Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Mass message senders/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

General Discussions

Request for permission

I am requesting the massmessage user right so I can easily send out the {{TAFI weekly selections notice}} to WP:TAFI members (that haven't opted out), per a suggestion on my talk page. I have already been trusted with a couple of other user rights: template editor, and autopatrolled. Thanks, - Evad37 [talk] 01:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. --Rschen7754 02:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I haven't had a good reason to test it out since we switched from Edwardsbot to be honest. Just saying that the user should check their code over before sending out to everyone and catch it themselves... Anywho, since it is already done, and Evad is aware of what happened, I feel somewhat confident it won't be an issue again. Technical 13 (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

How to request a mass message to be sent?

Resolved

This page fails to answer the most important question. I want to send Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Newsletter/2 to our members, but this page doesn't suggest how I can do it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Gerald Shields ' request for permission for mass message senders

Geraldshields11 (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)

Dear Administrators,

I am requesting permission to be a mass message sender. I am a reviewer but, more importantly, I am the event promotion coordinator for the Wikimedia DC chapter. Recently, I manually placed announcements on the talk pages of Wiki users in DC. Please see my sandbox for the example. Please see my user page for my CV. My best regards, Gerald Shields Geraldshields11 (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done Legoktm (talk) 02:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

TransporterMan request

TransporterMan (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)

I am requesting the user right as the once, current, and future coordinator at the dispute resolution noticeboard and also the most frequent contributor there. We have a long list of volunteers, but not much participation, there and we need a way to both cull that list and to rally the troops. Steven Zhang, the founder of DRN, already has the MMS bit but he's not around en-Wikipedia much more whereas I'm usually around on a daily basis. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Undelivered messages - Wikipedia talk: namespace

See Special:Log/massmessage. There are a large number of entries having "was skipped because target was in a namespace that cannot be posted in". AFACT all are for the Wikipedia talk: namespace. Why is this prohibited? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I noticed this as well and went searching. Accord to mw:Extension:MassMessage, the default namespaces are for project pages and user talk pages. The current settings haven't allotted any other namespaces. Killiondude (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I updated the documentation on that page. Legoktm (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Legoktm, I just looked at the Gerrit patch and am confused... It looks like the patch will only allow it to post to project space and no talk spaces, can you point me to the line(s) that enable posting in talk space so I can understand the code please? (I'm not doubting you, just as a learning experience). — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 23:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Took me a few minutes and had to look at it a few times, if ( !$title->isTalkPage() && !in_array( $title->getNamespace(), $wgNamespacesToPostIn ) ) { says if the title is not a talk page, and if the titles namespace is not in $wgNamespacesToPostIn array, then skip... Got it... Will +1 on Gerrit. Thanks for pointing me to it. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 13:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
As long as this is switched off so it doesn't clog-up watchlists. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I see "Mass Media Log Delivery of "Popular pages tool update" to (all project names) was skipped because target was in a namespace that cannot be posted in" Fine, but other than skipping the projects, what is the popular pages tool update? — Maile (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

According to the log, Mr.Z-man was the one who tried to send that message, so you could ask him. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 16:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for permission

Another Believer (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)

I would like to request permission to use this feature. I am not an admin, but have permission to use other tools and can be trusted not to abuse this one. I often send talk page invitations for meetups, mostly for ones held in Portland and Eugene, Oregon, and Vancouver, Washington. It can be very tiring to distribute these invitations manually. Also, I am active within the GLAM community, proposed groups like Wikimedia Cascadia and Wikimedia LGBT, and often participate in campaigns like ArtAndFeminism, Wiki Loves Monuments, etc. This tool could prove to be very helpful to me, and save me time. Please let me know if more information is required to gain permission at this time. Thank you for your consideration. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

note: I added {{rfplinks}} to make this request easier to process. —ReviDiscussion 06:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
If specific examples are required, I intend to distribute to the following lists in the future:
(Both lists are new and very small, but have potential to expand.) --Another Believer (Talk) 15:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
@Another Believer: sorry, totally missed this request. Done! Legoktm (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
No prob. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 01:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Message not delivering

I'm trying to send a message to WP:MED/med250. It's not delivering though, there's nothing queued and there are no errors. Here's the message:

Subject: Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

Message:

please help translate this message into the local language
The Cure Award
In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!

We are wondering about the educationational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)

Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation

Any idea what's up or what I'm doing wrong? Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 12:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

"educationational"? NebY (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Multi-project messages must be sent from Meta. From en.wp, you can only send messages to people here at en.wp. (And do please fix that typo.  ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, this. Now that the syntax is proper, the error message saying only local messages can be delivered is now showing. Legoktm (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
It looks like you tried to use code meant for meta:Template:Target. Our own Template:Target is different but should perhaps be changed to use {{#target:}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Please also make sure the message has a timestamp at the end, for some archiving bots; to do this, sign it with five tildes. Graham87 06:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Jim Cartar' request for permission

Hello, my name is Jim Cartar. I'm requesting this permission on behalf of WP:ORPHAN. Actually I have noticed that day by day the project is becoming inactive. So, I have started a new backlog drive system since the backlog reached sky high of more than 100,000 articles. But the members were not cooperating with this project. Most of them were established and have no interest to de-orphaning arcticles and it is impossible for few editors to eliminate the huge backlog. So, I have started this to invite them as well as to notify them about the backlog (similar to AfC backlog drive). You can see the list of members who will receive the Backlog notification here. The notification template is ready {{WPORPHANdrive}}. I have discussed this matter on the projects talkpage and have been supported, see:here along with this I got good reviews from non members like MelanieN, Stfg and Anna Frodesiak. I have also been supported by prominent members like SarahStierch. I have also been trusted and given reviewer rights on english Wikipedia. So, onbehalf of the project I'm requesting for this permission. Thank you. Jim Carter (talk) 02:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you @Technical 13: for your support. We (me and SarahStierch) is now working on this. We are creating some templates i.e. some barnstars. We will surely let you know whenever we finish our work. Thank you. Jim Carter (talk) 03:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Done. Please be extra careful with your first few uses of the system. Courcelles 17:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The Herald

The Herald (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · wikichecker · count · pages created · auto edits · logs (block • rights) · google · lu · rfar · arb · rfc · rfcu · ssp · spi) (assign permissions)(r · rv · p · f · t) The herald 12:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC) I have been an active editor. I have rollback, reviwer, OTRS permissions. I sent talk page invitations and welcome users. I welcome new users for Wikipedia Signpost. Now I want to do that more quickly. Can I?? @Mdann52:..Can I?? The herald 05:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey appreciate the help, however welcoming new users doesn't require mass-message also sending invitations could be done manually. ///EuroCarGT 21:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for Mass message senders:Akifumii

I am requesting Mass message sender rights because of WP:Galicia. I am a near native speaker of Galician and a few other languages spoken in Spain so, I would like to get this project up and running again. I would like to use this Mass message sender right to notify old members and recruit new members who would like to help with the expansion of this slow, but great project. I would also like to send out monthly newsletters for project members. This would be a great way to keep users updated with what is going on in the community, what members can do better, etc. If there is anything I should do better, let me know! Thanks. AkifumiiTalk 02:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Please see the response I left you on my talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

RfP(?)

Hi all, was just wondering if I can ping this talkpage in the future if I have a geonotice to go up or a participant list to hit up with a message. I seem to have completely missed this at WP:Cent and am unsure how it works in it's entirety. I really don't want another hat unless I have to. TIM(Contact)/(Contribs) 18:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the RFP template since you aren't applying for the right and moved your sig to the end of your comment, hope you don't mind. Regarding your question, leaving a message here with the format described on the project page should be fine, that seems to be what has happened above if you don't get an answer after a day or two feel free to ping me. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Categories as sending lists?

In regards to the mass message being discussed in the section above this, the hidden comment at the end of the message says 

<!-- Message sent by User:Jim Cartar@enwiki using the list at //wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_administrators -->

Since when can we use categories at as a list? I thought lists had to be properly formatted using {{#target:User talk:USERNAME}} or {{Mailing list member}} ? - Evad37 [talk] 08:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@Evad37: nope. Since we rolled out the extention (rather than a bot), you can send out meddages using a category. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay. I added a note about categories to the instructions [2] - Evad37 [talk] 09:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Evad37: Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 12:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Mdann52: Err, not quite. :-) Special:MassMessage initially did not have category support when it was deployed here. Category support was added to MassMessage about a month ago (cf. bugzilla:57473). --MZMcBride (talk) 12:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes absolutely, Jim Carter (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm very hurt I didn't get this glamorous mailing. What exactly does one have to do to get into the category of Wikipedia administrators? I've been an admin for centuries, and only just realized I don't appear in the category. In other words, the category is incomplete, but I've no idea by how much. This list on the other hand is complete afaik. Bishonen | talk 00:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC). P.S., has everybody except me really added themselves to the category? I'd rather not do that, per my understanding of categories, as I'm a member of a couple of its subcategories, Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks and Wikipedia administrators willing to make difficult blocks. Bishonen | talk 00:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC).

this monster originally began with a straightforward exchange between myself and User:Anna Frodesiak about the idea she had floated and asking her opinion on maybe an admin run in the next 12 months+. I didnt even get a bloody ping. Irondome (talk) 00:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
It appears most of us are in the category via {{Administrator topicon}}.--Father Goose (talk) 08:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Many of them directly added that category to the Userpage. Jim Carter (talk) 09:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Sanity check

Can we draft a rough guideline on when mass mailings are appropriate to use? A well-intentioned mass-mailer just sent out 1,000 messages to users who are not likely to have been interested in the message in question.--Father Goose (talk) 07:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@Father Goose: Well, I sent that mail. And it is needed to get some good comments from experienced specially admins, for the proposal. And any one can remove the message from the talk page just like a bot message and we will not send any further notifications. Sorry if you have any trouble. Jim Carter (talk) 07:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
And BTW I see you yourself commented at the proposal. So, not likely to have been interested is not a good response from an editor who is already involved. Cheers, Jim Carter (talk) 08:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you think FG's participation in the discussion illegitimates his view that other certain other people are not likely to be interested in it. I can only speak for myself, but I'm not personally interested in this discussion- I don't think I've commented on a RfA in years. What list of names did you use, and why did you think that was appropriate? Think about how many discussions there are on the village pumps. Why did you feel 1000 editors needed to be contacted for this one? J Milburn (talk) 08:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't think this issue of mass-mailing is too big of a deal, but at the same time I wouldn't ever suggest sending a message out to 1,000 editors over such a small discussion. The thing that does bother me is that the Idea Village Pump is for proposing and drafting ideas, but not to actually get a consensus on it. I feel that mailing 1,000+ editors about it, if ever appropriate, would've been better in an actual !vote to get consensus on the plan, instead of to the place where the idea would undergo drafting. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 08:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
...but per the fact that sending out 1,000 messages every time anyone wanted to get a consensus or had a new idea at the Village Pump is overkill, I do think establishing a concrete guideline would be good. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 08:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Rather than draft guidance on when mass-messaging is appropriate, I'd like to know why Courcelles thought it was wise to give an inexperienced user like Jim Cartar/Rudra john cena the user right in the first place. Chris Troutman (talk) 08:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • It looks like Jim Cartar used this in good faith, so I think there is no need to question (t)his specific use of the system. Nevertheless I sure hope that mass mailing will not become common on WP. Opt-out is not the (only, nor main) solution. - Nabla (talk) 08:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
The discussion that was linked from the mass message in question (yes, it messaged me) is Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 13#Pre-RfA opinion page which looks like an WP:RFC to me, without actually being one - there is no {{rfc}} template. If that template had been used, it would have become a formal RfC, advertised in several places - and Legobot (talk · contribs) would have messaged certain users who like to be kept informed about ongoing RfCs (and who have already opted in to that messaging service). See the "Please comment on ..." threads at User talk:Grandiose, for example. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Per Superhamster, this was not an appropriate use of mass mailing. Debates should instead be advertised on community pages which people can choose to read or not as they wish, or by some notification system like the AFC notification that users can choose to belong to, or not. It is also inappropriate to mail only administrators on a question that is not just of concern to administrators. Potentially, this could seriously skew the debate. SpinningSpark 09:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I used the tool assuming good faith. And I promise not to do it again. Actually the tool was given granted to me because I have to send BLD notifications to participants at WP:ORPHAN. I haven't thought that it will give rise this discussion. But I also support a creation of a proper guideline to use this tool. But I have really been hurt by an inexperienced user like Jim Cartar/Rudra john cena the user right in the first place this comment of Chris troutman :( Jim Carter (talk) 10:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments Jim. There's no doubt that you acted under good faith. Don't sweat over anything, especially Chris's comment - I can see how it might have come off as harsh to you. It did appear odd as to why you were granted the mass-mail rights with your relatively lower level of experience in comparison to editors who are usually granted the tool. It's just a legitimate question and concern, and nothing more. As they say, analyze edits, not editors - don't take anything personally or look into it too much. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 11:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, I actually was interested in the message I got. I think every admin is likely to have an opinion about RFA. The problem I have is that it's a bit canvassing-ish to just solicit opinions from current admins on an adminship-related idea. Non-admins can have valid and interesting opinions on adminship-related issues. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually my intension was not to canvassing. You know that administrators talk pages have many non admin stalkers, I send this message to admins so that along with the admins, other stalker also make there opinion at the proposal. And yes some non admin stalkers have also commented there. On the other hand SuperHamster thank you very much for your kind comments, actually I haven't took that comment of Chris personally, he is a good friend. Jim Carter (talk) 12:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
A count of the replies to the venue over time would be a metric for the vitality of the community of 1700. My guess is that several hundred might actually reply to the venue in the next few days.
Note that no one responded in the days immediately after the initial posting of the idea May 23rd. Responses only occurred after May 27th.
Jim Cartar, since it took work to get to the actual venue, not just a single click to respond, you actually filtered for engaged contributors. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for launching this discussion, Father Goose. I was puzzled at first when I received the message, trying to figure out whether I had been involved in anything related to the discussions or the persons involved. When I realized I there actually was no specific reason for me to be notified, I felt spammed. At the very least, some context should be given to recipients as to why they were receiving the message. But the way it was performed, this action was definitely a misuse of the mass message tool, IMO. --Waldir talk 13:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with Waldir and others on this. Question: can anyone think of a legitimate reason (even hypothetically) to ping all Admins, and no-one else? If not, why is it even an option with this tool? It Is Me Here t / c 13:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • A reason to ping all Admins & no one else, no. A reason to ping the most active 1,000 (or 500) contributors, yes. Periodically we encounter a proposed policy that is very controversial, & whatever decision is taken requires input from as many people as possible. That kind of decision requires giving as many people as possible to offer their opinion; those who don't weigh in can be assumed to have no strong opinion, & consent by their silence to whatever decision is made. -- llywrch (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Pinging all admins could be useful for something that impacted them--such as a significant change of policies or if the way admin tools function was changing. — xaosflux Talk 00:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The intention was clearly good, and I find it hard to get too upset about a mass mailing to 1000 users vs. 10. For myself, I was bugged about it once, that's it. No big deal. But the one thing I would suggest, Jim Carter, is that you didn't have the correct target audience. Editors who are already admins won't have much need to go to a forum to determine if they are ready, willing, etc., to run the gauntlet. Such a forum would be primarily aimed at experienced editors thinking of running - admins and experienced editors uninterested in the tools would certainly need to be involved in such a forum, but primarily in the guise of offering advice. In this case, starting an RFC at WT:RFA might have allowed for a more representative audience. Resolute 13:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed guideline additions

First suggestions for the guideline:

Wikipedia's primary means of mass communication is though posts on article talk pages, Wikipedia talk pages, or various noticeboards, including the Village Pump. Editors who are interested in a given topic will have the corresponding page on their watchlist. To reach more people, a post can be placed on several pages relating to the topic, and the WP:RFC process can also be used. To reach the members of a given WikiProject, a post on that project's talk page can be used.
Posting on users' talk pages triggers Wikipedia's notification system, and should be done only when the attention of specific users is required (not merely desired).
Mass mailing of newsletters should be sent only to those who have specifically subscribed to receive them. Newsletters can also be distributed via transcluded templates.

--Father Goose (talk) 09:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks good for starts. I'd like to change "should be done only when the attention of specific users is required (not merely desired)" though. To me it implies that things such as newsletters should not be allowed before reaching the next line. Tried a bit or re-ordering and adding a bit:
Wikipedia's primary means of mass communication is though posts on article talk pages, Wikipedia talk pages, or various noticeboards, including the Village Pump. Editors who are interested in a given topic will have the corresponding page on their watchlist. To reach more people, a post can be placed on several pages relating to the topic, and the WP:RFC process can also be used. To reach the members of a given WikiProject, a post on that project's talk page can be used.
Mass mailing should only be used out of necessity. Mass mailing of newsletters should be sent only to those who have specifically subscribed to receive them. Newsletters can also be distributed via transcluded templates. Otherwise, posting on users' talk pages should be done only when the attention of specific users is required (not merely desired).
I think it might also be worth mentioning WP:CANVAS, which I think applies in this particular incident:
Sending out mass messages regarding on-going discussions to editors who have displayed no interest in the subjects at hand could be considered canvassing and is advised against.
~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 09:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
That's not exactly my take on what canvassing is all about... My opinion is that it would only be canvassing if the message was disproportionately distributed to people believed to have a position on the issue in your favor. I agree that the instance that sparked this is, as it was a matter of sending a message to administrators for an topic about administrators without sending it to an equal number of non-administrators. There are other legitimate uses for MMS than just newsletters and requiring attention for some large scale RfC.
For example, I have been know to create a list out of the editors of a page and the wikiprojects that the page falls under and request them specifically to comment on a proposal for that page. Usually this is about 20-50 editors, and I don't find that incredibly disrupting to the project. I make sure in the mailing to inform the editors how I created the list (as a past editor of the article ..., I thought you might be interested in...), as well as I make sure that I offer clear opt-out instructions and offer them to contact me on my talk page or via email if they don't wish to receive future notices (no-one has yet).
I think that trying to specify a scope of what we can use MMS for is a bad idea in it is better to set a group size restriction with caveats. For example, if a message is targeted at a group of less than 200-250 editors, and it is clearly broad spectrum (not canvassing), then I think that is fine. If it is going to be more than 250 editors, then it needs to very least be discussed before being sent out (depending on the nature either one of the VPs or ANs would likely seem appropriate in most cases, but not restrictive to that because if it was discussed on WT:WP_foo, then that would be okay too in my opinion). If it is to be a larger mailing, other options should be discussed such as properly tagging it as an RfC and letting Legobot send out notices, using the watchlist-notice system, posting on various noticeboards and wikiproject talk pages, etc. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 11:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support something like that, Father Goose. I'm not watchlisting here, so if this turns into an RfC, please put a notice somewhere like WP:CENT so I'll see it, or drop a message on my talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 12:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support for the proposal as currently worded. I would go as far as to say that "sending out mass messages regarding on-going discussions to editors who have displayed no interest in the subjects at hand" is *by definition* spamming. --Waldir talk 13:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, okay Waldir, but how is "interest" defined? I'm sure that Jim thought all administrators would be interested in the discussion, and since you're in the admin cat, it is assumed you're interested in administrator stuff. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
    Something that will affect all admins (e.g. a discussion of a proposal to remove adminship due to inactivity) would make sense to be advertised to all admins like that. Apart from issues that would personally affect the recipients of mass messages, notifications should only be sent out regarding topics a user has expressed interest in previously (e.g. though having in the past edited a page in a given category, or having a userbox about the topic on their page, or having participated in a past discussion, or having subscribed to a newsletter, etc.
    The issue here is that simply because a discussion related to adminship topics, it doesn't mean that automatically all admins will be interested in it. That's almost insulting, if you think about it: we are all different human beings and interested in different ways of helping out the encyclopedia. Some will be focused in fighting vandalism, some will apply their expertise in dealing with copyright issues, others will stick to editing the MediaWiki pages, gadgets and protected templates. It's simply not reasonable to expect all admins to be interested in all admin-related things (in fact, not even feasible).
    All this ought to be common sense; it could be spelled out in the form of guidelines, but we really should take care not to rely too much on rules and guidelines to direct appropriate action from editors, but rather take care in granting tools and permissions to ensure it's at least reasonable to expect they won't be misused by either ignorance or malice. --Waldir talk 13:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
    Waldir, while I understand your position, perhaps the admin bundle/toolset is too inclusive and some unbundling should be done to break it up into groups that are interested in all topics related to their toolset? I know that will likely not happen without some divine intervention dictating that is what it will be, and I know that will never happen either but just maybe it's really not that bad of an idea? — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
    I wouldn't be that pessimistic. In my RFA this was one of the topics that raised some discussion, and it appeared that most people were against such unbundling. Yet, some time later there are now a couple such unbundled rights, such as file movers, importers, template editors, and even the very mass message senders that sparked this whole discusssion. So I don't think that's an issue regarding notifying administrators, quite the opposite: it demonstrates the wide variety of tasks that admins can perform, and reinforces my point that it's unreasonable to expect every admin to be involved in every one of the admin-related activities. --Waldir talk 16:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Support in general, users should have to opt-in to be targeted by mass-mail. — xaosflux Talk 22:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Xaosflux, I can see how my wording confused you as to my meaning. I believe the category was created to allow all the administrators to be notified of events via a bot service, which eventual became EdwardsBot and is now MMS. Still wondering what you think the purpose of that category is? I don't see any other real possible use. If you just want a list of administrators, there is a Special: page for that. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, sort of. As I understand it, MMS (lol) was created to replace bot delivered messages (e.g. user project notices). While I agree that the ease of use (and the lack of bot operator restrictions) makes it easier to spam too many editors, we shouldn't be too hasty in reining in a tool which solves a reasonable problem. In this case, the proposed rule specifically disallows the main function of MMS. What about a technical change which disables the ability of MMS notices to trigger email (for talk page modification)? Protonk (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as written. "Mass mailing of newsletters should be sent only to those who have specifically subscribed to receive them" means "you may not post a newsletter even once to a person's talk page, even for the purpose of letting people know that you have started a new newsletter that is likely to interest them." It's perfectly reasonable and normal for a WikiProject or other established group to mass-mail a newly created newsletter to all of their members. It's silly to permit sending these people a notice that says the newsletter exists, but to prohibit sending the newsletter itself along with a notice that they're invited to subscribe to future issues. Also, I think the "attention required, not just desired" idea is the wrong approach. A more sensible rule is, "don't use MassMessage to send notices that you would not be permitted to send manually". I might support these types of restrictions for lists affecting 500 or 1,000 or more users (if, say, The Signpost wanted to spam everyone who makes 50+ edits in their first month... but then again, why not let The Signpost do that?), but definitely not for everyday, low-volume messages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, based on the feedback above, I've made an addition to the project page: [3]. I'm going for an informative approach here, not specific rules or restrictions. Like bots, AWB, and so forth, MMS has the potential to be disruptive and thus we should offer at least a little advice on how to avoid such problems.

I encourage others to alter the wording or even strike parts of it but I hope it won't be reverted altogether, unless for some reason I'm on the completely wrong track here.--Father Goose (talk) 08:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

What to do ...

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The other part of this discussion is deciding what to do with Jim. Some argue that this was misuse of the system, some argue it's really not that bad, some argue that the usage and restrictions aren't very clear so they are uncertain if it is misuse or not. Jim requested permission (which I supported and Courcelles granted warning that he should be careful with his first few uses) so that he could try and improve editor retention at WP:ORPHAN as he noticed there has been a decline over there. This usage was fairly out of scope for the goal of why it was requested in my opinion. He appears rather distraught and worried about what is going to happen to him because of this situation. So, I think that we should discuss and figure out exactly what we want to do about his behavior because the worst part of something like this is the suspense of what is going to happen. I think the follow optins cover the whole spectrum of choices, please !vote and give a brief explanation of why you picked the level you picked (please only support one, no need to oppose the others) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 15:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

_#1 → Do nothing
  • We do nothing; this either isn't that bad or the rules about usage aren't clear enough to hold him accountable for breaking them.
  1. Be the first and don't forget to sign!
_#2 → Reprimand and restrict
  • We give him a stern warning to not use this service and user right for anything outside of what he requested it for in the first place: notifications to WP:ORPHAN members in an attempt to improve editor retention for the project.
  1. I personally think this is the best option. It is fairly clear to me based on experience and other discussions that he was just being an overzealous editor with an exciting new userright that meant well and has learned from the experience. I think that restricting to what he requested it for will be sufficient. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 15:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
_#3 → Suspend right pending demonstration of proper use
  • We suspend (remove) the userright until he has satisfactorily submitted a reasonable number of successful message requests and has shown he won't abuse the right.
  1. Be the first and don't forget to sign!
_#4 → Block him
  • We reprimand him, and then block him for an agreed upon amount of time.
  1. Be the first and don't forget to sign!
_Discussion

This isn't ANI. T. Canens (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I acknowledge your objection, but this is about deciding what the solution to a specific problem about misuse of this userright should be and way too much discussion has already occurred on this page to fragment the discussion by moving part of it to ANI. You are more than welcome to post a notice on ANI if you feel it is appropriate to read this discussion here. This isn't about punishing an editor, it's about determining what should be done about misuse of the right (and if this particular case is even misuse to begin with). — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Although a discussion of blocking is better held elsewhere, I think a discussion on managing the mass message sender right is appropriate for this talk page. I believe additional clarification of the guidelines for sending mass messages should help avoid unwarranted usage by anyone in future. What also would be helpful is more guidance on the criteria for obtaining the right. isaacl (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

  • We're not going to do anything. It's clear from the above that this was a good faith use of the tool. We don't need a structured RFC, especially one with draconian options, to reaffirm what's already clear from this thread. Protonk (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you Protonk. That's good enough for me. Jim, no more worrying about this although I still suggest you lay low and only use the service for the reason that you requested it for. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 18:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Renamed section header to remove Username per WP:TALKNEW – no need to leave a name in lights "for an indefinite time period". Refactored subheadings per WP:ACCESS – headings in collapse boxes show up in TOC but cannot be accessed by clicking, and nothing in a collapse box can be searched for with a browser find function. Cheers. —Telpardec  TALK  23:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I totally support Anna here. please go to Anna's talkpage thread admin review for background Can I ask any watching admins to close this thread for obvious reasons. Cheers Irondome (talk) 02:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment MassMessage is primarily (approaching exclusively) for opt-in messaging. I see little reason for a group of users to be compiled into a list by the vast bulk of users. It would only by consensus that a list is compiled of users, and for a significant reason. It is that simple. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Question

How long does it usually take for the message to be distributed? I submitted a delivery request yesterday, but so far nothing has gone through. The log shows my request, and there is no queue on the statistics page. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Usually takes me a minute to send. --///EuroCarGT 20:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I should clarify that at the time of my request, the user list was just that... a list of user names. I have since amended the list to the preferred/(required?) target formatting. This may explain the problem, but I wanted to ask before submitting a second delivery and resulting in the delivery of two identical messages. Thanks. -Another Believer (Talk) 20:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Yep! I've seen that you origianlly put # User:Example afterwards the correct format # User talk:Example. Now you should resend it. The Mas Message log shows you've tried to do so at 16:12 yesterday, the MediaWiki Message Delivery shows nothing at that time period. Best, --///EuroCarGT 20:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thank you so much for your assistance. My second attempt was successful, and I am comfortable using this tool going forward. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Requesting two users for the New England meetup notifications

Girona7 (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · wikichecker · count · pages created · auto edits · logs (block • rights) · google · lu · rfar · arb · rfc · rfcu · ssp · spi) (assign permissions)(r · rv · p · f · t)

AmandaRR123 (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · wikichecker · count · pages created · auto edits · logs (block • rights) · google · lu · rfar · arb · rfc · rfcu · ssp · spi) (assign permissions)(r · rv · p · f · t)

I am requesting rights for these two users so that I won't have to be the point person for sending Mass Messages in my meetup group. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Questions

Hi, I have just been granted the mass message sender right and want to send out the message here to the members of WikiProject Pakistan. The mailing list is here.

Do I need to simply place a sign stamp ~~~~, or does the wizard add the signature (Posted by ~~~~ on behalf of WikiProject Pakistan) itself. Also, can I post the wiki-link to the page in the subject line. Samar Talk 09:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@Samar: you need to manually add the note and signiture. My advice would be to use the following code for the body:
full code

{{subst:User:Samar/Sandbox5}} <small>Sent by ~~~ on behalf of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan|WikiProject Pakistan]] at ~~~~~. If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan/Members/Mailing list|mailing list]].</small>

.

Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 15:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Will add the stamp in future messages. Samar Talk 15:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Bypassing mass-message controls?

Please see the following, to see if the controls required for bulk messaging are being bypassed creatively:

— xaosflux Talk 14:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm pinging those groups now, sorry for delay! — xaosflux Talk 14:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Tools might make it easier to "mass-ping", but any user (even an IP user) is capable of mass-pinging or mass-talk page posting without any special tools, as far as I'm aware. There may be a hard limit about how many users can simultaneously be pinged in Echo somewhere.
Generally, I find most of the discussion surrounding these tools a bit misguided: it's not really a matter of implementing technical restrictions, per se, it's almost always a social issue. The "mass message sender" group is in some ways a façade: any user can post to many talk pages using (for example) browser tabs without even logging in. Unfortunately social issues, such as teaching people to not be obnoxious with talk page deliveries or pings, are much more difficult to address than technical issues. :-)
That all said, thank you for the ping, T13. Module:Mass notification is pretty neat and I hadn't seen it yet! --MZMcBride (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Controls are to prevent disruption, socially this could include restrictions on items such as canvassing as well. There are lots of things that editors can do, but bulk tools can lead to massive disruption if not used appropriately, or if purposefully used for disruption. — xaosflux Talk 14:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It would, we can protect each page manually or we could create an edit filter to prevent non-(auto)confirmed users (or any user group) creating page which include "Module:Mass notification/groups/" in the title (fairly sure we can use an 'rlike' expression to do that). So the answer is yes, it's just a a bit of a hack and would need a (significant) consensus I would imagine. We wouldn't be able to use the title blacklist (as that would only allow admins, account creators and template editors) which is the 'normal' way of doing something like this. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, I'm not sure it would make sense to restrict this in the module or via page protection, when users can do the exact same thing without the help of Lua. All you have to do is transclude a page containing a lot of usernames when you make a talk page post. This module isn't doing anything new, it's just making it slightly easier to do it. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, pings are separate from MassMessage. They're part of the Echo extension (aka Notifications). Echo has a max cap of 100 pings that can be sent in one edit. Legoktm (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I was trying to find what the cap was. I've added an error message to the module if anyone tries to send a notification to more than 100 people. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any overlap at all here between the module and the right. The right is for mass talk page postings, whereas the module is for mass pings, totally different. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Mass message sender template

I am one of the 43 mass message senders. I attempted to add the {{Massmessage-sender topicon}} to my User page and my User talk page, but nothing is shown. What am I doing wrong?--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@Dthomsen8: I fixed it. It was showing up; you just couldn't see it because the Penguin Cabal icon was in front of it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Request For MMS

TheQ Editor (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · wikichecker · count · pages created · auto edits · logs (block • rights) · google · lu · rfar · arb · rfc · rfcu · ssp · spi) (assign permissions)(r · rv · p · f · t) I'm trying to help around the wiki as much as I can. Right now, I'm involved in Wikiprojects and Task Forces. And I would like to share the workload of the Mass-Message Senders. Not a lot of non-admin Mass Message Senders, so they must be busy with requests. When I see requests around Wikiprojects, I just hate to stare at it, with nothing I can do to help. If you could consider this request, that would be greatly appreciated.  ΤheQ Editor  Talk? 15:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

(Non admin) Hello TheQ Editor, Mass Message is quite an uncommon userright, it is given only when it is needed. There are about 35 active MMS. And actually Mass message requests are not much common, honestly I can't see any load on Mass message senders. Mass message rights are generally given if you're sending newsletters or notifications on behalf of any WikiProject or Grandfathering Edwardbot. But you can help by refering such WikiProject requests to this talk page, there are few mass message senders who have this page on there watchlist, they will send those messages on behalf of the WikiProject. Regards, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 16:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Since when do we subst the rfplinks template? Anyways, I also, as a (Non-administrator comment), would prefer to see this user make a couple requests to have messages sent on their behalf before adding to the group. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Delivery requests

Request for trial newsletter delivery

Resolved

Can someone with permission to send mass mailings help deliver the following wiki text – {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Outreach/Newsletter/User notification}} – to Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Outreach/Newsletter/Subscriber list? Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball is re-establishing a newsletter, and I'd like to test using the mass mailer bot to deliver notifications for a new issue. Thank you. isaacl (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

An admin has kindly performed the test delivery. We plan to send out the first issue on Sunday; will someone be available to perform the delivery then? isaacl (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Alternatively, if I could be granted permission to send mass mailings, it would be appreciated. The purpose is to deliver the newsletter and possibly other messages to members of WikiProject Baseball. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball#General discussion for discussion of the newsletter. isaacl (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
The details for sending out the newsletter for WikiProject Baseball on March 30, 2014 are as follows:
I appreciate your assistance. isaacl (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Regarding this edit to the user notification message: note the previous version was based on the notification used by The Signpost, which simply uses the signature of the MediaWiki message delivery user. I prefer this in the interest of conciseness. Since the notification is only sent to those who signed up for the newsletter, there should be no confusion regarding the origin of the message. isaacl (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  • It was a cleaner version of what a signature should look like, ideally, that section should contain links to the editors that contributed to the creation of the mailing. I will send your message in about an hour (which will be about 00:00 UTC) and I will modify your template again to include my signature just before doing so as a way for people to ask for help removing themselves from the mailing list if it isn't clear. It is something I always do when mass messaging a list for someone. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 21:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
    • The notification is based on the one for The Signpost, which doesn't list individual contributors. I will make a modification to improve the conciseness of the proposed signature. Thanks for your assistance! isaacl (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

This message has been sent. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 02:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! isaacl (talk) 06:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Request to send mass message

The first quarter of 2014 has come and gone, and it's time for WP:ANATOMY's quarterly newsletter to be sent out. Would any enabled senders here be so kind as to help me send a mass message? A mailing list and template to be mailed exist (although I'd like to mail a transclusion rather than the full text if possible). --LT910001 (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Please explain. Also, looking at your message, I see redlinks and raw links producing [1] code that don't seem to be what you were attempting to achieve. there is technically another day and a half or so before the first quarter is over, so there is time to fix these things. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 19:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Very prompt!! Happy to explain whatever needs explaining. This is the second quarterly newsletter for WP:ANATOMY which I release in order to let other users know what's going on and hopefully spur some editing. First newsletter I manually transcluded, which was quite time-consuming, and with a view to future newsletters I'd like to try and use this system is possible. Have done another run-over; no more red links (was not expecting such a prompt response!). Am not sure how to pipe an external link and don't see that much of a problem with a [1], unless that breaks things. --LT910001 (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, exactly what I was looking for. Have changed those links and (I believe) am ready to go. --LT910001 (talk) 05:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 Done --Mdann52talk to me! 07:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! --LT910001 (talk) 09:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for newsletter delivery: April 27, 2014

Can someone please deliver the next issue of WikiProject Baseball's newsletter on April 27, 2014? Here are the details:

I appreciate your assistance. isaacl (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

If someone could send out the next issue of the WikiProject Baseball newsletter, that would be great. isaacl (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 Done - Evad37 [talk] 11:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much! isaacl (talk) 12:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Requesting mailing for June AfC BLD

I need to send out {{WPAFCDrive}} to the members here, and Awards to the (multiple) winners of the AfC-backlog-drive in June. i am the co-ordinator of that drive. (t) Josve05a (c) 20:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

It looks good. Thanks! (t) Josve05a (c) 14:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for newsletter delivery: May 31, 2014

Can someone please deliver the next issue of WikiProject Baseball's newsletter on May 31, 2014? Here are the details:

I appreciate your assistance. isaacl (talk) 00:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Evad37 [talk] 01:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! isaacl (talk) 05:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for newsletter delivery

I'm requesting that the following be delivered to users on this mailing list --LT910001 (talk) 00:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Title: The Pulse (WP:MED newsletter) June 2014

The first edition of The Pulse has been released. The Pulse will be a regular newsletter documenting the goings-on at WPMED, including ongoing collaborations, discussions, articles, and each edition will have a special focus. That newsletter is here.

The newsletter has been sent to the talk pages of WP:MED members bearing the {{User WPMed}} template. To opt-out, please leave a message here or simply remove your name from the mailing list. Because this is the first issue, we are still finding out feet. Things like the layout and content may change in subsequent editions. Please let us know what you think, and if you have any ideas for the future, by leaving a message here.

This it the first newsletter associated with WPMED, which has quite a large user base, and I've provided opt-out messages in the notification and twice in the first newsletter. --LT910001 (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done. For future reference, you should include a "Sent by" or similar line with ~~~~, which will be turned into a MediaWiki message delivery signature/timestamp, so the message can be archived by those using archiving bots. For this delivery I added "Posted by ~~~~ on behalf of WikiProject Medicine." - Evad37 [talk] 03:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for newsletter delivery: June 27, 2014

Can someone please deliver the next issue of WikiProject Baseball's newsletter on June 27, 2014? Here are the details:

Thanks very much for your help. isaacl (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done --Mdann52talk to me! 07:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again! isaacl (talk) 12:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for newsletter delivery: July 27, 2014

Can someone please deliver the next issue of WikiProject Baseball's newsletter on July 27, 2014? Here are the details:

Your help is greatly appreciated! isaacl (talk) 08:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Evad37 [talk] 03:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! isaacl (talk) 04:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Mass_message_senders/Archive_1&oldid=1227107544"