Wikipedia talk:Administrators' newsletter/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Headings

I like the idea of the newsletter. Can we please use real headings though, for screen reader users like me? It'd be much easier for me to navigate the newsletter if this was done. Graham87 16:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Graham87: Quite a reasonable request, but I'm concerned about cluttering people's talk pages with lots of headers. I modeled this from the Tech News layout. Is there another kind of layout that would achieve the same level of accessibility without requiring 5 sub-headings? Sam Walton (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: Not that I can think of. I guess it'll be usable for me as it is; I just realised I can navigate between graphics. Graham87 05:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

page structure

Currently, the page structure is as:

==Current issue==

{{/2017/1}}

I propose changing this to:

{{Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Current issue}}

Then create Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Current issue to be:

{{Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/2017/1}} (this subpage would then be updated with each new issue, rather than updating directly on the main newsletter page)

I have a few reasons for this - all of which are related to transclusion. First, by linking to the subpage with the full address, it still works regardless of where it's inserted (ie: if an admin wants to transluse it onto their own user page or some subpage of their user page, it still works). Next, this removes the redundant header "Current issue"; presumably, any issue on this page will be the current issue, so spelling it out just adds clutter. Lastly, by adding an extra sub-page at "Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Current issue" to contain the updates gives more flexibility to anyone who wants to transcluse the page - as they can get the meat of the issue without the additional header and logo materials.

I thought about being bold and making these changes; but as this is new and is still developing anyway, I decided to get comments first. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

That's a great idea, go ahead Barek! Sam Walton (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll update it as proposed above once I get home tonight. This suggestion came about when I tried adding it to User:Barek/tools and the current structure caused problems - I figured other users may run into the same issue. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) 12:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Another nice thing about this approach is that editors can put Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Current issue on their watchlist and thus get notified when a new issue is released. (The Signpost does something similar.) isaacl (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

None of this is necessary, because one can already get just the issue by using {{#section-h:Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter|Current issue}} without the creation of a page just for that purpose.Pppery 20:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, when I created the above, the box around the issue didn't exist ... my intent was that formatting (such as that box) would exist at Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter, while the text contents would exist at Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Current issue. The result being that if someone wanted to transcluse the text, they could do so into whatever formatting (box, background image, whatever) they might want. If there's a way to strip out that

box from the transcluded content, I'm not aware of it. In the meantime, for now I'll go ahead and move that formatting to the main newsletter page to keep the article box cleaner. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of the method used to extract the contents of the current issue, for ease of use it is preferable to have a wrapper page, so subscribers can include or link to a simple page, without having to know how to use section transclusion or having to keep modifying version info. isaacl (talk) 03:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration

Should we include every notice at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard, or just some? I don't see the need to duplicate the page in its entirety, but I'm not sure what the cut-off for 'newsletter-worthy' should be. Sam Walton (talk) 11:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Pinging @MusikAnimal, BU Rob13, Samtar, and Mkdw: for opinions, since the first issue will be going out this week (please take a look over it too!) Sam Walton (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps just the latest two or three? -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 15:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to lose something just because it happened early in the month. Sam Walton (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Notices aren't exactly frequent, so I'd think each newsletter could easily carry a short mention of all notices since the last newsletter - just short line, linked, should suffice for each one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

PS: First issue looks good to me - concise and factual. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll recuse myself from this decision since I'm on the committee. I'm sure whatever you decide will be fine. Mkdw ^talk 16:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I would include any ArbCom resolutions that affect the broader editing community, such as new topics that are subject to discretionary sanctions. Things related to specific editors or a specific page probably won't be of greater interest. So personally I currently don't see anything on the ArbCom noticeboard that's newsworthy to your average admin. However semi-related to the section about outing and harassment, the WMF has just announced the harassment grant, which should bring a number of improvements to admins tools in 2017 [1]. I will try to add this myself to the first issue that's about to go out — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Eh, looking at the first issue, we've listed only two ArbCom related items. That doesn't seem like too much, so nevermind me... :) But overall I stand my opinion that resolutions related to a single editor aren't usually that relevant to your everyday admin. All the ArbCom stuff is covered in the Signpost too, right? — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm probably not going to participate here too much going forward, given that I'm not currently a sysop. The WMF's statement on paid editing, ArbCom's response, and the ongoing RfC should have a line. That's a major happening for ArbCom. Other than that, I would restrict it to major announcements (discretionary sanctions expanded/rescinded, major changes to remedies that admins should be aware of, cases closing). We definitely don't need to list every notice at the ArbCom Noticeboard. Things like topic bans being lifted, etc. doesn't really belong on a newsletter. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm feeling like discretionary sanction changes and other major changes that admins should be aware of should be what we focus on, and not things that only affect individual editors. Sam Walton (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Design

Feedback on the newsletter's design is welcome (see the Template and current Example newsletter). I'm aware it's quite basic right now, so if anyone has suggestions for improvements, or wants to go ahead and make improvements, here is the place to discuss that. Sam Walton (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Basic is good, waffle and hot air would be bad. Just a concise list of key points is what I think we need, with links for people to follow if they want the details. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, basic is good - we don't need lots of boxes or colours. The most crucial thing for me is that talk page archive bots can pick up the timestamp and archive the newsletter. I see the newsletter finishes with a timestamp so hopefully that should work - I'll find out in a month or so! WaggersTALK 14:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, hopefully so. I'll see if I can get the timestamp on the same line as Discuss - Subscribe - Archive for next issue, it was a last minute thing I remembered about. Sam Walton (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

How should the newsletter be distributed?

The newsletter was originally conceived to be something that all administrators would receive by default. This raises the question, though, of whether it should be opt-out (with admins signed up automatically), or opt-in. I personally favour opt-out, since the ideal audience is admins who don't usually get too involved in these sorts of discussions and processes, and may miss needing to opt-in. Sam Walton (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Making it opt-out is going to annoy a lot of admins but is probably the right way at least to get started with this. A mass message to all admins might be worth considering as another option. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

As a general rule, for most communications, I prefer opt-in over opt-out. But to get it started and to get admins aware of it, I can understand the desire to make it opt-out to get it off the ground.

I like the proposal that Beeblebrox suggested, a mass message to all admins that announce it, then make it opt-in from there may work. Optionally, make the first issue or two a mass distribution, with the top item being "introductory issue(s) - if you wish to keep informed, opt-in here to continue receiving this newsletter". As new admins are added, the same type of auto-distribution and invite to opt-in could be done with the next issue to come out after they've gained the mop. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Bear in mind that a lot of goodwill will be burned by sending an opt-out newsletter to a large audience (some users really, really hate getting unsolicited mass messages). So consider carefully if the end result will be worth it. isaacl (talk) 04:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

A one-time mass message announcement with a link for opt-in seems very reasonable to me. Mkdw ^talk 20:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I like that, too. Bishonen | talk 22:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC).

I like the mass message opt-in option. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Barek, Mkdw, Bishonen, and RileyBugz: What do you think about the potential for this newsletter to reach and educate those administrators with low activity who don't tend to engage or keep up to date with guideline/policy changes, and who likely wouldn't opt-in as a result, who could be kept informed if this was opt-out? I'm not against the mass-message and opt-in idea, but this was the idea behind opt-out. Sam Walton (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I really don't like it, Sam. Going by myself, I think people react badly to being educated. If they wouldn't opt in, they won't like feeling spammed. Bishonen | talk 00:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC).

Going back to what Isaacl said, it seems to me that this could destroy some trust. I feel like it would be ok, although, to give admins updates on major policy changes on this particular wiki. Major policy changes, although, would have to be short and just give a description of what was changed and a link to what was changed. It would be opt-out, and would be short and concise. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 17:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

What about a one-off transclusion of Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Current issue to all admins' UTPs? Active admins can do what they like with it (I'd probably transclude it to my user page, like the Signpost). Inactive users don't get much added to their UTPs, so it should remain obvious and would be up-to-date whenever they check. It should have a prominent link to earlier editions, for easy catching-up.  —SMALLJIM  00:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Should/could newly appointed administrators be automatically subscribed? WaggersTALK 14:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Newsletter

Great to see this coming out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I think having an administrators' newsletter feels a bit needlessly exclusionary, even if non-administrators are encouraged to sign up. I also think this newsletter sort of duplicates Signpost efforts, since the Signpost often includes admin additions and removals, a technical report, death notices, and information about arbitration proceedings. Just something to think about. I've done weekly reports, posts, etc. before and it can be a lot of work after a year or two. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

But this is monthly, not weekly, right? And we don't all subscribe to the Signpost, which includes too much stuff for me. Less is more, so I prefer this newsletter, and the first issue looks very well-balanced. I'm glad to see the backlogs aren't there. But about it being a lot of work to edit it once the first shine wears off; I'm sure it will be, and I remind people of Opabinia regalis's suggestion above for having fewer issues. How about every two months?

About the exclusionary thing; where are non-admins encouraged to sign up, MZMcBride? I haven't seen this encouragement. A good visible place for it would be in the newsletter itself, every issue. (In as few words as possible with a "Subscribe" link, no feelgood creep.) Since WP:AN has subscribed itself (clever thing!), non-admins would have a reasonable chance of catching sight of this invitation. In fact, I just went to AN and added "Non-admins are also welcome to subscribe" to the first issue, hope nobody objects. Bishonen | talk 16:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC).

The Subscribe page says anyone is welcome to subscribe; I agree that this should be placed in the newsletter itself.

Regarding the change to the adminstrators' noticeboard, rather than saying "Non-admins", I suggest saying "Any editor is welcome to subscribe." isaacl (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

As an admin, I particularly appreciate this newsletter in that it focuses on admin issues in a list-style, rather than prose mini-articles. Visually, it's eye catching. It's not a duplication, but a means of sifting out what is not relevant to admins. All the other notice boards and publications are a glut to read through, just to spot something pertinent. This is a very good first issue. Thanks for taking the time to do it. — Maile (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Totally agree with Maile . The concise list format rocks. Bishonen | talk 17:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC).

Same here - my thanks to everyone working on this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, what a nice surprise!! Thanks! :) Missvain (talk)!

I'm very happy with this, a good concise summary of events without the tiresome soapboxing of The Signpost. I'll be subscribing. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC).

Hi Bishonen. The subject-space page says "non-admins are welcome to subscribe" in a parenthetical. I think that's what I read and remembered. I should have said so more explicitly in my earlier post, but I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade here! I'm actually pretty glad that MassMessage and its fancy subscription lists are being used at Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Subscribe. A monthly frequency is certainly easier to maintain than weekly. This newsletter is a neat idea to try out. Kudos to Samwalton9 for getting it set up. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Excellent idea! Thank you. I am a low frequency admin and one of my concerns is that I may slowly lose track of changes, even major changes, so this is just great. A couple of notes: keep it focused on general issues all admins should be aware of; keep it simple, this first issue look just fine; don't do itr too much of a one man effort, or it will die out. Congratulations for not having a single link to "here" nor to "click"! :-) And keep a sharp eye and extra care on being neutral and accurate (as in, if JohnCD died and is no longer an admin, as of january the 8th, why is he not on the list?). Nabla (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Content

What do you think about the newsletter's suggested contents? Are some sections not needed, or do we need others? Sam Walton (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the featured admin should be added in, it seems a bit like it could produce jealousy or some similar feeling. Also, will "Guidelines and policy news" section have current proposals and/or discussions? If not, could you add it as a subsection or create another section for it? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 00:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I'd drop the "Featured admin" idea too - I just want updates on things I need to know, not more 'feel-good' chat. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Me too: I have a really visceral reaction against the featured admin thing. The most hardworking admin? The most laid-back admin? The one with the most amusing talkpage and the most friends? The least (or for that matter, most) controversial admin..? Etc. Also I have a concern about the ongoing backlogs. Don't those fluctuate too fast for a monthly publication to be much use? The way it seems to work now may not be perfect but it's fast: a frustrated user posts on ANI or AN that there's a long backlog at AIV or something. I have the impression that those notes are quickly acted on. But I certainly don't mean to be all negative, I think the newsletter is a very good idea. Bishonen | talk 12:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC).

The idea was to have some positivity in there, and to recognise admin work that often goes under the radar, but fair enough; I've removed that section. Sam Walton (talk) 12:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and the backlogs. The newsletter seemed like a good way to alert all admins to areas that are currently backlogged; the way I see this working would be to include areas that are backlogged as of the time the newsletter is sent out, getting extra attention then, rather than some kind of recap of areas backlogged over the last month. I think that's likely to be the most productive approach. Sam Walton (talk) 12:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

As Bish suggests, backlogs vary on a daily, nay, hourly, basis, and I don't think telling us what is (was) backlogged at a specific time once per month is really of much use - it will be obsolete information even before most people read it. I actually think it might be more useful to know which were the most backlogged things over the whole month, as that could attract admins to those areas, but I don't know if that information is easily available. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3) On the subject of backlogs, there are many areas which are chronically backlogged, and the newsletter should focus on those. FfD has been backlogged for half a year, at least, so we don't have to worry about the newsletter becoming quickly out-of-date unless it's surprisingly effective. We should focus on backlogs that many admins are able to clear to have the greatest effect. Edit filter false positives are important, but most admins are going to look at that and go "huh?". I'll work on that backlog myself post-vacation if it's still there, but I would expect that most admins receiving this newsletter would be lost. Adding something like Category:All Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons or WP:RFD would be more helpful. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Bish on the "featured admin" thing. The way to make this useful is to keep the information density high (I still think 12 of these a year is about 8 too many), and make sure past items are archived and searchable so someone who's been on a break for six months can quickly skim over old stuff to find out if anything important happened without getting bogged down in a lot of fluff about who's promoted and who's "featured" and what was backlogged last August. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think we need the section on arbitration unless they make a decision specifically related to admin rights or actions. The signpost already covers this pretty well. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• My two cents - amidst all the negativity around the idea, I wanted to write in support of the rough concept of the "featured admin," but perhaps changing it to "Did you know?" about an admin would work better. I like Samwalton9's point about some type of positivity, rather than this just being a clinical checklist of things that happened or need attention. The word "featured" is too loaded in our community, so that we think of featured articles as being the "best." A "featured admin" is not the best admin, but it's simply a way to highlight someone you may not have known about. I would like to find out more about admins I don't know, what good things are going on, and perhaps some novel things they are doing. A "DYK admin" box, or the like, would allow that to happen. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I like this idea. Perhaps it should be "Have you met...?" WaggersTALK 14:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• The first issue was just right. Links to changes and events that admins should know about. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Please provide small-box template with shortened headlines suitable for transclusion

For this Administrators' Newletter, please provide a template in a small box with shortened headlines suitable for transclusion to serve the same purpose that Template:Signpost-subscription does for The Signpost: basically, a small sidebar box so that the current issue can be "delivered" to the userpage via transclusion. Thank you. —Lowellian (reply) 19:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Lowellian: The small box is a nice idea and we should see if something similar will work here. In the meantime, you can transclude the full current newsletter via Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Current issue. Sam Walton (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I second this idea. Rather than receiving a talk page message every issue (because too many notifications), I'd love to stick a permanently template onto my talk page which automatically updates with the latest issue, like many of us already do with Signpost. Deryck C. 16:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Lowellian and Deryck Chan: How's Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Subscription-box? Design and technical implementation stolen from the Signpost setup. I think it will need to focus on the 4-6 highlights from the current issue to save it getting extremely long, but beyond that it seems fine. Sam Walton (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I don't like the smaller font size. I think, as suggested, having shorter headlines is needed to keep the font at its normal size. isaacl (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Isaacl: I've upped the font size. The problem with shorter headlines is we start having to editorialise and/or lose the accuracy of statements. I'm open to suggestions, but I struggled to make the current points much shorter. Sam Walton (talk) 02:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Here are some examples:

• 2016 RFC closed with no consensus for implementing PC2.
• PC2 no longer available for use.
• Bots and bot operators must now meet a minimum activity requirement.
• Community health initiative to combat harassment announced.
• Response released from ArbCom to the WMF's statement on paid editing and outing.

isaacl (talk) 02:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I've added anchors to the main newsletter and two extra bullet-points (for new admins and obituary) onto the subscription box. I hope you like it! (Editorial team: feel free to undo me if you don't like the changes) Deryck C. 22:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Target readership versus distributed readership

On the top of the newsletter it states, "sent to administrators".

• Does Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Subscribe restrict editors who do not have administrative rights from subscribing?
• Would we consider changing the wording to "The administrators' newsletter is a monthly update on administrative issues and information."?

• I removed "from the past month" since it is redundant as the sentence already includes "monthly update".
• Remove "should be aware of or that may be of interest to them" for conciseness. It's implied from the nature of newsletters are for the distribution of information of interest to the reader -- especially on a subscription model.
• If there are no restrictions on who can subscribe, then I think the newsletter, while specifically written with admins in mind, can be for everyone.

Just some thoughts, Mkdw ^talk 20:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Didn't see WT:Administrators#Administrators' newsletter but questions are the same if the wording needs updating at the top. Mkdw ^talk 20:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts Mkdw! I've reworded a bit, but I put almost zero effort into the page text; feel free to write whatever you think would be appropriate there. Sam Walton (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Wow, I went back and reread what I wrote and it barely makes any sense. I must have been very tired when I wrote it. Anyway... the changes look good Sam. Mkdw ^talk 00:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm supportive of letting anyone sign up for this, its not like it is "secret". Added "Any editor is welcome to subscribe to the newsletter." on the sign up page. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Name

The name should be "Administration newsletter", not "Administrators' newsletter". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I like that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Accessibility

I see Graham has ready addressed the issue of headers, above.

I've just added some alt attributes to the icons.

It would be better to use proper lists, styled with {{Flatlist}} or similar, rather than hard-coded bullet points. Though that's more complicated to do if they are proceeded by an icon.

If this template is copied from the tech news template, and perhaps others are similar, these issues should be resolved at the "parent" level. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Thanks, do the alt attributes for the icons need to have something written in them? As for tech news, this newsletter copied the layout, but not the source code, so I don't know if the issue exists elsewhere. Sam Walton (talk) 13:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

For some images, there is already content in the alt attribute; for the others, a null value is appropriate, as they're decorative rather than informative. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Daily Mail RfC

Thanks for compiling these. One piece of missed news from Feb was the RfC on the reliability (lack of) of the Daily Mail. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Espresso Addict: I think we discussed including that but decided it was more a general content issue rather than something relevant mostly to admins. This is intended to highlight only the news that is largely important to administrators acting in an administrative role. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Obviously you must find your own inclusion criteria, but as an intermittent admin, I'd find a wide selection of topics useful. In my experience, there are often disputes over whether the Mail is a sufficiently reliable source that involve admins via main page content/errors. Its obits have been a frequent cause of contention at ITN, for example. I'd also see enforcing anything touching on BLPs as an important admin role, where the reliability of a major source of personal information is important. And it's also likely to be relevant in content disputes where one good-faith party is unaware of the source's unreliability; the change in policy might be relevant to decisions on whether to block. Perhaps I just see acting in an admin capacity as much wider than just pressing a few buttons... YMMV. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Espresso Addict: Hmm, those are fair points. I don't think it reaches as far as some other changes, but it could be included if we have room. So far, next month's newsletter is rather short. If there's still leftover space, I'll see about including it then. We're also trying to balance the size of this thing, since a large newsletter is one that no-one reads. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Re: redirects

[2] @Samwalton9, I thought this was worth adding as anyone involved with AfD closures (a wide swath of infrequent admins) would have few other ways of knowing that they can skip changes to the WikiProject banners  czar 11:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to all involved

I really appreciate the efforts of everyone involved in putting this together. I think it'll be a great tool to keep track of changes in policies that apply to the tools you rarely use. Guettarda (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thank you – Fayenatic London 22:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree! – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 02:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Was that it?

Just the two issues? Mjroots (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Just haven't got the latest issue sent out yet - should be sent today or tomorrow :) Sam Walton (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Archive

@Optimist on the run: Regarding this edit: I definitely made a mistake when initially naming the pages, which leads to "2017/1" being the newsletter that is sent in January, but describes what happened in December. My edit was an attempt to make that make a little more sense in the Archives; if I want to know what happened in February 2017 I'd expect the link that says February to take me there, not the one that says March. Thoughts? Sam Walton (talk) 09:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

To put the edit in context, I received the latest version this morning, clearly entitled Administrators' newsletter – May 2017 [3]. I couldn't remember what was in the previous edition, so selected the archive page and clicked on April. However, this brought me back to the same newsletter, and I found I had to select March to read the edition that was issued in April. This is obviously wrong. I don't see what's confusing about labelling Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/2017/1 as January, Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/2017/2 as February, etc. Optimist on the run (talk) 11:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes, that makes sense. Alright, happy to leave it as is. Sam Walton (talk) 11:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Should the newsletter be used to target specific backlogs?

Basically the title of the section. Should we be declaring a "backlog of the month" to try to encourage admins to help reduce administrative backlogs? I think it would be a positive addition to the newsletter on an "as space allows" basis (if we have a long newsletter one month, it could be easily dropped). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support as a productive idea. — Maile (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• I definitely think something like this could be done. Or at least certain 'call to actions' such as the need for administrators being discussed about SPI. Mkdw ^talk 19:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

July

The July issue (reporting on June) could use a little love before it goes out on Saturday. Mkdw ^talk 23:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Typo in the August newsletter

"as a result undisclosed paid editing" should be "as a result of undisclosed paid editing". Urhixidur (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed in the newsletter archive, but the message is substituted when it's sent out to user talk pages, so they will continue to reflect the typo. It's not a big deal, though; the meaning of the text is still clear. Mz7 (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Icon for the newsletter

Love the newsletter! By the way, would it be possible to remove the circle around the Wikipedia globe in the newsletter logo? It sort of looks like a no symbol right now, with the mop acting as the diagonal line. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

That's a good point. Pinging FriyMan, who made the logo. Sam Walton (talk) 08:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I will try my best. It'll take about 2-3 days for me to do, but expect to see a new logo soon. Cheers, FriyMan ^{Per aspera ad astra} 08:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Oops. Cheers, FriyMan ^{Per aspera ad astra} 06:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

July 2017 newsletter not delivered

It was added onto the main newsletter page, but it has not been delivered to the newsletter subscribers. —MRD2014 17:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Done. Sorry for the wait! — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• I think this happened again? czar 00:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Resolved czar 02:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Another RfC

@Mz7:, Just asking whether you are aware of WT:Administrators#RFC about reconfirmation procedures –Ammarpad (talk) 06:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ammarpad: Ah, thanks. I wasn't aware of that RfC. I am hesitant to add it to the newsletter at this point, however. Note that Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Guide states that the purpose of the policy news section is to call attention to policy changes that have been implemented since the last issue, not to ongoing RfCs. The reason I've included the paid editing one right now is because (1) there doesn't appear to have been any significant policy changes affecting admins implemented in the last month, and (2) it appears to be a fairly significant change with a likely chance of passing. With this in mind, I'm more inclined to hold back on the reconfirmation RfA RfC until it passes. Mz7 (talk) 06:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I am hesitant about it too, that's why I asked for second thought. And I am satisfied with your reasoning. Thanks –Ammarpad (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ammarpad and Nihlus: I think I'm going to start the publication process for January. Could you please look over the newsletter to double check if I have missed anything? Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mz7: It looks good to go. –Ammarpad (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Mz7 (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

"Administrator changes"

One thing that has bothered me is the lack of distinction between procedural administrator changes and those done by RfA. I think something like this would be clearer (using the current issue as an example):

Administrator changes

Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni

Longhair • Vanamonde93

Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Not the most pressing issue, but I think it would convey the information a little better. Additionally, the icon is from the same set. (I guess you could also differentiate those removed for inactivity with those removed by choice/Arbcom, but that might be controversial.) Nihlus 01:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

That's a nice idea. I've never been super happy with returning admins being in the 'new' section. Sam Walton (talk) 10:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Could a brief visible word be included? I realize the icons have alt text that can be used by screen readers, but generally speaking it's best practice not to rely on unexplained icons. In particular, the icon for readded isn't obviously self-explanatory. (Adding a caption that appears when hovering isn't ideal, either, as some users lack the fine motor control to hover, and mobile users have problems with hovering as well.) isaacl (talk) 03:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone mind if a brief visible word is added to provide an explanation for the icons? isaacl (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Isaacl: I tried this with this edit. How does it look? Mz7 (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mz7: I don't like this change. The information the symbols convey is easily understood, especially with the alt-text that is included. Any further confusion beyond that can be cleared up by clicking on the link. The bolded text looks clunky and out of place next to the icon. Nihlus 20:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Alright, done. I've added captions that can be seen by hovering over the images instead – I realize Isaacl already thought of this, but I see that as an acceptable compromise. Mz7 (talk) 20:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

For the reasons I explained, I prefer having visible text, and I disagree that the meaning of the symbols is easily understood. Personally I feel we should put a higher premium on accessibility versus decorative icons. Unlike some other situations, there is very little gain in conciseness or compactness of appearance, and so there is no substantive functional advantage in using icons. I appreciate, though, that others have different views. isaacl (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		Thank you to those who put in the effort to send out the newsletter —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Inactive admins

It looks like the inactive admins were missed from the latest newsletter. There are three listed at Wikipedia:Inactive administrators. It looks like the bot was down so no notice was posted to WP:BN. I've updated the newsletter guide to mention the inactive administrators page in case that happens again. Sam Walton (talk) 12:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: My understanding is that the newsletter only covers events that occurred in December 2017, during which there were no desysops at all according to Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2017#December 2017. The desysops that happened earlier today (after the newsletter had already been sent out actually) would therefore not fall under this edition of the newsletter – they should go in the next one instead. Mz7 (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, they weren't missed by us but rather the bureaucrats and the bot. They will be included on the next newsletter. Nihlus 02:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake, I didn't notice the desysopping actions didn't happen before the newsletter went out. Carry on! Sam Walton (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't subscribe

Every time I click the edit link I get a message saying to try again later, but I can edit other pages and this page has no protection template. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 23:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@ZLEA: That's strange. In any case, I've gone ahead and added you to the subscription list myself. This should let you receive next month's newsletter. If you change your mind and no longer want this newsletter, you can go to Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Subscribe and remove your user talk page from the list. Mz7 (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Admin changes

Shouldn't Davidcannon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) be on the desyop list now? They made their last contribution on 16 Jan 2017 only to log in a couple of days ago to edit on 26 Jan 2018 - IE a gap of more than one year? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: He was on the list to be desysopped for February but edited after being notified and therefore removed from the pending list. Nihlus 09:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Doesn't really seem to be in the spirit of being an admin though. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

New Inactivity note for next newsletter

Please note This RfC closed and should be mentioned in the next news. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

While I think the email RfC may also be of interest for the newsletter, by the heading, I'm guessing you meant to point to the request for comments on a change to the inactivity policy? isaacl (talk) 05:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done. I've added both the email and the inactivity discussions to next month's newsletter. Mz7 (talk) 06:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Temporary removal of privileges

Regarding noting a temporary removal of privileges, it is really necessary to raise these in the newsletter? It doesn't happen a lot, but all the same, is it something worth drawing attention to? isaacl (talk) 03:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

This month's notation was a rather unusual case - I don't expect to see it often. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

In general, it's pretty rare anyone asks for temporary removal of privileges. (As you already know, but just saying it as context for anyone else who isn't aware:) It typically happens when people travel, or when they just want to step back for a known period of time. I realize the timing of this request was atypical, but other than that, it was in line with past requests. But that's kind of beside the point: do administrators need to be made aware of administrators temporarily relinquishing their privileges, regardless of why or when? Does it matter who did this in the past month? isaacl (talk) 03:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, in this case it's just weird to say "here's our new admin" and they don't actually have the bit. Some clarification seemed appropriate. Beyond this edge case, I don't think we'd make note of any temporary removal unless it is for an extended period of time. This information is useful to admins because they often ask for assistance from fellow admins, so it's good to be in the loop on who's on the team. — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Flipping the bit is a matter of someone getting to it; there's no guarantee of when it will happen after the RfA is determined to have passed, anyway. Since requests for temporary removals (fixed term or otherwise) are rare, I agree it's manageable to have notifications in the newsletter. Should it ever become more common, though, it would probably be better for administrators to watchlist the bureaucrats' noticeboard. isaacl (talk) 04:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Isaacl: I also think this was an unusual case that won't happen very often. Under normal circumstances, if an administrator asks for temporary removal of permissions, they would go in the "removed" column along with the other removals. However, in this case, Lourdes got sysopped for the first time and then was desysopped within hours of each other. Ultimately, I was at a bit of a loss for how to notate the case. On the one hand, if we chose not to notate the removal, we would indicate that Lourdes is now an administrator... but she doesn't have the rights (she still hasn't asked for them back yet as I'm writing this). An alternative option would have been to list Lourdes in both the "added" and "removed" columns, which might be even more confusing. Ultimately, I settled on a middle ground and notated it explicitly with a footnote. I think this situation was all-around unusual and will not happen again in the near future. Mz7 (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I guess it depends on what the purpose of that section is for. Personally I see it as a list of people who have attained the community's trust to hold administrative privileges, whether or not they currently hold them, and a list of those who are no longer entrusted to hold administrative privileges. It sounds like you see it more as a transaction log, to take note of all additions and removals of administrative privileges. As I mentioned, I find it more useful to watchlist the bureaucrats' noticeboard to know who currently has administrative privileges, rather than review a monthly list describing what has happened in the past. I appreciate, though, that others might like to have a transaction recap. isaacl (talk) 03:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

This month's notation was a rather unusual case - I don't expect to see it often. Perhaps we don't need to include this in the next issue, however ;) ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Nope. I definitely agree that doesn't need to be notated. Mz7 (talk) 07:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Current discussions.

Hi Mz7, there has been a very recent consensus to change the WP:CORP notability policy. There is also a current RfC proposing the next step follwing the end of WP:ACTRIAL. Some participants have been complaining that they weren't even aware of the trial itsef. I don't know when your next newsleter is due out, but you may wish to mention these points. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Kudpung. I've already added the point about WP:NCORP (TonyBallioni suggested it as well a few days ago), and I'll go ahead and add the ACTRIAL point now. Newsletters typically go out on the first or second day of each month. You can read the draft of next month's newsletter at Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/2018/4, and feel free to edit it yourself if you want. Mz7 (talk) 03:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks fine. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

ClueBot NG

Thanks, newsletter editors, for putting a smile on my face. Cheers! :-) --PFHLai (talk) 11:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Forgive me for sounding negative, but why is the newsletter being used for April Fools' nominations? I mean, really? If it was one, can I recommend a note be placed beside? Nightfury 08:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• You tweaked our noses on April 1? It's getting to where you can't believe anything online anymore. Pretty sure nobody else did this. What is Wikipedia coming to ... once a year? — Maile (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I think April 1 is the notice. Anything further would be like a 'sign ahead' sign. Mkdw ^talk 16:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

On my comment, hope you know, I was just kidding. — Maile (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I meant to reply to Nightfury. :) Mkdw ^talk 16:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

This April Fools joke was neither inappropriate or called for. We did the same thing last year and it was well-received, so I just thought I'd continue the tradition :) The idea was to do something subtle, and hopefully the linked RfA page makes it clear enough that this indeed is a joke -- whilst also acting as a reference that ClueBot NG did in fact pass the RfA =P — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Amendment to 12th/16th Hunter River Lancers entry

I have been updating some of the content in the above entry as I am the Regiments Historian.

One error that I cant change is the image of the Regiments Colour patch - the one shown is around the wrong way. It looks like you have inserted the image shown so if this is correct could you amend it please.

A description of the correct colour patch would be:

a rectangle with a diagonal line running from top left corner to bottom right corner. In the top right triangular section the colour is black and in the bottom left triangular section the colour is blue.

Thank You,

Wayne ClarkeRazorback29 (talk) 02:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Razorback29: G'day, Wayne. Thanks for your efforts with the article. I assume you are referring to File:12th 16th Hunter River Lancers UCP.PNG. The source used in creating the file was Phillip Blackwood's Australian Army Unit Colour Patches 1987–2008 p. 62, which has black on the left and blue on the right, with the diagonal line running from bottom left to top right. Additionally, the Australian Army's own website displays in thus: [4]. Do you have any sources that back up your assertion that the diagonal line runs the other way? Additionally, can I please ask that if you are changing information on the article, that you cite the sources you are using for this information. This helps readers verify the information. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

New topic EVC

Hi adminnews editors. Please note, WP:EVC has gone live, and will largely replace the use of WP:ACCP. Read more at WP:EVC. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Xaosflux. I've added a blurb to next month's newsletter. Feel free to tweak it as necessary. Mz7 (talk) 04:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

New general sanctions topic area

@Mz7: Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Thanks, I've added it. Mz7 (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Renames of administrator accounts

Do we have any means to include these in the newsletter as well? I just discovered accidentally that in February Tokyogirl79 was renamed to ReaderofthePack, which would have been a useful info to have.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Dang, didn't realize that it'd been that long already! Yeah... I ended up changing it since I realized that it could be seen as a bit racially insensitive or at least like cultural appropriation. This is mildly related to my job, as some of the stuff the students were editing (topics on race and so on) was a little eye opening to stuff like that. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

  It is perfectly up to you to choose whatever username you want (though I must admit I liked the previous one), my point was that it might have been a good idea to announce on on the March newsletter (if there is any way renames can make it here automatically).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Heh, I also didn't realize Tokyogirl79 had renamed until now. I agree that this could be something we can note on the newsletter. The one potential objection I have in mind is that sometimes editors change their usernames for privacy reasons. Perhaps their username possibly connects them to their real life identity or an identity on another website. While obviously this would not completely hide their old username, it might obfuscate it. In these cases, it might defeat the purpose of the rename if we draw undue attention to it. Mz7 (talk) 04:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

That’s an excellent point, I don’t dislike the general idea, but if the newsletter does this it should be opt-in only, with email used to ask the admin if they are ok with it being in the newsletter. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

meta:Technical administrators

aka "the Kww safeguard". :p Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Are the process and standards en.wp will use to grant this right being discussed anywhere? I can't spot anything at WP:AN, WP:VPP, WP:VPT, WP:VPPRO or WP:BN. Thryduulf (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

  I don't think we've gotten that far. Deployment will certainly happen some time after the consultation process, which starts July 9 and runs for two weeks. We should probably wait until after that to figure out our process, in case things change. — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

  Seems to me like it should be similar to EFM, which also has the potential of affecting all users of a project if mishandled accidentally or intentionally. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

  No. Edit filters are trivial compared to what you can do with JavaScript. "Technical administrator" should be put well above adminship, even highly restricted rights like CheckUser — MusikAnimal ^talk 14:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

  But, I should add that the number of people who actually would benefit from "tech admin" is very small, even here on enwiki. It should be obvious who these people are, and I can even name most of them off the top of my head. So in other words I don't think (or at least hope) that "Request For Tech Adminship" will be a thing. — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

What? You want a safeguard against someone turning off broken tools? Despite the Foundation's smear campaign to the contrary, that was a very effective and thoroughly tested fix.—Kww(talk) 01:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not criticizing! I just wonder if the VE thing planted the seed on the WMF's mind that they want to restrict someone pages further than the usual any-admin-FPP. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Definitely not. There is no other major website that lets you touch JavaScript. On Wikipedia, it is a necessary evil because it allows us to build tools that greatly benefit the project, giving us full control over clientside functionality. In reality, it is a major security risk. "Technical administrator" isn't even a great solution, but it's a vast improvement. The community can still grant the new user group to anyone they so please (but I sure hope we'll be very restrictive about it). This is not a new form of superprotect — MusikAnimal ^talk 14:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)