User talk:Stephen/Archive Jan17Jan19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stuart Timmons[edit]

Any idea why the wikilink to the French article is not working please?Zigzig20s (talk) 10:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've done it for you, but search for interlanguage links and how to enter them in Wikidata. Stephen

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017[edit]

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

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

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

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Waitangi Day[edit]

In reference to your revert of the tag at this article. On 5 February, a user added the tag. The user was well aware that the addition of such tags results in the event not appearing in 'On this day...' on the Main Page, because he told another editor that on his Talk page. By the time I noticed that Waitangi Day was not appearing in 'On this day...' and complained and learned that the tag blocks such articles, Waitangi Day was nearly over but I removed the tag in an attempt to get Waitangi Day to appear. I'm forced to give the editor the benefit of the doubt, but the timing (one day before the event) and his knowledge that the tag blocks appearance, might indicate that he did it deliberately. Akld guy (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Howcheng is responsible for that section of the main page and made a good judgement that the quality was not sufficient. Improve the article for next year. Stephen 23:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Howcheng has a schedule of events on his page and appears to upload them to 'On this day...'. It's my belief that he reviewed the upcoming event Waitangi Day, decided that it lacked references, and deliberately blocked it from appearing there. A very dirty trick, one day before the event, especially when very few editors know that the event can be blocked in that way. Despicable. Nothing to do with you, but background for what happened. Akld guy (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Akld guy actually, if you care to take a look at the history of the WP:ERRORS page over the past few weeks, and you'll see that, on average, one or two articles per day that are listed to appear at OTD are pulled at the last minute (i.e. the day before) over quality concerns, and many are tagged for improvement. This isn't "a very dirty trick", indeed this is all about maintaining the integrity of the main page. If you really are interested in this, improve the article so it can be included next year, and quit throwing baseless bad faith accusations around. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What color is a magpie?[edit]

Thank you for fixing that Stephen; you're a saint! 173.73.172.102 (talk) 02:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Memorial[edit]

If you have problems with specific entries in the popcult section, please discuss them on the article's talk page, where I and other editors can express our opinions. Unlike you, [1] I have a very long history with this article, [2],[3] and therefore have a strong interest in its content. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No item has a reference. Please read WP:Verifiable. Stephen 00:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As a media item, every single item references itself, and is therefore totally verifiable. As I have to do is look at the book, or the film, or the video game and there is the content mentioned. Unless you are willing to go throughout Wikipedia and tag every single "Plot" section in every film and novel article as being unreferenced -- because they're also based entirely on the media item in question -- I suggest you stop tagging this section. Furthermore, as an admin, you should be well aware that when an edit is disputed by another editor, the next step is discusssion on the article talk page, not to revert. Well, there's a discussion there now, but you haven't contributed to it. Please act like an admin and follow the standard operatoing procedures that all editors are expected to comply with. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Before you restore the unnecessary "unreferenced" tag for the third time, I request that you read the talk page, and contribute to the discussion there. Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kasaï-Central clashes (2016–present)[edit]

Very disappointing. I won't bother with Ongoing nominations any more.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just make sure they're in the mainstream press, and that the article is getting regularly updated with significant events and you'll be set. Or look for a major event as a blurb and suggest it moves to ongoing rather than fall off the bottom. Stephen 23:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think the main problem may be, not so much Wikipedia or ITN, but the corporate media in the West. They totally under-report African news. I first heard about it while watching the papal angelus, as many millions of people must have, but The New York Times only did one article about it. These people are likely to be dehumanized as "refugees" in the next few months--the whole process is very obscurantist. I do think there is some regular media coverage, which is what User:Jayron32 was asking for, but not enough in high-circulation Western/US newspapers.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct about Western media coverage of Africa; there's almost a base level of insurrection that's expected and only reported when it exceeds a higher threshold. The Catholic infrastructure was better at escalating and reporting on the troubles in this case. Stephen 02:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
African sources are fine. There is no preference against you updating the article using African sources. Do that. I will not stop you. --Jayron32 13:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Rollason[edit]

In answer to your question I did a Google image search before I reverted you, and there isn't a lot. At least that isn't owned by the BBC or some other outlet. That would suggest the chances of getting another one are very slim, and it's not like there are ever going to be any new ones. Have you checked yourself? This is Paul (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I bet if someone could actually be bothered to contact the charity, they'd be able to get an image released via OTRS and a decent one at that. But most people can't be bothered. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The image appears to have been sourced from the charity (although whether anyone asked them of if that's the original source is unclear). Happy to send them an email and see if they respond. Is there a template letter for making such requests? This is Paul (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A polite, respectful, personal letter would do better than a form letter in my opinion. Stephen 22:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ok, I'll put one together tomorrow. This is Paul (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've already done it. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017[edit]

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

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

File:Reg Grundy 20 September 2010.jpg[edit]

The FFD discussion resulted in "no consensus". May you please reinsert the file into Reg Grundy? --George Ho (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you wish to re-challenge the use of this image, please use FFD process instead. George Ho (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, just because no-one has bothered to try and get a free use image, does not mean that we can use a copyrighted image as the main image in a article. An image deletion discussion is not the same as an image usage discussion. Stephen 23:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your good-faith removals of copyright images of recently deceased people. However, I don't see how ignoring the FFD results and removing the image would produce good results. Why else not revert the removal and try another FFD nomination per WP:CCC? If the newer consensus agrees with the deletion, I would abide to that. However, the status quo should be retained for now, i.e. reinserting the image back and abiding to the results. By the way, I created a GrantIdea page, m:Grants:IdeaLab/In memoria and commemorations, about incubating a project idea to obtain more images of deceased persons. There is another, m:Grants:IdeaLab/images of living people, created by someone else. George Ho (talk) 00:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have you made any attempt to get an image of Grundy released via OTRS or similar? Stephen 01:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I contacted separate photographers of this photo and that photo recently. I'm awaiting their responses. George Ho (talk) 01:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's great. You may want to write a respectful message to his widow, Joy Chambers, who has a website and contact form, and ask if she would release a photo of her late husband. Stephen 01:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Contacted her. I also told them all that they may upload the photos to Commons themselves if they wish to. George Ho (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you reverted Aspects's reinsertion of the image. Meanwhile, I've not received one response from any of them. Also, there is a huge backlog in the OTRS queue, addressed at c:COM:Village pump#Backlog in permissions-commons OTRS queue and then m:Wikimedia Forum#Backlogging in OTRS. May you revert your removal back to the status quo for now? --George Ho (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We should exhaust all avenues before using a copyrighted image, and not let a copyrighted image act as a placeholder. That image of Grundy can only be used in the section referring to the interview in any case. Stephen 20:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I received an email from an agent of Joy Chambers. Her agent told me that "she will not be able to be involved with" Commons. I could ask her a permission to use a photo, but the OTRS still suffers from backlogging. I'm still awaiting response from other photographers. --George Ho (talk) 03:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Asking the general public to create an account and upload an image with the appropriate release is never going to happen. You would be better to ask for a picture as an attachment with permission to use it, which can then be sent to OTRS. Our backlogged queues are no excuse to allow copyrighted images to be used. Stephen 04:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've not received responses from any of the photographers. How long is a response typically? George Ho (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most people's lives don't revolve around email, and Wikipedia even less so. I'd give it a month before a polite follow up. Again, don't expect anyone to understand uploading at Commons. Stephen 09:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the "ANI" thing. I am just worried about the orphaned image; I let my emotions get the best of me. I'll say this to make up to you. Per Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights, English Wikipedia is governed by US laws, not any other. You can also read Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 November 10#File:Australian Aboriginal Flag.svg. In other words, En.wiki is not bound by UK or Australian law. Ask any admin or copyright expert. George Ho (talk) 05:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That ruling is irrelevant as the flag is non-copyrightable geometric shapes, Just have patience that someone will provide a free image. There is no time limit. Stephen 05:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added back the image to the article since it is an acceptable fair use image of a deceased person. Per WP:BRD, after reverted the image should have gone to WP:FFD, especially since a disputed fair use was rejected and a previous FFD was closed as no consensus. Just because the process of finding a free image is ongoing does not mean that an acceptable fair use image of a deceased person should be removed because in this case the process has been going on for ten months and an orphaned fair use image gets deleted in one week.

I also have added back the image, File:Helen Rollason in approximately 1993.jpg, back to Helen Rollason as also being an acceptable fair use image of a deceased person that was removed, reverted by User:This is Paul, removed again, reverted by me and removed a third time. In this case, the person has been dead for seventeen years and the article became a good article with the image two years ago. Aspects (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to delete[edit]

Hello. Could you please delete Joseph H. Fuller? His name was actually Stephen H. Fuller (son of Joseph B. Fuller). I clearly need another cup of tea!Zigzig20s (talk) 08:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Stephen 09:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch general election, 2017[edit]

Pls put it on Main page, the Party of current PM won the elections. 46.70.205.85 (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

André Tosel[edit]

Any idea why my ITN nomination for André Tosel has gotten zero attention whatsoever? Too Marxist?Zigzig20s (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, someone finally saw it. I guess it takes a while sometimes.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trisha Brown[edit]

Your statement that nobody has attemtped to find a free image of Trisha Brown is incorrect. I did so myself extensively yesterday, and could nto find one. Since the image is properly rationaled, and the person is dead, your removal was out of process, so I restored it. If someone can find a free image of Brown and replace it, fine, but don't make the claim that no one tried. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One day of looking. So you've made reasonable attempts to reach out to her publicists, or others who might have known her? Or you've just searched on the internet? It takes longer than a day. Stephen 02:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a day of looking is quite reasonable. And you, an admin, are engaging in an edit war. Are you happy about that? The photo is properly labelled, properly rationaled and th e person is dead, what the fuck else do you want? Go, spend your own day or twqo or three (or whatever would satisfy you -- 90 days?) trying to find a free image of her. Note that the vast majority of the pictures on line are owned by the Trisha Brown Dance Company, and contemplate what that, exactly, means. Please cut the crap. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cut your attitude. Have you approached the Trisha Brown Dance Company and asked if they would consider releasing an image through OTRS, or uploading it themselves with the appropriate release. Or is that all too hard for you? So much easier to just upload a copyright image on the day she died isn't it? Stephen 03:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll cut my attitude when you stop pretending that you can read the actions of other editors that you don't know from Adam. You have nNO grounds for removing the iumage except for your own point of view about image usage, which is not inline with Foundation policy. We do NOT require that the copyright holder upload an image, American Fair Use allows us to use it, and it qualifies under NFCC and the WMF's licensing policy, so wither you don;t know what the fuck you're talking about, or you're taking these actions for another reason entirely. An admin edit-warring without policy backing -- that's really great stuff. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read WP:Non-free content? "Non-free content should not be used when a freely licensed file that serves the same purpose can reasonably be expected to be uploaded, as is the case for almost all portraits of living people." These is the policy wording. So uploading an image on the day that someone dies is not acceptable if a freely licensed file that serves the same purpose can reasonably be expected to be uploaded by approaching those close to the individual after a respectful period. So, yes, I do know what the fuck I am talking about. Stephen 03:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vince (rhinoceros)[edit]

I'd like to remove the PROD and suggest this go to AFD, but I'm the one who created it. Am I allowed to do it?Zigzig20s (talk) 03:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can remove prod and take it to AfD. There's nothing stopping an article creator from doing this. It's a harmless article though that documents a BLP1E animal equivalent. There seems to be enough coverage that it is likely to be kept. But it's up to you. Stephen 03:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just remove the PROD and let other people take it to AFD if they want to?Zigzig20s (talk) 03:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, per WP:PROD, "Any editor (including the article's creator) may object to the deletion by simply removing the tag; this action permanently cancels the proposed deletion via PROD." Stephen 03:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!Zigzig20s (talk) 03:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Westminster attack[edit]

Two armed policemen stand guard outside the Palace of Westminster in July 2016 in Westminster London.

Latest info is 4 dead including the attacker - [4] "Those who died were a woman in her 40s, a man in his 50s, PC Keith Palmer and the attacker". This is stated in the article. Optimist on the run (talk) 09:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. The article still has five in the infobox, and hasn't been updated. Apologies. Stephen 09:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly stated four when I made the initial edit [5]. Optimist on the run (talk) 10:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And it had clearly changed a few minutes later [6]. Stephen 11:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I was wondering if this image was more appropriate for the situation? If not I understand but just a suggestion... EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 15:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks EoRdE6, but I don't think that's a particularly informative picture. If there was a reasonable, free aftermath photo that would be more suitable, but two policemen (one obscured) standing in front of some columns is not really informative. Stephen 22:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. In this case, and confirmed with this edit [7], I'll assume good faith that you tried your best to locate a free image in multiple repositories. It would also be good to reach out to any close parties after a respectful time, but I wouldn't necessarily expect you specifically to do that. Stephen 02:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Belarusian protests[edit]

You can add an article 2017 Belarusian protests in Ongoing ? --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism omitted from Westminster[edit]

I've changed the article, as you suggested. Is there a waiting period for it to change on the main page? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:10, March 28, 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017[edit]

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

Administrator changes

added TheDJ
removed Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
  • The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
  • An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
  • After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

  • After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
  • Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Lafont[edit]

Hi. Could you please restore Bruno Lafont, which was a PROD? The deleter has not edited Wikipedia since last December, so hopefully you can help. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zigzig20s:, sorry I overlooked this. I have restored and moved to User:Zigzig20s/Bruno Lafont. Stephen 00:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please move it back to mainspace with an "under construction" tag?Zigzig20s (talk) 10:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Zigzig20s:. No. You haven't touched it since I undeleted it. Stephen 23:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What about now please?Zigzig20s (talk) 10:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

File:A. A. Gill BBC 2012.jpg[edit]

I received a mail from photographer of this photo about using it. However, that was one month ago. Time passed, and I still haven't received another email response after asking him which license to use. Therefore, I wonder whether you can let me reuse the image (File:A. A. Gill BBC 2012.jpg) at A. A. Gill. Pinging Mifter, who deleted the image as orphaned. --George Ho (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017[edit]

Sorry, why was my edit reverted? Hawkeye75 (talk) 23:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read the edit summary. Stephen 23:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But doesn't he say "I trust that you will add something here that makes me really smile"? Or does it have to be related to Wikipedia? Hawkeye75 (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any evidence he wants that picture on his public-facing page? I doubt he often looks at it. Put it on his talk page if you must post something. Stephen 23:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you revert it? Hawkeye75 (talk) 01:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again, do you have any evidence he wants that on his public-facing page? Ask on his talk page first. Stephen 01:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did this IP user have evidence for this image that has been up for 2 years? No. Plus do you get to accept/reject every edit that goes onto Jimbo's page such as this one, where you reverted an edit due to "religious" interference. Hawkeye75 (talk) 02:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea about the first one. Are you suggesting the second one isn't religious? Stephen 02:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:Religion, "no one is correct". Hawkeye75 (talk) 06:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a failed proposal, not sure what point you're making. Stephen 06:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't WP:IAR suggest that my edit was correct, since it was improving Jimbo's user page? Hawkeye75 (talk) 06:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your addition would not have been seen by everyone as improving it. Stephen 06:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get a third opinion, so we can reach a consensus? Hawkeye75 (talk) 06:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, post it in his talk page and you'll get some other opinions. Stephen 07:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Born/died this day guidelines[edit]

Hi Stephen, I just realised where the lack of clarity over max number of b/d this day entries comes from - the talk page discussion of the new guideline suggests "2 - 4 per day" while the actual guideline only states "at least one b/d". I was reading the discussion rather than the guideline. Cheers! MurielMary (talk) 08:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yom Ha'atzmaut[edit]

Why did you remove it from the main page? Did you look at the article? What issues need to be addressed, because I can't see any. It's a terrible shame that we don't include it on the main page, it is an important date, not just for Israel, it's news worthy and it's quite odd to not have it. Sir Joseph (talk) 05:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's been explained to you at WP:Errors. What do you not understand? Stephen 05:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
did you even look at the article? Sir Joseph (talk) 12:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't understand the rules, process or assessment. Stephen 22:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017[edit]

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

Administrator changes

added Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim
removed Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

  • Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

al mahdi birthdate[edit]

hi stephen, my apologies, but it looked like the 'on this day' was giving his birth year as 2017, and i never recieved a message explaining my error (though now i see something in a new message about 'it has already been explained to you') i also don't understand how a talk page comment can be reverted, as it was't an edit as i understand it. if you have the extra time and energy to explain it would help me avoid such errors in the future, thanks, Potholehotline (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. In the On this Day section celebrations that move date every year have the current year in brackets to signify that the celebration is for the current year only and will be on a different date the next year. If a celebration is for a particular country or religion, that is shown too. We're not celebrating his birthday on his actual date of birth. Keeping track of Errors reports is tricky, as they are often deleted when resolved or if there is no error, as was the case here. Let me know if you have any other questions. Stephen 22:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the explanation, i didn't think to check this page for an answer til now, i'm slowly learning how things are done.Potholehotline (talk) 17:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jacque Fresco[edit]

Hey Stephen! I was wondering if you could help post Jacque Fresco RD nomination under May 18 with the [Attention Needed] header at the Main Page. Thanks! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken care of this. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines ITK[edit]

Where's the discussion for the current Philippines ITK item? 171.66.209.130 (talk) 00:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I found it. Keep up the good work. 171.66.209.130 (talk) 00:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Princess Irene[edit]

Would you kindly restore the original wording to OTD, which clearly has consensus despite TRM's objection. Mjroots (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Main page always defers to the article, which doesn't contain 'obliterate', but rather the phrase 'exploded and sank' in the lede. Stephen 21:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017[edit]

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

Administrator changes

added Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn
removed ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK error[edit]

I think you should reconsider not changing the BYU blurb. From our MOS, "Use italics when mentioning a word or letter (see Use–mention distinction) or a string of words up to one full sentence (the term panning is derived from panorama; the most common letter in English is e). When a whole sentence is mentioned, quotation marks may be used instead, with consistency." Primergrey (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017[edit]

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

Administrator changes

added Happyme22 • Dragons flight
removed Zad68

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

  • A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
  • A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
  • Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prospective removal of G20 summit from WP:ITNR[edit]

There has been a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items#Remove:_G20_summits vis-á-vis the removal of the G20 summit from the list of recurring items in the news at WP:ITNR. The idea spawned from its failure to reach ITN via WP:ITN/C this year. Currently, the proposal has six editors in favor and one strongly opposed. However, I fear the discussion may fall stale and force us through the ringer again on this topic. There has also been a proposed amendment to the ITNR format which seems to have gained traction.

I am simply asking you to assess the current playing field given your status as a uninvolved admin who frequents ITN.

Sincerest thanks in advance, and apologies if this is over-stepping a line or irritating you. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Stormy clouds:, thanks for the note. I'll keep an eye on it but these discussions are often left to run for a month as it's a less-trafficked page and there's no rush to get to a decision as the next one will be next year. Stephen 05:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfA[edit]

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017[edit]

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

Administrator changes

added Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 (first RfA to reach WP:300)
removed Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me how I've upset you so badly, so I can apologise[edit]

I'm just a little bit shocked at what you just did, reverting my perfectly reasonable edits on two different project talk pages. Never mind the lack of any policy basis for it, it felt rude, aggressive, uncalled for and, more than anything, it felt personal.

I have no idea what I've done to irritate you so much that you'd do that, but whatever it was, please tell me so I can apologise profusely. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not intend to offend, but I can see how my actions were this construed. There are many OTD errors posted every day, mostly by The Rambling Man. To add a note that each should be fixed or pulled was unnecessary, as that's the point of posting the error. To then add at the talk page that there were errors that needed addressing for that day was, again, unnecessary. However, I should have addressed this in a personal note to you and, for my negligence, I apologise. Best wishes. Stephen 22:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the apology. I disagree as the usual to and fro at ERRORS in part seeks to gain consensus. And the reason for my post at WT:OTD was because in the past I've often found little or no help at ERRORS (I've been a pretty regular contributor there, down the years) especially when a whole load of problems need fixing in one section. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Case in point: The Rambling Man flagged four problems in OTD about 10 hours ago. There's not much left of the day now. On two of them relating to today, no help has been provided and on the two related to tomorrow, not one single editor has replied to him. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which is a situation that occurs frequently, at least once or twice a week. The Rambling Man's diligence is unfortunately not met with the requisite administrator action. Stephen 22:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2017[edit]

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

Administrator changes

added Nakon • Scott
removed Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
  • Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
  • In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

  • Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2017[edit]

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

Administrator changes

added Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem
removed Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
  • A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

A year ago ...
efficient service
... you were recipient
no. 1492 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Systemic bias"[edit]

It is not "systemic bias" to assume most people, regardless of nationality, know about New York City. New York City is one of the most prominent cities in the world and is quite obviously globally recognizable. It's ridiculous to dismiss that obvious fact as biased. "In [location] [event] happened in [location]" is just poor sentence structure. One location should be provided, be it "United States", "New York City", or "New York, United States". The latter would still be an unnecessary level of detail but the sentence would at least flow correctly. Swarm ♠ 22:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this edit after performing mine. When an item relates specifically to one of the best-known global cities (e.g., New York, London, Paris, etc.), omitting a mention of the country is a longstanding practice at ITN. —David Levy 01:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks gents, I stand corrected. I was sure we'd generally included the countries but your examples make sense. Apologies @Swarm:. Stephen 01:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2017[edit]

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

Administrator changes

added Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93
removed Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


File:Rodney Bewes 1973 screenshot.jpg[edit]

You have deleted this photo from an obituary article. This file is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and allowed only under a claim of fair use per Wikipedia:Non-free content, because the man is deceased. As the source programme is still under copyright, and any similar image meeting the stated purpose would by necessity be derivative of the original programme, a free replacement cannot be provided. Question: What do you mean by: "rm NFU image, no evidence of sourcing another image". What policy are you using. And where is there an example of "evidence of sourcing another image"? I have done an extensive and diligent search for free images already, but proving that will be difficult. There are no free images on the net. His fame dates from the 1970's, so no fan club of note. He was known to be non-cooperative in the main with fans requests, and why should he since, he was largely out of work and had ongoing income problems. Indeed there are very few photos on the net at all, despite how well known a face he was in the UK. Only photos from 40 years ago are applicable here as his appearance changed dramatically from his heyday, (to the point of being unrecognisable I would say), and therefore useless for our purposes. How is this different from Reg Grundy? --BeckenhamBear (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A screen grab from a TV show showing an actor in a role is not fair use to illustrate the individual, it should only be used to illustrate the role. There was no evidence that anyone had attempted to source a free image of the individual. Stephen 23:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I took precedents from the site on "in a role versus portrait". In this case its the title card for him, in the only programme he's known for. The screen grab of the title card in this instance is fair use to illustrate the individual, as he is not in costume and he is actually named. It couldn't be better. Again, I asked you. What policy are you using. And where is there an example of "evidence of sourcing another image"? I told you that I had done an extensive search. What evidence do you want? What is going to satisfy you? This strikes me as a very good way of stifling edits that enhance the project, constructive edits take a lot of work. This man is a problem in that in recent photos he is virtually unrecognisable from his heyday, and that is what we are celebrating of him. People know him from his 60's image. Many biographies are virtually useless without a portrait. Not everybody is Elizabeth Taylor. Are you going to help me, please. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 13:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are numerous other images that would suffice that are in the Public Domain (surely ONE of these is PD. Stephen, feel free to delete the comment if you disagree and as I'm replying on your page. Buffs (talk) 16:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are no free images on the net. Yes there are images on the net, and are copyright. However few are fit for purpose. His fame dates from the 1960s and 70's, he never looked remotely the same since. There's no fan club of note, what purports to be a fan club even has a empty template space for a portrait! He was often known to be non-responsive in the main with fans postal requests, and why should he since he had famously had little revenue from re-runs. Once you take out screenshots of him within TV programmes in role, images of him in costume on stage, pics with others who are still alive, the many images where he does not remotely look like what he was in his pomp; you are left with very little. He was on some signings, and photos of them are on Flickr, he's gurning in all of them, and, they are copyright. Permission to use a Flickr photo has been requested, but in truth it's unusable, he looks terrible and he's due some dignity in death. The picture I chose to settle on is lowest common denominator in copyright terms, is poor quality, but it is perfect in every way for our purpose, and it even counterpoints in a discreet way his unwarranted hubris. It comes from an amenable source. It's as good as any we are going to get, in every way. When something better comes along, replace it by all means. What about good faith: I have done an extensive search. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted the photo again after I enhanced the already correct permissions to conform with your opinions as to use (so the photo is representative of the individual, as opposed to a role); you did this without explanation. Please have the good grace to refer me too the policy your working against. Don't just make it up as you go! Again What do you mean by: "rm NFU image, no evidence of sourcing another image". What policy are you using. And where is there an example of "evidence of sourcing another image"? The uploaded photo conforms to all the written policy. I have complied with WP:FAIRUSE, and WP:FUR, regarding :Non-free biographical images. What is non compliant with the non-free-use rationale I have employed? The official policy is quite clear uploading non free images of the deceased is acceptable if for (educative) single use, of such poor quality it cant be reprinted for personal gain, and a suitable "free license photo" is not available. Non free photos should be replaced with free at earliest opportunity. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 11:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The image we’re talking about is compliant. The key problem lies around one clause: “No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.” Would you please look up the definition of “available”, and you will see it is "Able to be used or obtained; at someone's disposal. Suitable or ready for use; at hand" there is nothing in it to justify letters to whoever, waiting for 4 months or longer, or accumulating proof, keeping diaries, etc. There you go and I didn't need to make it up. Will you now re-insert the image? Just to save time, now that I have gone to enormous length to undertake "burden of proof", as is the policy; will you now do me the kindness to refer me to the policy that you choose to decline me? --BeckenhamBear (talk) 16:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BeckenhamBear:, as I stated above a screen grab from a TV show copyrighted title page showing an actor in a role is not fair use to illustrate the individual, it should only be used to illustrate the role. It appears that another picture has become available, so this discussion is moot. Stephen 01:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Stephen:, No it's not a moot point. I must insist you answer where your getting your policy from? Here are three points I'm giving you:
  • Images with iconic status or historical importance. (The replacement photo you quote is not instantly identifiable to the actor in his hey-day. The ONLY role he is known for; which is iconic in the UK at least).
  • An image that provides a representative visual reference for other elements in the article, such as what an alien race may look like on a science-fiction television show, is preferred over providing a picture of each element discussed. (Yes, he is only known for one role. The one in my photo).
  • For media that involves live actors, do not supply an image of the actor in their role if an appropriate free image of the actor exists on their page (as per WP:BLP and above), if there is little difference in appearance between actor and role. However, if there is a significant difference due to age or makeup and costuming, then, when needed, it may be appropriate to include a non-free image to demonstrate the role of the actor in that media. (First he's deceased, and second the rest applies here too).

Please don't use your elevation and celebrity to slap me down, please quote your derived policy. Force me to back down with policy that has not been made up? --BeckenhamBear (talk) 10:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2017[edit]

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

Administrator changes

added Joe Roe
readded JzG
removed Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Stephen. 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)[reply]

Errors[edit]

So is that the official position? That we treat our readers as though they can't remember a few simple facts from last week? DuncanHill (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Last month. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to TRM's obvious contempt for readers. DuncanHill (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What "simple facts from last week" did I "contemptuously" inflict on our readers? You have a very odd perspective on how ERRORS is actioned and by whom. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday, the main page was extremely imbalanced as 2 DYKs had to be removed for quality issues, and the featured article did not have an image making that text block shorter. A volunteer went back and pulled in 3 previously featured DYKs from the last month back into the section to balance things up again. You're complaining because that volunteer should have looked further back, yes? Stephen 22:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be much more appropriate to use older items, as I said. Obviously this infuriated TRM, and was seen as nothing more than an opportunity for an old joke by Ritchie. At which point you shut down discussion. I would also question the appropriateness of someone who thinks that over 99% of our readers can't remember a few simple facts from one week to the next having such a prominent role in main page issues. Unfortunately I was not able to make that point before you blanked the discussion. DuncanHill (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not infuriated by any such thing. I simply pointed out to our helpful admins that the main page needed balance. Your posturing at me personally and various attacks are bizarre and unhelpful. Please remember that the hooks added were about a month old, not from "last week" or any such other fallacious timeframe you've elected to claim. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TRM, you introduced the "last week" timeframe, in the diff I linked above. I am trying to have a conversation with Stephen here. DuncanHill (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Duncan, if you want to help out, go to WP:RFA and start a nomination, answering Q1 with "I want to help resolve complaints at ERRORS and update the main page". (Alright, you don't go around hi-fiving other admins for reverting vandalism, but I don't see that as being a bad thing). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get high fives from admins for reverting vandalism either. I did not realise that non-admins were not wanted at Errors, perhaps the page could have a notice on it, or be fully protected to prevent us non-admins from making the mistake of trying to help there? is it really your opinion that non-admins cannot help? If so you shouldn't be an admin. DuncanHill (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many non-admins make sterling contributions to the ERRORS pages and we have very few admins who actually bother to action them. Why would you attempt to alienate three individuals who are doing their best to make Wikipedia's main page a little better? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to have a conversation with Stephen here. DuncanHill (talk) 23:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good answer. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An unusual situation arose, and some hooks had to be recycled, and the recycled items were taken from the last few weeks, and not the last few months. If you want to codify a rule that mandates a certain age of items, then there's a process for that. The majority of our readers don't read each and every DYK each and every day, although there are invariably some that do. Those that noticed the repetition just shrugged and moved on, and only you chose to make a snarky report at Errors, repeating the same point three times. Stephen 00:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There were three things to report, so I reported them. I tried to report them in a light hearted way "it's deja vu all over again". I was met with nothing but anger and unhelpfulness. It is no secret that you get so little help with main page issues from other admins because of the way they are treated by the clique who currently control it. If you don't want people to raise things at errors then get the page deleted or fully protected, don't take it out on poor saps who are genuinely trying to improve it. Try to get your collective heads out of your collective arse and accept that people do actually notice what is on the main page, and do care if it gets over-repetitive. Anyway, I'm out of here and unwatching this page. DuncanHill (talk) 00:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I fix stuff on the main page when nobody else can be bothered - I don't get paid for this, if you think you can do a better job, apply for adminship and do it yourself. (And contrary to what you state on your user page, you just told us to "to get our collective head out of our collective arses" and yet you haven't been blocked for over eight years). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 01:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All the best[edit]

Stephen, thanks for being a top admin, I know I'm a pain in the arse, but you do great work on main page errors, and I much appreciate it. Happy New Year to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No issues at all, your reports are exemplary! I can’t alway get to the more complex ones on mobile, but I appreciate your work, and at times you’re the only person on the planet doing the checking! Best wishes to you and your family for the New Year. Stephen 23:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018[edit]

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

Administrator changes

added Muboshgu
readded Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned
removed None

Bureaucrat changes

readded Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ITN US government shutdown pull[edit]

Hi Stephen,

While I disagree with the pull, there was no doubt consensus to do so. Thanks for helping out at ITN.

--CosmicAdventure (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Parker RD[edit]

Dear Stephen, how are you? Don't you think it was a bit rash to close the nom for being stale when: a) her death was announced today with all of her obits covering her death today (Jan. 23), b) when Peter Wyngarde died I asked to move his nom. to two-three days back to be precise on his date of death, but a user (don't remember who) said it was fine as his death coverage was centered on the death date announced and c) Stanislav Petrov died in May 2017, but his nom was made in September 2017 (due to his death being announced on that date w/ obits covering that date) and he was still posted (no stale). I do understand the idea of her having a blurb is waaaayyyyy beyond being a longshot, but why not RD tag. Can it be reopened or can I re-nominate the article. Thank you for your time. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RDs are posted on the date of death, not when obituaries come out, which for lesser known individuals may be a couple of days later as they have to be written from scratch. Only if the death only becomes known weeks later then we can consider posting on the announcement date. There was a discussion to this effect within the last couple of years, as far as I recall. Stephen 01:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Masekela[edit]

Hey, I cited Hugh Masekela's discography. Article should be good to go for RD. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 02:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, another admin has posted it. Stephen 03:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Content of Synthea a Deleted Page[edit]

I was wondering if you could help get the content of Synthea.

I authored this page and based on consensus the software product did not meet notability guidelines. I plan on resubmitting when some more notable source cite the article and would like to preserve the content in my sandbox. thanks

Kindofluke (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kindofluke: it's now at User:Kindofluke/Synthea. Stephen 00:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much. I have saved the content. Kindofluke (talk) 01:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kindofluke/Synthea[edit]

Hi, I am curious why you restored this. Part of my rationale for deletion (as the nom, not the closer), was that it was spam, which means it shouldn't be hosted on Wikipedia, even in userspace. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because I read the subsequent discussion. Stephen 00:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I'll send it to MfD then. I wish you had consulted either me or the closing admin. These sorts of things really should be emailed, IMO. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What makes your opinion more important than every other commentor who supported userfication? Stephen 00:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion closed as delete even though people had argued to userfy. That means a closing administrator decided that those arguments were not policy based. You decided to unilaterally go against that. There was an easy option: email them the text. Instead now we have to play this game where we pretend they have a shot of having an article, when they don't. This simply wastes more of the community's time at the inevitable next AfD when it will be deleted again. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I was following good procedure so that I could get the content back and archive it until its resubmission. I have now saved the page content and it does not need to remain in user space. I would delete the page myself but now that it is MfD it can't be blanked. I believe Step was acting to help as he is just one of select volunteer admins who can help recover content that doesn't violate any copyrights or guidelines. This was not meant to go around the AfD process. Kindofluke (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I'll delete it now, and good luck improving it. Stephen 01:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both. Kindofluke, I wish you the best of luck, but as I said in the MfD and here, I don't think you have any chance of getting the article accepted, and I don't think we are doing you any favours sugar coating that. It is simply too young to have the type of coverage that will be accepted. This is only my opinion, but I also have a pretty good track record at judging AfD outcomes. I'd suggest that you look at improving current articles that you are interested in if you want to get more involved in Wikipedia: we have plenty, and they are far easier to write on than creating a new article from scratch. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
  • Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

  • A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seek admin attention, may be urgent[edit]

Hello, Stephen. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

stop trolling[edit]

You are trying to block me on a 3RR when its you that should be blocked for it, you already blocked Manish who tried to fix TRM's mistake of making a poor nomination, pathetic, 30k edits in 12 years, wow, so much abuse, hope you follow TRM's road..--Stemoc 11:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).

Administrator changes

added Lourdes†
removed AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V
† Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

  • The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
  • Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
  • A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
  • A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news

  • CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
  • The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous

Obituaries

  • Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ITN edit[edit]

Please see this discussion from 2015; and it has been standard practice for a year or more to let those RDs that are reported more than a couple days after the death to be placed on the day it was reported to give fair time for consideration. It's only when it is a day or two that we move it to the day of the death rather than when reported. --Masem (t) 23:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was for RDs that were 4-5 days old, not a couple of days. I haven’t seen any of those lately. Stephen 23:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Skripal[edit]

Can you give me a link to the page I need? I haven't reported an error before. This is Paul (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve moved it for you to WP:ERRORS. Stephen 20:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. This is Paul (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note[edit]

Hello, you closed the ITN for Qantas as no consensus but consensus was clearly against posting. Maybe amend the closing statement? --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 16:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amended, thanks. Stephen 20:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. :) --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 06:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pesach[edit]

It seems a reasonable issue to want to review why Passover is noted on the main page today, not particularly notable, rather than yesterday which is the day Jewish families celebrate their Seders.

Fine, you don't want that at Talk:Main page.

So, where is the appropriate place to discuss the question? Jheald (talk) 10:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Passover Seder article is not well enough referenced for the main page. Stephen 11:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but on the other hand Passover is good enough -- it's on the main page right now. But wouldn't yesterday have been a more appropriate day? Jheald (talk) 11:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because it’s marked as the first day of the celebration, rather than the night it starts. There was a discussion of when to list Jewish holidays within the last few months, I’ll have to search for it. Stephen 21:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries#Jewish Holidays starts at night, which day to show on Wiki?. 22:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018).

Administrator changes

added 331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG
removed Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando

Guideline and policy news

  • Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
  • Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
  • The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
  • The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

Miscellaneous

  • A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
  • The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Chochopk • Coffee • Gryffindor • Jimp • Knowledge Seeker • Lankiveil • Peridon • Rjd0060

Guideline and policy news

  • The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
  • A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

Technical news

  • AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
  • When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
  • The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
  • There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Equal Rights Amendment ITN[edit]

With all due respect, I disagree with your comment on my ITN nomination. While the "deadline" for ratification has long since passed, there is a continued effort to ratify ERA. Congress extended the deadline previously and it is not inconceivable that this Congress, or any subsequent Congress, could choose to do the same, if a 38th state ratifies (which is the threshold for adoption into the U.S. Constitution). A common argument of opponents to ratification is just this, that the "deadline" passed 35 years ago, but the issue is still present and is significant. I would like to request that you reopen the ITN discussion on this matter. StrikerforceTalk 15:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
  • There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
  • It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration

  • A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

() vs [][edit]

[8] Why, though, and when did we change... Vanamonde (talk) 10:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: [9] as [] are reserved characters in mediawiki, and it made linking to closed sections trickier. Not a problem I ever encountered, but I’m going with the flow! Best wishes, Stephen 10:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Good to know. Vanamonde (talk) 10:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rob Hiaasen.jpg[edit]

I do not understand how this file is not fair use. I uploaded it after search for a free image. The file contains a fair-use rationale specifically written for Rob Hiaasen. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A quick internet search is not enough. If after 6 months of respectfully reaching out to relatives, or perhaps the newspaper, a free image cannot be sourced then an image can be uploaded under a claim of fair use. We don't get to upload an image soon after he died. Stephen 02:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your patience, wisdom, and clear explanation. I have requested the file be deleted.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your understanding. Stephen 21:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2018).

Administrator changes

added Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor
readded Gogo Dodo
removed Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes

removed Andrevan • EVula

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus that the {{promising draft}} template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

Technical news

  • Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
  • Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon () in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
  • IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.

Miscellaneous

  • Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers[edit]

I logged on, seeing Alan Gilzean name on front page, felt proud seeing it there and felt like I wanted some love back!! Cheers, Govvy (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ITN for Bombings in Pakistan[edit]

Hi Stephen, I've recently nominated 13 July 2018 Pakistan bombings in which 134 people are killed and 200+ are injured. There is a consensus to post it. I'd like you to veiw view its nomination.Amirk94391 (talk) 05:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note[edit]

FWIW, creating a culture where one gets yelled at for simply trying to respond to the pleas for help at ERRORS is why no one wants to work there. There was no balance problem that I as a regular reader could see, and no obvious error. No one who isn’t part of the main page walled garden would have had any clue why that should be acted on. Whatever, I’ll go back to ignoring that page. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBallioni, in what way do you think my response was yelling at you? I politely informed you that its usual that such problems are reported, and let you know that I had fixed it. Stephen 01:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It came off as very condescending, and for what it is worth, I see no difference and think it was a waste of time, but like I said, whatever. The correct thing to do would have been to raise it on my talk page. I would have happily stepped back and have let you do it. Anyway, like I said, sorry for trying to be of assistance. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Errors reports are discussed in situ, and rarely taken to editor's talk pages. But, as you say, whatever. 02:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Okay, sorry for crossing streams. That seems very odd, but if it’s the convention there, it would make more sense and I see why you did it . It might also be worth updating the instructions to clarify that stuff like that should be reported to errors. As someone who only comes around when there is complaining at AN about ERRORS, the instructions read pretty clearly that stuff like that shouldn’t be addressed there which is why I got pretty frustrated. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll take a look at the instructions when I have a moment. Keeping the two sides balanced is a perennial issue that needs a tweak a couple of times a week. Stephen 02:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Khan wins the 2018 Tour de France[edit]

Hi Stephen. I agree that's not an error. But why do we "need to cycle pictures slowly" exactly? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC) (I assume that wasn't just your humorous pun. chortle, chortle)[reply]

Because Khan only got pictured today, so give him his time and then picture the magnificent Welshman. There’s always a dearth of pictures so if we jump straight to the top item he’ll end up being pictured for days. Our actual readers never get confused who is pictured. Stephen 12:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Awww, poor Imran. Let's hope his election isn't annulled before gets a full crack of front page whip. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lazy tagging?[edit]

Wow, can you be any more condescending? Snickers2686 (talk) 01:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain? Chrysa Spiliotis[edit]

I see that you reset my addition of an image for a recently deceased person saying "too soon". Is there a policy on what constitutes "too soon". You also ask for evidence that a trawl for a freely available image was done. Where is this meant to be filed? and how long should it be? so that you can inspect it. The evidence is here and here by the way. Please advise as I am not aware of the policies you are using. Victuallers (talk) 09:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Six months; with reaching out to agents, organisations or family. Not a couple of internet searches, and loading a non-free picture a couple of days after she died. Stephen 10:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt reply. Can you supply the policy for what you say. Most obits are written in the days after a death and its a time when many new articles are written. I can see that reaching out to the 10,000 people's families six months later when they may not have decided which of the two remaining cousins (say) has the contact details for the person who took their cousin's picture whilst on holiday. This may attract a couple of very keen volunteers, but not many I think. I have had in the past had conversations with the archivists at Cambridge University and they have no idea whether they hold the copyright of their photos. The rights belong to the photographer so I'm not sure the success rate for the policy you are going to cite is going to be very high, but if we do send letters, emails and stuff and not just a few internet searches then where should all this evidence be filed so that you can inspect it? Victuallers (talk) 11:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Non-free content - Non-free content should not be used when a freely licensed file that serves the same purpose can reasonably be expected to be uploaded, as is the case for almost all portraits of living people. Stephen 12:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well it appears that your suggestion of "six months" and that you "need to reach out" appears to be your own opinion. I don't agree with it and as I spend a lot of time loading free images then I intend to restore it to the way it was. If you have no further rationale then I think we have discussed this enough. Do tell me if you decide to run an RFC to change the existing policy. Victuallers (talk) 09:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have reset it again, despite not being able to supply a policy based rationale. I don't intend to edit war but I think you are being wilful and you have tried to bluff the idea that your idea might be policy. The policy says nothing about what you claim. Can you please revert or supply a reason (a recent case?) why you are behaving so. Surely as an admin it is important that you respect policy and the freedom of others to edit within that policy. Victuallers (talk) 09:25, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS[edit]

Have you made an UTRS appeal for an underlying IP block? This is in regards to this UTRS ticket. cc 5 albert square. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni:, @5 albert square:, No, it’s not me, he’s used the wrong username. Stephen 20:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Figured. Thanks for the response. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did wonder that myself earlier, thanks for the response, I'll close the UTRS appeal :)--5 albert square (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2018).

Administrator changes

added Sro23
readded KaisaL • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

  • After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
  • Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.

Technical news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helping maintain the integrity of the Main Page![edit]

The Outlaw Halo Award
In the last 17 days alone, we've identified and fixed more than 100 errors at the ALL NEW TRM ERRORS page!! Thanks so much for your diligence and your dedication to ensuring our readers get the best possible experience from Wikipedia! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soul music[edit]

Oh apologies, I didn't mean to undo your link on the soul music item. Must have edited the previous version of the template by mistake. Caramba! Thanks for fixing it.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all, best wishes. Stephen 01:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz
renamed Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

added Amorymeltzer • Mr. Stradivarius • MusikAnimal • MSGJ • TheDJ • Xaosflux

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.

Technical news

  • Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
  • Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
  • Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Pictured)[edit]

It figures that the time I add the image to the Commons protection page, I forget to move the (pictured). Thanks for that. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, there's always someone who will point it out quickly at Errors! Thanks for being one of the few willing to swap the pic. Stephen

ITN[edit]

Hi Stephen

Please revert your last action, reinstating the rewording at "In the news". I reverted your changing of the text, and reinstating a reverted administrative action constitutes wheel warring. The matter needs to be discussed at the talk page rather than fought over.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The item was reworded days ago after a suggestion at Errors. You unilaterally reverted the change against the implied consensus, and yet it’s now me that has to discuss it? Stephen 22:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do I defend myself....[edit]

...against lies at the ITN discussion?

Maybe it would be nice if you removed those attacks on me too. HiLo48 (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Topicons[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Topicons, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Topicons and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Topicons during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Luístro ☎️ 13:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Death toll[edit]

We have been using the official death toll throughout the lifetime of the Sulawesi earthquake story, and it's an exact number because the disaster agency always gives an exact number. With the caveat that the figure may rise (hence, "at least"). From the point the discussion had reached yesterday at ERRORS,[10] I think the consensus was to continue giving the exact number, and I also think that's what we should be doing. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 07:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2018).

Administrator changes

added Justlettersandnumbers • L235
removed Bgwhite • HorsePunchKid • J Greb • KillerChihuahua • Rami R • Winhunter

Interface administrator changes

added Cyberpower678 • Deryck Chan • Oshwah • Pharos • Ragesoss • Ritchie333

Oversight changes

removed Guerillero • NativeForeigner • Snowolf • Xeno

Guideline and policy news

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.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TRM[edit]

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) 14:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of File:Steve Pearce, MVP.jpg[edit]

You recently deleted this file and from the log I'm guessing you did so because you thought it was a no longer needed local copy of a file on commons. However it's created a red file missing link on 2018 World Series. It would appear that isn't a file with that name on commons. Could you take a look and see if you can work out what's gone on? Dpmuk (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dpmuk:, thanks for the note. The image was a temporarily locally (en) uploaded copy protected to be displayed on the Main page, and so deleted as it's no longer needed. I've linked the uncropped version into the World Series article. Stephen 01:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'd guessed it was something like that but didn't have time to investigate it properly as I was heading to bed (and being out of practice at these things I knew it might take me a while). Dpmuk (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).

Guideline and policy news

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.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Stephen. 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)[reply]

Deletion of useful redirects without RFD[edit]

Good day. Do you know why Template:Rdd, Template:Rdead, Template:Recentd, Template:Rdeath and Template:Rded were deleted without an RFD? Please {{ping}} me when you respond. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because they were meaningless redirects that weren’t being used. Stephen 19:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Template:Rdd[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Rdd. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jax 0677 (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

106th Grey Cup at ITN[edit]

Hello Stephen. I was wondering if you would be able to take a look at the 106th Grey Cup article and determine if it is suitable for ITN in its current state. I am currently in a minor dispute with The Rambling Man over its qualifications and I fear that it is going to escalate. I have worked to address the major issues which have been brought up by other editors, and I believe it is up to the standards of ITN in its present form. Thanks. --PlasmaTwa2 01:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What bollocks. No dispute, I fixed all the issues myself, a shame I had to really, almost embarrassing. But it's done. No need to go admin-shopping to bypass the consensus. Honestly. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018).

Administrator changes

readded Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz
removed Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike

Interface administrator changes

removedDeryck Chan

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

Arbitration

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

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

French fuel protests[edit]

I've asked you how to fix the renaming of the wikipedia entry on the wp:errors page, where I pinged you as the person originally renaming the entry on the main page. I never know if pings work, so I thought I'd better mention it here. There, if you could just show me how to fix it, I would appreciate it. Here, if you're willing, I'd like to ask why you deemed this change necessary/desirable in the first place? Thanks for your help. — 🍣 SashiRolls t · c 15:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chérif Chekatt.png[edit]

Could you tell me why you are edit-warring to remove this image from 2018 Strasbourg attack ([11], [12], [13]) instead of (if you believe it fails WP:NFCC) seeking its deletion at WP:FfD, as would be proper? Note that there is no consensus against its inclusion at Talk:2018 Strasbourg attack#Photo of Chérif Chekatt. Regards, Sandstein 22:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is broad consensus that we don’t upload a non-free image of a recently deceased person for a number of months after their death, to ensure that every avenue of obtaining a free image is explored. Stephen 22:10, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of such consensus. Where is it documented? Chérif Chekatt was not a public figure and free images of him are therefore extremely unlikely to exist outside police files. Sandstein 22:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One such discussion is here. Stephen 22:21, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That RfC had a handful of people participating and did not result in consensus or a change to the policy. It links to an earlier RfC with the same result. Clearly, the consensus you refer to does not exist. I ask you again to stop edit-warring about the image and nominate it for deletion if you are confident that there is consensus to disallow this fair use of images. Sandstein 22:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, you’ll notice that there was no question of not having a consensus for a waiting period before uploading, only what constitutes reasonable effort to source a free image after the period has elapsed. Stephen 22:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This makes no sense. If there had been consensus for such a waiting period, the RfC would have resulted in a change to the policy to include such a waiting period. Instead, the RfC was never closed and the policy was never amended. Your conduct is inappropriate for an administrator. See now WP:AN3#User:Stephen reported by User:Sandstein (Result: ). Sandstein 22:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions on less-frequently viewed pages rarely get closed quickly. The consensus for a six month wait was clear. Stephen 23:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another discussion where Sandstein isn't aware of community norms. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem and Thryduulf: I’d be interested in your opinions of this one. Stephen 23:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we need a picture of the culprit of an attack? It offers nothing of value for the reader's understanding. It's unnecessary and fails NFC#8 in the first place. --Masem (t) 23:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We don't. There appear to be one or two extremely experienced admins who continually miss the community consensus, this is yet another example. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I can't recall the filenames of all of them off the top of my head, but I've disputed the fair use rationales of several non-free images of recently deceased people and not once has this resulted in the image being kept (usually it gets removed from the article by someone else and then deleted as unused). There was some discussion around an image of Geoffrey Hayes recently iirc. The consensus, as long as I've been aware of it, is that unless you can demonstrate that you have done extensive research to determine that there are no free images available and no non-free images that the author might release under a free license if asked, then non-free images of recently deceased people cannot meet the NFCC. There is no consensus of which I am aware for a hard limit but in most cases around 6 months is generally agreed to be about right (matching the period in WP:BDP). Thryduulf (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that's called a "community norm". Sandstein is unaware of this "norm" yet took another admin to the edit warring noticeboard over it. What a joke. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).

Guideline and policy news

  1. G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
  2. R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
  3. G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.

Technical news

  • Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
  1. At least 8 characters in length
  2. Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
  3. Different from their username
User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.
  • Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
  • {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
  • Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019[edit]


Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019 -

begin it with music and memories

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Main Page protection[edit]

Hello Stephen. I saw you semi-protected the talk page for the main page today. May I suggest you undo it? There are more than enough sets of eyes to revert problems quickly and I think if there's a page that should stay open to all, it's that one. There is nothing particularly unusual about the amount of weird and irrelevant stuff being posted right now. Thanks! Isa (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The signal to noise ratio right now is very low, but if you feel it's better unprotected then I'm not fussed at all. Stephen 04:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do think it's better unprotected. Maybe one day we'll find a way to have a more intuitive interface so that first time editors find the right place to contribute, but for now, I'll take the noise. Isa (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stephen/Archive_Jan17Jan19&oldid=1044674071"