This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
There is an open request for comment on Meta regarding the creation a new user group for global edit filter management.
Technical news
Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.
Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.
Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
Auser script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.
Arbitration
Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
The Arbitration Committee's email address has changedtoarbcom-enwikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.
Hello, Xymmax. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Arequest for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
Arequest for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
Administrators and bureaucrats can no longer unblock themselves unless they placed the block initially. This change has been implemented globally. See also this ongoing village pump discussion (permalink).
To complement the aforementioned change, blocked administrators will soon have the ability to block the administrator that placed their block to mitigate the possibility of a compromised administrator account blocking all other active administrators.
In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (Raymond Arritt) passed away on 14 November 2018. Boris joined Wikipedia as Raymond arritt on 8 May 2006 and was an administrator from 30 July 2007 to 2 June 2008.
An editor has asked for a deletion reviewofJoseph Kevin Bracken. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 02:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!
Hello Xymmax, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Meatsgains(talk)01:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
@CyberTroopers: Hello. I blocked User:Ник Аҳмад Ридҳўан on 30 November. It looks like he had just come off a short block from another administrator for changing Sabri Azit to Jamil Khir Baharom in the Jerai (federal constituency) and Members of the Dewan Rakyat, 14th Malaysian Parliament pages. He had also posted the edit summary "Fuck you Sabri Azit" with one of the changes, this has been removed by someone else. I saw that his first edit after the block was to repeat the change from Sabri Azit to Jamil Khir Baharom, and this is why I blocked him. I did post the standard block notice explaining the steps needed to request an unblock on his talk page, but he removed the notice. If he is interested in editing productively, please ask him to post to his talk page. XymmaxSo let it be writtenSo let it be done18:47, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Xymmax, on 18 and 20 Dec you fixed and protected the Stay (Blackpink song) page from edits to make Jennie the lyricist.
At the same time 18:55 18-Dec a note to that effect was added to the Jennie Kim page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jennie_Kim&oldid=874355996
I think it should be reverted, but I'm not confident of doing it properly. Could I ask you to look at it please?
ba
The background to this is that Jennie made a comment in a video diary that was translated to imply that she wrote Stay. The translation was corrected but some fans are now convinced that there is a conspiracy to deny her credit.
The latest published credit for Stay, from the CD liner notes of Blackpink In Your Area album are:
Lyrics by TEDDY, Emyli Composed by TEDDY, Won Jin Seo Arranged by TEDDY, Won Jin Seo
TEDDY is Teddy Park, who is correctly credited on the Stay (Blackpink song) page.
I have no association with Blackpink, I'm merely a fan who wants wikipedia to be correct.
@Djkempoz: I've made the edit, but I encourage you to try it yourself when someone puts this claim back in. Just use an edit summary to explain what you are doing. In this case, I wrote "removing unsourced information" since no reliable source appeared to back up the information. I admit I'm hopeless with Hangul though. XymmaxSo let it be writtenSo let it be done02:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
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.
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}}.
Members of the Bot Approvals Group (BAG) are now subject to an activity requirement. After two years without any bot-related activity (e.g. operating a bot, posting on a bot-related talk page), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice.
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:
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.
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.
Hi, thanks for taking care of the copyright violation on Thai Pongal. I just wanted to let you know that this revision, which contains a copyright violation, has not yet been hidden. It might have been my mistake, not getting the diffs right; if so, my apologies for the error. Could you hide that revision please as well? Thanks!--SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time?20:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
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.
Arequest 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
Adiscussion 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.
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.
Hi, thanks for closing the discussion. Could you change the official outcome from keeptosplit? I think that is more appropriate and more in line with the consensus, especially given that the article was split during the discussion, and was split once before but unsplit some time thereafter. Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@Onetwothreeip: I'm going to leave the bolded outcome as "keep" because ultimately, the article's "right to existence" was confirmed. I know you were not challenging that, but AfD is generally viewed as a referendum of whether the article should be in the encyclopedia. You saw this in the discussion, where despite your repeated efforts, other users kept arguing as if you wanted the article to disappear forever. Now, I quite agree that there also is consensus for a split, which is why I tried to state that in my rationale. If you feel that's not clear enough I'm happy to try and amend it, just let me know. XymmaxSo let it be writtenSo let it be done04:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I think the rationale you wrote was good, and I understand what you mean about being a referendum on the article's existence. Perhaps keep and split would be appropriate? Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Polyamorph and it's nice to meet you :-)
I wanted to let you know that I've asked for a discussion about the redirect Stani bogat, created by you. Your comments are welcome over [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 3#Subject not mentioned in target - this seems to be an international version of the gameshow - it could be a search term but per WP:RFOREIGN I don't think it's allowed?|here]].
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Polyamorph}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Following discussions at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Administrators, an earlier change to the restoration of adminship policy was reverted. If requested, bureaucrats will not restore administrator permissions removed due to inactivity if there have been five years without a logged administrator action; this "five year rule" does not apply to permissions removed voluntarily.
Technical news
Anew 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:COINorWP:SPI).
paid-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.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.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gil Lavi (2nd nomination)
Regarding this AfD, which was relisted by you overnight (which is important work, I appreciate that you tend to the AfD listings):
It seems that the listing format is spreading assessments across two AfD pages - I wonder if that makes a difference in this specific case, where the article HAD been deleted, it was restored with information not all that different from what came before (there are some updated facts, but it's not really a different situation), and the gist of this AfD is "why did this come back, and what changed about the subject or article to make it debatable to keep it this time?"
I see it had gotten some initial attention on the 2nd nomination but now is attracting nothing but AfD relistings.
I do not intend to break any rules by petitioning for a result here. The more people who contribute to this discussion, the better. So if the relisting process can be a path to true consensus rather than a process that puts the matter in limbo, I have no objection at all. I am simply inquiring whether the format of the listing is burying older commentary that might contribute to consensus here.
I was advised by the editor who deleted the article the first time around that AfD was a place where I could re-raise the issue of this article's status. I'd explained the situation after poking around the article and noting its "Delete" history. But I see that this 2nd AfD is not functioning to uphold or re-examine the prior result; it is serving to re-litigate the issue from scratch. It seems to be leading to a predictable and consistent result regardless, but this could be seen as a loophole in the overall process of filtering out non-notable biographies or company profiles. A subject interested in having their own Wikipedia entry could arrange to have deleted content re-posted (patiently, over a long time) until relevant re-nominating AfDs simply don't get enough commenters. (Conversely, a subject who DOES become notable should be allowed to be re-listed, so I see how the discussion format can be appropriate in those situations and how a "speedy deletion" applied to this type of case might be too harsh)
Note that, after doing the initial steps to create this AfD, I have followed the guidelines & not petitioned anyone to add comment to the debate itself. I think I'm interpreting those rules correctly, but if there is something legitimate I can do to raise the profile of the AfD among editors who are interested in examining deletion nominations, I'd be happy to try it. Otherwise, I'm just keeping note of my watchlist...
You're not breaking any rules, it is always appropriate to discuss an administrative action if you have a question. I came to this discussion with an eye towards closing it. After considering the level of participation thus far, I did feel that a bit more input might make for a reasonable consensus. I saw it had been relisted once, and decided to give it another go. I have a personal preference for relisting a discussion up to two times, then making a decision. The actual rule, WP:RELIST suggests no more than three relists. The hope is always that a clear consensus will emerge as to whether the article, if improved to its full potential with sourcing known to exist, would meet our standards.
Regarding the format, I really don't believe that will be a problem. The great majority of editors who frequent this area are quite familiar with the discussion layout, and will be able to follow the discussion accurately. Cheers. XymmaxSo let it be writtenSo let it be done18:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. This all seems correct. I think it's fair to give people a chance to come up with additional information about the subject, which might (if it were significantly more notable than what I'd seen thus far) elevate the subject to a higher level of notability. With the information that's there... well, it's obvious what I thought about its standing. In any case, I'm assured to hear that all of this is visible to editors (and not just part of a script or semi-automated process) and I'm in no rush for a result, just wanted to make sure it didn't become an infinite process. I'll read up on WP:RELIST. Thanks! Brianvan (talk) 03:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Please see meta:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019 to provide your input on this idea.
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.
I see without any negative voting the article has been taken off of Wikipedia. I request the article to be restored since I was unaware that it had been nominated for deletion. I had been out of the town for a couple of days and just logged into my account a few hours back and learned about it. I really wanted to participate in the discussion and make a comment on it as I believe that the article I created passes Wikipedia's WP:GNG.-Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account.
What do I need to do?
Only to follow the instructions in this message.
Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites).
Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable).
Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers.
How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)?
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.
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.
Administrator changes
Justlettersandnumbers • L235
Bgwhite • HorsePunchKid • J Greb • KillerChihuahua • Rami R • Winhunter
Interface administrator changes
Oversight changes
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Arbitration
wikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.
Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz
Miscellaneous
Obituaries
