User talk:Stifle/Archive 18
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Stifle. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Administrators' newsletter – January 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment asks whether partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. If enabled, this functionality would allow administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces, rather than the entire site.
- A proposal asks whether admins who don't use their tools for a significant period of time (e.g. five years) should have the toolset procedurally removed.
- Following a successful RfC, a whitelist is now available for users whose redirects will be autopatrolled by a bot, removing them from the new pages patrol queue. Admins can add such users to Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist after a discussion following the guidelines at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist.
Arbitration
- The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being
the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted
rather thanreasonably construed
. - Following the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Bradv, Casliber, David Fuchs, DGG, KrakatoaKatie, Maxim, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy, Worm That Turned, Xeno.
Miscellaneous
- This issue marks three full years of the Admin newsletter. Thanks for reading!
Administrators' newsletter – February 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
- The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with
wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input
. No proposed process received consensus.
Technical news
- Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
- When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [1]
Arbitration
- Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators
that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.
Miscellaneous
- Voting in the 2020 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2020, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2020, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
- The English Wikipedia has reached six million articles. Thank you everyone for your contributions!
Speedy deletion of an article.
Good morning Stiffle. I created an article on here and it was nominated by creffet for speedy deletion, on grounds that it is not notable enough for deletion. The article is about the first and the largest medical students’ association in Nigeria, Africa and I think it is notable enough to have a page on Wikipedia, given the influence the association has in Nigeria. I would like to contest the deletion of the article and also request for the content of the deleted article. Thank you. Email address is zemason17@gmail.com Zema Ali (talk) 09:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for your message. As explained in the notice at the top of my talk page, you can contest deletion decisions at Wikipedia:Deletion review, and request the content of deleted articles at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – March 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops
must not
undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather thanshould not
. - A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.
Technical news
- Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.
Miscellaneous
- Following the 2020 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: BRPever, Krd, Martin Urbanec, MusikAnimal, Sakretsu, Sotiale, and Tks4Fish. There are a total of seven editors that have been appointed as stewards, the most since 2014.
- The 2020 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Ajraddatz and Uzoma Ozurumba; they will serve for one year.
Administrators' newsletter – April 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.
Technical news
- There is a plan for new requirements for user signatures. You can give feedback.
Arbitration
- Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a
Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment
. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.
Miscellaneous
- The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
Recover draft of Draft:Shred_Nations
Hello, I believe that you were the deleting administrator for my AfC. I have requested a WP:REFUND so that I can archive the material for future improvement. Thanks. Hanjaf1 (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for your message. As you will see, your request has been denied at this time. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Uw-crystal-album
Template:Uw-crystal-album has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Uw-3rr-alt
Template:Uw-3rr-alt has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversight changes
Guideline and policy news
- Discretionary sanctions have been authorized for all pages and edits related to COVID-19, to be logged at WP:GS/COVID19.
- Following a recent discussion on Meta-Wiki, the edit filter maintainer global group has been created.
- A request for comment has been proposed to create a new main page editor usergroup.
- A request for comment has been proposed to make the bureaucrat activity requirements more strict.
Technical news
- The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. You can review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page.
- Enterprisey created a script that will show a link to the proper Special:Undelete page when viewing a since-deleted revision, see User:Enterprisey/link-deleted-revs.
Miscellaneous
- A request for comment closed with consensus to create a Village Pump-style page for communication with the Wikimedia Foundation.
Deletion review for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AllyCAD
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AllyCAD. 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. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, why did you close this AfD as no consensus? SportingFlyer T·C 03:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- Because there was no consensus to delete the article. Stifle (talk) 07:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- On the numbers, there were ten contributors to the debate. In this case, four participants were fully in favour of deletion and two were partly in favour, also accepting redirect outcomes, whilst three supported keeping and a fourth redirecting. Even accepting the "Delete or redirect"s as full delete !votes, it would still not reach the conventional two-thirds in favour of deletion.
- On the quality of discussion, the consensus was clearly towards keep but improve. AussieLegend's complaint was that the article had no encyclopaedic value to the rader. SportingFlyer conceded that the street probably should have an article, just not this one. But we do not delete articles for being too bad or too short (save for CSD A1/A3 cases and maybe BLPs). We improve them.
- I'm happy with my closure of the debate and (as indicated in my infobox and editnotice) I do not change deletion decisions based on talk page discussions. If you feel strongly that the no consensus closure should be overturned and the article deleted, you're welcome to file a deletion review. Another action you could take would be to take the normal editorial action of redirecting the article, perhaps to one of the targets AussieLegend mentioned. Stifle (talk) 07:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for the response. I was exceptionally curious since you didn't write any reason why you picked no consensus, and because the article both didn't meet WP:GNG as it stood and nobody really offered anything close to WP:GNG (really weak keep votes.) I've gone ahead and redirected the article, which is where I assumed this would end up in the first place. SportingFlyer T·C 01:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – June 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).
Administrator changes
CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth
Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL
CheckUser changes
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment asks whether the Unblock Ticket Request System (UTRS) should allowed any unblock request or just private appeals.
- The Wikimedia Foundation announced that they will develop a universal code of conduct for all WMF projects. There is an open local discussion regarding the same.
Arbitration
- A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on
articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland
. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.
What's wrong with the GNGability of the WFP and Winnipeg Sun pieces? GNG was met, and not one delete challenged that. Sure, it fails WP:POLITICIAN - how is that relevant? Nfitz (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hi there. As noted in my FAQ and edit notice, I consider all deletion debate closures and do not change my views in light of talk page requests. In any event, you were in a minority of one and there was no other reasonable closure of the discussion. Stifle (talk) 10:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- I believe I still need to discuss with you before filing a DRV. What explicitly is wrong with those GNG sources I mentioned in the discussion? The only comment after I pointed to them, didn't even address them, and bizarrely claimed this was a third party, suggesting that User:KidAd is not familiar with the subject. Nfitz (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- I refer you to my previous statement. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- Okay then ... I guess your moniker is apt! :) Nfitz (talk) 08:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- I refer you to my previous statement. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- I believe I still need to discuss with you before filing a DRV. What explicitly is wrong with those GNG sources I mentioned in the discussion? The only comment after I pointed to them, didn't even address them, and bizarrely claimed this was a third party, suggesting that User:KidAd is not familiar with the subject. Nfitz (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – July 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment is in progress to remove the T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) speedy deletion criterion.
Technical news
- Protection templates on mainspace pages are now automatically added by User:MusikBot II (BRFA).
Arbitration
- Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold an
RfC regarding on-wiki harassment
. The RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC and is open to comments from the community. - The Medicine case was closed, with a remedy authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for
all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles
.
You closed the AFD on this person six days ago. I am not asking you to reconsider or review it, but to decide whether admin action is needed to enforce your decision. Both another copy of the article and a draft have been created. The article has been tagged for G4, and the tag is being removed by IPs. I have rejected the draft. I have templated the IPs with warnings. I have tagged the reposted copy of the article for salt. Some other admin may deal with this before you, but I thought you should know.
By the way, I think that the current mischief, mostly but not entirely by IPs, confirms your conclusion that the Keep editors were canvassed or were meatpuppets or were gaming the system. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll have a look. Stifle (talk) 08:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. I see you acted on the G4 and then salted it. Thanks. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – August 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).
Administrator changes
Oversight changes
Guideline and policy news
- There is an open request for comment to decide whether to increase the minimum duration a sanction discussion has to remain open (currently 24 hours).
- Speedy deletion criterion T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) has been repealed following a request for comment.
- Speedy deletion criterion X2 (pages created by the content translation tool) has been repealed following a discussion.
- There is a proposal to restrict proposed deletion to confirmed users.
Administrators' newsletter – September 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
- A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors
must
orshould
use the articles for creation process. - A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.
Arbitration
- A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2020 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
- An open request for comment asks whether active Arbitrators may serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or Ombudsman commission.
Thanks! Great work. MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. Done for now I think. Not that you need permission, but do feel free to update or enhance as required; lists and tables are not my forte so if there is anything you can usefully do with them it would be welcomed :D Stifle (talk) 16:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, you recently closed this AfD as delete but the article remains. Regards. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- I've deleted that now; for future reference, you can use {{db-xfd}} when this happens. Stifle (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll make a note of that. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Dear Stiffle. I created the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexsander_Iakobachvili and it was nominated for deletion on the ground that the person is not notable enough for Wikipedia inclusion. I’ve collected some additional facts and information to be added to the profile to prove that I don’t agree with the deletion proposal, but yesterday you deleted the article. So I would like to add the information I possess to try to change your mind upon the article and bring it back to live on Wikipedia. Actually, my request falls under your stipulation topics: “the administrator omits to give weight to something to which he should have” taking into consideration that I was one day late – sorry for that. So, please give me the opportunity to add information to the article, and then we will see if it deserves a Wikipedia publication. Thank you Dr. Teimuraz Kancheli 13:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Temur (talk • contribs)
- I only just saw this. Please add new messages to the bottom of the page, not the top. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Whilst I deleted Alexsander Iakobachvili, my decision was taken based on the consensus of the community at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexsander Iakobachvili. The time to raise these points was during the deletion discussion. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
DRV on Wisconsin Appeals Judges, Paul C. Gartzke, et al.
Hello, sorry I screwed up the procedure on the request to relist the six judges (this one). Since our previous conversation more judges have been deleted under identical rationale and I'd like to add them to the request if that's appropriate: AFD for Robert Sundby and AFD for Thomas Hruz. And I will attempt to get in front of any more of these before they end up at this stage. Thank you! --Asdasdasdff (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- The current situation is that there is no DRV pending. Those two judges have not, as far as I can tell, been listed at DRV before, so you need to start the process from scratch and discuss with the closing administrator why you believe they did not correctly interpret the debate or follow the deletion. If they don't agree to your request, then and only then would you open a completely fresh DRV. You can cite the others as reference but you will need to make your argument again. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm surprised at your close here. "Notability is not inherited" is an often used phrase, but that doesn't actually imply deletion of an article; what the relevant part of the guideline does say (immediately afterwards) is "However, person A may be included in the related article on B.". Additionally, the final "keep" !vote in the AfD was a well-thought out argument and suggested "merge" as a compromise, which I would agree with. Can we relist this instead? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, as per my banner, FAQ, and editnotice, I consider all my deletion decisions carefully and do not change them based on talk page requests. I have already considered the since keep !vote and it cannot be considered a consensus. And WP:RELIST does not permit a relisting. You are welcome to list at Wikipedia:Deletion review if you feel strongly about the matter, or I am prepared to undelete the content under a redirect to facilitate a merge if you prefer. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
A Special Barnstar for you!
|
The Special Barnstar
For helping to delete the AFD template in the article titled Joe El, I hereby offer you this Special Barnstar for this singular act of kindness. Thanks! Kambai Akau (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC) |
- Thank you. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
FFD close questions
Hi Stifle. I've got some questions about your close of Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 May 5#File:Air Senegal logo.png. The {{Oldffdfull}} template you added to File talk:Air Senegal logo.png states The result of the discussion was keep
, but it doesn't mention anything about whether the file is OK as currently licensed. Your close to the actual FFD thread seems to imply that the file should be converted to {{non-free logo}}, but you didn't change the licensing of the file.
I'm asking about this because File:Air Senegal Logo.svg is basically the same file in svg format. The svg is licensed as non-free logo, but there's no need to have two "identical" files licensed as non-free logo per WP:NFCC#3a. The png is not currently being used in any articles; so, converting it to non-free would make it eligible for speedy deletion per WP:F5 if it remains unused; however, if the png is OK as licensed, then the svg would seemingly fail WP:FREER as non-free which means that it would need to be either deleted or converted to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. Could you clarify what you meant by "Consensus of the discussion is that Threshold of Originality is not met"? Did you mean that the png file should be kept as licensed? How does your close affect the svg file, which is the one being used in the main infobox of Air Senegal? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- The consensus of the discussion is that the image was free. The image and any copies of the image in different formats can be retagged accordingly. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I am confused about the "no consensus" decision. If there is no consensus about the copyright of the riff, shouldn't the status be changed to either "non-free" or "ineligible in only the US"? Does it also mean that consensus hasn't agreed yet that it's in the public domain or something? George Ho (talk) 07:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- No consensus means what it says – ultimately it is not for me to replace the non-consensus with my own view. It is up to editors to form a local consensus or follow WP:BB. Stifle (talk) 11:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
AFD update
To Stifle: The page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Chu_(entrepreneur) was nominated for deletion. The article has since been edited to include citations and references for Jim Chu. Please advise if the discussion can now be closed or additional information needs to be provided. Thank you!
- Please post all arguments or contributions regarding the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Chu (entrepreneur) if you wish for them to be taken into account. This message will not be taken into account unless posted there. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Latest SIs
Just to let you know that for the next few days family will have to take priority and I'm not likely to have huge amounts of time available for keeping things up to date. Last night's regs, SI 1057, look pretty horrible, but as they are local not national it may not be worth trying to capture all the gory detail. Will try to catch up as soon as I can! MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- I’m away on a short break but trying to fill bits in as and when. The movement of places between the north west, north east, and north is eye-bleeding. Stifle (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).
Administrator changes
- Ajpolino • LuK3
Jackmcbarn- Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM
There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely
1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created
.
Technical news
- The filter log now provides links to view diffs of deleted revisions (phab:T261630).
Arbitration
- The 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place from September 27th to October 7th.
- Following a request for comment, sitting Committee members may not serve on either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee. The Arbitration Committee passed a motion implementing those results into their procedures.
Miscellaneous
- The Universal Code of Conduct draft is open for community review and comment until October 6th, 2020.
- Office actions may now be appealed to the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee.
COVID-19 Alert Level SIs
I'm working on a comparison table to cover these now. Will try to put something up in the morning. These will be even more difficult to track as Reg 9 of the 'Very High' Regs says that each designated tier 3 area will automatically cease being tier 3 after 28 days. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have recently started a new job and have less Wikipedia time in the short run. But I will try and infill when I can. Stifle (talk) 08:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Cardano
Hello, I feel this draft has been ready at least for a few months, would you plz check Draft:Cardano (cryptocurrency platform). All the best. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for creation to submit your article for checking. Stifle (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Why was Burn it All deleted if there were three redirect targets? Someone once said that if there are multiple equally viable targets, that one should flip a coin and choose one. Please {{ping}} me when you reply. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Jax 0677: Because that was the consensus at the AFD. If you wish to redirect the title to one of the members' articles, nothing is stopping you from doing so. Stifle (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Deletion review for Burn It All
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Burn It All. 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) 20:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – November 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection
any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet
, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.
Technical news
- Sysops will once again be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to interface administrators when that group was introduced.
- Twinkle's block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a discretionary sanctions block and/or template.
- Sysops will be able to use Special:CreateLocalAccount to create a local account for a global user that is prevented from auto-creation locally (such as by a filter or range block). Administrators that are not sure if such a creation is appropriate should contact a checkuser.
Arbitration
- The 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections process has begun. Eligible editors will be able to nominate themselves as candidates from November 8 through November 17. The voting period will run from November 23 through December 6.
- The Anti-harassment RfC has concluded with a summary of the feedback provided.
Miscellaneous
- A reminder that
standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.
(American Politics 2 Arbitration case).
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
| | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Second set of tier regulations
No idea when these are expected to appear, but I'm going to try to make a start as soon as they are published. Seems that the tiers will be different from before, so planning a new article. Are you thinking of working on them straight away, too? If so, we should keep in touch to avoid edit conflicts MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- I will be working on them but not during normal office hours. If you do decide to go for a new tier article, you can still use the existing one as a skeleton. Stifle (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yes I certainly will. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- We'd also have to decide what to do with the old article title COVID-19 tier regulations in England (disambiguate it?) and the likes of Tier 3 lockdown (point to the same DAB of COVID-19 tier regulations in England becomes one, see also Talk:Tier 3 (nightclub)#Requested move 18 October 2020. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I think we disambiguate the old title, move the old article to something like First COVID-19 tier regulations in England or COVID-19 tier regulations in England (October-November 2020) and so on. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- We'd also have to decide what to do with the old article title COVID-19 tier regulations in England (disambiguate it?) and the likes of Tier 3 lockdown (point to the same DAB of COVID-19 tier regulations in England becomes one, see also Talk:Tier 3 (nightclub)#Requested move 18 October 2020. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yes I certainly will. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- I guess we have had The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) Regulations 2020 picked for us (SI 2020/1374). Stifle (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Ugh, 30,000 words. I'm going to work on it tomorrow. Will probably take all day. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- 1375 (The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Local Authority Enforcement Powers and Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020) is even more hideous. Stifle (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Ugh, 30,000 words. I'm going to work on it tomorrow. Will probably take all day. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – December 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).
Administrator changes
- Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- There is a request for comment in progress to either remove T3 (duplicated and hardcoded instances) as a speedy deletion criterion or eliminate its seven-day waiting period.
Technical news
- Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.
Arbitration
- Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 7 December 2020 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.
Administrators' newsletter – January 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Speedy deletion criterion T3 (duplication and hardcoded instances) has been repealed following a request for comment.
Technical news
- You can now put pages on your watchlist for a limited period of time.
Arbitration
- By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized
for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes)
. The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason). - Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.
SI 2021/68
Shouldn't it be Tanzania not Burundi? MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes my eyes are gone square. Thanks for fixing.
- On Congo, there are both Democratic Republic of the Congo and Republic of the Congo (a bit like Korea) so DR prefix is necessary. Stifle (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, yes. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – February 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).
|
|
|
Arbitration
- The standard discretionary sanctions authorized for American Politics were amended by motion to cover
post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people
, replacing the 1932 cutoff.
Miscellaneous
- Voting in the 2021 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2021, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2021, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
- Wikipedia has now been around for 20 years, and recently saw its billionth edit!
Hi again
Now let me ask you something.
The promotions are One Championship and Superkombat Fighting Championship. Their champions are One Heavyweight Championship or ONE Heavyweight Championship now? And Superkombat Heavyweight Championship or SUPERKOMBAT Heavyweight Championship? They are abbreviated One and Superkombat (ONE and SUPERKOMBAT). And 2014 in SUPERKOMBAT being abbreviated or 2014 in Superkombat?—.karellian-24 (talk) 12:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, per WP:MOSTM and WP:MOSCAPS, we should not write things in all capitals just for the sake of it.
- I do not have the capacity to change all of them personally, but will adjust articles where I see change needed. Stifle (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future Nostalgia: The Moonlight Edition
Hey,
Could you perhaps help with closing the delection discussion early for Future Nostalgia: The Moonlight Edition? I think there is no reason to keep it going for any longer. --Sricsi (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, I do not see a pressing reason to close it before it has completed its listing period. Someone might raise a DRV. Best to wait the full 7 days. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for re-closing this. I asked for a relist in the DRV so I could make a keep argument based on the sources that were in the article - just wondering if a well argued keep on GNG grounds would have gotten this into no consensus territory. SportingFlyer T·C 16:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- I did note the request; however, the consensus at the AFD was clearly in favour of deletion, and it had run for 2 weeks. Per WP:RELIST, relisting repeatedly is discouraged. Stifle (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – March 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
- A request for comment is in progress to remove F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a, which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
- A request for comment seeks to grant page movers the
delete-redirectuserright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at Wikipedia:Page mover/delete-redirect. - A request for comment asks if sysops may
place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions
? - There is a discussion in progress concerning automatic protection of each day's featured article with Pending Changes protection.
Technical news
- When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
- When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
- There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).
Arbitration
- By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions
authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people.
Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions. - The Kurds and Kurdistan case was closed, authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for
the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed
.
Miscellaneous
- Following the 2021 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AmandaNP, Operator873, Stanglavine, Teles, and Wiki13.
Del Rev
When the two of us have consensus to restore or relist an article, I'm reassured to see of a confirmation from your general POV in that sort of thing. DGG ( talk ) 11:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed – and this just makes sense. Stifle (talk) 11:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Wrong deletion of page Sandeep Singh Rissam
The page has been wrongly deleted. Even when the page had enough of references and moreover the hindi newspapers mentioning him were not considered. Why ? A notable person means a someone doing a work which is notable and not someone who keeps on going to media and news for hype. Also it was wrongly mentioned in the discussion that the references have his name as passing name whereas most of the reference news had him as main person. Moreover profile or 'so called notability' of sandeep Singh Rissam can also be checked by simply googling his name. Sunny50888 (talk) 13:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- Although I personally implemented the deletion of Sandeep Singh Rissam, the decision to delete was made by the community at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandeep Singh Rissam. A notification was provided to yourself giving one week's notice but neither you nor anyone else opposed the deletion during that time.
- I do not have the power to overturn the community's decision to delete the article. If you feel I have not followed the deletion process correctly you may make a listing at Wikipedia:Deletion review. If you wish to do this, you would be strongly advised to provide in your listing all the evidence you wish to have considered, as people will not find it for you. Stifle (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- I was not well for few days so couldn't see the notice.It is a genuine wrong deletion of page. Pls suggest the ways to revert the decision. As it seems that the person being a Sikh community member is being discriminated upon.
Thanks Sunny50888 (talk) 08:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- Please see the above instructions if you wish to take the matter further. Stifle (talk) 10:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Cricket articles
Why did you close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Zahid (Faisalabad cricketer) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. Bull as no consensus? There's not a WP:GNG-qualifying source anywhere near either of these articles. SportingFlyer T·C 15:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- I closed them as no consensus because there is no consensus. The AFDs made clear that WP:NCRIC was met, and there is no consensus that GNG has to be met as well as a subject-specific notability guideline. Stifle (talk) 15:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- WP:NSPORT requires GNG.
In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline.
is the second sentence in the first non-lede section. SportingFlyer T·C 15:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)- The same page also says
The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below.
(emphasis not mine) andSubjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline or another subject specific notability guideline.
. - It is clear that the current text of WP:NSPORT allows an article to survive either by meeting a subject-specific guideline or the GNG. If you are of the opinion this process should change, feel free to gather a consensus to that effect at a relevant noticeboard. In the meantime, I will apply the guidelines as written. Stifle (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think your interpretation is correct, and I will be bringing this up at DRV. Appreciate the response though. SportingFlyer T·C 15:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- The same page also says
- WP:NSPORT requires GNG.
Administrators' newsletter – April 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).
Administrator changes
- Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS
Guideline and policy news
- Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
- Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the
delete-redirectuserright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.
Technical news
- When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
- Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)
Arbitration
- A community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure is open until April 25.
"Corrida (álbum de Dschinghis Khan)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Corrida (álbum de Dschinghis Khan). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 13#Corrida (álbum de Dschinghis Khan) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 22:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Hey
Good to see you still around. — Ched (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. I drop by when I have time. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, consensus was found that third party appeals are allowed but discouraged.
- The 2021 Desysop Policy RfC was closed with no consensus. Consensus was found in a previous RfC for a community based desysop procedure, though the procedure proposed in the 2021 RfC did not gain consensus.
Technical news
- The user group
oversightwill be renamed tosuppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.
Arbitration
- The community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.
MacDonnell Road AfD
I see you closed the MacDonnell Road deletion review as relist, but I am confused about how you went about doing it. In my experience a relist means reopening the original discussion, not creating a new one.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- It can be done either way; I don't think there's a set process for it. Stifle (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Deletion review
PLEASE READ THE THING I WROTE BELOW,THANK YOU!
- Discloser (IMPORTANT)
P.S. << you can remove or purge this notice after you have done reading it, this is IMPORTANT >>
Its me, about the 4thJune2021 deleted logs , about the election thing. I wrote that as 219.74.154.180 ok? All i want you to don’t want you to do is to make amendments(reverted it back, as long as my response is not there then i am find for you using that page) to that 4th June 2021 deleted logs page. All i want is to eradicate that page of what i have written, i will settle it somewhere because i settle at the wrong place , you see. So there is no point it to be debatable and not make it ancient. Make sure other administrators that are in charge of this are well informed and notified. Thank you.
Reference :
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 June 4
- The log will remain the same, we don't delete old discussions. It's not doing any harm. Please don't remove it again. Stifle (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – June 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).
Administrator changes
- Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless
- Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)
Guideline and policy news
- Consensus was reached to deprecate Wikipedia:Editor assistance.
- Following a Request for Comment the Book namespace was deprecated.
Technical news
- Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.
Arbitration
- After a Clarification request, the Arbitration Committee modified Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case. This means sourcing expectations are a discretionary sanction instead of being present on all articles. It also details using the talk page or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to discuss disputed sources.
Deletion review
Regarding the deletion of the Nana_April_Jun wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nana_April_Jun
Here are some sources: Nana April jun's web site: https://www.nanaapriljun.info Nana April jun's publishers web site, with a collection of 50 articles and reviews from newspapers, magazines and web sites from all over the world: https://touch33.net/catalogue/tone-37-nana-april-jun-the-ontology-of-noise.html Im not sure I understand what else could be needed?
- You need to add these to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 June 14, not here. To save you some time, you'll need to provide sources that are independent of the subject. Stifle (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi there! You closed this one back in ancient times. ;) The AFD did bring up a couple of potential sources, but not enough to save it. I found one review here and would like to see what else can be done with it; would you mind restoring it to Draft space? BOZ (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- Well that's a blast from the past! Draft:Ancients (board game) is ready for you.
- For faster service in future, please list this type of request at WP:REFUND where any passing admin would be able to help. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- OK, thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 12:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – July 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
- An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.
Technical news
- IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.
Arbitration
- The community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.
Administrators' newsletter – July 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.
Technical news
- Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)
Arbitration
- Following an amendment request, the committee has clarified that the Talk page exception to the 500/30 rule in remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case does not apply to requested move discussions.
Miscellaneous
- You can vote for candidates in the 2021 Board of Trustees elections from 4 August to 17 August. Four community elected seats are up for election.
Shoutout
Just a quick note of appreciation for your work in doing this. Sometimes the discussions at the bottom of the barrel are the hardest to read and find a consensus in, and a number of these were in that bucket, so thanks for putting in the hard yards with this group of ugly duckling discussions! Cheers, Daniel (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. I try my best. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Bare URLs
As an admin/sysop you surely should know better than to go around adding bare URLs of primary promotional sources that have been used to cause disruption to Wikipedia and as far as I can tell incentivise criminal behavior on the Luas? Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, what? Joe.ie is a news website (albeit not an especially good one), there is no requirement for citation templates to be used, and it's been covered in other major news outlets including the Irish Examiner, which I have now linked. And accusing me of incentivising criminal behaviour on the Luas is such a reach that you must have pulled a muscle.
- Stop following me around. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).
Administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- Feedback is requested on the Universal Code of Conduct enforcement draft by the Universal Code of Conduct Phase 2 drafting committee.
- A RfC is open on whether to allow administrators to use extended confirmed protection on high-risk templates.
- A discussion is open to decide when, if ever, should discord logs be eligible for removal when posted onwiki (including whether to oversight them)
- A RfC on the next steps after the trial of pending changes on TFAs has resulted in a 30 day trial of automatic semi protection for TFAs.
Technical news
- The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.
Arbitration
- A request for comment is in progress to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. Comments and new proposals are welcome.
Miscellaneous
- The 2021 RfA review is now open for comments.
Draft:Micronoma, Inc.
Hello Stifle, I noticed you declined the G11 CSD on Draft:Micronoma, Inc. because Meters had been working on the article to try and improve it. I reached out to Meters to see if it was their intent to fix the issues. They stated that they were trying to make some minor changes in an attempt to show the paid editor some of the errors, but still believes this is a corporate fluff piece. I would like to see if you would be willing to revisit the G11 or if I should take it to MFD? McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, I've deleted in that case. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Italian invasion of Egypt
Regarding the victory of Italy, Italy did not win this war decisively, as it advanced and took control of the city of Sidi Barani only and for a short time, after which the British forces attacked the Italian forces and captured a large number of them, and even occupied Cyrenaica in Libya and then Italian Libya fell --Ahmed88z (talk) 03:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I don't care.
- I protected the page to force editors to discuss their issues instead of edit warring. I am not going to become involved in the debate. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Extra brackets
Hey! On your userpage, after your userbox that says you prefer to user serial commas, there's an extra set of brackets ({{). I would've cleaned that up myself however on your userpage you specifically request people to not edit your userpage without your permission, so I haven't. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry | Discord: Blaze Wolf#0001 (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll go fix that. Stifle (talk) 08:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
The section header is "AfD review" - wolf 20:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – October 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, extended confirmed protection may be used preemptively on certain high-risk templates.
- Following a discussion at the Village Pump, there is consensus to treat discord logs the same as IRC logs. This means that discord logs will be oversighted if posted onwiki.
Technical news
- DiscussionTools has superseded Enterprisey's reply-link script. Editors may switch using the "Discussion tools" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features.
Arbitration
- A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
- Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
- The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.
Miscellaneous
- Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
- The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.
RfA 2021 review update
Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.
The following had consensus support of participating editors:
- Corrosive RfA atmosphere
- The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.
- Level of scrutiny
- Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.
- Standards needed to pass keep rising
- It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.
- Too few candidates
- There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.
- "No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins
The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:
- Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere)
Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere. - Admin permissions and unbundling
There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas. - RfA should not be the only road to adminship
Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.
Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.
There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
RfA Reform 2021 Phase 2 has begun
Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.
There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – November 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.
Technical news
- Toolhub is a catalogue of tools which can be used on Wikimedia wikis. It is at https://toolhub.wikimedia.org/.
Arbitration
- GeneralNotability, Mz7 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections. Ivanvector and John M Wolfson are reserve commissioners.
- Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves to stand in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections from 07 November 2021 until 16 November 2021.
Miscellaneous
- The 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of five new CheckUsers and two new Oversighters.
Eurostar domestic journeys
Hi there. This short paragraph you added does seem to be true (my original research shows it's impossible to purchase an AMS-ROT journey through the Eurostar website), but do you think you could put a source for it? Thanks for everything you do. All the best, ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for your message. I'll try to find it. Stifle (talk) 13:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Copyvio/preload
Template:Copyvio/preload has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Did Q28 make a mess today? 10:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
| | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Atmakaraka
Hi Stifle, thanks for closing the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atmakaraka. I am not disputing your close. Wanted to check if you could graciously allow a second relist for this AfD. Reason: I had listed it on India Deletion list 7 days back, and I believe a few more contributors will help get a more clearer consensus. Venkat TL (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
- In line with WP:RELIST, relisting is not a suitable substitute for a no-consensus closure. Diverse opinions had been cited and relisting was not, in my view, appropraite. Stifle (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
- Ok. In your opinion when can I try a second nomination? Venkat TL (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
- I would suggest waiting 3 months or longer. Whilst that is not a policy nor is it my decision to make, you are likely to find people vote speedy keep if you do it sooner. Stifle (talk) 15:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
- Will wait then. Thanks for the reply. Venkat TL (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
- I would suggest waiting 3 months or longer. Whilst that is not a policy nor is it my decision to make, you are likely to find people vote speedy keep if you do it sooner. Stifle (talk) 15:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
- Ok. In your opinion when can I try a second nomination? Venkat TL (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Klock's Crossing AfD
Hi Stifle, thanks for closing the AfD. I was wondering if you'd be willing to take a closer look at some of the Keep !votes in that discussion. The relevant guideline is WP:GEOLAND which requires "populated places without legal recognition" to meet GNG, but we have editors contradicting the guideline and arguing that being mentioned in obituaries, society pages or simply having any population at all is sufficient. Please note that the current sources in the article are GNIS (which doesn't contribute to notability) and a local history book which describes it as a whistle stop that once had a charcoal burning operation. What are your thoughts? –dlthewave ☎ 16:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hi there, as per my talk page banner, I consider all my deletion decisions carefully before closing and do not change them based on talk page requests. I'm happy that my closure reflected the consensus at the debate and conforms to policy. Stifle (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Deletion review for Klocks Crossing, Ohio
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Klocks Crossing, Ohio. 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. My apologies for missing the banner. –dlthewave ☎ 16:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Deletion review for James Forrest (baseball)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of James Forrest (baseball). 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – December 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2021).
Administrator changes
Technical news
- Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
- The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)
Arbitration
- Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections is open until 23:59, 06 December 2021 (UTC).
- The already authorized standard discretionary sanctions for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), broadly construed, have been made permanent.
Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
RFA 2021 Completed
The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular Primefac, Lee Vilenski, and Ymblanter for closing the most difficult conversations and for TonyBallioni for closing the review of one of the closes.
The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:
- Revision of standard question 1 to
Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
Special thanks to xaosflux for help with implementation. - A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
- Removal of autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to Wugapodes and Seddon for their help with implementation.
The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:
- An option for people to run for temporary adminship (proposal, discussion, & close)
- An optional election process (proposal & discussion and close review & re-close)
Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.
A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months.
This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned.
01:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Merchandise giveaway nomination
|
A token of thanks
Hi Stifle! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk ~~~~~
|
 |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)