User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 73
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – October 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2018).
Administrator changes
Justlettersandnumbers • L235
Bgwhite • HorsePunchKid • J Greb • KillerChihuahua • Rami R • Winhunter
Interface administrator changes
- Cyberpower678 • Deryck Chan • Oshwah • Pharos • Ragesoss • Ritchie333
Oversight changes
- Guerillero • NativeForeigner • Snowolf • Xeno
Guideline and policy news
- Following a request for comment, the process for appointing interface administrators has been established. Currently only existing admins can request these rights, while a new RfC has begun on whether it should be available to non-admins.
- There is an open request for comment on Meta regarding the creation a new user group for global edit filter management.
Technical news
- Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
- The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
- Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.
Arbitration
- The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, amended the procedure on functionary inactivity.
- The community consultation for 2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments has concluded. Appointments will be made by October 11.
- Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
- Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.
Thanks for being the voice of reason at ANI
It's amazing how many folks just want to throw WP:V out the window. Even more amazing, how many folks open their mouths without checking the diffs. Toddst1 (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
|
The Admin's Barnstar | |
| Thank you for taking note of my humble list at WP:TRM relating to errors on, or just about to be on, the main page. The diligence shown by you and your colleagues has resolved more than 500 issues in just 78 days. Your efforts are more appreciated than you can imagine. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC) |
- Thank you. I know I'm not as active as I hoped to be when I became an admin, but I try. (I refuse to help DYK though... at this point, I want that whole project gone...) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- I understand, and I understand, and I understand. And agree. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Source question
Greetings, seeing as you've written a lot on medieval English history I was wondering if you have any opinions on the suitability of this source. Per Google Books it has some material relating to the 1257 Samalas eruption and I was wondering if it could be used there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- Boydell is quite good as far as publishers go - it looks like a collection of essays - which essay were you particularly planning on using? I can't see that it would be unreliable at first glance.. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher)Boydell, quite good?! Mind you, they certainly lose points for their prices :) ——SerialNumber54129 16:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- I was thinking of Crisis Management in London’s Food Supply, 1250–1500. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- Looks pretty reliable. Derek Keene looks good. The only issue might be about him being outside his specialty - if he's trying to opine on intricacies of Inodonesian history ... but even there, it shouldn't be too bad. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- Nah, the content in question is exclusively about the mid-13th century London and the effects of the Indonesian eruption. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
TFA
Thank you for today's William of Wrotham, "an obscure English cleric and royal administrator, who was heavily involved in naval affairs in the reign of King John. Although he was called one of John's "evil counsellors" by Roger of Wendover, it doesn't really appear to have been the case. He never was criticized for extortion or anything, and appears to have been a good administrator and official."!
... and today's Roger Norreis, "a VERY bad boy - an abbot who did not fulfill the medieval ideal of the holy clergy at all. I find him a fascinating example of the fact that people remain people throughout history."! - Sorry that I failed to sign the above ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
TFA scheduling
After seeing your edit here, I'm now curious: how far in advance can one schedule a TFA? Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- Anyone can add an FA to Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page/Date connection at any time - this is a page used by us to get ideas for what to run. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending generally takes articles about a year in advance. Neither of these are "scheduling" - it's just a way to alert the schedulers. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests takes nominations about a month out. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- I see. Pinging FrB.TG in case he'd also like to know about such submissions. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- Assuming nothing major changes between now and next November - I should be handling the November 2019 scheduling (the TFA coords have split the year up into thirds - we each take four months - mine are February, May, August, November). I put SJ on the "date connection" list for FAs... if in early December someone lists it on the pending requests page, that should jog my memory enough next year. If there are two articles competing for the same date relevant anniversary - I try to pick whichever is the more "round" one - so in this case - 20 years trumped 34... since waiting a year would get 35 years (a nice "round" number) as well as there will be (hopefully for this MCU fan) more hype about the Black Widow movie next year... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- I see. Pinging FrB.TG in case he'd also like to know about such submissions. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
TFA suggestion
I notice that one of my ancient Antarctic sagas, promoted 2009, has thus far escaped TFA. It is SY Aurora's drift, and you are welcome to use it if you think fit. It needs a bit of tidying around issues such as ISBNs etc., which I'm happy to attend to, but otherwise looks in reasonable order. Brianboulton (talk) 10:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Edit warring, original research
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Please don't start edit wars across multiple articles. If you have sources to back up your claims please present them on talk.-69.119.173.83 (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Note for TPSs - here and here are the restorations - where the IP above is pushing a POV that is not in accord with talk page. They've been asked to discuss on the talk page, but prefer to edit war. Note for the first diff - the Michlic source does indeed support the "international condemnation" which the IP is attempting to restrict to "Jewish groups" as well as push the idea that it was mainly Jewish partisans that did the massacre. In the second diff - the IP is attempting to source the participation of Jewish partisans in another massacre to a photo and a museum description of hte photo that does not mention the massacre at all and is dated to sometime between 1941 and 1944. That document/photograph and document record does not support the information that Jewish partisans took part in a massacre on 8 May 1943. But ... of course, pot calling kettle black and all that. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – November 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment determined that non-administrators will not be able to request interface admin access.
- A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the Mediation Committee should be closed and marked as historical.
- A village pump discussion has been ongoing about whether the proposed deletion policy (PROD) should be clarified or amended.
- A request for comment is in progress to determine whether pending changes protection should be applied automatically to today's featured article (TFA) in order to mitigate a recent trend of severe image vandalism.
Technical news
- Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
- A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
- The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.
Arbitration
- Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
- The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-en
wikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.
User:Ealdgyth/2018 Arb Election votes
Note: User:Ealdgyth/2018 Arb Election votes is the discussion topic. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC) has been added to my watchlist. :) ceranthor 17:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hey Ealdgyth, would you score me once again, hypothetically speaking of course of course of course? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- # The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves) - Edit tools 217,000 edits total, 2800 automated, 214,200+ manual edits. Account started editing 2005. 51.2% to articles, 4.2% to article talk, 2.4% to user pages, 12.2% to user talk pages, 21.8% to wikipedia space, 4.8% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 1 week. 68 articles with over 100 edits. 656 edits to ANI, 352 to AN. 631 "real" pages created. Is NOT an admin. AUDITED CONTENT. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Bad TRM, 51.2% to articles? What am I thinking? Is "AUDITED CONTENT" the same as "Audio comments"? Everything I submit should have some kind of augmented experiential bonus package (through PayPal) where other editors get to hear what I was really thinking, would that be a winner at Abracadacom? Can I rely on your !vote? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Audited content is FAs, FLs, GAs. I'll note DYKs, although only when there is nothing else. Vote would depend on who all runs - if we had six folks who I thought were better, I'd vote for them... given past elections, however, I wouldn't bet on getting more than two or three candidates I'm willing to vote for... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, audited content. Cool. I wouldn't note DYKs, I audit those every day. As for your voting strategy (all is revealed!), understood. Right now, I'm voting for Brewster, and a three-legged stool, but only because I can rely on the latter, and the former (with Pryor) was a seminal moment in my "learning how to and who to vote for" education... Best wishes to you, as ever. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Audited content is FAs, FLs, GAs. I'll note DYKs, although only when there is nothing else. Vote would depend on who all runs - if we had six folks who I thought were better, I'd vote for them... given past elections, however, I wouldn't bet on getting more than two or three candidates I'm willing to vote for... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Bad TRM, 51.2% to articles? What am I thinking? Is "AUDITED CONTENT" the same as "Audio comments"? Everything I submit should have some kind of augmented experiential bonus package (through PayPal) where other editors get to hear what I was really thinking, would that be a winner at Abracadacom? Can I rely on your !vote? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- # The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves) - Edit tools 217,000 edits total, 2800 automated, 214,200+ manual edits. Account started editing 2005. 51.2% to articles, 4.2% to article talk, 2.4% to user pages, 12.2% to user talk pages, 21.8% to wikipedia space, 4.8% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 1 week. 68 articles with over 100 edits. 656 edits to ANI, 352 to AN. 631 "real" pages created. Is NOT an admin. AUDITED CONTENT. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- In my capacity as Wikipedia's resident Cassandra, I just want it on the record that my In an ideal world, there will be no successful candidates this year, the Committee will wither on the vine, and either the community or the WMF will come up with a decent alternative and the kind of people who want to act as volunteer moderators aren't always the people you would want as volunteer moderators comments were made before any of this rabble nominated themselves. If I were intentionally trying to assemble a Hasten the Day slate, I'm not sure I could have come up with a better selection of names. ‑ Iridescent 00:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm completely underwhelmed, I'll admit. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Since I imagine my post will rapidly and magically vanish from the election pages fairly soon, just gonna put [1] and [2] here. ‑ Iridescent 00:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Iridescent: wow... ceranthor 02:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Blimey! ——SerialNumber54129 09:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- yes, and so far (withering on the vine) may come true: I will not vote for any of the 3 who appeared so far, two because of the answer to my question, and one because of no answer to any question --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Since I imagine my post will rapidly and magically vanish from the election pages fairly soon, just gonna put [1] and [2] here. ‑ Iridescent 00:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm completely underwhelmed, I'll admit. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hey, I was just wondering where you got that AN/ANI editcount from? :) (Or you can just do the same what you did for The Rambling Man) — regards, Revi 07:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- It appears in your edit count under "Wikipedia"—in your case, 14 edits to AN and 9 edits to ANI. ‑ Iridescent 08:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Just as a general note, "articles with over 100 edits" isn't a very good metric to measure anything (I only have two, and one of those is a page that got hammered at TFA so probably half the edits are vandalism rollbacks). Because I do all the tinkering and spellchecking in sandboxes and then make the mainspace edit as a single big edit rather than clutter the edit history with 200 little ones. On the topic of "percentage of edits to articles", my comments a couple of weeks ago that "Percentage of edits" doesn't really count for much; someone who reverts well-intentioned new editors who make a mistake and then patiently talks those editors through why they've been reverted and how they can avoid it in future, will have far more talk than article edits, but will likely make a much better admin than someone who racks up 10,000 article edits a day mechanically scanning recent changes and machine-gunning "revert" was written about potential admin candidates, but applies even more so to arbs; when it comes to arbs we want those people who make a dozen talk edits explaining to someone "here's why I reverted you, here's what you did wrong and here's what you should be doing" and we don't want the people who just undo edits with an edit summary of "not an improvement", slap a generic "one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive" template, and never talk to that editor again. ‑ Iridescent 08:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Another note—it looks like Xtools isn't counting automated and semi-automated edits correctly. It's telling me that I have only a little over 2000 semiautomated edits, and I know that on occasion, such as when I was using AWB to remove "targetted" unless it appeared in a direct quote, I did more than that in a single day. ‑ Iridescent 09:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- The percentage of Wikipedia-space edits can point in more than one direction, too. I have a fairly high percentage, but almost all of it is article reviews; I'm not qualified to be an ArbCom candidate but that's not the reason why. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Percentages are however much easier to produce than analyzing a large amount of edits, edit by edit. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 14:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- The percentage of Wikipedia-space edits can point in more than one direction, too. I have a fairly high percentage, but almost all of it is article reviews; I'm not qualified to be an ArbCom candidate but that's not the reason why. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- ROFL ... every year I think I get the same "lecture" from Iri.... the numbers are just part of the picture. It can help round out a decision, but it's not the only things I make decisions on. I've voted for NYB every time he's run, and his stats are ... woeful at best. But the other things he brings to the arbcom table make up for the crappy editing statistics... we'll see what happens this year. I've never been afraid to vote for less than the number of available seats... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- And every year I give the same reply—that my comments are for the benefit of other people reading it and not you. (If you don't believe editcountitis is a genuine problem, pick any given RFA and read it.) ‑ Iridescent 18:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago
 | |
| Ten years! |
|---|
You make excellent TFA choices, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I've withdrawn
There are enough good candidates and I'd like to see Joe Roe (who is away on working on an archaeology site right now, hence his late entry) get in. We need new blood and active editors on the Committee. Doug Weller talk 09:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
You know how
... I already thought you were an utter star?
Double it.
--Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
"Casting aspersions"
Hello Ealdgyth,
If I may ask for your attention here. There are two discussion taking place there in parallel: One, legitimate, on sourcing; another, illegitimate, on intent. You already know all the players.
Thanks. François Robere (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm involved with editing that page in the past so I can't act as an admin, and frankly the behavior of everyone in the whole topic area has made me have no desire to interact with almost all of you so I have no desire to stick my neck in there to be beat up on by all sides. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Understood. Rest assured that I have the utmost respect for you, being the one admin who actually cared to get involved beyond sanction discussions, and reasonably so. Thanks anyway. François Robere (talk) 12:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Ealdgyth. 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)
Thanks for your work...
|
History |
| Thanks for your contributions! Qwerty number1 (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC) |
I'm really interested in your opinions on the candidates. Can I gently encourage you to revisit and complete your guide? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- It will probably be tomorrow. We're in a bit of a crunch to get stuff moved out of our basement while we have helpers... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- Good luck with that! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 06:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- There you go. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- Marvllyers. Fank yew. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 18:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- There you go. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- Good luck with that! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 06:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Cynllo
It appears from Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru [3] that coeg should be translated as "in vain" rather than "an empty treasure". Any thoughts?----Ehrenkater (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- Not the slightest clue - I was just doing maintenance on the page... I know nothing of the Welsh language. Sorry! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- OK will change it. ----Ehrenkater (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – December 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018).
Administrator changes
Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz- Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
- A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
- A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
- A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.
Technical news
- Administrators and bureaucrats can no longer unblock themselves unless they placed the block initially. This change has been implemented globally. See also this ongoing village pump discussion (permalink).
- To complement the aforementioned change, blocked administrators will soon have the ability to block the administrator that placed their block to mitigate the possibility of a compromised administrator account blocking all other active administrators.
- Since deployment of Partial blocks on Test Wikipedia, several bugs were identified. Most of them are now fixed. Administrators are encouraged to test the new deployment and report new bugs on Phabricator or leave feedback on the Project's talk page. You can request administrator access on the Test Wiki here.
Arbitration
- Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 3 December 2018. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.
Miscellaneous
- In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
- Wikipedia policy requires administrators to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.
Obituaries
- Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (Raymond Arritt) passed away on 14 November 2018. Boris joined Wikipedia as Raymond arritt on 8 May 2006 and was an administrator from 30 July 2007 to 2 June 2008.
Seasons Greetings
|
dawnleelynn(talk) 17:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC) |