User talk:Mark Ironie

Leave a new message.
Please sign your message by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Mark Ironie.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).

Administrator changes

Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13

Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

Guideline and policy news

• A recent RfC has redefined how articles on schools are evaluated at AfD. Specifically, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
• AfDs that receive little participation should now be closed like an expired proposed deletion, following a deletion process RfC.
• Defender, HakanIST, Matiia and Sjoerddebruin are our newest stewards, following the 2017 steward elections.
• The 2017 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Góngora, Krd, Lankiveil, Richwales and Vogone. They will serve for approximately 1 year.

Technical news

• A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
• Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
• A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest

Hi. This month The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There is over £3000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. Wikimedia UK is putting up £250 specifically for editors who produce the most quality new women bios for British women, with special consideration given to missing notable biographies from the Oxford Dictionary of Biography and Welsh Dictionary of Biography. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate independently this is also fine, but please add any articles created to the bottom of the main contest page even if not competing. Your participation in the contest and contributing articles on British women from your area or wherever would we much appreciated. Thanks.

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Mark Ironie. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorting socks

Things continue to develop on ANI. I imagine other accounts will emerge over the next few days, and longer. We can re-arrange all of the sockdrawer flags once it's sorted. I wouldn't bother till this settles out. Noting for now that the oldest account, so the puppeteer so far, is now:

• Chitt66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  first edit: 02:15, February 23, 2011. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 05:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

And yes, this one is already indeffed. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 05:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I hate it when there is a long run of edits with socks like these. This one is nasty with so many of the edits introducing factual errors in a multitude of articles over months and years. Ugh. I'll pick this up tomorrow. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 06:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm still looking at some suspects, but I figured I'd update the tags at this point. Chitt is now marked as the puppeteer. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 00:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

So far it seems to be the oldest account. Mark Ironie (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Mark Ironie. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

D/S Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Please note that comments like this may be seen as a violation of the civility requirement. Deletion discussions are not the place for vague speculation about editors' motives; any specific concerns regarding canvassing, COI, etc. should be raised at the appropriate venue. Thanks –dlthewave ☎ 03:26, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Sa la k'adita

Thanks for your observation on the Cherokee descent list. My conclusion is that, in a month or so, I'll have to launch a Cherokee syndrome article, since there's entire books written on the subject. Merry Christmas! Yuchitown (talk) 16:52, 25 December 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown

Since the list has been deleted, I think that is an excellent idea. That would be a much easier article to create and maintain than the list. Although I absolutely understand the premise and basis for the list, I do think it had flaws as a list. A one sentence definition was too little to accurately define it for WP. A Cherokee syndrome article would flesh the concept out more fully. Certainly specific notable people could be included as part of it, with appropriate citations, of course. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment regarding Keene

To be clear, no, that source was from above in the talk page. GMG^talk 23:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense about why it was in that citation list for the quote. I can be slow some days. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 00:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Buffs and incivility

It seems to be continuing. I pinged you. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm looking at his recent contribs. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I am currently interacting with Buffs in several different places. I asked him to please not tag me or address me any further and I believe I have stated twice now that I am uncomfortable interacting with him due to degrading comments about Native Americans (comparing ourrespected community members and groups of members to white supremacists and flat earthers because the majority (he says 'fringe') dare to speak out against appropriation, stereotyping and racism. His tone feels threatening, he seems to be baiting anyone who does not hold his point of view and I feel as though he is trying to bully me off of the pedia. I have interacted with individuals with diverse opinions but have never been met with this type of over the top treatment. I have remained civil and have quoted his harmful remarks back to him specifically but he says that it didn't say it that way to similar responses, I have quoted his words back exactly as they were stated. I also do not think it is to the pedia's benefit to have equate a respected author, who happens to be a tribal judge, to flat earth theorists. I do not know how to proceed to get him to leave me alone because asking him certainly doesn't work. I do not enjoy feeling harassed or targeted not do I enjoy seeing him demean respected individuals. Thank you for your attention to this issue.Indigenous girl (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, I can not find the civility warning that you gave him or I would have responded there.Indigenous girl (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm so sorry about Buffs' actions and words. I'm currently weighing options on the best way to approach the situation. He removed the civility warning I put on his talk page with an edit summary of "I've read it" so that is why it is missing. This is his prerogative. I find it disingenuous but it's his talk page. Please let me know if there are any more disturbing interactions with him. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 05:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Indigenous girl (talk) 12:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Buffs' Response

The only reason I'm responding here is that I received an alert that I was tagged. I am only going to address the above remarks here. I would respectfully request a response from Mark alone.

1. Mark, you're an admin and should know that the removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Calling it "disingenuous" implies I did something wrong/nefarious and is unnecessarily casting negative aspersions on my actions when none are even implied and such actions are explicitly described by the Wikipedia community as appropriate. Likewise, I don't need an apology from you on my behalf for my actions/words.
2. IG's remarks are inaccurate and, yet, continue to be repeated. We are supposed to comment on content, not contributors, and, yet, she continues to take words and phrases out of context in order to demonize me instead of what was actually said. I've VERY clearly explained that, but to no avail. Both remarks were made as illustrations as to the flaws in their given logic, not remarks directed as comparison with the authors. Rather than address the flaws in their logic, they've decided to use false equivalence and make intentionally misleading statements impugning my character. So, in case it isn't clear...
   • I do not feel now (nor ever have in the past) said or felt that the authors mentioned were in ANY way equivalent to white supremacists
   • I do not feel now (nor ever have in the past) said or felt that the authors mentioned were in ANY way equivalent to flat earthers
   • I do not feel now (nor ever have in the past) said or felt that the opinions of the authors should be discounted because "they dare to speak out against appropriation, stereotyping and racism."

Now, I do NOT believe based on the given evidence at the time that such opinions are widely held among Native Americans regarding the given topics. Even the most prominent controversy regarding the Washington Redskins doesn't have a clear majority opposing its usage among Native Americans and it's been frequently researched/polled. I find it highly doubtful that less-publicized issues suddenly attract a large following, much less a majority. I do NOT dispute that activists exist and that some people disagree/oppose usage in these contexts. I only dispute the accuracy of the claim that it's as widespread as IG and Corbie seem to believe. As such, some of these opinions are being given WP:UNDUE weight. BUT, given evidence, I'm willing to change my mind as well!

In the first situation, given the opinions of a single highly-partisan activist, and interview/analysis of the same activist, a single book, and a personal blog with no editorial controls, I'm basically seeing the opinions of 3 people. None of them cite ANY polling data, just their personal outrage. That these individuals/actions are prominent lends credence to the assertion they are notable, but not to the accuracy of their feelings or whether they speak for a WP:fringe group, a small/vocal minority, a sizable minority, or a strong majority with the given sources. The quality of their argument and the evidence are what matters, not solely that that outrage exists.

For reference: what I actually said (sans the inflammatory descriptions) [1] [2] and the (ignored) further explanation: [3]

IG and Corbie (and IG in particular) have both leveled personal insults toward me/disparaged my contributions and continue to falsely claim things I've done via (intentionally?) inaccurate statements. Edits I've made have been undone with snarky remarks and wholesale reversions accomplished with no attempt to make improvements solely because I disagree with their POV (and not because my edits are inaccurate in any way). IG also stated that I have tried to silence people because they oppose stereotypes/racism. This is loaded language which attempts to demonize me by implying that I support racism. In editing, I recognize there are going to be disagreements; that's inevitable. But with all the snarky remarks by both and with no warnings for civility leveled at them, it feels very much like one-sided threats of a block.

Lastly, it seems that "feelings" appear to be ruling the day when it comes to IG. "I asked him to please not tag me or address me any further", but then she continues to address me/my comments. "I'm uncomfortable [because he said something I didn't like]". Talk pages and discussions are not something where you get to dictate who is/isn't involved. The fact that discussion is "uncomfortable" is precisely because she is choosing to be offended and looking for reasons to be offended. These two are framing statements about logic with examples as racist and stereotyping in order to dismiss any/all opinions I have on the subject at hand and marginalize my discussion. If you want to be on Wikipedia and participate in discussions, you do not have a right to not be offended.

That said, unless specifically addressed, I haven't spoken to IG or Corbie since the 1-strike-and-you're-out warning you placed in my file. Please respond in due course. Buffs (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Moar DARVO

Hi Mark,

Well, Buffs continues to lie about his actions. He's continuing to deny what he said about Natives in the "white supremacy" and "flat earth" diffs:[4][5] and is continuing with the gaslighting. Here's a timeline on some of the, er, highlights:

Buffs states, falsely, above: "That said, unless specifically addressed, I haven't spoken to IG or Corbie since the 1-strike-and-you're-out warning you placed in my file."

Buffs incivility towards many people really began to cross the line at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Indigenous girl expressed several times that he was making her very uncomfortable before she outright asked him to never contact her again: "As an indigenous person I find the comparison to flat earthers and organized white supremacists to be extremely troubling." 23:10, 26 March 2019. "I do not feel comfortable collaborating with (Buffs) at this point." 12:37, 27 March 2019. "I am not comfortable interacting with you" 16:51, March 27, 2019.

After more disruption at Talk:Order of the Arrow, you gave him: Only warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on Talk:Order of the Arrow. 02:28, 28 March 2019

Indigenous girl asks him to leave her alone, "I did not cite this source. I didn't look at the following page until yesterday...Please do not tag or address me any further. I am uncomfortable interacting with you." 19:11, March 28, 2019

Buffs removes warning edit summary: "I've read it." 21:09, March 28, 2019

Buffs ignores her requests and proceeds to address Indigenous girl yet more, wanting to talk about why he makes her uncomfortable. 21:40, March 28, 2019

And now he does it again, here on this talk page. Following someone to another talk page and saying, "I'm not addressing this to her" and then talking about her, is not a magic formula that stops the harassment. It's just more DARVO. These are only some of the diffs I could gather, and I haven't included his continuing posts at the RS board and OA Talk, which she is ignoring, but still. There are plenty more, as all of us who've had our time and energy wasted over the past few weeks can attest. I also have diffs for how he's continued to address and be incivil to me, but I think you've seen those. I'll post them if you like. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)