Jump to content

User talk:Cuchullain/Archive 37

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39


Administrators' newsletter – January 2019

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)

All my Best Wishes for 2019

Thank you Cúchullain for all your years of dedication to Wikipedia
and particularly for your consideration and kindness at a time when those attributes truly made a difference. With my gratitude,    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Roman Spinner! Happy new year!--Cúchullain t/c 20:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
And a very happy new year from me as well. All the best  — Amakuru (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Amakuru! Happy new year to you too!--Cúchullain t/c 18:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day meetup at University of Florida on January 15

Remember when you asked to be notified about the next Wikipedia meetup in Gainesville, Florida? Good news! I'm organizing a meetup to celebrate Wikipedia Day at the University of Florida Marston Science Library from 4pm to 7pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2019. You can find more about the event on its event page -- I hope you'll be able to join us!

If you wish to opt-out of future notifications, please remove yourself from the list of interested users. Alternatively, to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Thank you so much for your attention! -- Gaurav (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Eidyn at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 10:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Chimpanzee

When you turned Chimpanzee from an SIA into a DAB page, you may have overlooked WP:FIXDABLINKS.

The change broke 1298 links. That is over 30% of the 4191 bad links to DAB pages reported by User:DPL bot. Narky Blert (talk) 10:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Narky Blert: Oh, I certainly didn't forget. A second move request to move Common chimpanzee to Chimpanzee was started almost immediately after I closed the Chimpanzee RM, which if successful would moot much link fixing efforts. The fact is that the links were broken whether this landing page was consider a disambiguation page or a (rather useless) set index. In fact, many if not most of the links were already broken, as they intended the common chimpanzee rather than the genus Pan. It's better to wait to see how the RM shakes out before devoting a lot of time and energy to fixing dab links.--Cúchullain t/c 13:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I have no intention of doing so. However, other DABfixers might waste time and energy. IMO it would be preferable to keep the page as a SIA until the new RM is concluded. Narky Blert (talk) 13:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
The set index was causing some confusion in the RM, and it colored !votes in at least 2 cases already. It's also not really an SIA candidate, as there aren't multiple items that share a name, it's 3-4 separate uses of the same name. The only advantage of an SIA here is that it doesn't formally show up as creating broken links, even though the links are in fact broken.--Cúchullain t/c 13:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Moving the dab page to the base name was not part of the move request. Why was it done? Also, how can you say "better to wait to see how the RM shakes out before devoting a lot of time and energy to fixing dab links"? If the links were intended for the genus Pan, aren't they all broken (wrong) now regardless of the outcome of the second RM? Or are you saying that it almost doesn't matter whether the links point to the species or the genus since few are likely to be wrong in either case? Srnec (talk) 14:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I put the dab page there because it's the only possible outcome of that move. With the article moving to Pan (genus), and no consensus (at that time) that the common chimp should go to the base name, there's no choice but a dab page. As for the broken links, not quite: after looking at 50 or so, many if not most actually intended the common chimp specifically rather than the genus, and as such were already broken. This is something that would need to be corrected, but there's no point in changing links to common chimpanzee now if that article is about to be moved, which looks likely so far.--Cúchullain t/c 14:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Was likely, but the taxonomy nazis have shown up. Srnec (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Silence might be construed as tacit endorsement of this statement, which has been noted elsewhere as disruptive. cygnis insignis 15:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't follow.--Cúchullain t/c 15:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for what? you considered my concern about a user characterising others as fascists and have not seen any difficulty in hosting that, as a last word, on your talk page. I can only comment, I suppose that is the all there is say, my opinion of that is my own concern; so it goes. cygnis insignis 15:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I didn't understand what you were saying. No, it's not kosher to call users names, especially "nazis". The fact that someone else posted that here does not imply that it's endorsed.--Cúchullain t/c 15:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Then I should not have thought that was the end of it. It is merely a stupid comment, undeserving of response, but speaks to a mentality that I am unwillingly to ignore; ignoring this 'us and them' mentality has had consequences to the well-being of this community. This is unavoidable but overdriven, I certainly have no ill will to anyone, including you 'hound'. cygnis insignis 16:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Move request

Hello! Two people (including myself) were in consensus of renaming Chance! (Koharu Kusumi song) and Happy (Koharu Kusumi song). Can you elaborate on why the discussion was set to "no move"? lullabying (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Lullabying. The requests were not supported by a consensus of other editors in the discussion. Moscow Connection opposed outright, and AngusWOOF supported another option entirely. All told, there was insufficient support for the move.--Cúchullain t/c 16:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I also supported AngusWOOF's decision and had proposed it myself in the second paragraph. lullabying (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
OK, I follow you. I don't regard that as enough support for that move. It would be better to wait awhile and try a new RM request that's for that name specifically so there's no confusion.--Cúchullain t/c 18:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Point (Outer Hebrides)

While I agree with you closing as no move to Eye Peninsula (since I even later on possibly thought it wasn't a good idea). It should have been moved to Point, Lewis as both I and User:Deskford pointed out if we keep calling it "Point", see Deskford's comment and WP:UKPLACE. I might have suggested a relist given that sources were lacking but given that it had been advertised on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland and been open for over 10 day's I don't think that would be necessary. So I'd suggest you changing it to "No move to Eye Peninsula" but moved to Point, Lewis, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that move is reasonable but I'm not comfortable moving it on just that level of support. You might try another RM at a later time to that title specifically.--Cúchullain t/c 15:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Done, along with some others, on 2nd thoughts although UKPLACE is clear that we use commas it might be worthwhile seeing if "Lewis" or "Outer Hebrides" is preferred universally. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eidyn

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Eidyn you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Buidhe -- Buidhe (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eidyn

The article Eidyn you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Eidyn for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Buidhe -- Buidhe (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Xennials

Hi, can you take a look at the Xennials article and talk page? We're close to getting into an edit war over the same issue you were discussing with editor Dynagirl. My last comment on the talk page is at the very bottom. Thanks! --Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Should I merge Owain mab Urien with Ywain?

Owain still having 0 sources and only about 1/5 traffic. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd leave the relevant categories for the redirect. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

They should probably be merged, but I'm not sure which is the better name. Owain was a real historical figure who became the source of the legendary Owain/Ywain/Yvain. They also need a total rewrite.--Cúchullain t/c 15:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I think of Ywain for content, Owain mab Urien just for historical categories & redirect. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. Even as a legendary character, "Ywain" isn't a more common name than, for instance, Yvain.--Cúchullain t/c 15:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Honestly I just changed my mind, they're better separate. And you might be right about Yvain ([1][2]) so change the name if you want. In which case List of characters named Ywain in Arthurian legend should be renamed too. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I already started changing Ywains to Yvain. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Btw I thought Fair Unknown should be about the concept. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

So can you just move Ywain to Yvain already? SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 07:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me?--Cúchullain t/c 13:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Redirect Ywain to Yvain. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 12:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019

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

Administrator changes

added Enterprisey • JJMC89
readded BorgQueen
removed Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes

removedEnterprisey

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)

Treason in Arthurian legend

I think it should be deleted for being a strange essay, some of the various material perhaps moved elsewhere if it's valid at all. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 10:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, since you're an admin - any chance for Cagwinn to return? --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 10:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that article. It's definitely more of a student paper than an encyclopedia article and I can't see any good way to save it. It should probably be deleted. As for Cagwinn, he'd have to appeal the block and commit to changing his behavior. I did reach out to him but he wasn't interested.--Cúchullain t/c 17:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Pan (genus)#Requested move 6 January 2019

Greetings, Cuchullain. I have an objection to one aspect of your closure of the discussion at Talk:Pan (genus)#Requested move 6 January 2019. I have no objection to the determination of consensus to move "Chimpanzee" to "Pan (genus)", but I disagree with the last line of the close, "In the meantime, the dab page will be placed at Chimpanzee". Of the eighteen editors participating in that discussion, less than one third expressly supported disambiguation of this titl (and even for the few who did, Jts1882 said that the title "should either be a disambiguation page or redirect to common chimpanzee" emphasis added). A substantially higher proportion of participants endorsed either moving Common chimpanzee to Chimpanzee, or redirecting the latter to the former. Creating a disambiguation page at a title with thousands of incoming links should not be done without clear consensus for the creation of a disambiguation at that title, and generally not without informing the experts in this area at the disambiguation project of the proposal for disambiguation. I would therefore ask that you revert that aspect of the close, so that either the broader consensus for a redirect of the title to Common chimpanzee is implemented, or the default redirect to the moved title is restored. There needs to be a separate discussion to establish a consensus to disambiguate the page. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I get where you're coming from, but I disagree, so I won't be reversing my call. Considering that the consensus was that the name was ambiguous, the standard solution is a dab page at the ambiguous name. We don't need to be so wonkish as to require that an editor must have made explicit reference to the dab page in arguing that the names are ambiguous, although many of them did. At any rate, I think it was the right and indeed only call. Leaving Chimpanzee as a redirect to Pan (genus) would have been against the consensus of participants, most of whom either said the names were ambiguous, or that common chimpanzee is the primary topic. That point is further proven by the fact that most incoming links, many corrected by you, were not for the genus.--Cúchullain t/c 15:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Most participants in that discussion said that common chimpanzee is the primary topic, period, whether as a redirect target or as a page to be moved. In any case, even if there is no primary topic between the related topics (genus/species), the solution would have been to create a broad concept article explaining the difference between them (the only other topic on the page being a relatively obscure film). Instead, we are left with a situation which may take months or years to resolve to the position actually taken by a majority in the discussion. I only ask that the move of the disambiguation page be undone so that a specific discussion can be had on this point. bd2412 T 16:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Again, I'm not going to reverse my decision. I feel that it was the best choice and really only choice.--Cúchullain t/c 16:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Move review for Pan (genus)

An editor has asked for a Move review of Pan (genus). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. bd2412 T 17:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Please. Nothing about my decision was out of process.--Cúchullain t/c 17:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, either the person who proposed the page move in the first place, or the handful who did propose moving the disambiguation page, should have notified the necessary parties. The point is that someone should have. If the discussion participants drop the ball on this with respect to moves with momentous impact on the disambiguation project, our best practice as administrators is to catch that. Besides, what harm could come from revisiting the discussion with broader community participation? It's not as though we're trying to force through a result by keeping potential participants in the dark, is it? bd2412 T 19:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I really don't know what you're suggesting. My friend, I think you're getting too worked up about this. Cheers.--Cúchullain t/c 19:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
In retrospect, everything worked out for the best, as you correctly suggested it might. My apologies for my stringency of tone. bd2412 T 16:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
BD2412: No worries, bud. Onward and forward!--Cúchullain t/c 14:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

:Harcourt Street station

Happy about the edit war in progress that you caused that will ge me banned from Wikipedia Harcourt Street station ??? Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

What?—Cúchullain t/c 18:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Eidyn

On 14 February 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Eidyn, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Eidyn, a Brittonic district of the Early Middle Ages in present-day Scotland, is the source for Edinburgh's name? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eidyn. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Eidyn), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 00:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Park Street station

Could you kindly move Park Street station (MBTA) to Park Street station? It looks like a pretty clear TWODABS case - the MBTA station has about 4x the views of the British station. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

And while you're at it, Park Street railway station (England) to Park Street railway station, as the disambiguation isn't really necessary. Useddenim (talk) 05:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I oppose both these suggestions. In terms of significance, the Boston metro station and the UK national rail station are probably around equal. And a metro line is still a railway line, so I don't see a case for moving either of the articles and having the base titles redirect to disambiguation is best. At the very least, this suggestion requires a full RM request. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
There was a RM at Talk:Park Street railway station (England)#Requested move 4 January 2018 anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, how about Addison Road (railway) station? There's Addison Road station, a Washington Metro station in Prince George's County, Maryland; and Addison Road railway station, an Underground and Overground station in London, England – the identical naming situation, and no disambiguation required! (There are other pairs; this is merely the first one I located.) Useddenim (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Pi.1415926535, Amakuru and Useddenim: Given Amakuru's opposition, Park Street station (MBTA) shouldn't be moved without a formal RM. I think there's a good case for it. As far as moving Park Street railway station (England), in addition to the earlier RM (which I started), I agree with Amakuru that "railway" alone is not sufficient to disambiguate a name. Readers shouldn't be expected to predict that British and North American stations have somewhat different naming conventions to find what they want. I've redirect Addison Road railway station to the dab page as we shouldn't have "Xxx station" and "Xxx railway station" pointing at different topics (it was just a redirect to Kensington (Olympia) station; I've replaced the redirect with one at Addison Road railway station (England)).--Cúchullain t/c 14:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

LLywarch Hen listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect LLywarch Hen. Since you had some involvement with the LLywarch Hen redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019

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) 21:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Art+Feminism editathon in Gainesville this Saturday, March 16, 2019

The Harn Museum of Art in Gainesville, Florida is organizing an Art+Feminism editathon this Saturday, March 16 from 11am to 4:30pm. You can find out more on their Outreach Dashboard or on the Harn's website.

If you wish to opt-out of future notifications, please remove yourself from the list of interested users. Alternatively, to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. -- Gaurav (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Melbourne Shuffle

Moved as per discussion on talk page. Tried to move it to Melbourne shuffle, rather than Melbourne Shuffle (dance), but it wouldn't let me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacondrum (talk • contribs)

Please respond

@Cuchullain: The move from shuffle dance to Melbourne Shuffle has been discussed, it's been 8 days and the consensus was to move. You moved it from the commonname page to the "shuffle dance" something completely made up, that no one has ever even heard of and none of the citations mentioned at all, without anything more than a POV rational. Why can't I move the bloody page now? Are you just being difficult for fun? There's no guideline I can see that says I can't just move the page, nothing about uninvolved ediors, infact quite the opposite, the way i read it I am supposed to follow through on my request after 7 days!?!?!?!...it's not a contentious move, there has been 100% support for the move in the discussion. If you csn't explain specifically and clearly why I can't follow the bloody guidelines and move the bloody page based on a consensus, then I'm going to move and report you for edit warring if you move it back again, you seem to be behaving in a very, very unreasonable manner to me Bacondrum (talk) 04:20, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Calm down and quit with accusations. The WP:RMCI (and my edit summaries) make it clear that involved participants should not close RMs. In addition to that, you’ve moved the article repeatedly to the wrong title. Just wait for an uninvolved closer to handle it. Thanks.—Cúchullain t/c 13:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining why, there are a lot of guidelines, your edit summaries explained absolutely nothing. Bacondrum (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Bacondrum: I appreciate that you're relatively new to Wikipedia, so please take this with the good will with which it's intended. There are a couple of guidelines you need to be aware of. For one, it's expected that editors assume good faith when dealing with each other. If you get a revert from an experienced editor like the ones I made, it's much more constructive to think there might be a good reason for it than to assume the worst. Second, if you're involved in moving pages, the procedures for that are laid out at WP:RM. The Closing instructions there make it clear that closings should be made by uninvolved editors, and refers to the procedures to follow at WP:RMCI. Thanks, and happy editing.--Cúchullain t/c 13:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I do try to assume good faith, sorry I assumed you were just being bossy. Bacondrum (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
No worries! Cheers and happy editing.--Cúchullain t/c 14:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019

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)

Swiderski

I can't find any reference on who Richard M. Swiderski is. Who is he? A lot of the Knanya article is written on the basis of his 'Blood weddings' book which is not peer review. I note he has an article in Oral History, which is borderline credible and a couple on Asian Folklore. But who is he? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josslined (talk • contribs) 01:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Asian Folklore Studies has an impact factor of 0.14, and Oral Tradition has an impact factor of 0.2. These are hardly 'reputable' journals.

Josslined (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

He’s an academic who wrote on the St Thomas Christians, especially the Knanaya. He’s published by reputable publishers. Easily reliable by our standards and one of the best sources for the subject. There has been extensive discussion on the talk page and no consensus for removing him.—Cúchullain t/c 01:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

He is not an academic (can you name his institution?). The journals are not reputable. There are better sources. Josslined (talk) 01:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Josslined: Sorry, but you're moving the bar. He was an anthropology professor at Bridgewater State University.[3] He published work on this subject in a variety of reliable journals as well as in a book. His work has been cited by other scholars[4][5][6] and reviewed in Asian Folklore Studies/Asian Ethnology.[7] Impact factor has no bearing on whether a journal is reliable, especially when it's covering a minority subject like this. Swiderski is objectively a reliable source for this subject. You are welcome to add additional sources, but please do not remove existing ones, especially ones as strong as Swiderski.--Cúchullain t/c 14:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Found a Kauffner sock

Hello, Cuchullain, I've found what appears to be a Kauffner sock: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/FineStructure137 . They share a similar interest in Christmas, the MOS, Asian topics, and he referred to the Chicago Manual of Style in this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:T%E1%BA%BFt&diff=prev&oldid=883244710, which Kauffner also did from what I recall. There's an older, stale sock I've found as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/The_lazy_mouse - same interest in pretenders that Kauffner shares, and one of the first few edits was to do a GA review, which https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/10W40, an even older Kauffner sock, also did as well. --92.7.175.176 (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Icon of a white exclamation mark within a black triangle
 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 03:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

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 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019

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)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda Arendt!

Chairman

I don't believe your close fairly applied WP:Article titles policy. You quoted a section of WP:COMMONNAME (When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others), but in this case, all verifiable evidence given by Oppose voters (as well as acknowledged by some Support voters) points to "chairperson" as being an incredibly uncommon term - even in reference only to women. It is not a valid part of the set of options which should be considered under that policy. I believe you have not weighed Oppose voters citing WP:TITLES/WP:COMMONNAME more heavily than those voting only on the basis of MOS:GNL. Its well-established that when there is a conflict, policy trumps guidelines, and votes should be weighed with that in mind, not simply counted per WP:NOTVOTE. Lastly, I believe your "approximately 2/3 of the participants here favored a move" doesn't account for some supports that clearly preferred a move to "Chair (something)". This close should be marked as "No consensus". -- Netoholic @ 23:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think your close was just fine. Well done, and thank you. – bradv🍁 03:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Netoholic and Bradv: Netoholic, I understand where you're coming from, but I don't agree. Chairperson is in "fairly common" use as was shown. I did give weight to those opposers citing COMMONNAME, but as I said I also considered what the policy says about instances where the most common option has problems. I didn't do a straight headcount of voters, but I didn't include those who preferred "Chair (disambiguation)" to the exclusion of "Chairperson". At any rate, I found the arguments in favor of a move to be stronger.--Cúchullain t/c 14:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Could you please explain what you define as "fairly common", and point to the specific evidence in the RM that indicated that? -- Netoholic @ 15:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Something that gets millions of returns in searches of the sources can be described as "fairly common", even if it's not the most common.--Cúchullain t/c 16:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Cuchullain, as you know you're an admin I greatly respect, which is why I'm surprised and disappointed to see you toss Wikipedia RM policy aside on this one. Your assertion that chairperson is in fairly common use was not proven at the RM, in facy it was the opposite, the evidence presented clearly showed it to be the least common of the options and basically a niche term. I thought I had made that point at the RM but perhaps I didn't make it clearly enough. If you felt the arguments in favour of moving to a gender-neutral term were sufficient to see consensus for a move, then the *only* available target for that move was Chair (officer), which was specifically recommended by many of those in opposition. I would urge you please to reconsider, and either move to Chair (officer) or declare ni overall consensus. The present title barely ticks any of the WP:CRITERIA. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi Amakuru. I think if anything is clear here, it's that a decisive majority of participants disfavor the former title of "chairman" and there are solid grounds for that based, based on both Wikipedia practice and real world experience. As such, I believe this qualifies as one of the exceptions that COMMONNAME mentions to its general guidance on selecting the most common name of all. I think there's a strong argument for "chair (disambiguation)", and that the article will likely end up at some title like that in the future, but I just don't think the consensus was there for it in the present discussion (That's natural considering the request was for "chairperson"). So I'm not comfortable moving to that title based on the discussion as we have it. It sucks to have to go through the ringer again, but I'd rather the "chair" issue be settled in its own dedicated RM. I considered recommending that we move directly to that now, but as we saw so many !votes where people opposed based on the short amount of time from the previous RM, I don't think that's wise.--Cúchullain t/c 16:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for your response. I guess we'll see about moving to a "Chair" variant in six months' time then. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I have supported the disambiguated Chair title in the past and will in the future, but I seriously doubt it will muster enough support because of WP:NATURALDIS. The guidance for this situation - most common name (Chair) requires disambiguation, and next most common name (Chairperson) is considerably less common - is not clear. The results of the ranked survey in the Mar 22 RM indicate that usage of Chairperson is high enough, and preference of natural over parenthetic disambiguation is high enough, to prevent consensus for disambiguated Chair from forming. --В²C ☎ 17:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Move review for Chairman

An editor has asked for a Move review of Chairman. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Netoholic @ 16:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Chairperson page history

Hi Cuchullain, thank you very much for closing the Chairman RM discussion and for your thoughtful summary.

I'm here to ask whether the page history or histories can be retrieved. It isn't clear how many articles were initially started; when I was listing the previous moves, I had difficulty working out what had been moved to and from where. I'll ping Graham87 (who works a lot on histories) in case he has advice.

  • Chairperson has 122 deleted edits. They go back to when the page was created as Chairman on 8 April 2003, then moved to Chairperson on 7 January 2006.
  • Chairperson's visible (non-deleted) edits go back to 17 December 2005‎, and seem to have been started as Chair (something). On 15 April 2007, the content of Chairman was moved into this page, but the histories weren't merged.
  • Chairman has one deleted edit from 4 November 2008 when JPG-GR moved Chairman to Chairman (version 2).
  • Chairman (version 2) has a history (all visible) from 7 January 2006 to 10 July 2008‎, plus the 4 November 2008‎ move and later edits fixing double redirects.

The page histories reflect the regular disputes about the title, which are apparent from the fifth edit to Chairman in April 2003, by Deb: "In order to avoid sexist assumptions, the position is nowadays more often called chairperson or simply the chair." Because this kind of issue has become an important part of Wikipedia's history, it would be good to make sure everything is undeleted and listed on Talk:Chairperson. I'm assuming history merges would be confusing or misleading. SarahSV (talk) 05:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: I only recently got this message ... what a mess. I've undeleted the edits at chairperson and moved them to Talk:Chairperson/Old history, along with adding a note to Talk:Chairperson about the relevant history. Graham87 11:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you SlimVirgin and Graham87. Deleting the old history was an error on my part (though as you say it's quite confusing). I believe Graham87's solution is the best - thanks for fixing that! - but I'm open to doing anything else folks think would be helpful here.--Cúchullain t/c 14:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Graham87 and Cúchullain, thanks for the replies, and Graham, thanks for figuring this out. If you don't mind, I'll move your comment to the top of the talk page and pin it. I was wondering whether any of the histories could be merged. For example, I thought the 122 deleted edits could have been merged back in. I'll take some more time to look at the chronology.
It's interesting because the pages show editors trying to move this to a gender-neutral term many years ago, including a comment from COGDEN in 2007: "Dude! I feel like I just walked into an Elks Club from the 1950s." I tried to find a template that would list the pages, but the only one I can find, {{CWW-multi}}, won't display talk-page links. SarahSV (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: I see you've already moved and pinned the comment. It's a little unusual but I guess it makes sense on a fast-moving talk page like that one. I looked hard but couldn't find any strict cut-and-paste moves (i.e. the text from one page being moved in its entirety to another, with no text beforehand on the latter page) so there's nothing that can or should be history-merged IMO. Graham87 03:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Graham87, I thought I did see a cut-and-paste move, but I may have been mistaken. I'm going to try to find time to figure out the chronology of those pages. I'm also going to ask at {{CWW-multi}} talk whether the template can be changed to allow links to talk pages, then we can add a template to Talk:Chairperson listing the histories. Thank you again for your help with this. SarahSV (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019

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

Administrator changes

removed Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

removed Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
  • An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
  • An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

  • The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
  • Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

About user Squash

Hi, Cuchullain. In your edit in 2007, you've added Squash (talk · contribs · count) to the list of missing Wikipedians. Just letting you know that Squash has edited again once in 2017, a bunch in 2018, and blanked their user talk page in March of 2019. —⁠andrybak (talk) 05:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

WJCT

Hello Cuchullain. In the recent merger of WJCT-TV into WJCT it appears that a number of recent edits (within the last 24 hours) made to WJCT-TV were lost. Will those migrate over at some point, or do I need to re-edit (at the WJCT page)? Gulbenk (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I can do it later today, if that works for you. Otherwise feel free. The whole article needs a rewrite.Cúchullain t/c 15:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
That would be great, if you could take care of that. At the moment I'm trying to clean up references at WJCT and several other related articles. Good luck with the re-write, and thanks. Gulbenk (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Gulbenk. Right now it looks like there will be consensus for sub-articles on the TV and radio stations, so those may be better locations for that material after all.--Cúchullain t/c 18:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cuchullain/Archive_37&oldid=1211797358"