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.
Please change the name to Princess Firyal of Jordan. If you want, I can give you more reliable sources. Like her identifications.Asifur Rahman 21:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aj0ob009 (talk • contribs)
Wiki Loves Pride 2016
As a participant of WikiProject LGBT studies, you are invited to participate in the third annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign, which runs through the month of June. The purpose of the campaign is to create and improve content related to LGBT culture and history. How can you help?
Create or improve LGBT-related Wikipedia pages and showcase the results of your work here
Document local LGBT culture and history by taking pictures at pride events and uploading your images to Wikimedia Commons
Looking for topics? The Tasks page, which you are welcome to update, offers some ideas and wanted articles.
This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. The group's mission is to develop LGBT-related content across all Wikimedia projects, in all languages. Visit the affiliate's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's talk page.
Hi Will, just in case you haven't picked this up from the watchlist notice, we are meeting in the Oak this Sunday, haven't seen you in a while and it would be nice to catch up. ϢereSpielChequers11:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I'm away this weekend - escaping the English "summer" for a bit of sunshine in Crete, but I'll try to make next month's meetup. Hope you're well. WJBscribe(talk)09:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Very good thanks, hope you are too. Crete's an excellent excuse, not yet managed to get there myself but Knossos is high on my wish list. We had 14 people last Sunday, an interesting discussion - I've started the August page. ϢereSpielChequers06:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Sending this to you since you were the last person to delete Daniel Brandt, but feel free to take a pass at my request. :) I've been familiar with Brandt for quite a while, but I didn't follow the extended drama surrounding his article -- I just know that it was a long, protracted mess. Today I happened across an article which mentions him and find myself wondering how it is that said drama wound up with the article being deleted, when it seems to me there's more than enough sourcing to satisfy WP:BIO. I thought about starting a new version in the draftspace but figure I might as well try to familiarize myself with history before, you know, repeating it. The many, many, discussion on the subject are... many, so I'm hoping you can give me a brief summary or point me to the most succinct discussion page?
It was all a long time ago, but I remember it being a lot more complicated than just a question of whether the article met WP:BIO or not. Looking back, I only deleted a redirect from that title, not the article itself. I suspect the best places to review the arguments that were deployed that resulted in the deletion of the article would be:
The final AfD discussion for the article (the previous discussions are linked from that page); and
It probably won't surprise you to hear that I suggest leaving this one well alone. Whilst not a unique problem, the article has always to my mind been an example of the difficulty of providing a fair and balanced biography of marginally notable people. The risk is that you end up with an article that assembles in one place numerous incidents from a person's life that weren't particularly significant and which - prior to the advent of google and Wikipedia - would have been quietly forgotten. The article subject does not wish to have an article. Few have expressed that sentiment as loudly and as clearly as happened in this case. I think the right outcome was probably reached. WJBscribe(talk)14:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Oshwah
Would it be beneficial to explain your rationale for closing this RfA the way it did? The nearest comparable one I can see is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 2 in which the closing 'crat gave a clear reason for their actions. Given this RfA was right on the knife-edge of the range that normally requires a 'crat chat, and it's the first instance of where the RfA changes enacted late last year may have clearly altered the result, I think a firmer consensus would be a good idea. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I confess I'm also not sure what a firmer consensus would be either. I don't think it's something I can provide, or are you just saying you think the outcome should have been "no consensus"? Anyway, a few comments that I think are worth making:
The RfA changes enacted last year were an important backdrop to my close of this RfA. The community has indicated that it now expects RfAs with 75%+ support to pass unless there are exceptional circumstances, and those with 65%- to fail (again, barring exceptional circumstances). That means that this RfA, which would previously have been in the middle of the range left to bureaucrat discretion, was now at the absolutely highest end of it.
There is never a requirement for a 'crat chat. The chats are a process that a bureaucrat who is unsure of the result can turn to, but if the closing bureaucrat is comfortable determining the outcome alone, they are able to do so. Unsurprisingly, the discussions usually happen in the discretionary range, but it is not currently mandatory that RfA closes in that range go to 'crat chats.
The opposition to this candidate was firm and uniform, it certainly was not the sort of opposition that ought to be disregarded. Nevertheless, it was not so weighty in my opinion to mean that there was no consensus to promote when taken in the context of the RfA discussion as a whole.
Although gauging consensus is still not a numerical exercise, the obvious consequence of the RfA changes is that a high proportion of RfAs are now likely to succeed if there are just shy of the 75% mark. WJBscribe(talk)21:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't going to question your close because my interpretation of the discretionary range is, like yours, that just because something falls in the range doesn't mean a 'crat chat is required. At the same time, it seems logical to me that the lower the percentage is the more likely a 'crat chat will occur. That said, I was interested in how you would answer the question, and your answer was unsurprisingly lucid and informative, which would be the least I would expect from a 'crat who had the good sense to promote me. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
WJBScribe, I am a little disappointed that you did not give a detailed rationale at the closure. (I am not disputing the closure—just that it would have been useful for readers, especially opposers, to know that you properly evaluated all opinions.) "The community has indicated that it now expects RfAs with 75%+ support to pass unless there are exceptional circumstances." Where has the community indicated that? (Disclosure: I am in the "Support" crowd.) Axl¤[Talk]12:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Here's a link to the RfC: Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/RfC. I didn't include a rationale because, under the new policy, it wasn't really a borderline close. If some participants haven't registered the changes that the RfC approved, maybe it would be useful for me to include a statement to the effect that I applied the consensus reached in the RfC when determining whether or not the RfA had been successful? WJBscribe(talk)19:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for linking to that RfC. (I was indeed unaware of it.) The discretionary range changed from 70-75% to 65-75%. It is disingenuous to imply that "75%" might have been in the discretionary range under the previous guideline, but not in the discretionary range under the current guideline. I reiterate my point that it would have been helpful to readers if you wrote a more detailed closure note. Axl¤[Talk]19:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Disingenuous? Please could you adopt a civil tone on my talkpage? I think accusations of dishonesty are a bit much, but I will add a closure note to the RfA itself... WJBscribe(talk)19:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Cyberpower, while the RfA description page might have stated 70-80%, the RfC was specifically about lowering the bottom end of the range. The closing bureaucrat noted: "The discretionary range has been expanded from the previous de facto 70–75% to 65–75%." Axl¤[Talk]19:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I think the key words are "de facto". As far as I'm concerned, the range was 70-80%, which is what I always applied prior to December 2015. In practice, because pretty much every RfA that was over 75% was passing, people talked about the range being 70-75%. I suspect Cyberpower may remember a discussions between me and Wizardman on the subject during this bureaucrat discussion... WJBscribe(talk)20:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not sure I completely understand this close. I thought the consensus was for moving rather than deleting and recreating at the new title. Is there any particular reason not to do that? Uanfala (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
My assessment was that there wasn't a consensus for moving the redirect - the participants were split 50/50 between the deletion and move options, with no more compelling arguments on either side. As deletion of Anil Jain(MLA) would occur in either case, I gave effect to that partial consensus and left the outstanding issue to editorial discretion. WJBscribe(talk)15:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
But both "delete" votes occurred before the idea for moving was raised. And moving a page isn't the same as deleting it and recreating it again. There's a some edit history (albeit very meagre) that we would want to preserve, no? Uanfala (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Well actually, no - there wasn't page history worth preserving. And although made before the move suggestion, the nominator specifically stated that he did not think it would be a valid redirect - even with a space. Now it's up to you. Feel free to create Anil Jain (MLA) if you think it's appropriate, but bear in mind that someone can validly nominate it at RfD if they disagree. WJBscribe(talk)16:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, the nominator didn't give any indication they were aware of the use of MLA in Indian English, did they? As for the page history, there are two bits that are worth preserving: one, the fact that a certain redirect was created at a certain point of time (not very important), and two, the fact that this redirect was nominated for RfD (and the link to the RfD) and this bit is something we would want to be around, no? Uanfala (talk) 16:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't think there's much to be gained by repeating the RfD debate on my talkpage. I have made my assessment of the consensus. I cannot force other participants to engage more with the points you made - the RfD ran its allotted time and a consensus emerged that Anil Jain(MLA) wasn't a valid redirect. I could have extended the time to see if a consensus emerged that Anil Jain (MLA) was, but that redirect doesn't yet exist, so the discussion would somewhat hypothetical. I therefore left it: (a) for editor(s) to decide whether to create that redirect; and in turn (b) for editors to decide, if that redirect is created, whether it should be nominated at RfD. The redirect has now been created, so we will see whether it is nominated at RfD. As to your other point, if you visit Anil Jain(MLA), you will see that I have linked to the RfD in my deletion summary, which is clearly displayed. WJBscribe(talk)12:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
OK, I now see you had good reasons for closing it the way you did, and although I still disagree I'm not going to pursue that any further. Just adding a note that the link to the RfD discussion I was referring to was something different. Uanfala (talk) 09:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Extended confirmed protection
Hello, WJBscribe. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you. This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,
Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi WJBscribe.
A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.
It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.
Hello, WJBscribe. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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.
Thanks for protecting C's talk page WJB. A few moments after you performed that action this person BirideThehyeianz (talk·contribs). Left a heavy duty PA. Looks like it might be a "sleeper" situation. If you are off WikiP no worries. Please enjoy the rest of your weekend! MarnetteD|Talk03:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to see this carried on after I went to bed. Will keep an eye out for more. Has a checkuser been run to see if there is an underlying IP range that could be blocked? Btw, Cyberpower, if the trolls are after you, it usually means you're doing a good job. Merry Christmas! WJBscribe(talk)11:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
While not typical it can happen C678. I have had to turn off the "email me" function a couple times over the years. After a couple weeks or months it is usually safe to turn it back on. If you can don't let it frustrate you to much - though I completely understand if it does. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk14:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
No, not typical, but sadly it does happen. People seem to find the anonymity internet a release for behaviour that they wouldn't want to be associated with elsewhere. Sometimes it brings out the worse in people. Sorry it's happening to you. Experience suggests it will pass, and your troll will find some other way to amuse themselves. Try not to let it get you down too much in the meantime. WJBscribe(talk)00:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you
This is a very well-considered, logical, and thoughtful post that articulates well the concerns that many in the community are feeling. I found it very persuasive. Risker (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I worry that these day, with so little time to contribute to Wikipedia, I'm getting out of touch with the community. It's good to know that I can still offer some valid input in these controversial matters, whatever the outcome. If only there was a way to persuade the community into adopting sensible standards for RfAs and promoting an adequate number of candidates each month... WJBscribe(talk)23:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
