User talk:Cenarium: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:54, 22 February 2017

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign™ your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end of your post.
Any sections older than 15 days are automatically archived by a bot. (current archive)
Click here to start a new talk topic

Request for lower protection level

Cenarium, back in 2008 you fully protected the {{Wikt}} redirect to {{Wiktionary}}. At present, the redirect has only 1,123 transclusions and its target is transcluded 44,429 times. The target is presently template-protected, so I am hoping you would agree to lower the redirect's protection level also to template-protected? I'm a template editor, and I'd like to sort it to a maintenance category. Thank you for your consideration! Paine Ellsworth ^u/c 01:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, done. Cenarium (talk) 12:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, and Happiest of New Years to you and yours! Paine Ellsworth ^u/c 16:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deferred revisions/ listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Deferred revisions/. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Deferred revisions/ redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PC2 and WP:DEFER

Hi Cenarium, regarding, Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Make_PC2_no_longer_available_to_admins will removing this level break the WP:DEFER proposal? Is this going to actually leave this flaggedrevs configuration in place, but require new code to remove this from being "settable" ? — xaosflux ^Talk 00:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xaosflux, it will have no effect at all on deferred changes. Removing the level is very simple, it just needs to be removed from the config by editing out 'review' in $wgFlaggedRevsRestrictionLevels for $wgDBname == 'enwiki'. Cenarium (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't the defered changes going to make use of the 'review' level? — xaosflux ^Talk 01:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, deferred changes can be enabled even without enabling pending changes protection. Both rely on FlaggedRevs, which would remain installed here. Cenarium (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed

FYI it was decided to leave "extended confirmed" in place on admin accounts, just for ease of use during desysops. (Noticed you'd removed a few as redundant) –xeno^talk 12:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where was it decided? (It isn't in the original proposal that I had initiated.) Desysops are sufficiently rare to not be worth bothering about (and it's easy to readd the group, along with the other usual ones), while presently it makes the total count of extended confirmed users inaccurate (which is not terrible in itself, but still :). Cenarium (talk) 13:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it wasn't so much 'decided' as suggested by Xaosflux to leave it in place: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 34#Extended confirmed. –xeno^talk 17:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't care one way or the other :D I think at least one of the sysops was removing it as redundant from other sysops andI noted in Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Removal_of_permissions that if that group had ever been removed, we should restore it (if not already there) during a de-sysop. If they never had it, it should auto-promote. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux:, @Xeno:, another reason for removing them is that it makes gathering statistics much easier, for example in the queries I ran for this discussion if admins had extendedconfirmed we would have to handle duplicates... Cenarium (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cenarium: I'm okay with it. –xeno^talk 19:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@@ Line 54: / Line 54: @@
 :38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 <!-- Message sent by User:Samwalton9@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_newsletter/First_issue&oldid=763126991 -->
-== Coordinators for NPP ==
-[[File:NPP backlog 01 October 2016.png|right|thumb|250px]]The backlog has been steadily rising since its unexpected sudden growth in mid 2016. It was that extraordinary increase that led me to pioneer (following several supportive talks over the years and pioneering the concept of Page Curation back in 2011) the creation of a user group for qualified patrollers, thinking that it would not only increase the interest in doing the task, but also introduce some quality into it. Although consensus was achieved at every stage of the process (3 RfC), it was not without some loud, and sometimes unpleasant opposition not only from users who will vote on any RfC for anything without understanding, but also from other admins, who apparently perceived it as some kind of Twinkle vs. Page Curation power struggle. So against all odds and resistance from the WMF to provide and/or maintain the tools we need, nevertheless over 340 requests for the right have been accorded, meaning that if each reviewer had made about 50 patrolls, the backlog would easily by now have been down to a day's intake of around 800 non-autopatrolled articles - of which around 80% are all likely to be deleted by some deletion process or another. The backlog still hasn't budged from its near 16,000. Where are ''your'' patrols? I can see six since I brought this issue to a level of notice needing some structured crisis management [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 00:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)