User talk:Stwalkerster/Archive April 2018
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Administrators' newsletter – April 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018).
Administrator changes
331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG
Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando
Guideline and policy news
- Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
- Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
- The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
- The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.
Technical news
- There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.
Arbitration
- The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.
Miscellaneous
- A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
- The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.
George Lefferts
I am one of the late George Lefferts’ son-in-law and I am curious to know why you deleted my edit. Shortly after George died, I just added his dates of birth and death, which are data that can easily be checked. I leave it to his blood-related family to edit his autobiography if and when they want - I don’t think they’re ready for this now - but I don’t see the problem with adding the dates. Thanks for getting back to me to clarify this issue. Cantarela1 (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hi there @Cantarela1: firstly, my condolences for your recent loss.
- We have a policy on Wikipedia to cite any facts which are reported to a reliable source, allowing readers to verify what is written. While this is always important, it is even more important when dealing with biographies of living (or recently deceased) people - we even have a special policy for it. This helps ensure that any material which is potentially damaging to someone is backed up by a publication which has a reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight; meaning people can't make up untrue stuff about someone. While I understand that as a family member at this time this is frustrating, but try to think of it the other way around - a new (or unregistered) user changed the article to report a family member of yours was dead, when they were actually alive - it would probably be even more upsetting, especially if other people saw the article and took action such as publishing obituaries for an alive person.
- I did actually do a quick search for any news articles about Lefferts' passing, but I couldn't see anything relating to it. If you would like to restore the edit, and you have something from which other people can verify themselves (such as a newspaper obituary), then please go ahead and re-add it with the citation. I only removed it because it was added without a citation, and I couldn't find anything obvious online about it.
- I hope this answers your queries, and once again my condolences. [stwalkerster|talk] 00:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your condolences, Stwalkerster. I am actually very happy to learn that edits are checked and it does make Wikipedia much more reliable than I thought. Re-sources , we’ll have an obit published in the New York Times. I will get back to you when it is done so that you can verify what I first wrote.
- I have a suggestion, though. For people like me who don’t know about this checking, couldn’t your username make it clear that you are a Wikipedia staff person? Thanks. Cantarela1 (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Cantarela1: I'm not actually staff, the vast majority of editors on this site are volunteers who offer their time to the site. The staff who are actually employed are more focused on maintaining the software and servers; they leave it to the community to manage the content. Some of us, like myself, have simply been around long enough to be entrusted with extra tools. [stwalkerster|talk] 17:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Realmissvoodoo and potential sock accounts
Hello, I noticed that you recently deleted the articles DreamDoll discography, DreamDoll, and Life in Plastic, actions which I fully support. However, I noticed this morning that a new editor whose name I do not remember recently contributed to one of these three articles under the name of "Realdawl" or something similar. Given that the editor that created the three pages (Realmissvoodoo) has often attempted to disrupt Wikipedia while trying to preserve their articles, I suspect the new user is a sock account, and as such I would like to file an SPI. Given that you can see the deleted articles, can you direct me to the new editor?--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- @SamHolt6: Chrissymad has beaten you to it - the other editor is Imdawl, who has incidentally stopped editing since Realmissvoodoo was blocked for disruptive editing. [stwalkerster|talk] 16:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
R. Lee Ermey
I saw what were you doing on that page, rolling back the totally obvious. It always makes me grin when I see this happening, because in the words of R. Lee Ermey to Pvt Pyle in the film Full Metal Jacket: "you made it!", you're attained hive mind/group think status. PMSL.86.135.187.163 (talk) 11:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Death of R. Lee Ermey
Hello Stwalkerster,
Those changes adding a date of death stemmed from a statement made from Sgt. Ermey's manager on Twitter. I'm still looking for a place of death. I'd like my changes to stay. Please put them back in place.
Statement from R. Lee Ermey's long time manager, Bill Rogin:
It is with deep sadness that I regret to inform you all that R. Lee Ermey ("The Gunny") passed away this morning from complications of pneumonia. He will be greatly missed by all of us.
Semper Fi, Gunny. Godspeed. Alchemist312 (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Alchemist312: Apologies I didn't see your message immediately, hidden away on a subpage. As I mentioned on your talk page, I removed your edit because it didn't cite a source at all. We take biographies of living (and recently deceased) people seriously - it would be rather upsetting to discover your death has been incorrectly reported by one of the top websites in the world! Additionally, Twitter is not classified as a reliable source as it lacks editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking. We're not a news source, articles don't have to be updated immediately on an event. [stwalkerster|talk] 12:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 April 2018
- From the editors: The Signpost's presses roll again
- Signpost: Future directions for The Signpost
- In the media: The rise of Wikipedia as a disinformation mop
- In focus: Admin reports board under criticism
- Special report: ACTRIAL results adopted by landslide
- Community view: It's time we look past Women in Red to counter systemic bias
- Discussion report: The future of portals
- Arbitration report: No new cases, and one motion on administrative misconduct
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Military History
- Traffic report: A quiet place to wrestle with the articles of March
- Technology report: Coming soon: Books-to-PDF, interactive maps, rollback confirmation
- Featured content: Featured content selected by the community