Superprotect status


Dear Chuck Entz, since you are an administrator on a wiki from which no user participated in this discussion, I'd like to make sure you are aware of some recent events which may alter what the Wikimedia Foundation lets you do on your wiki: Superprotect.

Peteforsyth 09:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Reply



RadiX 01:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Reply


This is a reminder to acknowledge and sign the new Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information. As you know, your volunteer role in Wikimedia projects gives you access to secure and sensitive information.

The new version includes one major change.

  • There is a change regarding the way personal data may be released. Accordingly, functionaries must notify the Wikimedia Foundation at check-disclosure before releasing data, in order to obtain a written approval for doing so. The Foundation will respond within 10 days. However, for emergencies, such as cases involving threats of violence, functionaries may release the personal data without such explicit permission, but they should notify the Foundation immediately following the disclosure. If they choose not to disclose the data, the request for disclosure should be forwarded to the Foundation's emergency email address (emergency

There are also some wording changes that were made to more closely align the language with evolving industry norms, best practices and laws. The most notable of these has been the change of the term "nonpublic information" to "nonpublic personal data". None of these changes are intended to make fundamental changes to the scope or practice of the policy but we know they could appear as such, hence wanted to flag them.

The aforementioned changes require users that have already signed the previous version of the policy to sign the new version as well.

We therefore ask that you to sign the updated version. Signing the agreement is tracked on Phabricator's Legalpad. An online guide is available to help you with signing the agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign. If you wish you can sign it directly at The exact policy is located here: Access to nonpublic personal data policy. The text of the confidentiality agreement is located here: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information

If you have already received this message and signed the updated agreement, you need not sign it again. Once is sufficient. In this case, we ask that you respond to Samuel (WMF) letting him know when (date) and how (method/process of signing) you have signed it so that we can update our own records.

Note: please bear in mind that if you still haven’t signed the updated version of the Confidentiality Agreement by February 13, 2019 your rights will be removed.

Thank you for your understanding,

Samuel Guebo (User:Samuel (WMF)), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery - 15:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey there


How come there's no "Long-term abuse" page on English Wiktionary?? As I'm sure you know, there's LTA pages on both English Wikipedia (w:en:WP:LTA) and Japanese Wiktionary (wikt:ja:Wiktionary:長期荒らし行為).

And by any chance, can you please do something about Surjection's rollbacks in regard to this complaint?
(I really can't imagine why he needed to delete that talkpage--it didn't exactly solicit any edits, at least not to any linked Wiktionary pages, and if it did, it was only to one non-linked page. And I don't know why he thinks rollbacks dissuade me from block-evading; if anything, they give me an incentive to further evade my Wiktionary block, especially since I never create nonsensical pages and only rarely create stuff that merits a deletion like with wikt:en:Talk:右代宮 or wikt:en:Talk:探幽.)

Besides, 汁粉 (meaning shiruko) was not an instance of "blindly believing in redlinks" (and who did put all those redlinks, like 白鶴神 and 子取り and 亜祐弥, on each page in the first place? Because for a vast majority of them, I assuredly didn't!).

One final thing: you have my explicit permission to violate the privacy policy when it comes to which IP ranges I use. And it's more than that, like if someone makes a post like this one where you replied, I request you to tell the original poster that you were specifically trying to block Shāntián Tàiláng. See? I wouldn't consider that too much of a violation of my privacy. Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply