User talk:Cenarium/Archive 5

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Archive 5
• 6

Page reverted

Hello,

I have searched in vain for the good path to get administrator’s help for the following issue and so I decided to send this request to some including you.

I have considerably expanded the article Guerrilla filmmaking and took care in referencing it as far as I could (over 90 links to trustful sources). I am an experienced editor of Wikipedia. For my surprise, the article was reverted by user CIRT to a preceding stub version mainly consisting of a very narrow list of films. Many important contents were removed. Self promotional vandalism seems to be the reason of such intervention, sustained by acute threats. I do not intend to respond with helpless and inconsequent arguments and the time I have to dedicate to Wikipedia is quite limited.

I’d be happy if you could pay some attention to this occurrence and let you decide whatever you think is reasonable.

My best,

Tertulius (User talk:Tertulius) 04,54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Deferred changes

Hi Cenarium, I found your draft proposal to be a very interesting/good idea for effectively stopping vandalism even before admins have time to respond. Can you please keep me updated on this (it's already on my watchlist) and let me know if I can help with the proposal? Thanks, Tony Tan⁹⁸ · talk 00:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I'll keep you updated. I'm working on other things at the moment but I'll get back to it in a few days. Cenarium (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@Tony Tan 98: Hey, I wanted to let you know that I won't have much time for deferred changes in the next couple of weeks, and likely won't get back to it before early to mid January. I'm also planing to describe the proposal at meta then and maybe suggest it to other projects so that we have more weight when asking the devs to implement the feature (this may also work with the global abuse filter...). I also need that the upcoming proposal on bot tagging of edits (update : proposal is here 12:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)) be adopted by then since it's going to be of great use for deferred changes (and maybe here also try to get the support of other projects). Cenarium (talk) 10:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Media viewer close

You are not a reader. Don't pretend to speak for us.

"The arguments that the media viewer is closer to the needs of readers compared to a classic file page are well supported, since nearly all readers are interested in only viewing the image with its description or caption, as opposed to reusing it or perusing metadata." No, that argument is not supported at all. As a reader whose sole participation in Wikipedia has been to decry the horribleness that is Media Viewer, I am tired of being told that it suits my needs. If you look at other readers who have chimed in, all prefer the old file pages. I must insist that you provided some justification for your assertion or you withdraw it.

If I click on an image, I want to know more about it or see the original image. Media Viewer hides the caption, version history (maybe I don't want the terrible "retouched" versions that some people are so fond of making) and shows me a downrezed version. It meets absolutely none of my needs. It should have never have replaced the file page, though I certainly wouldn't have cared if they added new UI to trigger it, then I could just ignore it.--98.207.91.246 (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I am a reader more often that I am an editor, but it's besides the point. My assertion is justified in the sentences that follow it. The media viewer shows the caption and clicking on the image will give its full resolution, as in file pages. I have looked at all comments in the RFC, the previous RFC, and elsewhere as well. Cenarium (talk) 03:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The Media Viewer truncates the caption. Clicking on the image gives the full resolution, but you have to deal with the loading of the downrezed version first. File page is faster. If you're going to use your experience as a "reader," why can't the 2:1 majority use it as well and agree with every "reader" who participated in any of this who said Media Viewer should be backed out? Again, I must insist you justify your assertion or withdraw it. --98.207.91.246 (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

We don't truncate the caption. The font size adjusts automatically to show the largest amount of text right below the image; in the rare event where that still isn't enough a click shows you the full version within the viewer. You may be referring to the content from the file description page. We don't show all the info from the File: page, but we do show the machine-readable description (if any), as well. These are relatively recent changes (MV used to show the filename below the image, and everything else below the fold). As someone who's followed the product from the beginning, I'd be curious about your thoughts about these specific changes, 98 (feel free to post to my talk page or email me at erik(at)wikimedia(dot)org). Yes, I understand you're still not a fan, and I read all your previous comments.

Both the File: page and MV show a down-scaled version before the full-size image. The only difference is that MV may load a larger version of the image, depending on your screen resolution. That is also the main reason at this point why it might be slower for you, depending on your connection speed. To understand how Media Viewer performs in the real world, we sample data from users around the globe and compare it with the File: page. We also have a dedicated test machine for comparison. The data shows that MV performs better than the File: page, even discounting the next/previous functionality (where MV intelligently pre-loads the next image in a sequence). See data here.--Erik Moeller (WMF) (talk) 08:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The caption is not shown in full here and a click doesn't bring it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SaturnV_S-IVB.jpg#mediaviewer/File:SaturnV_S-IVB.jpg . But really, the best improvement you could make is make clicking the image go to the file page and making the enlarge icon go to the original image and not bother with all this slow javascript nonsense. Yes, you say your metrics support this. I question whether your metrics work correctly. --98.207.91.246 (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding some captions that are not entirely displayed, I mentioned this in one of my final points as "cases of improperly displayed documentation".

Opening the media viewer only when clicking on the enlarge icon is something that has been requested by some users and I had in mind in my point on allowing to customize media viewer.

None of those concerns were sufficiently strong to overcome the lack of consensus. Cenarium (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

A 2:1 majority said Media Viewer should be returned to opt-in. The minority largely relied on an unsupported bogus argument that "readers" prefer Media Viewer, never mind that every single "reader" who has participated in any of this says otherwise. A strong majority plus bogus arguments from the minority... in just about every situation I've been in that would qualify as consensus. But not on Wikipedia, apparently. And anyway, this is precisely backwards. While you have a crazy argument that there is no consensus here, it's indisputable that there is no consensus for Media Viewer to be enabled. The WMF thus gets to force their defective as designed and implemented software on us. That's bullshit. The game is rigged, and you're enabling them. --98.207.91.246 (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Discount the comments on both sides superseded by subsequent improvements, which only expressed personal feelings at the WMF, did not provide a rationale, were about irrelevant matters such as speculation on the WMF response, then it's much closer to 1:1: than 2:1. That there were no consensus to enable media viewer is clear to everyone, but it's insufficient to take action. I am not enabling the WMF, I recalled in my statement that the community was very unsatisfied of the way it was deployed without appropriate consultation. Cenarium (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I am another reader whose only interaction with Wikipedia in the last five or six years has been to comment--vocifersouly--about how terrible media viewer is. There is NOTHING about media viewer that is an improvement on the old image information page. The old page was faster, more informative, linkable in a useful manner, and did not instantly change the way in which I was interacting with the Wikipedia. Mediaviewer is an ugly, unecessary, intrusive, broken-by-design kludge.73.173.188.63 (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Last five or six years ? I think you meant months. That doesn't really change my reading of the RFC, though. I've requested a survey on the latest media viewer version which should give us a better idea on what readers think in terms of aesthetics. Cenarium (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I mean last five or six years. I've had _zero_ interaction with the behind-the-curtain wikipedia world in that time except to comment on media viewer and report a single photo. I am a regular user of wikipedia and a one-time editor, from back before everything required account registration.73.173.188.63 (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Media viewer has only been enabled for a few months, precisely on June 3, 2014, cf Wikipedia:Media Viewer. So I don't think that we're talking about the same thing. Cenarium (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah ok, I've got what you meant. Cenarium (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, there are lots of readers who don't like file pages, and prefer media viewer. It's not possible to satisfy everyone. That's why I've asked the WMF to make a new survey, where the question should be more of a direct comparison, such as do you prefer file page or media viewer. This way, we'll know the proportion more precisely. Cenarium (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Thank you for closing the Mediaviewer discussion and for the very long and detailed rationale. Being an administrator can be a thankless job sometimes, so I just thought I'd chime in to say Thank you. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

@Oiyarbepsy: Thanks for the barnstar, much appreciated. Cheers, Cenarium (talk) 03:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC Close

Prior to your closing I had notified Edokter that I had concerns with his close on part-2. I was literally in the middle of filing a formal request to have it reviewed and invalidated for clear error when I saw you closed part-1. For the moment I am holding off on that submission to consider this new development.

You're probably thinking "Oh God, this guy runs around challenging any close he doesn't like". I beg you to consider that I only challenged Mdann52's initial close when he went actively non-responsive to discussion, and the virtually-unanimous result of that close review confirms that I had a reasonable and valid basis for challenging that close. I beg you to consider that I was only about to challenge Edokter's part-2 close after he also went actively non-responsive. I hope you will assume good faith on my part, and consider that maybe I see a genuine problem with his close. In a nutshell, there were "Support all but bulletpoint 6" votes in the Oppose section, as well as "Oppose only bullet point 6" votes. He basically acknowledges that does yield a level of Support worthy of consideration on 1 through 5. There are valid reasons not to return a consensus for a solid majority, but I-don't-want-to-bother is definitely not one of them.

I see you're an admin, so I'm hopeful that you're open to collaborative-discussion. Policy allows people to come to a closer and raise concerns or request improvements. The goal isn't to get the answer someone wants, the goal is a close that most accurately summarizes the results on the issue that was debated.

I'm still digesting your close. I respect that you've clearly put a lot of work and deep thought into it. I see the major theme is your difficulty determining consensus on what the Media Viewer default setting should be, and repeatedly stressing of the lack of discussion and debate on that question. I've got to run, but when I get back I'd like to try to shed some light on why it was so difficult and why you found a lack of discussion and debate. I'm really really really hoping that when I get back I find some indication from you that'd you're open to listening to that, and possibly even revising your close if you see that it could more accurately reflect the debate. Alsee (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was expecting your arrival. The second part of the RFC has been rendered essentially moot. I can explain and clarify my close, there are lots of things that I haven't detailed or mentioned because I needed to keep the statement at a reasonable length. Cenarium (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm disappointed to find no indication that you're willing to listen to my concerns, and to give good-faith consideration to whether you might find that your close could be improved. Alsee (talk) 00:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Did you misunderstood, I just said that I would explain and clarify my close ? I cannot modify the close of the second part of the RFC, as it was closed by another admin. I'll listen to your concerns, and I may amend some aspects of my close if warranted. Cenarium (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah sorry, I did misunderstand. "Explain and clarify" sounded like you meant explain-and-clarify-to-me. I didn't realize it meant potentially-edit-the-close. Okeydokey, we're good. Alsee (talk) 03:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The reason you found a "lack of a proper discussion" and "lack of thorough debate" on what the Media Viewer default should be is because participants were explicitly not debating that question. That's not the question asked and debated at RfC. For example lets look at Support #15:

15. Support. WP:Consensus can change, but it is up to someone else - and WMF is certainly invited to do so - to make a new RfC to see if that's the case. Until then, we have a consensus, and it needs to be implemented properly. VanIsaac 00:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

VanIssaac is quite deliberately withholding his arguments on media-viewer-default-setting. We can't guess at his position on that issue, or the strengths of his arguments on that issue. It's entirely possible that VanIsaac would vote for Media Viewer to be default-on, if an RfC were run on that question. It's entirely possible that VanIsaac would present an extremely powerful argument why Media Viewer should be default-off, if an RfC were run on that question. There is no way to evaluate or issue a consensus on something that is explicitly not being debated, and where people are explicitly not presenting their arguments.

The question asked and debated at RfC was "Should we reaffirm and implement the previous RfC: WP:Media_Viewer/June_2014". In my challenge to Mdann's original close I requested a close which answers the question that was asked. To make the issue as crystal clear as possible, I requested a close that addresses the outcome separately and specifically on #1 "Reaffirm June_2014_RfC" and #2 "Implement June_2014_RfC".

I am eager to hear your thoughts on the above. Alsee (talk) 03:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

When I mentioned that the initiators had explicitly acknowledged the issue, I was referencing this comment that you made, which I quote "I see some comments about this RfC being too early, that the items in the Media_Viewer_consultation outcome have not yet been implemented. I based my personal position on the assumption that everything in that list does get implemented. I guess I assumed other people would interpret it the same way, but I'm not going to re-write the question. The RfC clearly asks people to review that consultation outcome, and people can intelligently respond based upon that consultation outcome."

You explicitly pointed out that the situation had changed, and that therefore, the question as posed (implementing the previous RFC results) had to be interpreted in light of those new developments. A large portion of commentators did so, and I had to do so in my closure. Not having given the community an opportunity to discuss these new developments in depth before the poll, so not knowing the community's stance on those before the poll, I had to analyze the comments made in the poll on this very question. And those new developments changed not only the question as a whole, but as to how they would apply to each of the first RFC's subquestions (logged in vs logged out).

The question as posed was simply inextricable from the recent developments and it was necessary to determine the community's take on those in order to answer it, if it had been discussed beforehand I would have known the community's stance and could have interpreted the question on its own in light of it, but it was not, so I had to determine both at the same time through this poll.

As an aside, I am quite aware that it is sometimes better to remove new software that receives a poor initial response, let things settle down, then have a reasoned discussion about it anew; this worked (almost) perfectly for pending changes (we got consensus to remove it, then consensus to reenable it). Cenarium (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Media viewer setting is an utterly trivial issue. Whether the community wants to re-assert June_2014_RfC after Superprotect is an huge issue. As long as you're trying to examine media viewer setting you're missing the debate that happened here. Again, I ask you to analyze the debate on "Reaffirm June_2014_RfC" and "Implement June_2014_RfC".

Discussion of Media Viewer itself is only relevant insofar as is someone might mention it as part of their reason for supporting or opposing a renewed call for somebody to get off their butt and resolve the badly backlogged action on June_2014_RfC. Any mention of improvements to media viewer are only relevant in so far as it offers their argument why they do not support issuing a renewed call on June_2014_RfC. I fully respect that argument and I actively invited it in the RfC. However participants overwhelming rejected that argument as wrong or irrelevant.

You say Implementing June_2014_RfC and better media viewer setting are inextricable.

• Someone could have voted oppose in June_2014_RfC, they could still have the position that media viewer is better as opt-out, and it it perfectly valid for them to Support this RfC on the basis that they respect a valid standing consensus. Specifically in light of the Superprotect event.
• Someone could have voted support in the June_2014_RfC, could still have the position that media viewer is better as opt-in, and Oppose this RfC in order to abandon the June_2014_RfC. Specifically in light of the Superprotect event.

Not only do the two issues involve different arguments, someone can literally have opposite positions on them. Alsee (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The argument on whether the improvements fundamentally changed the issue has been debated by several commentators, and your reply was a response to some of them. Many support votes said the improvements didn't change their view, many oppose votes said that most issues had been resolved or that one should wait until the improvement drive is finished. Those comments addressed this argument directly. In addition, a lot of commentators (on both sides) did comment directly on media viewer, acquiescing the validity of the argument. Numerous support comments were on attribution and licensing for example, which were rebutted by Alanscottwalker in this RFC, and others in the previous one (for example TheDJ who pointed out that file pages are inefficient considering the large number of newspapers using "© Wikipedia" or similar, and others on TLDR, etc). The question on benefiting readers was also heavily debated, and others (clunkiness, documentation, etc). So this was recognized explicitly or implicitly by a large majority of commentators. That someone may have different positions on implementing the previous RFC or the underlying issue is true, but I cannot guess those, I can only consider the comments made there. And only the relevant comments. If those without a rationale, speculating on WMF response, expressing anger at WMF, and such, are discounted, we get closer (corrected) to 1:1. Cenarium (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I would very much like to see the list you say gets close to 1:1. It would very much help clear up whether I am misunderstanding you, or you are misunderstanding me, or both. At least a bare list of comment-numbers which you are discarding to reach that result, although any more detailed explanation you provide would be helpful. Thanx. Alsee (talk) 21:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I can list those if you want, but first what about the first part of my answer, on the argument of implementing the previous RFC vs underlying issue ? Cenarium (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Correction : I meant "closer", not "close", as in my answer to the IP above. For example, there are ten support votes with no rationale, compared to just one oppose vote with no rationale. However, counting votes is tangential and not the core of my reasoning, the arguments were foremost. Cenarium (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@Alsee: Don't modify the close, in any way. The close has been made, and it would take exceptional circumstances for it to be modified. I never exclude such a possibility right off, I am listening to any concerns you may have, but there's nothing that you've raised until now that could even slightly alter the validity of my core reasoning. Cenarium (talk) 09:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Yikes! Miscommunication! Misscommunication! Peace offering, peace offering..... That's not what I was saying at all.

One was a comment on the part 2 close, indicating that he had been notified of a possible challenge to his close. It wasn't directed to you.

The other merely indicated that you said there was a chance you might be revising your close. I absolutely-positively wasn't going to touch your close.

There was was a reason I added them. Oiyarbepsy did an abnormal premature manual archiving. The edit summary reason was to "ensure they archived together". Premature archiving is potentially disruptive if there was a chance the close might get edited. I unarchived them and added comments to timestamp them together ensuring simultaneous archiving (resolving Oiyarbepsy's edit-summary concern). The edit to add a simultaneous timestamp might as well include something useful, like updating any interested parties that there was the possibility of new developments. Later Oiyarbepsy commented on my talk and that comment made it clear that the "ensuring simultaneous archiving" edit summary was a sham. Oiyarbepsy was deliberately burying them in the archive to obstruct any new developments. Alsee (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Back to the discussion: A person who provides a rationale brings an argument to the table and presumably agrees with a non-specific assortment of other arguments, even if they don't spend the time to repeat them all. A person who offers no rationale brings no new argument to the table and is indicating non-specific agreement with the other arguments made by his side, it is non-specific repetition of those arguments. Five people saying the same thing is more significant than four people saying it, and four people saying the same thing plus one no-rationale Support is a fifth repetition of what the other four said. It adds non-specific repetition weight to the other arguments, and contributes to consensus.

Regarding "implementing the previous RFC" vs "underlying issue": Analysis starts with the issue being debated "Reaffirm&Implement_JuneRfC". We're looking for the consensus of reasonable arguments on the issue being debated, to generate a consensus close on the issue being debated. The only significance of "implementing the previous RFC" vs "underlying issue" is that arguments citing media viewer constitute a valid class of reasons one might support or oppose Reaffirming and Implementing JuneRfC. For Supports there is a general argument that any standing-consensus should obviously be Reaffirmed and Implemented in this sort of situation, and people can also comment on media viewer itself to offer more specific amplifying reasons they support Reaffirm&Implement_JuneRfC in particular. Supports can also mention media viewer itself as a part of disputing potential Oppose arguments against Reaffirm&Implement_JuneRfC. As for Opposes.... I have taken a personal position of being as respectful as possible for anyone to Oppose for any reason whatsoever. However the closer has a range of reasonable discretion in how critical he is going to be in examining (and potentially discarding) arguments. I simply expect that the evaluation for Supports and Opposes be done in an unbiased manner. I do not expect a closer to share my infinitely-forgiving view of problematic Opposes if his usual standard is to aggressively discard as many comments as it's possible to reasonably discard. You say you reached a list that gets close to 1:1, I'm asking to see how you got there. Alsee (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

You attempted to disqualify the close with your comment, saying that there was a problem and it was on hold, it was very inappropriate. I'll reply to your other points later but you may have missed this edit where I clarified that I meant closer and not close. I made clear that vote counting is not the point and that the arguments matter. A support without rationale is meaningless when one analyzes the arguments, same for a vote which basically only says "I hate the WMF." or "Anyway, the WMF will not heed this RFC.", those did not contribute to the result of my analysis of arguments. Cenarium (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I cannot guess at the arguments underpinning a vote without rationale, and this cannot be considered as a general endorsement of the previous arguments because some of those arguments are mutually exclusive. As you rightly pointed out, a user may vote support because they think it should be a community choice even if they would support enabling media viewer, but another user may vote support because they think the media viewer is bad and should be shelved. Those two arguments are irreconcilable and I've no way of knowing which one is endorsed (here again, the difficulty is that the two issues were conflated). Once again, the previous RFC debate has to be interpreted in light of improvements so the argument that there's a standing consensus and therefore it should be implemented, without any reinterpretation of the previous RFC, is flawed. Cenarium (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I had already addressed the archival concern, and will verify that it's properly archived. Cenarium (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

You attempted to disqualify the close with your comment, I clarified above that the comment was explicitly posted after the part-2 close, and that I clarified above that I was explicitly not referring to your part-1. I see absolutely nothing inappropriate in noting that I had notified him of an intended challenge against his close, and that intended challenge was placed on hold. I may decide that it is moot and I may decline to file it. I am particularly disturbed that Oiyarbepsy's bad-faith effort to deliberately disrupt discussion on this issue has succeeded spectacularly. I just saw a new response by Oiyarbepsy, and I retract my assertion that it was done in bad faith. Alsee (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

As a general rule (and as noted in the archival template), users should not edit a closed RFC, especially involved users, except for noncontroversial fixes or to revert invalid non-admin closures, neither is the case. Whether it's the second part or the first doesn't change anything and I have no doubt Oiyarbepsy acted in good faith, so let's leave it at that. Are you satisfied with my close now (which would render part 2 moot) ? Cenarium (talk) 06:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me??? Oiyarbepsy actually preformed an edit on a closed RfC and that gets an instant statement of good faith and call to drop it. I post a comment after the RfC, you falsely accuse me of editing a closed RfC, and you accuse me of bad faith or blatantly insinuate it was done in bad faith. I would like to remind you that there was substantial discussion posted by multiple people below the original invalid close. That is the obvious place for people to look for, and engage in, discussion of the close itself.

As for whether I am satisfied with the close:

1. I request to see how you reached the result you said was close to 1:1. Specifically I would like to see which people you discarded-for-cause, and your cause for discarding each of them. I am explicitly noting that this is the third time I've made this request.
2. I request a close which accurately examines and answers each of "Reaffirm JuneRfC" and "Implement JuneRfC". The same request I've been making repeatedly here, the same remedy I requested in the successful challenge to the first close.
3. If I did accept the current close, the result would merely demonstrate the problem in your close. I've been trying to explain to you this wasn't an RfC on what the media viewer setting should be, and it's impossible for you to issue a valid consensus on that question based on this RfC. This was an RfC on whether people wanted to reaffirm and implement consensus itself. The true outcome is that there was a consensus to reaffirm and implement consensus itself. Writing a fictional consensus on media viewer and issuing that as a close isn't going to alter what consensus actually is. It won't alter the actual consensus on media viewer, and it won't alter the consensus to insist that consensus itself be followed. Opposers made a bad-faith argument that RfC examination of Media Viewer should be done after that round of development was completed. Accepting your close as-is simply results in Opposers being given exactly what they asked for, exactly when they asked for it. In other words, now. That's why the current close does not accurately reflect the outcome of the debate. An accurate close would either be to affirm the RfC question, or a close calling for that fresh RfC re-examination of media viewer to be done. Alsee (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

You yourself said that Oiyarbepsy didn't act in bad faith, archiving is maintenance, it was mistaken because the RFC results should be visible for some time as you said, but it got reverted and that's it. I don't say you acted in bad faith, but below the RFC isn't the place to discuss a close, it's on the closer's talk page or at AN; that this was done once previously without getting reverted isn't a good reason, it shouldn't have been done then either. The closer's talk page is linked in the signature and if there's a review at AN a neutral notice can make users aware of it.

I'll list the votes that didn't contribute to my weighing of arguments, but keep in mind that for the other votes, which contribute in some way, there is a great degree of variability. Votes with no rationale in support : 19,23,24,25,42,51,53,62,69,70, in oppose : 34. Votes per above and such : 6,43,58,60 in support, 12,33,36 in oppose. Votes only expressing dissatisfaction at WMF or personal feelings : 31,40,41,45,73. I may have missed a few or got the number wrongs. We get closer to 1:1 (closer ≠ close).

As you mention, there were two parts in the question : Should we reaffirm and implement the previous RfC ?. I told you numerous times that the question as posed had to be interpreted in light of recent improvements, and I explicitly stated in my closing statement that in view of the comments in the RFC regarding those improvements, the previous RFC results had been made irrelevant. So there's no consensus to reaffirm the previous RFC, I think it's pretty clear. The main issue was the second part of the question, whether there is consensus to implement its result nonetheless, and the underlying issue of the media viewer default has to be considered there. This is the issue on which most people in the RFC commented on, and here as well there's no consensus as I've demonstrated in my close. I've asked the WMF to publish survey results on the new version and people will be able to review it, and consider the improvements, have a RFC if necessary, I don't have to make an explicit call for it. Cenarium (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the list. I hope you can understand that any comparison whatsoever to "1:1", whether it was "close" or getting it "closer", raised reasonable concerns about what was being struck and why. It shifted things from 68% to 64%, I have no interest in quibbling over it. I'll resist the distraction of commenting on anything that seemed unusual, or why any of them might be includable. I'll get back the the main issue next post. Alsee (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I was about to try to get back to the main issue, but then it dawned on me that I was trying to explain the same thing for the *fifth* time. I've been really dedicated to the principal of AGF, I've been really dedicated to the ideal of trying to work with you in a shared goal of reaching an accurate close regardless of the particular outcome anyone wanted. And I thank you for your efforts participating in this discussion. However one of us needs to decide that it's going in circles, and that more circles is not productive for either of us. Your last post makes it clear that you're so focused that the Media Viewer setting might be changed (and your view on that) that you cannot or will not issue a proper close on the debate that did happen.

I had incredibly inflammatory diffs to make the case that Mdann was acting in Bad Faith in his closing, and I deliberately withheld those diffs to avoid the category-9 shitstorm they would have provoked. I've got diffs and case that Edokter was not only acting in bad faith, but engaging in deliberate sabotage. I am probably going to withhold that as well, and get his close overturned on simple blatant error, to avoid unneeded drama. However there's nothing I can do to avoid that drama that's going to ensue if three closers in a row all get overturned, all for trying to block a more-than-2-to-1 Consensus they didn't like, all on the same RfC, especially when blocking-consensus is the exact the issue Supporters worked up over.

I'll take a little time drafting a single close-review request that covers both part 1 and part 2 of the RfC. I'll probably check back here before filing it to consider anything else you might have to say, but I'm not hopeful. Alsee (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

If you are going to ask for a review anyway, then go ahead. Cenarium (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Cenarium, just wanted to thank you for making a far better job of this than I did; Unfortunately, I have a tendency to be overly brief. Looks like a decent enough close to me. @Alsee: please don't make accusations of bad faith against me without the decency to notify me first; I closed the discussion based on what I could see on the page, however as I have said before, with hindsight my close was probably overly brief, and I didn't treat the responses in the best way, so will do better in the future; I've learnt from this instance, and hope I will be better in the future because of this. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:Administrators'_noticeboard#Close_Review_Request_after_overturn_and_reclose Alsee (talk) 13:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Raju Srivastav

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 08:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Extended for 3 more months. Cenarium (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you're why we're drowning at AfC

Hi. I started a conversation at AfC and this conversation at Village Pump was pointed out to me, specifically your edit to this template. I can only assume based on your comments here you were trying to solve a perceived problem with unregistered editors finding their way to AfC. AfC has since become inundated and I'd like your comments so I better understand. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. It's an overstatement to say that AFC has been inundated due to this edit, this is but a small contributing factor to the increase in AFC backlog among others. If you look at the article wizard page views, you'll notice that the increase isn't that important (requested articles has a huge increase on the other hand). An edit that has brought many more AFC submissions is this one, since all submissions were made active by default. Cenarium (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, though I'm not so sure about your conclusion. I'm not trying to assign blame but I'd like to be sure about some facts. The edit you pointed doesn't seem to change much since created drafts aren't automatically submitted. Perhaps they had at the time but that's not currently true. I'll agree the article wizard makes it easier for n00bs to submit drafts but AfC still does traffic on people writing from user sandbox.

I'd also like to get your opinion on the collective impact of the coding at {{No article text}}, {{AFC submission/draft}}, and the article wizard. I question if making article submission easier is necessarily better. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

You're right on that edit and non-automatic submission, and it was the wrong diff anyway. But my edit still didn't play a substantial role, look at the page views for the article wizard, they didn't change much, AFC is linked from many other places with higher visibility. In fact my earlier reasoning was incorrect since as I pointed out there afterwards, the stats are unreliable. My edit was in late March, yet there's not much difference between the number of AFC submissions in March (70) and April (62). The increase is in May where it jumps to 134, then 173 in June. Which caused the increase then ? Or is it just an artifact from G13 ? In fact, that looks like the most likely explanation : older drafts get deleted. The page views for the article wizard and AFC are a much more reliable indicator and they are stable or decreasing, so there likely hasn't been any significant increase in the rate of new submissions, it may even have decreased. The explanation is more in the process, template redesign, making it easier to resubmit, keeping contact with submitters, not enough volunteers, etc. Cenarium (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's been mentioned that we don't have a solid explanation for the numbers. It bears further study. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The numbers should be definitely saved periodically so that we can see their evolution in time. If the bump in numbers shifts as time progresses, then it's the side effect of G13 (which has a 6 month period, to which a few months should be added because of processing delays). If the bump remains at May/June 2014, then there's something there but I couldn't identify any precise cause. Cenarium (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Permissions for edit notice editing

Hello, a proposal to change the permissions required for editing edit notices is taking place at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposed_permissions_change:_Edit_Notices; as you have edited recent pages related to this topic your feedback is welcome. Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 21:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia protected modules

Category:Wikipedia protected modules, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Alakzi (talk) 11:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Changetags userright

Hi Cenarium. We've had a request for creating a tag, which would re-enable the UI for adding and removing tags. After reading up the relevant Phab pages I came to this code review. Any idea how close this is to being enabled? I'd like to wait until the consensus for not all users being able to edit tags is enacted before creating a new tag. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: Hi. It might take a while for the patch to be deployed. In the mean time I'd suggest to hide the UI related to tag editing with css, see here. The request for WPcleaner seems noncontroversial enough. Cenarium (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing list

Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and MusikAnimal ^talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Freakofnurture/Sandbox

Hello,

Five years ago you applied full protection to the above page, specifying only "technical reasons". Can you elaborate, please? Many thanks.  — Scott • talk 12:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I've applied move protection, not full protection. This page is one of the most watched pages, due to it having being used repeatedly to clean up page move vandalism / edit summary vandalism before abuse filter and revision deletion. If this page were to move around, this could mess up lots of people's watchlists (already been done once), see also phab:T15602. Cenarium (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Oops, I misread - thanks. I'm going to copy your comment to its talk page for reference by other wiki archeologists. Best wishes,  — Scott • talk 17:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Update "Morse Code" entry

I'd like to suggest you add the following links as on-line learning resources for Morse code on PC's:

G4FON: http://www.g4fon.net/

Just Learn Morse Code: http://www.justlearnmorsecode.com/download.html

There are others out there, but these are probably the best ones.

In addition, there are two excellent downloadable pdf textx on Morse code and learning of same that can be found at:

Zen and the Art of Radiotelegraphy: http://www.qsl.net/ik0ygj/enu/index.html

The Art and Skill of Radio-Telegraphy: http://cw.hfradio.org/cw_resources/The_Art_and_Skill_of_Radio_Telegraphy-3rd-edition.pdf

I have no personal or production interest in any of these resources other than I happen to like them, and believe they are well worth links in your article. I hope you add them. 50.35.81.62 09:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:Short pages monitor

You may be interested in the discussion at Template talk:Short pages monitor#Need to define and possibly rethink this template. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Whitelisted!

Congratulations! You are now whitelisted at gerrit, so I don't have to write "reckeck" anymore ;). Greetings, Luke081515 11:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh yeah I've noticed. It's great :) Thank you Luke081515. Cheers, Cenarium (talk) 13:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I saw that you are very active at the flaggedRevs extension, maybe you can take a look at T126263? Greetings, Luke081515 20:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not working on this aspect of FlaggedRevs. I don't know how it handles transclusions, just that it's complicated :( Sorry, Cenarium (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Module:Effective protection expiry

Hello, I am running MediaWiki Version 1.25.3 and I have been trying to utilize the Module:Effective protection expiry functions but when I try and enable page protection I get, Lua error: call Parser Function: function "PROTECTIONEXPIRY" was not found. . My question is, is there a version of this module and related modules and templates that WILL work with 1.25.3? I have learned that this error is caused by the fact that the MagicWord: PROTECTIONEXPIRY was not added until v1.27, if I were to add this would it then function correctly and if so, is there a specific ID that it should have? 64.130.245.84 (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

There are no versions of this module that can work with stock MW 1.25, as it needs MW 1.27. If you want to add it to your local install of MW without upgrading, you'd need to modify includes/parser/CoreParserFunctions.php and languages/messages/MessagesEn.php. Cenarium (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much, this may hold me over until we can get PHP upgraded as well as MediaWiki 64.130.245.84 (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	Thank you for helping with "Add reference list to section preview if missing" Naraht (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Cenarium (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Citation Barnstar
		Maproom (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

For your contributions to making the addition of citations so much easier. Maproom (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Ditto. Thanks Tvoz/talk 20:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to add my thanks as well.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for the kind words to all :) I plan on making a couple of further improvements to the Cite extension. Cenarium (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Footnote preview – a thank you

Hi, I promised to help pass on a thank you for your work on the footnote preview function. Nice work! /Johan (WMF) (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciated :) It wasn't much work getting this done, since PiRSquared17 made the bulk of the commit. Allowing to preview references defined outside the previewed section, however, is quite a task :) Cenarium (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The most important part is done, at least, if not the most difficult one. :) /Johan (WMF) (talk) 14:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The way we're solving this is also going to be useful to mobile performance (phab:T123328). Cenarium (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll add my thanks as well!

—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 00:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Appreciated. Cenarium (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Footnote preview—possible enhancement?

First, many, many thanks to you, PiRSquared17, and TheDJ for adding the reference preview function. So helpful!

It would be lovely to have similar functionality when using List-defined references as well, however. I realize that since the references are defined outside the section being edited, it may never be possible to call a preview of them when previewing the article section in which they are cited. However, it would be marvelous if, when editing and previewing the section where they are defined, a preview was available of how they will appear in the reference list in the same order in which they are defined, rather than the order in which they occur in the article. Since they're wrapped inside the {{reflist}} template, this may not be possible, but the answer to the unasked question is always "no", is it not?

Thank you all again!!!

—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 00:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The ability to preview references defined outside the section being previewed (whether list-defined or defined in another section) is being worked on (in gerrit:267515). The most significant obstacle at the moment are database issues so I don't know when we'll have this deployed. Providing a preview of list-defined references in the section where they are defined is quite easy actually, I've done this in gerrit:273141, though this still needs to be reviewed. They appear in the order where they are defined. You're welcome. Cenarium (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@D'Ranged 1: The commit is live! List-defined references can now be previewed in the section where they are defined. Cenarium (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Many, many, many thanks! This will make using LDRs easier and hopefully more widespread. (I'm biased in favor of them in case that wasn't obvious.) Kudos and great appreciation to everyone who made this happen!

—D'Ranged 1 | VT^alk :  10:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Cascading Page Creation from a Template

Hi, I previously asked you a question regarding the PROTECTIONEXPIRY, since you seem to be extremely knowledgeable and friendly I figured I would inquire with you once again about a different topic.

I have been setting up some templates that are used to create articles and give them a layout, part of this involves creating additional articles related to that article, these additional articles are always present but are created with {{PAGENAME}} in the article title, these related articles are also setup with a particular layout. So my question is, is there a way to cascade create these related articles once I create the new originating article using {{subst:}}

Respectfully,
Xanuri (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Not possible just by using {{subst:}}, you would need to do this with javascript and the writeAPI. Cenarium (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

AN mention

Hi Cenarium. In case you didn't get my ping, I just wanted to note that I quoted your Village Pump proposal creating the 30/500 usergroup during an AN discussion. Not sure if AN notifications are required for tangential mentions, so my apologies if this message was unnecessary. Altamel (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I've commented there. Cenarium (talk) 22:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Future lorenz listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Future lorenz. Since you had some involvement with the Future lorenz redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 23:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Pending changes table (expanded)

Template:Pending changes table (expanded) has been nominated for merging with Template:Pending changes blocks. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Pppery (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Abuse filter

Hi, because of an irritating AbuseFilter bug, we (Kaldari, MusikAnimal and I) are going to do an update next week that will affect one of your filters. We hope we'll fix all affected filters ourselves, but we're of course grateful if you want to help us. The issue is explained here; the current plan is here. In any case, we wanted you to be aware what's happening, and you're very welcome to help out of course. I'm sending you an email with more details. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 12:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Double soft redirect

Template:Double soft redirect has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Steel1943 (talk) 00:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

PC2

Hi Cenarium, I wanted to alert you to two pages being drafted on the topic of PC2: permalink 1, permalink 2. deliberate permalinks; the draft RfC would be moved to a new location (maybe November or December 2016?), and I expect the template in my userspace to be moved into the template space around the time the RfC publishes. However, after reviewing the history of comments at polls, trials, WP:PCRFC discussions, etc (absolutely massive), I have strong doubts if the RfC in its form is the appropriate follow-up.

Perhaps the answers to some of these questions is in WP:PCRFC, but I wanted to ask here for clarity:

• If PC2 meant autoaccept=reviewer as it currently does, is it acceptable that the majority of bot edits will need review from a reviewer or admin?
• How was the PC2 level (reviewer autoaccept) determined?

There has been some pushback to PC2 regarding the stratification among editors (2012 RfC 1). Per Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment_2014#Proposal 15 (and some comments already on the draft RfC talk), reviewers may not be being granted based on autoaccept=reviewer. I believe this is less of a concern if the level were configured to be autoaccept=admin (implying accept=admin) (as some folks prior to 2012 proposed as an alternative to full protection). (It may also be legitimate to ask if PC2 should be autoaccept=extendedconfirmed) I believe this to be a reasonable RfC on what level exactly we would potentially want PC2 to be if there's ever consensus (and if the cost of changing PC2 in the software is not too great). In the meantime, permalink 2 would summarize the effects of combining protection and PC.

Interested in your thoughts, and please feel free to make changes to any of these pages.

tl;dr: I expect to revise the draft RfC (permalink above) to limit it scope to asking whether the autoaccept level for PC2 should be changed to admin (or perhaps extendedconfirmed), and am curious about what you think. — Andy W. (talk) 00:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Andy W. PC2 was meant to be used on a very small fraction of articles so bots not being accepted was viewed as a minor concern, which could be mitigated by granting the right. The PC2 level was the intermediary level of the original trial proposal, which also included autoconfirmed level (now PC1) and sysop level (not implemented). At the time we didn't have as many usergroups, and I thought a level intermediary between autoconfirmed and sysop would be helpful on some articles, those subject to vandalism or similar disruption that couldn't be handled by semi-protection (and were therefore fully protected). So I chose reviewer since they were a reasonably trusted group.

That being said nowadays, extendedconfirmed (EC) would be more appropriate. This would also solve the bot issue and simplify the various protection levels. As for a sysop level, we ended up not implementing it because the use case was too limited, since disputed articles would not be appropriate for it, and it would have added too much complexity for little gain. I believe this is still true today.

It depends a lot on what PC2 would be used for though. I believe a EC-PC2 would make sense on pages where PC1 failed to resolve the issue due to disruption by autoconfirmed users, and like PC1 should not be used in disputes. There wouldn't be a need to alter the criteria to grant reviewer or the reviewing guideline, since it's just a way to counter those that managed to bypass PC1, the objective remains the same. (This is pretty much proposal 1 of the 2014 RFC, but with extended confirmed.)

An extended-confirmed PC2 could probably achieve consensus, as it's less restrictive than extended-confirmed protection and more inclusive than reviewer-level PC2 since extended-confirmed is granted out automatically. Cenarium (talk) 04:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cenarium, thanks so much for the background info. (Putting criteria aside only for a moment) I have a question on the relationship between the abilities to review, to be autoaccepted, and to edit. I've verified that the ability to review depends on the editor's ability to edit the page. Example: for a page at (the current) PC2+TPROT, the ability to review is available only to a templateeditor who is also a reviewer, which is sound. i.e. review $\subseteq$ edit. Also, autoaccept $\subseteq$ edit seems to be a given (autoaccepted editors are always a subset of those who can edit). I'm wondering if it's the case that review $\subseteq$ autoaccept $\subseteq$ edit holds all the time?

The reason I ask is for a scenario involving a page that uses the hypothetical EC flavored PC2+semi (edit=autoconfirmed, accept=reviewer, and autoaccept=extendedconfirmed).

• What I believe this combo doesn't mean: editors who can accept/unaccept pending revisions on the page need reviewer.
• What I believe this combo does mean: editors who can accept/unaccept pending revisions on the page need reviewer and extendedconfirmed.

If the first bullet point is true, it means that a non-extendedconfirmed reviewer could accept/unaccept pending changes, but he/she is not automatically accepted him/herself, and I think that's unreasonable. Do you know if this is or is not the case?

I've added a proposed PC2 column to the table. Anyway, before a potential RfC, I just want to make sure I understand the goings-on with some of the quirky combos. Thanks again, very much appreciated! — Andy W. (talk) 06:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

A restriction on a pending changes protected page, such as extendedconfirmed, applies both to autoreview and manual review (here's the code). So on a EC-PC2 page, a reviewer needs EC to review edits. As you've noted, it also checks that the user can edit the article. Cenarium (talk) 12:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cenarium, which other wikis use enwiki's current PC1/PC2 flagged protection config? (aware of testwiki at least) If the upcoming RfC determines that "extendedconfirmed" flagged prot is deemed more suitable than "reviewer" flagged prot, I believe other wikis are unable to match, because extendedconfirmed seems to be an enwiki-only level. I'm unsure about the cost of renaming/refactoring. But deprecation could make sense, including system messages like MediaWiki:Flaggedrevs-protect-review. — Andy W. (talk) 20:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Andy M. Wang: Six other WMF wikis use flagged protection configs, you can see them here, search for "wgFlaggedRevsRestrictionLevels" for the protection levels. Some use one, others two, one three. Using another restriction level is not a problem at all technically, it's just a matter of changing 'autoreview' to 'extendedconfirmed' (and create MediaWiki:Flaggedrevs-protect-extendedconfirmed onwiki). That other wikis don't use that level is not a problem. I'd be interested in helping draft a RFC on extendedconfirmed PC2 if you want. Cenarium (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Followed up here. I've made a preliminary draft for now, but think it could use some trimming? I've also added your name to the RfC, but no worries if you suggest otherwise. Thanks, and cheers :) — Andy W. (talk) 02:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cenarium, I was wondering if the PC2 RfC draft was in the scope of what you roughly intended to draft yourself? i.e. didn't know if you also wanted to establish usage/criteria consensus in one go. Please make additions/cuts if you see fit. Was also wondering if you wanted to delay until WP:DC2016 concludes before opening, or is Nov 1 roughly okay? — Andy W. (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Discussion on deferred changes has largely died down and consensus seems clear enough, we don't have to wait for it to formally close. As for directly seeking consensus on whether to enable an extended-confirmed pending changes protection, I believe it can be done in this RFC. With regard to the criteria for use, based on proposals 1 and 2 of the 2014 RFC and on the protection policy for extended confirmed protection, I'd suggest:

“

• the criteria for auto-confirmed pending changes protection ("PC1") are met but the later has proven ineffective and blocks would be ineffective,
• and/or the criteria for extended-confirmed protection are met.

In addition, the administrator's noticeboard must be notified, manually or automatically, of each use.

”

Note I've replaced the full protection from proposition 2 by extended confirmed protection. I've also added the notification currently mandated for extended confirmed protection. I think these are the most likely to gain consensus, though they may need to be reworded. Then the RFC question would be: "Should we allow use of extended-confirmed pending changes protection, subject to the above criteria?". Cenarium (talk) 00:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense. I retained a part of the wording in the question. Also made a further cut to the prot/pc table for the sake of simplicity (feel free to undo if this cut potentially worthy info). Possibly ready for ~Nov 1 or 2. — Andy W. (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC) elab 17:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@Andy M. Wang: Agree with table changes. I've made some edits to the RFC, this may need a few more still. Cenarium (talk) 04:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd be okay with any remaining changes you'd want to make. Think it's ready. — Andy W. (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Andy M. Wang: Okay, I'm running out of ideas to improve it, I think we can go ahead. Cenarium (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thank you for making a New Page Reviewer. Prof TPMS (talk) 23:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Pending shortcut?

Here's a dumb question. You know that WP:PEND goes to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes. Is there a similar shortcut that goes to the backlog at Special:PendingChanges? If not, would it screw anything up for me to make one? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 22:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

This won't break anything, but it doesn't work, I've just tested it. Redirects to special pages are disabled on WP. Cenarium (talk) 23:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Dang. Well, thank you for not letting me be the one to try and fail. I'd have panicked. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 23:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @RunnyAmiga: You should try this userscript. It adds a link to Special:PendingChanges at the top of any Wikipedia page up there next to "Sandbox" and "Preferences". — Gestrid (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Cenarium.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Deferred changes

Congratulations! I just saw that your RfC regarding implementing Deferred Changes passed in its entirety with flying colors! — Gestrid (talk) 23:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Gestrid (I hadn't noticed your message!). That was the easy part, now I need to get this approved for implementation. Cenarium (talk) 11:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Cenarium. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Is User:Cenaium test 45 one of yours?

I wanted to ask if it's one of yours, and you're actually running a test or if someone is impersonating you. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@Iazyges: Yes, it's mine, I was running a test. Cenarium (talk) 01:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Commons category redirect

Template:Commons category redirect has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination of MediaWiki:Revreview-auto

MediaWiki:Revreview-auto, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/MediaWiki:Revreview-auto and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of MediaWiki:Revreview-auto during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 19:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year Cenarium!

Happy New Year!

Cenarium,
Have a prosperous, productive and wonderful New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

--Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 12:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016

Can I relist the RFC for you, or can you do it, or shall we wait for uninvolved admin, which I already requested? --George Ho (talk) 02:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's going to attract many comments now, even if relisted, let's just wait for an admin to close it. Thanks for having requested it. Cenarium (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

How long must we wait for someone to volunteer the closure? Even when amount of further comments would be low, maybe relist it just once until the person volunteers. --George Ho (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by relisting exactly, putting back the {{rfc}} template? I'm not sure what the practice is on this. I know these PC RFCs tend to be difficult to close, so a possibility is to ask for several admins to volunteer to close it together at WP:AN. Also you could ask there is relisting in the mean time is OK. Cenarium (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Not only the "rfc" tag but also {{subst:relisting}} right before the signature. --This is George Ho actually (Talk) 00:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, go ahead if you want. Cenarium (talk) 12:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Three weeks passed, and I see eight newer votes since my relisting in WP:CENT and handled by bot... Or count another one just five hours before my relisting. Also, no admin has made a decision yet. I wonder whether another relisting is necessary. --George Ho (talk) 01:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Moreover, I already requested a closure at WP:ANRFC when the first phase of the discussion was ending. Must I re-request it at WP:AN? George Ho (talk) 01:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think a relisting is necessary, but a post at WP:AN is probably appropriate as we should really get this over with. Cenarium (talk) 12:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

The administrators said that closing the discussion is tricky. Would newer comments make much of a difference, or would the results be the same even after newer comments were made? George Ho (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

No it wouldn't really change anything. Cenarium (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

your interest in alternate titanic theories

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRvMPc1KuJQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.151.146 (talk) 10:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I had a brief administrative involvement with the article but I have no particular interest in this subject. Cenarium (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC opened at Wikipedia talk:User categories#Request for comment on our proposed policy for users remaining in redlinked categories

As the closing admin of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 December 22#Category:People paid by Big Pharma to schill, you may be interested in participating in the RfC that addresses one of the main issues brought up in that discussion. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

References

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Padma Shri Awards

Template:Padma Shri Awards is being discussed. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.

PediaPress new AfD

Hi, I see that you put up Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PediaPress. This is to advise you that the article is up for AfD once again. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Soft redirected protection templates

A tag has been placed on Category:Soft redirected protection templates requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merger of Template:Double soft redirect

Template:Double soft redirect has been nominated for merging with Template:Soft redirect. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. JsfasdF252 (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Notice of EFH Request

I have previously made a request for EFM which you participated in, per WP:EFH I am notifying you that I have made a request for EFH. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 03:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Help:Edit summary/feedback

Help:Edit summary/feedback, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Help:Edit summary/feedback and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Help:Edit summary/feedback during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ^Clyde!_Franklin! 22:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)