Open main menu

Contents

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).

  Guideline and policy news

  1. G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
  2. R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
  3. G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.

  Technical news

  • Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
  1. At least 8 characters in length
  2. Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
  3. Different from their username
User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.
  • Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
  • {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

  • Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
  • Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Follow on last Nov. Ref. Desk discussionEdit

In reference to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 147#Ref. desk protection, I was wondering if you had any thoughts on the current discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Indefinitely protecting the refdesk. --RDBury (talk) 09:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 12Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dune (novel), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sandworm (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Partial government shutdown explanationEdit

Your common-sense explanation of the "partial government shutdown" on the Humanities RefDesk is concise and helpful. May I please copy it to post outside of WP?--Thomprod (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

If you give credit, sure! --Jayron32 14:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks!--Thomprod (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Your Teahouse responseEdit

I'm way behind. Here you gave an interesting explanation about being autoconfirmed, although you said the person had to edit 4 articles before they could be autoconfirmed. You actually meant 10 since it's 4 days and 10 edits, but in fact it could be ten edits to the same page. And that wouldn't even have to be an article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Several really good explanations in that archive.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Alright. I'm not sure why you're digging up a mistake I made over 3 months ago in the Teahouse, but I humbly apologize for my catastrophic mistake in judgement, and I hope that the damage I did in writing the wrong word 3 months ago will not cause undo destruction to Wikipedia. --Jayron32 13:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

indefinite protection of talk:tropical yearEdit

It seems to me rather strange that you protected a talk page indefinitely. I can see that there was a long track record of disruptive editing that merited a lot longer than the usual weeks or even months. I can see a case to protect a main space article indefinitely though it ought to be a really exceptional case for a high profile biography of a living person. Setting a time limit forces a review, even if it has to be because of renewed disruptive editing. Hard cases make bad law. In the case of tropical year and talk:tropical year, it looks like an anon editor is trying to make a good faith edit and the discussion about the change is happening in the edit summaries instead of the talk page. Would you unblock please? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I see that there is a wider discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Inability to use talk page at "Tropical year" so you may wish to see that resolved first. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
BTW, you probably don't have to read the whole ANI thread. I'm pretty sure you misread the protection log (or whatever) as you said when protecting the sock came back within minutes. It was actually over a year later, protection expired on 13:19, 31 January 2017 and you protected on 15:59, 31 January 2018 [1] so may be better to just unprotect. If you think this case has probably drawn their attention and decline to unprotect at the moment because of that, then maybe explain that at ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
BTW, the prior 1 year protection started in January, 2017, and ended a few minutes before VXFC edited in January 2018. That pattern (waiting on a protection to expire, then immediately starting to disrupt the page again) is standard VXFC behavior. I fully expect VXFC to start editing that talk page again. However, I have unprotected the page, per your request. Via con dios. --Jayron32 12:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 31Edit

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Beggars Banquet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Clave
Let It Bleed (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Ian Stewart

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Carrie LamEdit

Yet most of the content is already covered at Carrie Lam as Chief Executive of Hong Kong. It is not necessary to have the exact same information on two different articles. Doesn’t matter if it’s “repeated elsewhere in the article”, if another article already covers it, there should only be a brief summary and a hatnote on the primary article. Hayman30 (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but you didn't leave a summary and a hatnote. You wholesale removed the entirety of it. If you just tightened up the language, or left a summary and a hatnote behind, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. So, go do that if you want to. Shorten the summaries, leave the hatnotes, etc. But you removed entire chunks of relevant text with no further reading or summary left behind for others. --Jayron32 15:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
What do you mean I didn’t leave a summary? I literally said that the content is repetitive. If I had to be as specific as saying that it’s repeating content from another article, I apologize. And there is already a hatnote in the section, and I did left a short summary. Apparently you saw me removing a great deal of content and you exercised poor judgment by not looking into the matter first and hastily undid my edit. I won’t be touching he article now and I’ll just let the people who’s been working on the article handle it. Will be leaving a message on the article talk page. Hayman30 (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't follow. Here you removed all of the short summaries and hatnotes for a good half dozen sections. You didn't leave behind, as you say "a brief summary and a hatnote on the primary article." You quite literally did the opposite; you removed all of the summaries, hatnotes, and everything else. For someone calling someone else "hasty", you put very little effort into complying with the very guidance you just told me to do; you simply blanked out a half dozen sections of the article, and left no summaries or pointers behind to the content you called repetitive. --Jayron32 16:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh my word can please examine closely. All those sections were supposed to be placed under “Chief Executive” and I left that section behind along with the hatnote. That section was all the primary article needed as somebody literally just copy-pasted content from/to the secondary article (compare Carrie Lam#Disqualifications of localists and Carrie Lam as Chief Executive of Hong Kong#Localist candidates' disqualification). It was you who put absolutely no effort looking into my edit and assumed bad faith because of the amount of content I removed. And can you not assume that you’re always right for literally one second? Shit happens, take it. Hayman30 (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I always assume I'm always wrong, so I'm one step ahead of you there. --Jayron32 18:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).

  Administrator changes

  EnterpriseyJJMC89
  BorgQueen
  Harro5Jenks24GraftR. Baley

  Interface administrator changes

 Enterprisey

  Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
  • Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

  Technical news

  • A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

  Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

NoteEdit

How does an actual "new" user know to go to a specific user and proclaim that they're a new user?[2] The user's approach reminds me a little bit of the banned Bowei Huang or whoever the name was, but it could just be a brief shot. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 8Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ska punk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sublime (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Your unilateral move of Ashmont–Mattapan High Speed Line to Mattapan TrolleyEdit

This is a bush move. Don't do this. Nobody gives a rat's ass about what the official name is. What matters is what people call it. See WP:COMMONNAME. Also see the two recent discussion on the talk page where it was decided not to move the article. Either you are aware of these, in which case you know perfectly well that the move was way out of line, or else you're not aware of them, in which case you shouldn't be moving articles. Herostratus (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I have fixed the problem. As a side note, if you had not have been an asshole in the tone you took with me, I still would have done so. You can be polite and still get things done. --Jayron32 15:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
OK, sorry. Herostratus (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

PingEdit

Hi - I tried to ping you from the "Meaning of life" paragraph at the Teahouse. I think you ping someone if you responded to their comment or edit. I didn't realize you were an administrator so I'm sorry for taking your time on my learning experiment. Eschoryii (talk) 06:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok. --Jayron32 13:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

US 311Edit

NCDOT made it official last month, US 311 is no more south of Winston-Salem. I figured you would want to make the edits to U.S. Route 311 since you have made recent changes to it first. --WashuOtaku (talk) 02:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

They had received permission to do so from AASHTO. Do we have sources showing they are taking down the signs? If so, we can start fixing the article based on the sources. --Jayron32 14:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:In the newsEdit

You broke the 'hidden' stuff here, and the words "readd if Lagerfeld is promoted to blurb" were displayed on the main page. I've attempted a fix but you might want to take another look in case I've misinterpreted what you were trying to do... GiantSnowman 15:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I think I just fixed it. --Jayron32 15:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

FAC: Christgau's Record Guide: Rock Albums of the SeventiesEdit

Hi hii. Would you care to review or offer comments to this nomination? Apart from one substantial review, it has been relatively stale so far. Dan56 (talk) 14:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion notice - Wikipedia talk:Adding open license text to Wikipedia#Requested move 25 February 2019Edit

  Hey there! I'm Psantora. There is a move discussion at Wikipedia talk:Adding open license text to Wikipedia#Requested move 25 February 2019 requiring more participation, please consider commenting/voting in it along with the other discussions in the backlog (Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings). - PaulT+/C 16:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


Administrators' newsletter – March 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

  Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
    • paid-en-wp wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • checkuser-en-wp wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Ref deskEdit

If that user persists in asking about his favorite subject, vasectomy and its variations, do you recommend just hatting it right away, to be done with it? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't recommended things, but that's what I plan to do myself.--Jayron32 02:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Rogereeny. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Jayron32".