Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

Administrator changes AustralianRupert • Cimon Avaro • Euryalus • Jehochman • Nunh-huh 28bytes Bureaucrat changes 28bytes

Interface administrator changes Evad37 • Galobtter Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

• The Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines have been published for consideration. Voting to ratify this guideline is planned to take place 7 March to 21 March. Comments can be made on the talk page.

Technical news

• The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
• The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration

• Community input is requested on several motions aimed at addressing discretionary sanctions that are no longer needed or overly broad.
• The Arbitration Committee has published a generalised comment regarding successful appeals of sanctions that it can review (such as checkuser blocks).
• A motion related to the Antisemitism in Poland case was passed following a declined case request.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2022 Steward elections will begin on 07 February 2022, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2022, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Voting in the 2022 Community Wishlist Survey is open until 11 February 2022.

I got sucked in by your {{copyedit}} template on the British sitcom article. Before I steel myself to forge a head, did you have some specific sorts of things in mind? Cheers. _signed, Willondon (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a long page (14K words), but I see why it would pique your interest. I tagged it because it popped up on Beland's monthly Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Database Report, which primarily flags typos. The article isn't in bad shape, but a quick glance indicates violations of MOS:BOLD and other issues. If you're new to copyediting, Wikipedia:Basic copyediting and Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/How to are useful guides. Have fun and all the best, Miniapolis 18:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, Bobherry Talk Edits 12:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing Miniapolis a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Best wishes! CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I'm not really sure what to do in this situation. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia. I've been in a talk page on a contentious issue, and there's another user who... Well, they made legal threats in the edit history of the page. And when I noticed that they hadn't responded to the discussion in a few days, I decided to check their contribution history, and I found (in their attempt to get the protection level of the page decreased) what appeared to be a vague threat made against my person. Something about me being 'currently under investigation'. I find this very uncomfortable. The thing we're debating is a sensitive issue, and I have been doing my utmost to remain in Good Faith, especially because of the highly inflammatory nature of the issue involved. This other user threw some accusations at me in the talk page, but I though it was just them getting heated. I'm willing to let that go, we all can get like that sometimes, but when you combine it with the legal threat, and the "investigation" thing... I don't really feel safe continuing this discussion with them, or editing on Wikipedia.

I have screenshots and can provide links to all things mentioned in this post.

Please let me know what my best course of action is in this situation.

Thanks in advance 198.2.93.215 (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I were you, I'd register an account because an account gives you more credibility. "Currently under investigation" sounds too vague to be much of a threat. Without diffs, I have nothing to go on. All the best, Miniapolis 00:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Miniapolis: That's fair. I'm definitely seeing the benefit of registering an account now. Hadn't seen the point before, since I tend not to participate in online stuff too much but... Yeah.

Are these what you mean by diffs?

https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Dragonnchild&page=Bibo_Bergeron&server=enwiki&max=

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Decrease&diff=prev&oldid=1070683731

I can include the talk page where all this is coming from, but it's kind of a mess, and might be a bit triggering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bibo_Bergeron

Is this kind of thing even a credible threat? Should I be concerned at all? I don't really participate much in online discourse, so I admit it might just be that I'm getting spooked easily

Thanks for your help 198.2.93.215 (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was the issue I thought. WP:BLPCRIME applies to the subject of the article: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law." WP:BLPPUBLIC also applies: "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." I don't understand why you're insisting on including the information at this point; the article you cited here is irrelevant. The other editor has been warned about legal threats (vague or otherwise) by ToBeFree; they're on the radar, and haven't edited in a couple of days. Before you get into disputes with other editors, it's wise to ensure that your editing is policy-based. IMO, there's nothing to worry about. Have fun and all the best, Miniapolis 02:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Miniapolis: Oh, that policy makes sense. Sorry, I wasn't aware of it, or I wouldn't have used that argument. I'm used to citing precedent in debates, but I'll be more mindful of that policy moving forward. Truthfully, I've been arguing for it because it doesn't make sense to me. It seemed like the information is validated in a way that is already acceptable, and I thought the problem with having it included was one of the unverified speculation of the other edits. I've been fighting so hard for it because of the reason I stated. Whatever decision is made, I want it to come from the best of everyone involved, and there was clearly a discussion to be had there, based on the number of back-and-forth edits. I think that's especially important on contentious issues like this one, but honestly, I do it for everything. I'm sure it makes me very annoying.

I do think I've found multiple reliable third-party sources, but seeing as I've already made an argument that's against policy, I'm happy to leave that for someone else to decide. I try to learn things by diving in, but I think Wikipedia policy is a bit too complex for that to actually make sense! I'll be sure to do more reading before getting into a situation like this one again.

I'll make a note of all of this on the talk page, too.

Good to know there's nothing to worry about. Thanks for the reassurance. I'll make an account within the next few days (and I'll be sure to identify it as me, to keep the record straight).

Thanks again for your help! 198.2.93.215 (talk) 04:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

• AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
• The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Miniapolis. I'm working on copy-editing Survivor: The Australian Outback for the GOCE. In the episode summaries, it switches between past tense to describe the regular action and present or future tense to describe the challenges, which strikes me as awkward. I saw that you copy-edited Survivor: Cook Islands, so I was wondering whether you could give me any advice? Ruбlov (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rublov. Since the seasons are (very much) over, I put everything into past tense; reality-TV shows aren't fiction, IMO, and are not covered by the present-tense fiction guideline. Have fun and all the best, Miniapolis 14:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that Wikipedia:Prosesize doesn't count the episode table towards the word count, even though it makes up the bulk of the article and of the copy-editing effort. Do you know any way around this? Ruбlov (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No; the tool doesn't do lists or tables (which the episode list is). I copy and paste each episode summary into my word processor (LibreOffice conveniently has the word count at the bottom of the page). Summaries in episode lists should be under 200 words each, and I had to do a lot of trimming . All the best, Miniapolis 22:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thank you. Ruбlov (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]