User talk:28bytes/Archive 58
This is an archive of past discussions with User:28bytes. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 |
RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins
Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:
- Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
- Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
- Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
- Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
- Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
- Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
- Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
- Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed
See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 May 2024
- News and notes: Democracy in action: multiple elections
- Special report: Will the new RfA reform come to the rescue of administrators?
- Arbitration report: Ruined temples for posterity to ponder over – arbitration from '22 to '24
- Comix: Generations
- Traffic report: Crawl out through the fallout, baby
May music
story · music · places |
---|
Today's story mentions a concert I loved to hear (DYK) and a piece I loved to sing in choir, 150 years old (OTD). -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Today's story is about Samuel Kummer, one of five items on the Main page - more musing on my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
last offer in May: photos of the river Rhine, and the adjacent Eltville rose garden, - high water and interesting weather --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Numberguy6
As this was the first running of an experimental RfA, I'm not sure that less than 3 hours was enough time to see how it would pan out. I would say that the candidate hasn't presented themselves well, and, as it stood at the point you closed it, I would have opposed; however, it might be the case that under this experimental system that a lot more objections would surface early on. Or that when a candidate can see how their behaviour is giving concern that they may start making amends that will cause people to start supporting. We just don't know. SilkTork (talk) 07:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hi SilkTork. Fair point on the 3 hours. It was around 1:00 AM my time when I saw the RfA, and if there hadn’t been over 20 opposes already, I would have just gone to bed and looked in on it again in the morning. But seeing the numbers where they stood, I felt like the chances were very low that the result would be anything other than the guy getting beaten up for another 8 hours with hurt feelings on all sides and questions about where the ’crats were and why no one did anything to stop it, much like in last month’s RfA, which was halted at 0/0/0. Realistically I don’t see how this RfA could have succeeded, and I feel like letting the oppose count get up to 30 or 40 before calling it off would have done a disservice to the candidate, but I’m certainly open to the idea that I’ve misjudged it. 28bytes (talk) 07:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- In cases like this it comes down to a judgement call, which you made as you saw it, and I don't see any real advantage to re-opening it, but I'm thinking that moving forward more information may be gathered if an experimental RfA is left to unfold a little longer. Just between you and me (and your talkpage watchers) when I saw that RfA in its early stages I wanted to put an end to it because it was clear that the candidate was not the most appropriate one to be trialling the new process because of their unusually limited approach to communication. I feel sure they would have failed under the traditional RfA, but they might have gathered more support early on which might have led to a more balanced discussion. Perhaps this is indicating that the new system is quicker at highlighting a candidate's weaknesses. SilkTork (talk) 08:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- All good points. Another thought I had was that it would be nice if people “held their fire” on additional opposes once there were 15 or 20 opposes already (in cases of <10 supports) so that things could run a little longer without fear of a pile-on. But then again, we’re already asking them to wait 2 days before opposing, so that’s probably not realistic either. 28bytes (talk) 09:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- My anecdotal observation of various polls or consumer reviews is that when a trend starts, a pile on follows. I guess we are communal animals, and there is something instinctively reassuring about following the herd and being part of the pack. Emotions are infectious - laughter, fear, joy, anger, etc - it's difficult to remain aloof from these emotions when they are swelling around us. Intellectually someone can think: "This doesn't need my oppose/support", but emotionally they get gripped by the moment, and want to be seen as part of the community. Especially as on Wikipedia we put a deal of weight on being part of the community. SilkTork (talk) 10:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- All good points. Another thought I had was that it would be nice if people “held their fire” on additional opposes once there were 15 or 20 opposes already (in cases of <10 supports) so that things could run a little longer without fear of a pile-on. But then again, we’re already asking them to wait 2 days before opposing, so that’s probably not realistic either. 28bytes (talk) 09:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- In cases like this it comes down to a judgement call, which you made as you saw it, and I don't see any real advantage to re-opening it, but I'm thinking that moving forward more information may be gathered if an experimental RfA is left to unfold a little longer. Just between you and me (and your talkpage watchers) when I saw that RfA in its early stages I wanted to put an end to it because it was clear that the candidate was not the most appropriate one to be trialling the new process because of their unusually limited approach to communication. I feel sure they would have failed under the traditional RfA, but they might have gathered more support early on which might have led to a more balanced discussion. Perhaps this is indicating that the new system is quicker at highlighting a candidate's weaknesses. SilkTork (talk) 08:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – June 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2024).
- Phase II of the 2024 RfA review has commenced to improve and refine the proposals passed in Phase I.
- The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351
- The arbitration case Venezuelan politics has been closed.
- The Committee is seeking volunteers for various roles, including access to the conflict of interest VRT queue.
- WikiProject Reliability's unsourced statements drive is happening in June 2024 to replace {{citation needed}} tags with references! Sign up here to participate!
The Signpost: 8 June 2024
- Technology report: New Page Patrol receives a much-needed software upgrade
- Deletion report: The lore of Kalloor
- In the media: National cable networks get in on the action arguing about what the first sentence of a Wikipedia article ought to say
- News from the WMF: Progress on the plan — how the Wikimedia Foundation advanced on its Annual Plan goals during the first half of fiscal year 2023-2024
- Recent research: ChatGPT did not kill Wikipedia, but might have reduced its growth
- Featured content: We didn't start the wiki
- Essay: No queerphobia
- Special report: RetractionBot is back to life!
- Traffic report: Chimps, Eurovision, and the return of the Baby Reindeer
- Comix: The Wikipediholic Family
- Concept: Palimpsestuous
Un-redirect userpage to talk page
Around a year ago, I redirected my userpage to my talk page, according to WP:UP , to get rid of the red font that my username would appear in every time I made an edit. However, I discovered today the joy of user boxes and am interested in making a userpage. I can't seem to figure out how to un-redirect my userpage to my talk page, however. So, I searched up active admins and your username popped out the most to me so I'm here asking you this question. Thanks! InfiniteSword (talk) 04:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Happy editing! 28bytes (talk) 12:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! Just out of curiosity, how did you end up doing it? Also, is there a way to change it so that only autoconfirmed users can edit the page? You know, to avoid vandalism and stuff. InfiniteSword (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- When you open a page that’s been redirected, there’s a line right under “From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia” that says “(Redirected from such-and-such)”. Click on the such-and-such link and it will let you edit the page and replace the #REDIRECT with whatever you like. 28bytes (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, and per WP:UPROT, user pages are automatically protected from editing by unconfirmed accounts and IP editors. That should be sufficient for now, but let me know if you run into any problems with vandalism and we can bump up the protection if needed. 28bytes (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Last question (hopefully), is there a way to edit my user page with the visual editor instead of the source editor? It's much harder for me to edit using the source editor, since I don't really know where to put brackets and curly braces and such. InfiniteSword (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I believe I need to sign my posts on talk pages like this? Idk, I've never done this before, this is just a test. InfiniteSword InfiniteSword (talk) 00:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- ohhhhh all I need to do is this InfiniteSword (talk) 00:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, you should be able to use the Visual Editor to edit your user page. WP:VisualEditor should give you the information you need to enable it. 28bytes (talk) 00:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I read the page but couldn't figure out how to enable the visual editor for my user page. Also, is there a way to redirect my user page on the Spanish Wiki to the English One? InfiniteSword (talk) 02:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- As far as I’m aware, you can’t do cross-wiki redirects. You’d just have to use a regular link. As for VisualEditor, I haven’t used it in many years, so unfortunately I’m probably not the best person to help troubleshoot it. The WP:Help desk might be able to better assist. 28bytes (talk) 03:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I read the page but couldn't figure out how to enable the visual editor for my user page. Also, is there a way to redirect my user page on the Spanish Wiki to the English One? InfiniteSword (talk) 02:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, you should be able to use the Visual Editor to edit your user page. WP:VisualEditor should give you the information you need to enable it. 28bytes (talk) 00:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- ohhhhh all I need to do is this InfiniteSword (talk) 00:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I believe I need to sign my posts on talk pages like this? Idk, I've never done this before, this is just a test. InfiniteSword InfiniteSword (talk) 00:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Last question (hopefully), is there a way to edit my user page with the visual editor instead of the source editor? It's much harder for me to edit using the source editor, since I don't really know where to put brackets and curly braces and such. InfiniteSword (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, and per WP:UPROT, user pages are automatically protected from editing by unconfirmed accounts and IP editors. That should be sufficient for now, but let me know if you run into any problems with vandalism and we can bump up the protection if needed. 28bytes (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- When you open a page that’s been redirected, there’s a line right under “From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia” that says “(Redirected from such-and-such)”. Click on the such-and-such link and it will let you edit the page and replace the #REDIRECT with whatever you like. 28bytes (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! Just out of curiosity, how did you end up doing it? Also, is there a way to change it so that only autoconfirmed users can edit the page? You know, to avoid vandalism and stuff. InfiniteSword (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Technical Barnstar | |
Someone on Discord just pointed out that Conway's Game of Life has a playable version of the game. That's a delightful and unusual level of interactivity for a Wikipedia article -- cheers for that. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
- Thanks! When I saw that gadget on Spanish Wikipedia I thought it would be nice to bring it to our wiki as well. 28bytes (talk) 02:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Ah! Thought you created it. No matter -- barnstar still deserved. I just need to give out another one now. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- I wish I had! It’s a cool little gadget. I may try my hand at creating one at some point, though; a three-body problem simulator came to mind. Xaosflux and Pppery deserve thanks for helping get the gadget going, as well as the gadget’s creators. 28bytes (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Ah! Thought you created it. No matter -- barnstar still deserved. I just need to give out another one now. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
June music
story · music · places |
---|
Today we have a centenarian story (documentation about it by Percy Adlon) and an article that had two sentences yesterday and was up for deletion, and needs a few more citations. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Today is a feast day for which Bach composed a chorale cantata in 1724 (and we had a DYK about it in 2012). Can't believe that Jodie Devos had to die, - don't miss her video from the Opéra-Comique at the end, - story to come. The weekend brought plenty of music sung and listened to, and some of it is reflected in the last two stories! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 4 July 2024
- News and notes: WMF board elections and fundraising updates
- Special report: Wikimedia Movement Charter ratification vote underway, new Council may surpass power of Board
- In focus: How the Russian Wikipedia keeps it clean despite having just a couple dozen administrators
- Discussion report: Wikipedians are hung up on the meaning of Madonna
- In the media: War and information in war and politics
- Sister projects: On editing Wikisource
- Opinion: Etika: a Pop Culture Champion
- Gallery: Spokane Willy's photos
- Humour: A joke
- Recent research: Is Wikipedia Politically Biased? Perhaps
- Traffic report: Talking about you and me, and the games people play
Administrators' newsletter – July 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2024).
- Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)
- The Community Wishlist is re-opening on 15 July 2024. Read more
July music
story · music · places |
---|
Pictured on the Main page: Brian's Mozart family grand tour, my story today, and Mozart related to all three items of music on my talk: our 2023 concert, an opera in a theatre where a Mozart premiere took place, and those remembered, Martti Wallén, a bass, and Liana Isakadze, a violinist from Georgia (whose article would be better with more details about her music-making). -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
My story today is - because of the anniversary of the premiere OTD in 1782 - about Die Entführung aus dem Serail, opera by Mozart, while yesterday's was - because of the TFA - about Les contes d'Hoffmann, opera by Offenbach. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Today's story is about a photographer who took iconic pictures, especially View from Williamsburg, Brooklyn, on Manhattan, 9/11, yesterday's was a great mezzo, and on Thursday we watched a sublime ballerina. If that's not enough my talk offers the music from two amazing concerts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Main Page history/2024 July 30b will have a baritone, a violinist, a composer and a Bach cantata, - almost too much, and the composer's article, Wolfgang Rihm, should be better, help wanted. - Plenty of music on my parents anniversary day ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
July 14/15 ANI thread
Name calling????
Have you seen his uploads? Elinruby (talk) See? look at the below. He is going to try to use this as evidence of something or other until the cows come home. This entire report is pure fiction. Elinruby (talk) 12:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Elinruby: maybe don’t harass a bureaucrat who just showed you an inordinate degree of mercy Dronebogus (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Would the two of you consent to a two-way interaction ban, and save the community the trouble of imposing one? Please? Mackensen (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Mackensen I have never interacted with this editor in the first place! And I submitted an editor interaction report to prove that! Nor mentioned his name anywhere before this! I suggest you examine his uploads, re name-calling. If you feel the need to answer this please do so on my talk page, not here. Elinruby (talk) 13:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
ANI
I will respect your close because you are an uninvolved admin and bureaucrat and I don’t want to get blocked for no good reason; however is User:Elinruby really deserving of “kindness” considering the evidence presented? Isn’t a warning about incivility and cross-wiki disruption at least in order? Dronebogus (talk) 12:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
User still replying in a thread you closed
Because my ping didn’t work here. Dronebogus (talk) 12:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- 28bytes. I'm sorry you have been deemed worthy of multiple posts on your own talk about the same thing. I know the feeling. For my answers to DB regarding this issue, please see my talk page discussion. ——Serial Number 54129 13:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Dronebogus: Edit conflicts are annoying, aren’t they? I e/c’ed three times trying to close that thread, and another two times trying to reply here on my own talk page. Anyway, I recommend letting it be, even if it’s the wrong version. The last thing we need is an edit war. 28bytes (talk) 13:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- I am not going to argue with you about the close, 28bytes, but am just pointing out that your closing is going to be used to misrepresent what happened even more than it already has been. I would like you to reconsider "name calling" since that is not what happened, but I will indeed let it be if you do not. However, yes, I got about three edit conflicts myself. Thank you for understanding that I had not yet seen the close. The post that Dronebogus so sanctimoniously removed is a fine example of why I thought it was worth sticking my neck out. Please see the example of what he is so strenuously defending. That is all, and thank you for your attention to this matter. Elinruby (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Elinruby. So there are really two issues as I see it. The first is the name-calling (i.e. the diff Dronebogus provided of you calling a third party an utter asshole, and Dronebogus’s comment in that thread calling a different third party an absolute jerk.) Given that a one-week block was just handed out to that third party for calling someone a moron in an edit summary, hopefully it’s obvious why I felt that closing the thread at that point would avoid unnecessary civility or NPA blocks. I simply asked everyone to stop doing that, which I believe is a fairly reasonable and uncontroversial ask.The second issue is your characterization of DB’s uploads, which I deliberately did not address because that is a Commons issue, or, if you feel that the Commons community is not doing the right thing, an issue to be escalated to the WMF (legal-reports@wikimedia.org) or to other authorities. It is not something the English Wikipedia community or its admins have any control over, and talking about concerning Commons uploads here is simply not going to have any effect on the uploads, or really accomplish anything other than antagonizing the uploader. 28bytes (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- well, that's an unnamed hypothetical asshole, but alright, I did say "assholes", and the nuns would have disapproved <g> You're right about that. As for Commons, I completely agree with you, (and thank you for the email link btw), but I am not the one who dragged someone to ANI over it.
- I did say I would not argue with you, and I am not, because this is one of the better explanations I have ever received of an admin action, but I do source verification and absolutely will hear about this close the next time someone takes me to ANI for a failed verification tag. Just saying. Thank you for the courteous reply though. Elinruby (talk) 15:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Elinruby. So there are really two issues as I see it. The first is the name-calling (i.e. the diff Dronebogus provided of you calling a third party an utter asshole, and Dronebogus’s comment in that thread calling a different third party an absolute jerk.) Given that a one-week block was just handed out to that third party for calling someone a moron in an edit summary, hopefully it’s obvious why I felt that closing the thread at that point would avoid unnecessary civility or NPA blocks. I simply asked everyone to stop doing that, which I believe is a fairly reasonable and uncontroversial ask.The second issue is your characterization of DB’s uploads, which I deliberately did not address because that is a Commons issue, or, if you feel that the Commons community is not doing the right thing, an issue to be escalated to the WMF (legal-reports@wikimedia.org) or to other authorities. It is not something the English Wikipedia community or its admins have any control over, and talking about concerning Commons uploads here is simply not going to have any effect on the uploads, or really accomplish anything other than antagonizing the uploader. 28bytes (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- I am not going to argue with you about the close, 28bytes, but am just pointing out that your closing is going to be used to misrepresent what happened even more than it already has been. I would like you to reconsider "name calling" since that is not what happened, but I will indeed let it be if you do not. However, yes, I got about three edit conflicts myself. Thank you for understanding that I had not yet seen the close. The post that Dronebogus so sanctimoniously removed is a fine example of why I thought it was worth sticking my neck out. Please see the example of what he is so strenuously defending. That is all, and thank you for your attention to this matter. Elinruby (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Dronebogus: Edit conflicts are annoying, aren’t they? I e/c’ed three times trying to close that thread, and another two times trying to reply here on my own talk page. Anyway, I recommend letting it be, even if it’s the wrong version. The last thing we need is an edit war. 28bytes (talk) 13:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 22 July 2024
- Discussion report: Internet users flock to Wikipedia to debate its image policy over Trump raised-fist photo
- News and notes: Wikimedia community votes to ratify Movement Charter; Wikimedia Foundation opposes ratification
- Obituary: JamesR
- Crossword: Vaguely bird-shaped crossword
Administrators' newsletter – August 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2024).
- Global blocks may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may locally unblock when appropriate.
- Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.
- The Arbitration Committee appointed the following administrators to the conflict of interest volunteer response team: Bilby, Extraordinary Writ
The Signpost: 14 August 2024
- In the media: Portland pol profile paid for from public purse
- In focus: Twitter marks the spot
- News and notes: Another Wikimania has concluded.
- Special report: Nano or just nothing: Will nano go nuclear?
- Opinion: HouseBlaster's RfA debriefing
- Traffic report: Ball games, movies, elections, but nothing really weird
- Humour: I'm proud to be a template
August thanks
story · music · places |
---|
Thank you for improving article quality in August! - Today's story is about a stage director, - watch Aida, so tender so cruel. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Today is the birthday of Alma Mahler. I believe that Siegfried Lorenz should be mentioned on the Main page among the Recent deaths. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
... and he appeared! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2024).
- Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which
applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past
. - A request for comment is open to discuss whether Notability (species) should be adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.
- Following a motion, remedies 5.1 and 5.2 of World War II and the history of Jews in Poland (the topic and interaction bans on My very best wishes, respectively) were repealed.
- Remedy 3C of the German war effort case ("Cinderella157 German history topic ban") was suspended for a period of six months.
- The arbitration case Historical Elections is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.
- Editors can now enter into good article review circles, an alternative for informal quid pro quo arrangements, to have a GAN reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
- A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in September 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,900 articles and 26,200 redirects awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!
The Signpost: 4 September 2024
- News and notes: WikiCup enters final round, MCDC wraps up activities, 17-year-old hoax article unmasked
- In the media: AI is not playing games anymore. Is Wikipedia ready?
- News from the WMF: Meet the 12 candidates running in the WMF Board of Trustees election
- Wikimania: A month after Wikimania 2024
- Serendipity: What it's like to be Wikimedian of the Year
- Traffic report: After the gold rush
Administrator Elections: Updates & Schedule
Administrator Elections | Updates & Schedule | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list. |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
September music
story · music · places |
---|
Three stories related to today in memory, 11 September, 20 July and 20 June, the latter piece of art also pictured on the Main page. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Today is Schoenberg's 150th birthday! On display, portrayed by Egon Schiele, with a DYK hook from 2010 and another from 2014, about his 40th birthday, appeared on his 140th birthday. - See places for a stunning sunrise, on the day Bruckner's 200th birthday was celebrated (a few days late). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 September 2024
- In the media: Courts order Wikipedia to give up names of editors, legal strain anticipated from "online safety laws"
- Community view: Indian courts order Wikipedia to take down name of crime victim, editors strive towards consensus
- Serendipity: A Wikipedian at the 2024 Paralympics
- Opinion: asilvering's RfA debriefing
- News and notes: Are you ready for admin elections?
- Recent research: Article-writing AI is less "prone to reasoning errors (or hallucinations)" than human Wikipedia editors
- Traffic report: Jump in the line, rock your body in time
RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review
Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – October 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2024).
- Administrator elections are a proposed new process for selecting administrators, offering an alternative to requests for adminship (RfA). The first trial election will take place in October 2024, with candidate sign-up from October 8 to 14, a discussion phase from October 22 to 24, and SecurePoll voting from October 25 to 31. For questions or to help out, please visit the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections.
- Following a discussion, the speedy deletion reason "File pages without a corresponding file" has been moved from criterion G8 to F2. This does not change what can be speedily deleted.
- A request for comment is open to discuss whether there is a consensus to have an administrator recall process.
- The arbitration case Historical elections has been closed.
- An arbitration case regarding Backlash to diversity and inclusion has been opened.
- Editors are invited to nominate themselves to serve on the 2024 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission until 23:59 October 8, 2024 (UTC).
- If you are interested in stopping spammers, please put MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist on your watchlist, and help out when you can.
Administrator Elections: Call for Candidates
Administrator Elections | Call for Candidates
The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Call for candidates.
Here is the schedule:
- October 8–14 - Candidate sign-up (we are here)
- October 22–24 - Discussion phase
- October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
Please note the following:
- The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
- Prospective candidates are advised to become familar with the community's expectations of adminstrators, which are much higher than the minimum requirement of having extended confirmed status. This includes reviewing successful and unsuccessful RFAs, reading the essay Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, and possibly requesting an optional poll on their chances of passing.
- The process will have a one week call for candidates phase, a one week pause to set up SecurePoll, a three-day period of public discussion, followed by 7 days of no public discussion and a private vote using SecurePoll.
- The outcomes of this process are identical to making requests for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA or administrator elections.
- Administrator elections are also a valid means of regaining adminship for de-sysopped editors.
Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. A separate user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.
To avoid sending too many messages, this will be the last mass message sent about administrator elections. If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 19 October 2024
- News and notes: One election's end, another election's beginning
- Recent research: "As many as 5%" of new English Wikipedia articles "contain significant AI-generated content", says paper
- In the media: Off to the races! Wikipedia wins!
- Contest: A WikiCup for the Global South
- Traffic report: A scream breaks the still of the night
- Book review: The Editors
- Humour: The Newspaper Editors
- Crossword: Spilled Coffee Mug
Administrator Elections: Discussion phase
The discussion phase of the October 2024 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:
- October 22–24 - Discussion phase
- October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
- November 1–? - Scrutineering phase
During October 22–24, we will be in the discussion phase. The candidate subpages will open to questions and comments from everyone, in the same style as a request for adminship. You may discuss the candidates at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Discussion phase.
On October 25, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in a research
Hello,
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Kind Regards,
BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Administrator Elections: Voting phase
The voting phase of the October 2024 administrator elections has started and continues until 23:59 31st October 2024 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Voting phase.
As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:
- October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
- November 1–? - Scrutineering phase
In the voting phase, the candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies for a vote will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – November 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2024).
- Following a discussion, the discussion-only period proposal that went for a trial to refine the requests for adminship (RfA) process has been discontinued.
- Following a request for comment, Administrator recall is adopted as a policy.
- Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068
- RoySmith, Barkeep49 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2024 Arbitration Committee Elections. ThadeusOfNazereth and Dr vulpes are reserve commissioners.
- Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate from 3 November 2024 until 12 November 2024 to stand in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections.
- The Arbitration Committee is seeking volunteers for roles such as clerks, access to the COI queue, checkuser, and oversight.
- An unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in November 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!
The Signpost: 6 November 2024
- From the editors: Editing Wikipedia should not be a crime
- In the media: An old scrimmage, politics and purported libel
- Special report: Wikipedia editors face litigation, censorship
- Traffic report: Twisted tricks or tempting treats?
Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research
Hello,
I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.
Take the survey here.
Kind Regards,
BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 18 November 2024
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)