikiProject Taxonomy. And be prepared for the question from your audience: "Why is WMF hosting this data in two places?". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have been trying to consider that issue myself.... Faendalimas talk 20:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually @Pigsonthewing: I have been thinking on this, I also added this to the page you suggested. Why two places. Well in the 10 odd years that Wikispecies has existed it has amassed some 400000 taxa done. Wikispecies by its nature attracts specialists in taxonomy, I am not saying Wikidata could not but its membership is far more varied. I could tell this from responses to issues over there with regards to nomenclature and the Codes. I can talk to people in my field, ie professional taxonomists, and in my case I am a nomenclatural specialist with 20 years experience, to edit on a site like Wikispecies. They will not waste their time on Wikidata, because too much of it is not relevant to them. I am sorry but that's the reality. We have at least 7-9 million species to go so we need a team committed to doing the taxonomy of life. The data we produce here can go to Wikidata and be further utilised. But the best platform for initial entry is Wikispecies because to be honest taxonomists look at this and see what they are interested in. In a consistent format, that they are interested in. So to me Wikispecies is the data entry point, Wikidata takes it to add to there data. Eventually Wikispecies could be phased out, it should be, but not until the base data is entered on some 7-9 million taxa. Most taxonomists will not edit on Wikipedia for two reasons, one most of it is irrelevant, and two professional taxonomists are getting rare, and do not have a lot of time. Our work is time consuming, we do not have time to deal with people who do not really know anything about nomenclature and taxonomy, or even the difference between them. So Wikispecies attracts the editors who actually know what they are doing in regards to nomenclature and taxonomy, and as such is a valuable tool for Wikidata, and WikiMedia in general. Cheers Faendalimas talk 03:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you present those arguments to your audience, without exploring alternative approaches, you will be doing them a disservice. You will notice that I suggested that the question would be "Why is WMF hosting this data in two places?" (emphasis added); and not "Why is WMF working on this data in two places?". I have made the point before that WikiSpecies might continue, as a front end, with the data stored in Wikidata. I'm pretty sure that many who edit relevant items in Wikidata also "actually know what they are doing in regards to nomenclature and taxonomy". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I got your point, and no what I have said above is not relevant to the discussion I will be presenting at the conference. The hosting issue comes down to the issues for the users. As you say Wikispecies would be a good front end, I was not saying that there are not those on WikiData that do not have an understanding of taxonomy, but basically Wikispecies is presented as synonymies, WikiData is more like a database. Taxonomists are used to working with synonymies, they get it quickly and easily without the time consuming learning curve. That is the difference. If you can convince everyone to turn Wikispecies into a full front end, so that many do not have to see WikiData, I think that would be very useful, and get rid of duplication. But are we anywhere near that? Faendalimas talk 20:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Circular redirects


I note 3 'circular' redirects here Special:DoubleRedirects, that in their current state will never resolve to an ulitmate target. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All now resolved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I'd like to invite interested admins to participate in this discussion:

Thanks for your attention. --Murma174 (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to globally ban WayneRay from Wikimedia

Per Wikimedia's Global bans policy, I'm alerting all communities in which WayneRay participated in that there's a proposal to globally ban his account from all of Wikimedia. Members of the Wikispecies community are welcome in participate in the discussion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since this matter is also discussed at the Village Pump I propose that we keep it there exclusively, in order to minimize the risk of misunderstandings and miscommunication that may occur if one issue is discussed on several, separate pages. I think it's for the best. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]


(Discussion moved from User talk:Tommy Kronkvist.)

Hi, could you import this XML file to Template:LangSwitch? It's the commons version with all dependencies. Archi38 (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Archi38: Do you mean that I should import the contents of the XML file into the Wikispecies {{LangSwitch}} template? The reason for my question is that the XML code looks very different from the code in the Commons {{LangSwitch}} template. As far as I can see, the Commons template only includes the following code string: <includeonly>{{#invoke: fallback|langSwitch}}</includeonly><noinclude>{{Documentation}}</noinclude>
That's very little code – also, more than a third of the code string is only a reference to the template's documentation page. This should be compared to the code in the XML file you refer to, which consists of 143,695 characters (i.e. 3,539 lines of code). I'm happy to include it, but feel I need a wee bit of more information and/or explanation first... :-) Tommy Kronkvist, 21:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
This is the xml file wich is made when you use Special:Export with Template:LangSwitch on Commons. It also downloaded all dependencies so the page is a little long.. If you don't trust me, just go on commons:Special:Export, add Template:LangSwitch and check include templates. Archi38 (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Archi38: Ah, thank you for the explanation – now it all adds up. The reason for me not knowing about this is simply that both the "transwiki import" and "upload import" features are disabled at Wikispecies (see Special:Import at Wikispecies and Help:Import at Meta.) As a result, there are currently zero users in our "Transwiki importers" and "Importers" user groups (see Transwiki importers user list and Importers user list.) So while I am able to export the XML file from Commons, presently there are no means for me (or any other admin or bureaucrat) to import that file into Wikispecies. I guess we will need to address that problem first. –Tommy Kronkvist, 10:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I'm working on it Archi38 (talk) 11:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC) Don't have the time sorry Archi38 (talk) 12:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist: I'd like us to import some modules and template code from Wikipedia, so would be keen to see that feature enabled. How do we achieve that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on the road working out of town all weekend, but will check it up during the next week. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 07:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
So, did you import templates ? Archi38 (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

─────────────── No, at present it is not yet possible, but at least I'm working on it (to some extent together with @Faendalimas: see Wikispecies:Checkusers, Wikispecies:Importers, and Wikispecies:Transwiki importers.) I will have finished most of the preparatory work later this week. After that we will need to start a new discussion, decide upon and formulate two new Wikispecies' policies (one for checkusers and one for importers/transwiki importers), and start three polls (to vote upon which users should apply for the different user rights.) Any of these user rights can only be assigned by a Wikimedia steward (not by Wikispecies' administrators or bureaucrats). As per Wikimedia policies we need a minimum of two checkusers, but for importers and transwiki importers one each will do. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]


I have just blocked user:Bioref for three days for this abusive talk-page post. As it is the first block I have issued, I ask other admins to review my action. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion blocking the user was the right action, as I have also noted on my talk page.Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: Please see the BLOCKING LOG for User:Stho002 who this person really is. Apparently you haven't "met" him yet since he was blocked 16 months ago. He occasionally uses various cover-names to get back and to edit here. Mariusm (talk) 11:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In which case a checkuser should be carried out. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Someone may want to patrol their recent edits. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
user:Bioref is the same as Sthoner, who is blocked for a long time. He have nothing learned from the block so you may blocked him from me for a very long time. PeterR (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: taxonomically-speaking there's nothing wrong with Bioref's edits. The problem is with his unique formatting, his refusal to accept the WS rules and with his behavior. Mariusm (talk) 12:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did some patrolling of his edits yesterday, and spot checking on previous days. I must have gotten lucky, everything was tight and straightforward, and mostly on insects. That is Sthoner's specialty, though. After finding them good, I left it alone. Neferkheperre (talk) 12:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Neferkheperre: I don't know what Neferkheperre did patrolling but these two author templates are not after our agreements: {{Frisch, 2016}} and {{Seifert, 2016}}. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by PeterR (talkcontribs) 14:19, 27 April 2016.
They are now corrected by yours truly. I'm checking through all of Bioref's new templates, fixing them. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 06:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC), 06:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks Tommy. You can better fix all his contributions PeterR (talk) 07:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth remembering that User:Stho002 was blocked indefinitely not just for a long history of abusive and disruptive behavior, but also for persistent sockpuppetry. Given that, he was taxonomically correct in his own area of expertise, if less so when he went and tried his hand at plants. If Bioref does turn out to be User:Stho002 then this account will need to be blocked indefinitely as well, as it will be an other case of his sockpuppetry. WS needs to be consistent after all. A checkuser is appropriate surely? Andyboorman (talk) 08:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion yes, and in that case the checkuser should be carried out not only for Bioref (talkcontribsblock logall projects) , but for Leptostiba (talkcontribsblock logall projects) as well. Their edits are rather similar (both in comparison to each other, and to User:Stho002's) and was made within the same time period (Leptostiba made 12 edits @ April 17, and Bioref made 140 edits April 19–27, and then was blocked.) Tommy Kronkvist (talk)‚ 20:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I think you will find that only disruptive sockpuppets require blocking. [Personal attack removed] Ciao, Bioref (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC) PS: [Personal attack removed] Bioref (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For making further personal attacks once the block ended, I have reblocked Bioref, this time for two weeks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template entries

This discussion was moved to the pump. Mariusm (talk) 06:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]

More precisely and for future reference, it can be found here at the Wikispecies' Village Pump. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 07:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]


I blocked this IP (log) for one day. As it is a static IP obviously, I'd suggest to block it indefinetily. --Murma174 (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like good idea. Perusing this one's work shows mainly desires to annoy and vandalize, little else. Neferkheperre (talk) 18:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, blocking IP addresses indefinitely is a bad way to go. That said, since this is a vandalize-only user I have added another three months to the block. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 06:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Circular redirect

This will never resolve to a target. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sfan00 IMG: Thank you for bringing this up. Indeed there are currently about 60 double redirects and more than 700 broken redirects in the Wikispecies database, and they should all be dealt with. I even tweeted about this from the Wikispecies Twitter account some time ago, hoping to "gather the troops" so we can get it remedied. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I broke that loop by removing "var" from one title. I do not know much about botanical nomenclature, but in zoology, subspecies are expressed nowadays by "Geum divergens albiflorum". Under Geum, both G. albiflorum and G, divergens albiflorum are represented. Only one is valid. Nothing leads to taxon page. This needs work. Neferkheperre (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another ciruclar redirect that will never resolve. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to GBIF, this name is junior synonym. It does resolve to taxon page. Species appears to be seriously convoluted. @Haps: is our main fish guy. Neferkheperre (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Recently there was a re-description of this species. I fear I don't get the point with the circular redirect?!?--Haps (talk) 13:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Page redirects that point to each other, usually double or more redirects. Neferkheperre (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think, @Haps:' question was: What is the problem with Nemachilichthys ruppelli? My problem with that page are not circular redirects, but synonyms linking to the page itself. IMO the format of the synonyms whithin that page should be changed (e.g. * ''[[Cobitis rupelli]]'' {{aut|Sykes}}, 1839 -> * ''Cobitis rupelli'' {{aut|Sykes}}, 1839 --Murma174 (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now I understand your point, but technically it is no problem to have the synonyms linked to the page itself. It is a proof to have the synonyms linked to the page itself, because the names don't show up in red, and a second point could be, to place additional informations on the page, that has a redirect in the first line. For instance one could place there informations why it is a synonym and so on...--Haps (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Account lock request

Requesting "lock" of alternate account User:Sfan00 IMG per comments on that accounts talk page.

You seem to prefer that there's only a single account editing, something I'm perfectly happy to abide by. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirming from alternate account Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Confirming from main account 13:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC) — The preceding unsigned comment was added by ShakespeareFan00 (talkcontribs) 13:13, 5 June 2016.
Note I made the user page and directed others to the main account. If you want it deleted entirely, just let me know. —Justin (koavf)TCM 14:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. There is already a redirect in place, from User talk:Sfan00 IMG to User talk:ShakespeareFan00, with all other edits still intact on the "Sfan00 IMG" talk page. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

A Duck Test

Request Admins and Crats look at the edits by User:Stegana. Another strategy by a familiar sockpuppet? I have re-edited the ref templates to conform with WS consensus. Andyboorman (talk) 10:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be, that he/she is autopatrolled from the first day on? --Murma174 (talk) 10:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC) (deleted)--Murma174 (talk) 11:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thorpe If this is a sockpuppet of User:Stho002, then I actually say to let sleeping dogs lie. He added a lot to Wikispecies but was just a hothead and petty. If this new account starts adding New Zealand-related categories and starts name-calling, then we can block him. If not, let it be. It's embarrassing and childish that he can't just admit that he keeps on coming back to Wikispecies serially but we should reap the benefits of his knowledge and hard work if he wants to play nice. —Justin (koavf)TCM 13:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've also blocked User:Eviota (contribs), another clear Stho002 sockpuppet - MPF (talk) 11:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked User:Alucitation, another sockpuppet. --Murma174 (talk) 21:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for adminship

I nominated User:Franz Xaver for adminship and should be glad to read your comments. --Murma174 (talk) 11:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, however I am not ready to comment (or vote) prior to Franz either accepts or rejects the nomination. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Sorry for the delay. Now accepted. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 13:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, we have no time frames set in stone for these kinds of things. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Question on my user name

I asked a question of @Succu: on his talk page on Wikidata here I would be interested in any other opinions if any of you have one. Cheers Faendalimas talk 11:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Faendalimas: I have a pseuonymous user name, but my real name is clear, from my sig and my various user pages (which include my ORCID iD and other identifiers) . The best of both worlds ;-) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok for now I have changed my signature a bit, so that it shows my real name, and user name, similar to what yours does. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 13:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Village Pump

Think we need to archive some of the Village Pump, its old news and has 50 items is getting rather long. Cheers Faendalimas talk 11:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at work right now, but will see to it in a few hours, when I'm back home at the office. :-p Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Is there a bot that could do this? We could ask on of the operators of bots that do this on en.WP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: We could but it's usually not necessary--I do it frequently. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Now archived. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Now back to 171,090 bytes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tech issues for keyboard

Anyone knows why when I'm writing all my special characters are all messed? Language preferences doesn't seem to be the case. Other projects don't give me that problem. I noticed at least when I write "[", there is no problem, but when "[" twice gives me " ʽ "; when "~" gives twice "̴" (special character ̴ ); when "{" once gives me " ̪" and maybe more; and my two points : gives ː. Any idea? Sobreira (parlez)

Resolved. "[[]];:{{}}~~" :), I had the language input settings for English but for Phonetic Alphabet (SIL). — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sobreira (talkcontribs) 11:57, 23 September 2016.

Tech issues for Template:Syn

Why not working on Aderidae? -- Sobreira (parlez) 10:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Fixed. It was the "=", I changed it for "&#61;" — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sobreira (talkcontribs) 14:25, 15 September 2016.

Use of templates

When stating synonyms, which one do we use Template:Syn or Template:SN? The first seems to be used for animals ([1]) and the latter for plants ([2]), is this way? Not way too used anyway. Sorry for abusing. -- Sobreira (parlez) 10:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sobreira: No abuse taken! These older/experimental templates are not commonly used. Most contributors prefer to use the simple Wikimarkup "Synonym" on the edit faculty. In addition, some, particularly for plants, then use the Templates BAS, HOT, HET and HOM for the common subcataegories. Others tend to use the taxonomically more correct Synonymy as a section heading where I suppose the Template SYN could have value. See here [Ochna], [Orchis_mascula] and [Aslauga]. Hope this helps regards Andyboorman (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. I never suspected to track species to homotypic synonyms and herbaries. I was just for standarising the pages I was to visit (Iberian birds, 130 left), once I didn't realise about the ones already visited (450). I will check later with a bit more of time (if the keyboard lets me). -- Sobreira (parlez) 14:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sobreira: You do not have to make your edits "all singing and dancing". I have a made a suggested edit on your Charadrius wilsonia. Perhaps it would be best to migrate this discussion to my talk page if required. Andyboorman (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admins., ....take a look at these please. Orchi (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User page has picture of some skier(?) dated 1977. Talk page seems to talk about mental rehabilitation, and is some sort of research paper. Neferkheperre (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In Spanish, it seems to be about the use of editing Wikipedia for treatment of mentally institutionalised teenagers in an Argentinian hospital. Sobreira (parlez) 14:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The image depicts Finnish alpine skier Sara Mustonen (1962–1979) and is in my opinion okay to use on any user page. The user talk sub page User talk:Arquiteclaburant/Arquitectura only contained material unrelated to Wikispecies, and is now deleted. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Criteria for speedy deletion

Please see Wikispecies:Criteria for speedy deletion and add your thoughts and ideas to its talk page. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Deletion of content

Hi. Please, can you delete the contributions of this IP address? This content is outside of the scope of Wikispecies. Also see log of deletion on meta and MediaWiki. Thanks. Ks-M9 (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Done. Moreover, IP address blocked for one day. --Franz Xaver (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out this poll

@Accassidy, Andyboorman, Ark, Benedikt, Circeus, Dan Koehl, and EncycloPetey:
@Faendalimas, Franz Xaver, Geni, Hector Bottai, Keith Edkins, Koavf, and MKOliver:
@MPF, Mariusm, Maxim, Murma174, Neferkheperre, OhanaUnited, and Open2universe:
@PeterR, Pigsonthewing, Totipotent, Uleli, UtherSRG, and Wikiklaas:

Dear fellow admins, please check out this poll regarding a request for bureaucratship. Thank you. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Bot tagged AWB account?

Couldn't the AWB issues be dealt with through creating a bot tagged AWB account? Geni (talk) 03:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed they could, and according to the Wikimedia sock puppetry policies that would not constitute as inappropriate socking even if Koafv were to run both his "human" account as well as the "AWB account" at the same time. On the contrary: as it is considered a legitimate use of a suck puppet, it is actually encouraged. Requests for bot approval can be made here. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 04:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I agree. Create a bot account and use AWB on that account. While some may see it as an unnecessary reason to request for bureaucratship, it does indicate your willingness to deal with approvals and issues in this area and therefore my questions will be focusing on this area. Given that there has been historic controversy over bots performing tasks, what are your thoughts if an account without a bot flag performing functions at a rate or pattern that resemble a bot? What about accounts which have a bot flag but performing edits outside of the approved scope? OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@OhanaUnited: The nice thing about AWB is that it can be easily reverted, so if there were some problem or discrepancy with bot or bot-like actions, then they can be undone easily. Non-bot accounts should have a flood flag and unless they are doing something entirely uncontroversial (e.g. fixing misspelled categories), they should have a clear consensus—otherwise, it's a waste of everyone's time. Edits outside scope can still be useful (e.g. Unicodifying pages or subst:ing BASEPAGENAME), so even some small edits which are technically outside of scope are not a problem as such. If a bot is making some change outside of scope and policy, then I would have to ask why? Is this a mistake? A misunderstanding? Did someone accidentally port over rules from Wikipedia and post them here? My assumption would be that anyone using a bot out of scope would have some kind of miscommunication because it would just be a waste of time to make [x] thousand edits to be reverted. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikispecies user access levels

— All of the above edits in this thread were copied from Wikispecies:Bureaucrats.

Interesting and important questions and opinions. Personally I prefer a situation where bot flagged accounts are restricted to perform bot related functions only, and where user accounts without a bot flag never do them. Unfortunately there are many cases where it seems that a bot might do a fine job all by its own, but when human intervention is more or less constantly required. For instance the "Create Redirect" function implemented by User:Rillke/createRedirects.js works beautifully when run manually, but would probably mess up a lot of redirects if it were running as a bot. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins


Please see announcement and discussion at en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: There is also more documentation at mw:Extension:OATHAuth and mw:Wikimedia Security Team. I know this is coming soon globally and I read that in case you are locked out somehow, a member of the technical staff can reset your password. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A working system for two-factor authentication is important for any and all sites where users log in, and Wikimedia is no exclusion. However, it does create some new and unwanted hurdles, and a way to securely reset user passwords without the need for 2FA will be important. At least at this point, before the system is fully mature. I don't think the data- and user integrity will be at risk, if tech staff can reset user passwords without actually getting access to the passwords themselves (old and new). But I guess (and hope!) that's already the case, using password hashing etc – and regardless of two-factor authentication? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

More and to some extent updated information can be found at Meta:Help:Two-factor authentication. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Requirements for requesting elevated user rights

I propose we develop an official minimum requirements policy for bureaucrat- and adminship requests, in order to curb more or less pointless requests such as this one and this one. We can use Meta's Policy for requesting adminship as a starting point, for example. Ideas and thoughts? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

@Tommy Kronkvist: Some factors that come to mind include: length of editing here and at WMF projects in general, participation in discussion/policy, background with taxonomy, and language capacity (it would be nice to have a more multi-lingual team but it's also handy if the person knows English, as it's the lingua franca here). I don't know of an exact ratio of all of those elements but they all seem important in some measure. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestions are:

  1. At least 500 WS edits.
  2. A "clean" wiki record (no blocks, warnings etc.).
  3. Reasonable English knowledge.
  4. Reasonable knowledge of taxonomic standards.
  5. Participation in discussions/votes.
  6. Getting a go ahead from a crat. Mariusm (talk) 05:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree only to the first of these points, but some of the other points cannot be made clear without an examination (3, 4) or don't have clear criteria (5) for its fulfillment. Concerning point 2, I myself didn't have a clean record, having been warned by Thorpe. I am opposing also to the last point. That's on one line with the political system in Iran, where they have pre-selection of political candidates by religious authorities. In my opinion, we can expect that a minimum of WS edits is a prerequisite, but the rest should be open to the vote. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 10:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like you to also consider a couple of points borrowed from the Meta guidelines.
  1. Have a user page on WS.
  2. Have a valid contact address (either a confirmed email address in preferences, or a valid email address on the user page).
I must agree with Franz about point 6, but will add concerns about 2, as I would also fail as was warned by the same rogue ex-admin. The others are reasonable but will need clarification. Perhaps this could be phased as questions to prospective candidates, such as;
  1. Do you think your knowledge of the English language is good enough to both understand the scientific literature commonly found on WS and grasp the nuances of the discussions found at the Pump?
  2. Are you happy that you are able to adhere to the taxonomic standards and codes of nomenclature relevant to those organisms that interest you?
I would have to think on about the participation point, as a person may bring additional skills, such as coding for bots, but not want to participate in discussions on policy or dispute. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 14:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion Mariusm's points No. 1 and 3–5 are all good, although I have not yet made up my mind on details such as the actual number of edits, etc. A few notes on points 2 and 6 though. As for "a clean wiki record", at least two things are important.
  • First of all: Many, many trusted users known to make legit edits have at least a warning and perhaps also a block or two in their closet. A lot of users have been warned at some point, most often due to honest mistakes or misunderstandings. An inadvertent click on the wrong link or button might render a very bad result – but it's easily done, especially when using the mobile editing GUI. While a warning of some sort may be the proper respond in those cases, a lifelong ban from adminship certainly isn't. Personally I have received very few warnings, but I've been blocked eight or nine times from different Wikimedia sister projects. They were all 24 hour (or shorter) semi-automatic blocks due to the Wiki software mistaking my dynamic IP address and VPN service for an open proxy – but still: they're all in there, in my records.
  • Secondly, it is important to remember that the act of blocking a user should always be a preventative measure, never a punitive one. This is pointed out in several of Wikimedia's policies, for instance in the English Wikipedia Blocking policy. It would be wrong to "punish" a user by disqualifying him/her from adminship after the block is lifted (i.e. when there is no longer a need to prevent disruptive behaviour).
Regarding point No. 6 I do not feel that bureaucrats should act as gatekeepers. The "gate" to requesting elevated user rights should be constructed from a few simple rules based on facts, not any single users' personal opinion. Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
The gatekeeper is needed not to be "on one line with the political system in Iran" as Franz says but to ensure that the basic rules and minimum requirements are being met. Mariusm (talk) 05:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we may introduce a new rule, that a minimum number of edits is necessary for voting. --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Whether a user is qualified for requesting adminship should primarily be defined by hard facts, such as X number of edits, proof of cross-wiki experience, not currently banned, and so forth. After all it is only a matter of the right to inquire an admin poll to be started, not the poll itself. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I think that having and generalized minimum number of edits should be a part of the requirements, however I think we can be flexible in this. I do agree that a user page is a must, my reasons are that admins and crats should be visible to all users, contactable and clearly willing to be so. Yes anyone can be contacted by the talk page, whether or not the user page exists, but taking the time to make a user page demonstrates a willingness to communicate. I agree that prior warnings should not be considered as a requirement, I think this one can come up in questions, any proposal for elevated rights can have users pose questions to the applicant to be considered. If there is a dramatic issue in the past it can be brought up and the applicant can explain. Since taxonomy and nomenclature is our specialty I would expect admins to understand the code to a degree. Just an aside I know of at least two commissioners on Wikipedia who edit. I wish they would participate here. I believe anyone can apply, who meets some basic guid3elines, voting and questions can sort out many issues. I think it clearly helps when another admin or crat nominates a person, however, I do not think it should be necessary. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

─────────────── These are the criteria used by English Wikipedia for the December 2016 Arbitration Committee Elections. An editor is eligible to stand as a candidate who:

  1. has a registered account and has made at least 500 mainspace edits
  2. is in good standing and not subject to active blocks or site-bans
  3. has disclosed any previous or alternate accounts in their election statements

I've removed one out of scope point regarding access to non-public data on Meta and the candidate's willingness to sign the Wikimedia Foundation's confidentiality agreement. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 04:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Who should be able to vote?

Another point related to this discussion is who can participate in the vote for admin/crates? I've seen users with barely 5 WS edits vote for an admin. It would be reasonable to allow only admins/crats to vote, or am I wrong? Mariusm (talk) 05:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose the idea, that only admins should have the right to vote on adminship. It's very problematic from a democratic point of view, when a sub-group with elevated right is absolutely self-recruiting. --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't agree more. It has been said over and and over again that "Wikimedia is not a democracy" – but it certainly isn't a dictatorship ran by admins and bureaucrats either! In my opinion all logged in users should have the right to vote. IP users should not. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
But there can be a scenario in which a candidate "recruits" 4 or 5 of his friends and instructs them to register and place a vote in his favor. After all only about 10 persons vote in total at best. Is this the "democracy" we're looking after? Mariusm (talk) 13:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the possibility, that such a scenario might happpen, it should be sufficient to set a minimum requirement of about 50 or 100 edits necessary for voting. Anyway, you never can be sure in advance, that a user promoted to adminship actually will make use of the new buttons in a positive way. However, as an answer to this problem we should not think about restricting access to adminship, but we need better policy and procedures for removal of admin rights after inappropriate use. --Franz Xaver (talk) 16:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Also, in regards to polls it is important to remember that:
  • Canvassing done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion or poll in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behaviour. Hence, canvassing may get a user blocked, and blocked users don't become admins. The same goes for vote-banking and vote-stacking (i.e. posting messages to select users based on their known opinions), which is also considered inappropriate.
  • Again, Wikimedia is not a democracy. Any poll is only a survey (a measuring tool) which determines the current state of a situation, with respect to consensus. It doesn't form consensus. It merely measures it. In the same way that a ruler does not change the length of your finger or make a new finger (it merely measures it), a poll does not change or make consensus. Hence, in a strict meaning it is not mandatory for administrators or bureaucrats to act upon a poll in accordance with its outcome. The result of a poll may (and most often probably should) be a guidance and lay the grounds for administrative decisions, but if it is evident that the outcome of a poll is the result of single candidates "recruiting" hordes of voting minions, then that poll result can be safely ignored.
Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I think anyone can vote, with the caveat that they cannot be IP users, and I guess some sort of minimum edit count is reasonable. Just enough to rule out anyone rigging the system. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

─────────────── These are the criteria used by English Wikipedia for the December 2016 Arbitration Committee Elections. An editor is eligible to vote who:

  1. has registered an account at least a month earlier
  2. has made at least 150 mainspace edits
  3. is not blocked from Wikispecies at the time of their vote.

I've slightly edited points No. 1 and 3, since the original ones are very specific in regards to the enWP December poll. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 04:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.