Open main menu

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) 02:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Clive SwiftEdit

I have read the NFCC several times and the only distinction is between living people and deceased people. There is no edict to wait an arbitrary extra time after the person's death. The Clive Swift page was on this website for well over fourteen years and in that time there clearly had not been a free-licence image of him found by any of those editors who had contributed to it. I also did several searches myself before uploading that Doctor Who screenshot.

There are many articles about once-living subjects which sat image-less for a long time, and I do not know of any cases where photographs of the person were released under a free licence immediately after their death. In several cases (Baroness Trumpington, Lord Stewartby, Lord Richard, Peter Imbert, Charlie Gard) I have uploaded a fair use photograph within a month, or even a day, of the subject's death and it did not provoke any complaint. It was generally understood that if free images had not been found during the preceding years in which the subject was alive then they were not likely to suddenly emerge a week after the subject's death.

If ever a free photograph of Clive Swift does become available, it will of course replace the one that I used. Until then, File:Clive Swift 2007.jpg stands.

Robin S. Taylor (talk) 12:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Please see Talk:Dan Kneen#Images 'deleted' from article by an editor invoking a bot (twice). --Rocknrollmancer (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
You're wrong on two counts. Firstly, the site consensus is that non-free images are not uploaded immediately on death. There should be time taken to respectfully reach out to source a free image from family, agents, publishers, etc. Secondly, a non-free image of an actor in a role can only be used to illustrate that role, not the actor themselves. Stephen 23:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. It would be expeditious if you could point to any discussion where this (new-to-me term) "site consensus" was established; likewise the second point about any role of an actor.

Some years ago I approached an admin for advice and was bitten - twice, on two different occasions - then on the second occasion further lambasted for my 'ignorance of MediaWiki software' (loose quote). Accordingly, any further guidance from your previous involvements would be beneficial.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 12:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Have a look 5 sections up where a clueless admin had exactly the same issues with an image he uploaded (File:Chérif Chekatt.png). Stephen 23:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Michael RipperEdit

Hi,

I notice you have taken down the image I put up, File:Actor Michael Ripper.jpg, and left the comment "Not fair use as main image," but without any reason given as to why not. Can you please elucidate? Beryl reid fan (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

We shouldn't use an image of an actor playing a role to illustrate the actor themselves, it should only be used to illustrate the role, and then only if it is iconic in some way. Stephen 23:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

O.K. thanks. I found it hard to find a decent one of him, if I remember. Beryl reid fan (talk) 09:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC) Just found a decent one (much better, so thank you) and put it in the article. Beryl reid fan (talk) 09:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Drive-By PurgingEdit

Having rejected my pleas on Clive Swift, you are obviously pouring over my contributions list in a photograph deletion spree.

  • The photograph of Baroness Trumpington had two fair use rationales: the first was to illustrate the likeness of a deceased person, the second to show a notable event which, given that it was only recorded on parliamentary cameras, could not be available from any free-licence source.
  • You insist there is a consensus to wait six months (though, as admitted in the linked discussions, it is not actually in the letter of the rules), but Lord Norwich has been dead for eight months and yet you deleted him anyway. Your assertion that "a famous speaker would almost certainly have a free image available" strikes me as specious given there are plenty of famous individuals on this website for whom free images have not been found.
  • Linda Smith died just shy of THIRTEEN YEARS ago. Also, prior to the upload of my image, the same article already had a different non-free photograph of her, which had been in place for several years without apparently coming to your attention.
  • I don't really understand what you mean by "evidence" of attempts to source free images - I haven't seen this applied to the many dozens or even hundreds of non-free biographical images that were uploaded before my time on the same fair use rationales that I have employed. Certainly I am not inclined to believe that you have made any significant effort to check any of them during today's rampage - and if you had found free images to replace my non-free ones, surely you would have put them in place instead of just leaving the infoboxes empty?

Overall I am decidedly unimpressed by your behaviour. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The community has come to a consensus that non-free images of deceased persons should only be uploaded where it is unlikely that a free image could be found. When a non-free image is uploaded it should only be done months after the person has dies, and when a search for a free image has been exhausted. If Trumpington's image is being used to show a notable or iconic event then it should only be shown inline with the event. John Julius Norwich is a famous speaker and it is unlikely that a free image doesn't exist. Similarly for Linda Smith as a famous comedian. The onus is on you to show that you have exhausted all avenues before uploading a non-free image. The best was would be to document your extensive fruitless search in the talk page of the article in question. The onus is not on me as an administrator to search for an upload free images to cover your actions. Stephen 01:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

British EnglishEdit

Hi, this correction kind of undermined the consistency we've been aiming at at DYK to use British English for British subjects. The nominator himself used British English ("realised" instead of "realized") in his query. Yoninah (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid that's completely incorrect and Stephen's correction was exactly right in British English. We simply do not refer to station names in the UK in the way you are asserting. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Nick CafardoEdit

Hi - regarding your edit to remove a photo of Nick Cafardo; you noted "Not fair use, too soon after death" — I have not seen such policy, can you please provide a link to where that is documented. Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free content, Images, point 10. Stephen 05:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
The one that reads as below? There's no mention of time there... ? Dmoore5556 (talk) 05:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
"Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely. Note that if the image is from a press or photo agency (e.g., AP, Corbis or Getty Images) and is not itself the subject of critical commentary it is assumed automatically to fail "respect for commercial opportunity"."
The community consensus is that at least 6 months wait is reasonable to ensure that a free use image can not be obtained. Stephen 06:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the clarification; good to know. It would probably help for that to be added to the noted point 10. Dmoore5556 (talk) 06:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

RD: Vinny Vella: nopeEdit

Hi, an IP had added unsourced films to the article after nomination. I have removed it again, can you please check if it can be posted now. --DBigXray 07:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Handel, ChopinEdit

Wish you'd left this one alone for a while. What have you got against a little good-natured back-and-forth? – (or against me?) – Sca (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

No offence intended at all, just clearing some old reports and checking that nothing needs attention. It's not a page conducive to back-and-forth banter, and I didn't notice that your comments were so recent. Best wishes. Stephen 23:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
OK and thanks. All the best. Sca (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Archbishop of ChicagoEdit

"No error" – That's a matter of opinion. Sca (talk) 21:58, 1 March 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)

reEdit

re [1]: cheap, too cheap. For starters, there is also "big news vs. small news", you did not clarify. Anyway, no need to tell me "you know how this works" by your personal assuption/arrogance. Next time, speak for yourself. -DePiep (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

thank you - the loony fan has also targeted Marisa Siketa‎Edit

Thank you. That loony extreme Saddle Club fan has also targeted the Marisa Siketa‎ (who was also Melanie in Saddle Club) article for a long time. Can you protect that as well please? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 08:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

ThanksEdit

Thank you for fixing this awkwardly worded segment of the "In the News" section of the Main Page. It was bothering me for days! Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 22:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Revision deletion requestEdit

Hi Stephen, It seems that someone's personal details have been posted in this edit. So I was wondering if you could consider doing a Revision Delete please? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@1292simon: Done, thanks for the note. Stephen 20:54, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Wow that was quick! Thanks for deleting the Edit Summary. Sorry to trouble you again, but the personal information was also in the edit itself, so perhaps the versions by that IP editor should be removed from the Revision History? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks again, I missed the details in the text, that’s now been hidden as well. Stephen 01:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Great, thanks for that. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 04:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Is this an April fool?Edit

User talk:Jimbo Wales is usually edit unprotected and move protected. On 14 March you configured it to be indefinitely edit protected and move unprotected. Are you serious? 92.19.169.247 (talk) 08:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Read the protection log again as you are mistaken. Stephen 09:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, it was 11 March. Here's the log:

curprev 04:21, 11 March 2019‎ Stephen talk contribs‎ m 16,329 bytes 0‎ Changed protection level for "User talk:Jimbo Wales": Persistent sock puppetry ([Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (indefinite) [Move=Require administrator access] (expires 04:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC))) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.169.247 (talk)

The protection expired after 3 days, on March 14. It wasn’t indefinite. Stephen 09:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Stephen, I thought the IP was being silly at first, but looking at it again I think there actually was a mistake here... From [2] you changed the Move protection from "indefinite" to "expires 14 March", and the Edit protection was set to semi-protected "indefinite". Presumably you intended to set semi-protection until 14 March and retain Move protection indefinitely. I have edited the protection settings just now so that the page is fully editable, but only movable by administrators. If that was not your intention after the expiry of the protection you set, please let me know! Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I edit-conflicted. Thanks. Have a good day. 92.19.169.247 (talk) 10:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Jimbo WalesEdit

To avoid violating 3RR I won’t reinstate the joke again, but I’d appreciate it if you didn’t rollback WP:APRILFOOLS content as if it was vandalism. 98.118.32.140 (talk) 12:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019Edit

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

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

  • Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a 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. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
  • As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Remove old?Edit

That was your edit summary for removing "Recent deaths". Let me understand: Yes, Ruth-Margret Pütz died "already" 1 April, but news came around only 5 April (my talk), and official news a day later. Is that "old"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

No, my edit summary was ‘rm 2 old RDs > 7 days’. Per the instructions, Recent deaths more than 7 days old are removed. Stephen 10:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I understand that much, only think it's kind of unfair that it seems related to the date of death, in cases of a late information about that death, and that date of having been entered might be better to be used, perhaps per IAR when there a few anyway. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Fair use image on Shepard elephantEdit

 
Roger Shepard (2019) with poster showing Shepard elephant (4 legs, 4 feet)
 
Derivative version of Shepard elephant (4 legs, 5 feet)

There is a specific reason for using the fair-use image of a Shepard elephant poster in addition to the Wikimedia image of Shepard himself standing next to the poster. The article itself talks about (and shows a PD image of) a later derivative that has been widely circulated on the internet. The only difference between the two is derivative's addition of an extra leg, crafted from the "tail" of the original. Unfortunately, Shepard is standing in front of the most important part of the poster showing his original image. Therefore it is not gratuitous to include the fair-use image, which is an image of the same poster as the one Shepard is standing next to.

I took both photographs, both show the same poster. I uploaded the poster itself as fair-use because I did not want to dilute Shepard's copyright. I believe that showing the suitably-small fair-use image of the original Shepard elephant design in the article about the Shepard elephant is exactly the way fair-use images are meant to be used. It is unfortunate that Shepard is standing in front of the most important part of the poster in the other image. If he weren't, there would be no need to include the fair-use image, I agree. Please reconsider your decision to remove the fair-use image and undo it. Thank you. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Update, bot just notified me the fair use image will be deleted because it is no longer in an article. So I wish you will reconsider saving this useful information for ourreaders.Thanks. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
It won’t be deleted for a week. I don’t believe the non-free image is justified, as there’s a 90% uncovered portrait version, and a derivative version. The tail is not the most important part of the illusion, the legs are. Happy for you to discuss on a suitable talk page for non-free images to gauge further consensus. Stephen 03:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Where would be a suitable talk page for this discussion? The most important part of the image for the illusion is indeed the legs. But the most important part of the image for comparing the original to the derivative image is the part of the elephant that differs between the two images: the derivative's added leg at the back. Look at the two PD images above. You can not tell the difference between those two elephants because Shepard's torso entirely blocks your view of the relevant part of the image. That is why the fair-use image is essential to the article. Without it, you can't understand why the five-footed derivative is said to be different from Shepard's original. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@HouseOfChange:, from the discussion at WP:Media copyright questions it seems that the photo of Shepard with the Elephant behind him is wrongly tagged, so here's what I suggest:

  • Crop and upload an image to just Shepherd alone, and use to illustrate the article for the man and also include in sub-articles on his work.
  • Delete the image of Shepard and the obscured Elephant.
  • Use your standalone photo of the Elephant (the one showing the ambiguous tail) as a fair use representation of the artwork.

Does this make sense? Stephen 01:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Those sound like good suggestions, a much more productive use of time than arguing fine points of policy. Thanks for your help. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Let me know when you need any files deleted from here, and they're already tagged for deletion at Commons. Are you planning on writing an article for Shepard's other illusion shown in the portrait panorama (the two figures in a tunnel)? Stephen 01:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't plan to write about the other illusion, which is not particularly famous. There is an interesting thing called a Shepard diagram I want to write up, if I can find a free-use image of one. The idea behind it is very interesting. I also have part of an article written for ghost moose in my sandbox, but real life has been busy during the past few weeks. Thanks again. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Lists of AustraliansEdit

Categories are heirachical. Lists of Australians is included in Category:Lists of Australian people, which is already in Category:Lists of people by nationality. But I suppose it should be in the List of Lists category. Rathfelder (talk) 06:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognitionEdit

Hi. I think you may have forgotten to add ITN recognition after posting Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#(Posted) RD: Richard Lugar. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Stephen 00:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
@Stephen: Thanks. I just saw that I didn't get any alerts and wanted to make sure you hadn't forgotten --DannyS712 (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712:, no problem. Not every posting admin does it though, especially the drive-by posters, and there's no issue with you crediting yourself for the record. Stephen 01:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
@Stephen: In that case, should I credit myself as the updater for this one? For nominator its fairly clear, but whether or not one's contributions count as being the updater is less clean cut, so I prefer not to credit myself --DannyS712 (talk) 01:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
You made updates resulting in quality improvement, so it's fine in my view. Stephen 01:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712:, now I see my problem: I was confusing you with the other very similarly named editor who got the nominator's credit. I will fix the credits. Stephen 01:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circularEdit

 
Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)Edit

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


Administrators' newsletter – May 2019Edit

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

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

  Arbitration

  • In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
  • Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Quick NoticeEdit

Just wanted to let you know that your "My edit count" hyperlink on your user profile links to a 404-Not Found page. (I would send you a private message instead, but I have no idea how to do that--sorry.)

TheHardestAspectOfCreatingAnAccountIsAlwaysTheUsername (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll find another link someplace for edit counts. I create that one years ago probably on some long-abandoned counter. FYI. there are no private messages other than sending an email from the 'Email this user' link on the left-hand side. Stephen 03:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Only if you wantEdit

Hi! Nice to meet you!, could you review my nomination of former Nauruan President for RD?, I invite you!, regardless of your position!. Kind regards! --LLcentury (talk) 01:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@LLcentury: this was assessed by someone else and posted. Thanks for your nomination. Stephen 02:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Current template on Aeroflot Flight 1492Edit

Is there any specific rationale behind removing the tag? In my opinion the fact that the investigation is underway is enough of a reason to keep it up, as it encourages users to update the article with latest information. Cheers, FriyMan Per aspera ad astra 19:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Never mind, I should have read the description of the template. Sorry for disturbance. Cheers, FriyMan Per aspera ad astra 19:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Australian Labor PartyEdit

I saw you protected the page Australian Labor Party, however you might have forgotten to add a protection-symbol to the article! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Vif12vf: Done, thanks for the note. Stephen 00:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Stephen".