User talk:Jayron32

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017

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

Administrator changes

Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim

Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
• Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.

Technical news

• You can now see a list of all autoblocks at Special:AutoblockList.
• There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
• Administrators, bureaucrats and stewards can now set an expiry date when granting user rights. (discuss, permalink)

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.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited North End, Boston, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hanover Street (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Meriadoc Brandybuck, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rohan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

I just wanted to make sure I thanked you for the ref desk misc comment affirming my position on state/federal crimes. The problem is that I am on opiates for GI problems, and could not tell whether I had "thunk" you for your edit. (I went to thank you, but feared I had already thunk you, and the feature doesn't say!) The wort part is that I get all the memory loss and none of the high out of these pseudopiods. Sucks. But here's real evidence of my thanks. lomotil. μηδείς (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

'tsallgood. --Jayron32 00:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

reverts with changes to my edit at language desk

Does anyone hear that sound? It's the sound of me not giving a shit.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Jayron, are you one of the admins who places temporary edit blocks on the ref desks? If so, please look at the recent reversions of my edit at the language desk by an IP trying to make a point. He's even changing my wording. My comment is not disruptive. If you don't place temp blocks, please let me know whom I should approach. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC) I have only: 1) hatted the thread as requested, or more precisely, the portion of the thread that needed hatting. 2) used "undo" to maintain my improvement. The "He's even changing my wording" is a dishonest description by medies, intended to discredit my actions. 2600:8806:4807:E700:E463:7594:9CE9:2722 (talk) 01:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC) With this edit the IP clearly removed the word thread from Medeis post. That is refactoring another editors post which is not allowed. MarnetteD|Talk 01:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC) Jayron and MarnetteD discuss Ref Desk Diffs .That is clearly an "Undo". Look at the earlier and later changes in history. The edit summary was changed from the system generated default. MarnetteD needs to look harder at the clues. 2600:8806:4807:E700:E463:7594:9CE9:2722 (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

You recent intervention at the Republic of East Florida article

Hi Jayron, I am one of the editors involved in the content dispute at the article Republic of East Florida‎. Thanks for your recent intervention, but your protection edit has established the contentious revision made by user EastFloridaHistorian, who by his own admission also uses different IP addresses to make his edits.

You get an idea of EastFloridaHistorian's approach to editing the article in the edit summary he made with his first addition of the disputed infobox: " Added a country box. I am starting to think that the removal of my edits is RACIST! He is showing clear bias against Floridians and our history!"). The edit was first reverted by user Jeff in CA with this edit. EFH then left a note on the article's talk page, but had no consensus to justify re-adding the disputed infobox. Consequently I reverted his re-addition, and this continued through another cycle of adding and reverting before you intervened.

I believe that consensus regarding the addition should be reached by concerned editors, but your protection edit has unfortunately established EFH's contentious infobox on the article page. I don't think there is any way to collaborate productively with this editor, who wraps his comments on the article's talk page in religiosity, and is on a mission to correct what he considers "discrimination" against "Native Floridians", whom he arbitrarily defines as members of, or the descendants of, the groups of rebels who invaded Spanish Florida in the so-called "Patriot War", or as he puts it, "those born in the Native Republic and their descendants".

His last comment on the talk page at this point is "Carlstak, I feel that I have admonished you enough. Your chance has been given. Let no one say that you were not offered one. I forgive you. From all your false accusations and put-downs. I hope you can see humanity in all humans. May God bless you, Carlstak. May the Light of St. Mary help and guide you. I will no longer edit this page I have created. People are free to see my original edits if they so choose. Carlstak, I hope you have a good life and serve Christ well.

He says he will no longer edit the page, which I hope is true, since how in the world can other editors who don't share his viewpoint collaborate with someone who has such an attitude? Carlstak (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

No, I will not be editing that article, because I am expressly forbidden from doing so per WP:PROT. My protection is not an endorsement of him; indeed if I did edit that page, I would be endorsing your version instead, which is equally as bad. That's why I didn't edit the page. If you want the page unprotected, establish a consensus at Talk:Republic of East Florida. I don't see any RFC or other attempt to bring in outside voices and establish a consensus. After I do, I will unprotect the article. --Jayron32 17:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Jill Saward BBC interview 2013.png

After the consensus agreed to maintain "status quo" toward WP:NFC and to declare WP:NFCC adequate, i.e. consensus deems waiting period unnecessary, I wonder whether you can undelete this non-free content and allow me to reinsert it to Jill Saward. How does BBC have commercial interests when it's funded by the government and a public service broadcaster? Also, I have waited for a response from her husband Grant for three weeks without one reply. --George Ho (talk) 08:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

If nothing has changed, there is no reason to undelete, as the policy which deleted the image in the first place remains the law of the land. The BBC retains copyright, and your utter and total misunderstanding of how copyright works lets me know that anything you have to say on the appropriateness of using copyright materials at Wikipedia is safe to ignore. --Jayron32 11:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I do know how copyright works. It intends to preserve distribution and publication rights of an author or entity that made a work in a fixed medium. However, the time to preserve those rights is limited. For example, in the US, The Color Purple was published in 1982 with copyright notice, previously required by Copyright Act of 1976 until the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 eliminated the requirement. Alice Walker is still alive, so the novel's copyright will last until 70 years after her lifetime (forgive me for using euphemisms). In the case of the BBC video, it was first aired in 2013, and its US copyright is preserved by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. But then again, I recently read the terms regarding screenshots after your response... and the copyright terms. I have to ask BBC permission to use a screenshot and photos, do I? If so, what would happen to all pages related to EastEnders, such as the Watts family and List of EastEnders characters (1985)? --George Ho (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, I wonder whether you can go to Wikipedia:WikiProject EastEnders and ask its members about this. George Ho (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... fair use doesn't require a permission as long as it's limited. But then again, due to the rise of Internet, there is Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which might be more effective than "fair use" on severely limiting usage of non-free content on Internet. Meta-wiki addresses copyright in its pages, including meta:Copyright and meta:Avoid copyright paranoia (essay, actually). George Ho (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I. Am. Not. Going. To. Do. This. Find. Someone. Else. May I recommend @Moonriddengirl: who specializes in these issues and can help you out. --Jayron32 17:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I specialize in image copyrights, and I am not sure this was deletion material. May I recommend that you give an explanation, rather than just pronouncing ex cathedra that George is wrong and not worth our time? I grant I am unaware of many possible previous interactions between you two. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The rationale is WP:NFCC #1, also the note at WP:NFCC, near the bottom, "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created". If any other admin, including you, believe this image has satisfied WP:NFCC #1, feel free to restore. I don't believe that it has, which is why I am not restoring it, but I'm also not that important, so my opinion doesn't mean anything here, if you have a different opinion, you can restore it with no objection from me. --Jayron32 11:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:Jill Saward BBC interview 2013.png

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:Jill Saward BBC interview 2013.png. 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. FASTILY 05:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

enclaves and exclaves

I had two major problems:

The entities are fully incorporated CITIES, not communities. There were many "towns" and "communities" that were subsumed by Unigov. The four cities remained fully autonomous and independent from Indianapolis and each city has separate fire departments, police departments, city governments, etc. and, in fact, have differing SALES TAX RATES than Indianapolis. Those facts are extremely important distinctions. Given that these CITIES remain in the county, the certain countywide services remained. For instance, the Marion County Sheriff still has jurisdiction within the Cities as it always had. Unigov did not necessarily provide additional countywide services to those cities, rather it documented what services would continue and provided clear distinctions and limits which was important to those cities. Living in the county at the time, this was a huge change. Smaller cities and towns were absorbed into Indianapolis such as Nora, Broad Ripple, Rocky Ripple and New Augusta to name a few off the top of my head - there were many more. For example, Broad Ripple was an incorporated city but nowhere the size or clout of the four cities that remained independent. There was quite a bit of controversy with regard to those smaller cities, towns and numerous unincorporated communities. The distinction, as I said, is huge.

This was a huge point of contention when Unigov was being crafted and passed. To this day, those cities remain fully independent - NOT PARTIALLY INTEGRATED. Initially, only the Marion County Sheriff's department enjoyed reciprocity with those 4 cities (as they had before Univgov). As the Indianapolis Police force expanded into beyond the prior city limits into the county, full reciprocity became a fact. As this happened, except for some County specific duties (primarily running the Marion County Jail and certain activities related to the County Courts), the Marion County Sheriff's department has no real day-to-day law enforcement presence in Indianapolis.

This was an act passed by the State Legislature and enforced on the City/County by the State as compared to many subsequent City/County mergers (Detroit, for instance) that were done at a County & City level.

I think the extra language adds specifics that are very important distinctions and I could make the verbiage somewhat shorter but you have missed the entire point of the verbiage. At the time, Unigov was unique and became a model for other city/county mergers nationwide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondobyte (talk • contribs) 14:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• I changed the word to "cities". The other information is too much detail for an overview article. I'm sure it's available in a different article on Wikipedia, and if it is, that's fine. I have no problem with you writing about it at Wikipedia somewhere. Just that one article is too bloated as it is, and the level of detail you added is unnecessary for the article you are adding it to. --Jayron32 14:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

handout for students editing film articles

Hi there,

I'm hoping to solicit your feedback regarding a handout Wiki Ed is developing for students who want to work on articles about films: User:Ryan (Wiki Ed)/Films. It will be a print guide that supplements other resources and materials for student editors, like the interactive training and brochures that address broader aspects of editing, like etiquette, NPOV, citing sources, working in sandboxes, using the talk page, etc. This guide focuses only on aspects of editing required for contributing to articles about films assigned in classroom settings. We're hoping to get some feedback from the community by the end of Monday, so we can send it off to the printer before the end of the month. I realize that's not a lot of time so no worries if you don't get to it. There's one other draft we're looking for feedback on, for editing articles about books, if that's also/more of interest. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Ref Desk/Antisemitic Troll

Earlier today, a Wikipedia editor contacted me, saying that there has been a Neo-Nazi troll using the wifi network at my workplace and showed me the abuse page. It turns out that the troll happens to be one of my co-workers. I've reported him to my boss, and my boss told him that if he ever engages in his abuse at Wikipedia ever again, he's fired. My coworker has promised to stop his abuse, so if he doesn't show up in the next few days, you can delete the page.Waiter43 (talk) 05:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, but there's no reason to delete the page. If he never comes back, that's great, but we'll keep it around for the historical record. --Jayron32 05:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017

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

Administrator changes

Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn

ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC proposing an off-wiki LTA database has been closed. The proposal was broadly supported, with further discussion required regarding what to do with the existing LTA database and defining access requirements. Such a tool/database formed part of the Community health initiative's successful grant proposal.
• Some clarifications have been made to the community banning and unblocking policies that effectively sync them with current practice. Specifically, the community has reached a consensus that when blocking a user at WP:AN or WP:ANI, it is considered a "community sanction", and administrators cannot unblock unilaterally if the user has not successfully appealed the sanction to the community.
• An RfC regarding the bot policy has closed with changes to the section describing restrictions on cosmetic changes.

Technical news

• Users will soon be able to blacklist specific users from sending them notifications.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2017 elections, the new members of the Board of Trustees include Raystorm, Pundit and Doc James. They will serve three-year terms.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

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

Non-free images on the main page

I've yanked the Donald Trump picture from the main page. This image is not public domain or freely licensed. It currently has no licensing tag on Commons, and an OTRS agent is working on verifying the image is available freely. Without going into detail (due to confidentiality agreement), current signs point to the fact that this image is non-free. All images on the main page must be public domain or available under a free license. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: if that is the case, can you also pull it from all of its other articles? If it is nonfree it doesn't belong at Donald Trump or any of the other articles it is found on. It is a bigger problem that it is currently being used in dozens of articles, and prominently so. I will help as well, by finding a replacement image for the main page. --Jayron32 02:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jayron32: I agree that's a problem, and it's being sorted by an OTRS volunteer. As is usual for permissions, we provide some time before yanking an image from articles (which will happen shortly, likely). Images on the front page must have strong evidence of a license, though. This is a legal issue for the WMF and for editors who introduce non-free images to the main page. The chances of a copyright holder deciding to sue over content on the main page is much higher than for other pages. I will check on the status of the ticket tonight. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

IP talk page nominated for deletion.

I am not sure whether this editor's edits are disruptive.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:2.133.142.53. --Marvellous Spider-Man 04:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Took care of it. Thanks for the heads up. --Jayron32 04:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Meh

Okay, if that's the way you want it: the test edits you made on ANY and Northeast blackout of 2003 were made by you only to get autoconfirmed, and your next edit after that, made after waiting the required few days, was vandalism on a semiprotected article. And you no doubt intend to vandalise more articles, since that's the only reason why anyone would do what you have been doing. So consider this a formal warning: continued vandalism will get you blocked as a "vandalism-only account"

Meh. I consider that plenty warning enough. Templates aren't the standard; good faith notification of the incoming ban hammer is the standard, and apparently actively making nonsense edits to get autoconfirmed smells like feet besides. TimothyJosephWood 21:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:ROPE--Jayron32 18:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in the North Carolina Triangle Wikipedians User Group!

Hi Jayron32! I'm a representative of the North Carolina Triangle Wikipedians User Group. We're glad you're interested in our activities! If you'd like to stay apprised of what we're up to, we invite you to sign up for our email list. Messages are infrequent (once a month, sometimes less, very occasionally more) and will keep you in the loop about edit-a-thons, discussion topics, and other local Wikimedia-related activities and issues. Please feel free to get in touch with any questions! ~~Sodapopinski7 (talk) 22:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

2017 Finsbury Park attack

Was there really a concensus to post it at WP:ITN/C? Just curious because you gave no explanation, just "Posted." --Pudeo (talk) 13:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Seemed pretty good to me. If there is an inaccuracy in the blurb or an error in the article, try WP:ERRORS and explain the issue.---Jayron32 02:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure when you posted it, maybe when it seemed like there would be many deaths, but only one person has died. In these circumstances should you remove it? 2.102.184.54 (talk) 11:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The lone fatality doesn't appear to be caused by the attack. The person was on the ground receiving first aid BEFORE the attack. AQFK (talk) 11:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at AN

Consider yourself notified. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Please Bring This Up

I think we're done here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
First, Jayron32, let me thank you for unblocking my talkpage. There is no mandate anywhere that even my talkpage should be blocked to me. Anyone can look at the talkpage and see I am scrupulously polite and constructive. Thyrduulf had no authority to unilaterally overturn your administrative action there. Even if individual arbs were so empowered, he's not one. He's a former one. Would you mind bringing up my case at WP:AN/ANI? I've reflected on this, and it's the real administrative power center at Wikipedia. You'll have to write a little bit of summary yourself lest you be accused of "proxying for a banned editor." I can give you some bullet points to help you appraise me, though: 1) I was perma-blocked in 2012 without warning by Timotheus Canens for allegedly socking. I have never socked Wikipedia. Colton Cosmic is my second account. I abandoned my first account for privacy reasons. There were no administrative actions of any sort, not even a warning, on my first account. 2) Jimbo Wales agreed to unblock me if I confided him my previous account. I did, and he did not. We exchanged several emails at the time. He was eager to find out my previous account, and I was a bit starstruck. After I told him, I guess he looked at it for five minutes. He then proceeded to ignore me. 3) I want to stay away from criticism of the administrative sector if you comment at WP:AN/ANI on my behalf, but the fact is I have attracted many administrative hounders. My talkpage is watchlisted by like 70 administrative participants. I am mainly a content editor, but it's not other content editors watchlisting me. If you give notice at my talkpage, my hounders will swarm at WP:AN/ANI, but I am not telling you not to do it. 4) The idea that I'm supposed to serve out a year's detention and then I can get a fair hearing is completely bogus. The people that write such things will never support my reinstatement. 5) If reinstated I promise to abide by all of Wikipedia's policies to the best of my ability. If allowed to speak at the WP:AN/ANI discussion (how can such a thing be legitimate if I am not?), I'll respond politely until someone attempts to make a punching bag of me, at which point I'll call for an impartial administrator to handle it. Colton Cosmic You really enjoy being banned, don't you? You were given clear terms and a path to be unblocked. You violated those terms with this request today. Your ban clock has reset for 12 more months. All you have to do is over, and you can't even do that. You have completely misread me as someone who cares.--Jayron32 20:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC) I didn't "misread" you. I thought you might or might not help. My contributions to Wikipedia are better than yours. We both are familiar with North Carolina and started around the same time but your early edits clerically catalog roads. I originally wrote important seven or eight important articles for the first time, articles that ended up as the foremost result in websearchs. Go jump in a lake with your *blocking* me and resetting my "ban clock." You are just another uncreative cog in a foul system. I hope some day you also find yourself in the position of asking for help, but the difference between you and me is I hope you get it. Delete this message and block again, it's true that now I read you correctly. Colton Cosmic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.215.110 (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

May I suggest...

May I suggest that cryptic abbreviations such as "DNFT" are not the best thing to put in a hat summary, and that "see talk" would be better linked to the relevant section?

(Don't feel obliged to respond to this.) --76.71.5.114 (talk) 07:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Ref Desk question

Good evening! Did you click the youtube link? There is no "posh English gentleman" voice. It's just a song video. Seems like spam to me.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 02:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

The rest of the IPs edits at Wikipedia indicate a long-term legitimate user. Maybe ask them, under their question, if they accidentally put in the wrong link. I know sometimes I do that.--Jayron32 02:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've never reverted a question on the ref desks before (as far as I can recall), and I generally don't think questions should be reverted, but I was in vandalism patrol mode and that seemed like a clear-cut case of spam. Before I reverted, I did check the IP's contribution history -- which, as you say, seems legit -- but I also read the youtube comments and they all seem to indicate they were brought there unexpectedly by links on other sites. It could be an honest mistake, as you suggest, but I don't believe in coincidences and would rather not reward such behavior (even if the OP is innocent) by letting the link stay. So I reverted. You disagree and I can respect that. Just a difference of wiki-philosophy I guess.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 06:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017

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

Administrator changes

Happyme22 • Dragons flight

Zad68

Guideline and policy news

• The RFC discussion regarding WP:OUTING and WMF essay about paid editing and outing (see more at the ArbCom noticeboard archives) is now archived. Milieus #3 and #4 received support; so did concrete proposal #1.

Technical news

• Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding ?fuzzy=1 to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.
• A new bot will automatically revision delete unused file versions from files in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old.

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.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

File:New Zealand TW-17.svg

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017

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

Administrator changes

Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 ^{(first RfA to reach WP:300)}

Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

• Following a series of discussions around new pages patrol, the WMF is helping implement a controlled autoconfirmed article creation trial as a research experiment, similar to the one proposed in 2011. You can learn more about the research plan at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial. The exact start date of the experiment has yet to be determined.
• A new speedy deletion criterion, regarding articles created as a result undisclosed paid editing, is currently being discussed (permalink).
• An RfC (permalink) is currently open that proposes expanding WP:G13 to include all drafts, even if they weren't submitted through Articles for Creation.

Technical news

• LoginNotify should soon be deployed to the English Wikipedia. This will notify users when there are suspicious login attempts on their account.
• The new version of XTools is nearing an official release. This suite of tools includes administrator statistics, an improved edit counter, among other tools that may benefit administrators. You can report issues on Phabricator and provide general feedback at mw:Talk:XTools.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

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

AGF on the ref desks, etc.

That IP 50... is getting more and more pushy IMO. If not trolling, definitely WP:POINTY. I am (as you may recall) a champion of AGF, but damn... I am happy to mostly ignore and not respond at all for now but they seem to have a subtle earnest/sea lion quality that draws a lot of our users in. I guess that's not a problem if everyone involved is having fun? Feel free to delete this if you think it may be feeding, also feel free to use my email or ignore this post at your discretion :) SemanticMantis (talk) 03:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for weighing in on the ACTRIAL talk page. It's helpful to know that my questions and concerns aren't as lunatic as other people are acting. --The Cunctator (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Look, I was intimately involved in this process in 2011. I was one of the major proponents of ACTRIAL and campaigning for it, and working on the mechanics of how it was going to work. There was literally not a bigger proponent of the measure when it first happened. However, 6 years is an eternity in this environment. I didn't raise my point because I was trying to kill ACTRIAL. My fingerprints were all over this in 2011, and I was crushed when the foundation killed it 6 years ago, with no input from the community. In many ways, that was the first moment when the Foundation seized control over ENWIKI and changed this from a bottom-up community driven organization to a top-down foundation controlled organization. So be clear, I was a major proponent of ACTRIAL. But I'm also a mature enough person to realize that just as the Foundation killing this back in 2011 was a bad idea, "reviving" it 6 years later has its own problems; my objections were not "I want to kill ACTRIAL". My objections were "Let's not assume the community is the same as it was" This feels very much like another example of the Foundation cramming something at the community; this revival was not a community mandate, it originated with the Foundation. As such, it should be up to the community to decide to move forward or not. To summarize, I am not opposed to the ACTRIAL, and I never have been. I'm opposed to moving forward without a check on the community consensus. Revisiting a dead issue six years later seems like a good idea. --Jayron32 15:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

I am totally ignorant to what these are ... but I'm sending them to you anyway simply because I appreciated the conversation we had regarding the word usage. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Unprotected version

The Picture of the Day for today and yesterday has a protected version and an unprotected version, explained here. When editing the protected version, please make the same edit to the unprotected version. Otherwise, your edit may be lost when an additional edit is made and the unprotected version is copied to the protected version (which is a good argument against having two versions and I just gave Mjroots the same explanation, but it's been that way for years). I did it for you. Art LaPella (talk) 14:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Thanks for cleaning up my mess. The two versions is a bit of a useless PITA isn't it? If non-admins need the final version fixed, can't they just go to WP:ERRORS like anyone else? And if there are no admins watching the unprotected version, changes take a long time to make. Anyhoo, thanks for fixing my mistake. Maybe someday we can get this arcane system changed to something more sensible. --Jayron32 15:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)