Wikipedia talk:Administrators' newsletter/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

2FA as percent of active admins

Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago.

I'd be more curious about the percentage of active admins who have 2FA enabled. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 15:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I was about to agree with this, but then I had some additional thoughts on the matter: We all know at this point that a portion of admins don’t really do admin work and just hang on to the tools for no very good reason. By doing so they present the exact same security risk as an active admin. Therefore the risk is the same whether they are active or not. Yet another reason for admin activity standards to be tightened, but that has proven difficult. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Precisely. It doesn't matter if you only make one edit a year. If you are a sysop, and you don't practice good account security, you're putting us all at risk. 2FA is surely the best thing you can do, but not everyone is willing. I agree activity requirements could be improved. I think it'd make most sense to require actual admin actions, not just any ole logged action — MusikAnimal ^talk 14:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I would support increasing the activity requirements for admins. I would also like to see the requirements increased for editors who return and request the tools back. Mkdw ^talk 15:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I did manage to get a tiny change to the rules passed earlier this year. I would suggest any new proposal be similarly modest in its goals if it is to have any chance of success. And as always, I shamelessly suggest anyone contemplating opening such an RFC read my essay on the subject first. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

An issue I had originally was that, running an admin bot how do I use 2FA for both accounts with one smartphone? This was after this posting - c:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_69#URGENT:_CHANGE_PW_/_ENABLE_Two-factor_authentication, where commons is being a little more aggressive on use of 2FA due to some compromise of an account (and I am an admin there as well). In the end I solved my issue with a tiny (12 line) python program to give me both 2FA codes on running. And of course, I then had to create a bot password for the normal running of the bot. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 12:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Please fix block link

Can you please fix the Special:Block link in the newsletter so it points to an info page? As a non-admin, I clicked it to see what "Special:Block" was, and got a permission error page, sayimg I don't have permission to block this user. I'm glad of that, but even for those who have perms, you don't really want a link in a newsletter that allows this, do you? Mathglot (talk) 05:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Special:Block is the precise page we're talking about, though. There's really nothing to see anyway, as the UI overhaul isn't live yet. For that see the designs that were linked to in the newsletter — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Voice of Clam rename

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Administrators' newsletter/2018/9

 – We generally redirect the talk pages of individual newsletters here to centralize discussion. Mz7 (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Are admin renames generally reported? I've just changed mine. Voice of Clam (formerly Optimist on the run) (talk) 06:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Voice of Clam: We talked about this at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' newsletter#Renames of administrator accounts. I don't think there were any loud objections on the proviso that we first get the consent of the administrator in question before putting it in the newsletter. Mz7 (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not being secretive about it, so feel free to include it. Voice of Clam (formerly Optimist on the run) (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done Mz7 (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Quick TechAdmin question

So are you going to track techadmin changes on this newsletter? — regards, Revi 05:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I think we can make mention of new appointments, sure, like we do for the ombudsman commission, functionaries and stewards. It's relevant news, after all, so seems appropriate. However ideally there won't be many techadmin changes, because the entire point is to keep the members of this user group to a minimum. — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I've listed the six temporary interface administrators at the top of Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/2018/9. Mz7 (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Testing question

(non-admin question) I saw in the newsletter this an invitation to help with testing once it is available. Are they looking for people to be test-blocked or just admins to try it out? In case of the former, I'm (and I assume others) game only if it stays off my permanent block log. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

​They are looking for the latter. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:16, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Issue about November 2018

I have edited the newsletter to add a link to the article on Raymond Arritt, who has died and participated on WP as Shock Brigade Harvester Boris. I hope this is an appropriate addition. Please revert if it was not. Thanks, EdChem (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Bots must have 10-character passwords too, as of December 20

But this is old news, too. It would have been nice if this had been announced in advance, as it would have saved me a bunch of trouble. You know bot operators may put their bots on "autopilot" and rarely log in to their bot accounts, so they won't notice any new password requirements until after someone notices and reports that their bot is down. So, of all users, bots should have been a top priority to notify about upcoming changes in advance – not a group to neglect to mention or merely allude to as a "some other user group". – wbm1058 (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

It looks like this edit didn't make it into the Tech News. And for clarity, "Bot admins" doesn't mean bot administrators' accounts, it means their bots' accounts, i.e. presumably any account which has the bot flag. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: Thanks for bringing this up. I added it to the list here – does that look good to you? Mz7 (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure, thanks. wbm1058 (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: I never actually checked this, are you sure? "Botadmins" are a user group - just not one we use on the English Wikipedia. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: I don't know anything about that user group. But the first of my bots to have login problems because of the increase in minimum pw length was Merge bot, whose user rights are (bot, administrator). I presume it was blocked from logging in because it's an administrator, and not because it's a bot, because my other bot whose password was the same length was not effected, until I believe it was exactly one week later, when the subsequent weekly software rollout added bots to the list as well. Because a week later RMCD bot stopped being able to log in as well. It was only after RMCD bot was locked out that I noticed Merge bot had been locked out for a full week with nobody reporting the issue (I didn't notice myself). Of course when RMCD bot was locked out, that was noticed and reported within hours. My third bot never had any issues because its password was already longer than the new requirement. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: hmm I think it's a bug wherein 'bot' is "in" botadmin and is hitting. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

phab:T217609 opened to review. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Well, I had no idea that the 10-character requirement for bots wasn't intentional, but that would explain the failure to adequately document and warn bot operators of the change. FYI, here is the discussion documenting the "emergency" I had to deal with when this came down unexpectedly": User talk:RMCD bot#Bot is down. The message I was seeing coming back from the API wasn't exactly clear about the problem either. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: ok so it is intentional - but it wasn't well advertised. I updated that ticket with the reference, and it is buried in defaultsettings file. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2019

Please add my IP address to the list of users who are subscribed to this newsletter. Thank you,211.27.115.246 (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC) 211.27.115.246 (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done not sure why you want to subscribe, but I have added you ([1]) DannyS712 (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2019

I used to own 211.27.115.246. Please remove that IP from this list and replace it with the IP posting this message. Thank you.111.220.164.171 (talk) 02:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC) 111.220.164.171 (talk) 02:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 04:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Recommended 2FA

There is an active discussion on whether "recommended" should be added regarding two-factor authentication on the admin policy page. Jonathunder (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Question

Is the newsletter supposed to note changes in ArbCom members? I noticed an arbitrator stepped down. Enigma^msg 16:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to it, but we didn't the last time. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Writers

Should there be a list of people who will be regularly contributing to the newsletter? All I see are people who signed their name as interested in writing, but most of those haven't been involved, at least recently. Enigma^msg 16:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019 (empty and note on Twinkle features)

@Mz7 and MusikAnimal: et al., I added few quick notes about some upcoming features to Twinkle that sysops might appreciate knowing about; I hope that's alright. I'm also going to post to AN. I'm planning on making those changes live next Wednesday (June 5) so if this doesn't get sent out before then, the language will need to be changed; that seems likely, given there's nothing in it yet! I've been less active most of this month, not entirely sure what should be added. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I added some stuff to the best of my ability given my watchlist wikibreak. We're nearly a week into June, but I wouldn't mind review from other editors​​, in particular the arbcom bit. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Amorymeltzer: Looks good! I went through WP:CD the other day and didn't find anything relevant. There was desysop that happened since June 1, not sure if we want to wait till next month to report that. I don't think desysops like this would normally get mentioned under Arbitration, for the record, unless the decision affected all admins in some way. I have not checked for any other Arbitration news.

The Twinkle changes are very relevant, thank you for mentioning them. It's a great timing too, because it seems like we don't have anything else to say for this issue! — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sold on the Arb stuff. Just seemed useful reminders, but since sysops weren't officially reminded, perhaps it'd be better to just skip it and go light. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the arb stuff, it was almost exclusively things copied from previous arbitration cases concerning administrator conduct. There was nothing noteworthy there. I would suggest removing it as it isn't news. And regarding the recent desysop, I don't think that merits anything other than adding the user to the list for next month. It doesn't belong in this issue as it occurred in June. Enigma^msg 06:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@Amorymeltzer and Enigmaman: I noticed this hadn't gone out yet. I gave it a look through, and I tweaked one sentence for wording, but otherwise it looks like everything is in order. I think it's ready to go out. Sorry I've been busy and dropped the ball these past few months – I used to be the guy that reminded people to go for it on the first of each month, now it's you guys. Mz7 (talk) 08:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Sent it out, thanks Mz7 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Fram

I think this situation is going to merit some kind of mention in the July newsletter (beyond Fram's name simply being listed), although obviously we can't write it until more becomes clear about what took place and what will take place in the ensuing days. I'm just commenting so that the next newsletter doesn't go out in July without it. Enigma^msg 18:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Enigmaman, a summary has been added to the "Miscellaneous" section in the upcoming newsletter: Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/2019/7. We tried to make it as neutral as possible. Mz7 (talk) 08:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

CSD changes

The scope of CSD criterion G8 has been reduced regarding redirects: The only redirects that it now applies to are those which target non-existent pages, see WT:CSD#Tightening G8 with respect to redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

G14 has been expanded slightly to include: "orphan "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists)." This change is per Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Deletion of redundant (disambiguation) redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 08:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: I added these items to July's newsletter. Mz7 (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the newsletter, Mz7. Regular publication is a much needed sign of stability in these rocky times. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Liz! The newsletter is a collective effort, so thanks is due to every username in the page history. Mz7 (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Missed one -IAdmin

Just FYI, Special:PermaLink/913861106#Inactive_interface_administrators_2019-08-28 for Evad37, -IAdmin, inactivity in IAdmin functions. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Xaosflux, thanks for the catch (and I also apologize about the tardiness of the newsletter this month). I'll put Evad37 on next month's newsletter. Mz7 (talk) 00:51, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Begging your pardon, Mz7, but I've just gone and started it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Courcelles and October 2019 issue

Not sure if it's proper to edit a newsletter that's already gone out. I wanted to note that Courcelles relinquished his CU/OS rights in September, but was not mentioned in that section of the newsletter. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The September issue hasn't yet gone out, so I've added that :) Sam Walton (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, excellent. Thanks! GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of which, it's looking good to go to me - thoughts @Amorymeltzer:? Sam Walton (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I usually ping Mz7 and MusikAnimal, they've a tendency to find things I don't and rephrase items for the better. FWIW, Samwalton9, I included these two items as the first would be quite helpful to sysops monitoring vandals and their targets (it's one of the chief reasons it's being created, I think) and the second would be a big policy change. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Amorymeltzer, thanks for doing this this month. I took a look, and I made this change which spelled out what "CFD/S" was. I am also not fully convinced on the notability of the RfC that was SNOW closed without change to current practice. I looked at the items that Samwalton9 removed, and I think the temporary watchlist feature would be noteworthy. I took a look, and it does not look like we included the previous "end portals" discussion back in April 2018: Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/2018/5. That's all the nitpicks I've got, I think. Mz7 (talk) 04:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Mz7 regarding the SNOW close - I'm not sure what recent practice has been but I'm not generally in favour of reporting that the status quo remains. I've reinstated the watchlist point. Sam Walton (talk) 10:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

All right by me! I'm happy to send it out if you like ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Go for it! Mz7 (talk) 11:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Sent out, but even though it says there's nothing in the queue I ain't seeing it go out. All in due time I suppose... ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Took longer than normal, but all set. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Mailing list

The first Admin newsletter nearly 3 years ago was sent to all admins. Currently there are 575 users on the mailing list of whom 201 are not admins leaving only 374 admins subscribed. This is not many of the 1,153 (as of now) administrator accounts (active and otherwise). 500 of them active (as of 2019-10-13 ) - defined as 30 or more edits during the last two months.

However, many largely inactive admins dating back to 2004 or earlier occasionally do indeed carry out the occasional logged action from which it is evident that they may well not be familiar will all the important changes over the years which directly affect admin work. Perhaps it's time to encourage more admins to subscribe, but how can this now be achieved by not injuring the sensitivities of those who have not chosen to opt in, or who may not even have noticed the first newsletter before it was auto archived from their talk pages? Maybe from the beginning it should have been an opt-out rather than an op-in newsletter. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Amorymeltzer, Barek, Bishonen Boing! said Zebedee, Isaacl, Mkdw, MusikAnimal, Mz7, Samwalton9, and Xaosflux Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Before the first newsletter went out we had this discussion where consensus was against opt-out, which is how we arrived at the decision to send out the first issue to all admins and then go opt-in. Will give some thought to how we could encourage more admins to sign up. Sam Walton (talk) 02:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I chose not to opt-in, and instead have it transcluded into User:Barek/tools. I find that solution worked better for me. -- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

We don't want to force admins to get this talk post if they don't want it. We already post it at WP:AN, feel free to leave a note under the next one reminding that subscribing may be useful. Active admins that don't subscribe may simply be reading it there. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

One of the problems of posting it at AN, Xao is the same as that of rarely active admins not following that page. I consider myself to be a fairly active admin and generally up to date on most things because I take part in most discussions , especially those that concern policy and changes inn user rights, etc., but I must admit that I don't always pay attention to what gets posted at AN. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed — AN is a mess of ban proposals/appeals, it can be tough to find wheat in the chaff. I do think it likely that more folks are seeing it beyond just those subscribed, whether by AN, "dashboard" pages, or elsewhere. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Another mass message to admins notifying them of the newsletter and opt-in instructions could be considered. Mkdw ^talk 03:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Which is exactly the reason why I started this thread. I may be wrong, but my feeling tells me there have been a lot more changes in the last 3 years than in any other similar sample period. I certainly see 'rarely active' admins (and new ones too) doing things that while they may not be wrong per se, based on what they should know cause me to raise an eyebrow. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Now that I have read the original discussion (thank you Sam) I don't think Bishonen's fears are justified - there's a big difference between being educated and being informed. I think Sam made an unfortunate choice of vocabulary in this very appropriate comment. If he had used 'inform' instead of 'educate' perhaps Bish might have seen 'opt-out' in a more positive light. Beeblebrox referred to The Signpost but one should not overestimate the information power of the periodical. It informs, for sure, but not always on the things it should and not always in sufficient detail. It has a very ecclectic readership and admins are far from all being subscribed to it. Beeb is also one of the admins who keeps himself up to date anyway, and does so systematically after an absence from WP.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I think admins need to accept the fact that from time to time they're going to receive a message about certain things related to being an admin, such as a reminder about the newsletter, changes to activity requirements, etc. etc. We want our admins to be informed and it's already an expectation that admins be familiar with current practices. Mkdw ^talk 05:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not an admin any more and I'm not directly affected (and, frankly, I'm finding the community elements arguments regularly appearing on our drama boards as so increasingly toxic (an overused word, but it seems apposite) that the likelihood of my ever asking to return is diminishing - there's a fight on ANI at the moment involving very experienced Wikipedians (including an admin) that I find particularly repulsive). But in response to a ping by my friend Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, I'll offer my thoughts. I agree that admins need to be updated on what's changing (especially the less active ones who have not taken part in discussions that have led to changes), and I am convinced that AN is not sufficient for it. Usually, I would support newsletters as being opt-in (and I can't remember what I thought about the admin newsletter when it was last discussed), but in this case I currently think the admin newsletter should be opt-out. Admins should commit themselves to keeping up to date with changes, and opting out says "I'll keep up to date myself", but I think we need that active commitment. There should be no excuses for not knowing what has changed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2019

Simply adding "User talk:Zblobfish" to the list. Zblobfish (talk) 04:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done — IVORK _Talk 05:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Possible RFD changes

The recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion#Links that have existed for a significant length of time and the immediately subsequent section about re-writing WP:RFD#HARMFUL might interest admins, assuming that the discussion continues to develop. (I'm not sure when your publication deadline is, but I thought you'd want as much notice as possible.) A quick, possibly unfair summary might be that Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions, including regulars at RFD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Haha, that seems fair. I'm inclined to say there's not a great resolution or change to guidance, so while maybe a reminder could be included, there's not much meat to write about. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Obituaries?

Hi all! I was reviewing the admins' newsletter, as I regularly do, and took a look at the January 2020 edition (which is obviously in progress and under construction for publishing at that time). I saw that obituaries were listed on this issue for release (at least as of the time of this writing). Now, let me begin by saying that this discussion is absolutely not attempting to downplay, blow off, state, or imply that obituaries and news regarding the death of a member of the community and one of our own aren't a big deal and aren't things that we should care about. These are deeply saddening events, and I always extend my thoughts and well wishes towards those we lose and those who are impacted. That being said, I'm not sure if obituaries belong on the administrators' newsletter.

When this newsletter was formed and began its monthly publishing, I remember that their intended size, scope, and focus were to brief lists and summaries of events and changes, and restricted to information, discussions, events, and changes that were significant site-wide and/or had significant and site-wide impact, or had direct impact on administrator duties, technical abilities, policies, procedures, enforcement, etc. I don't believe that these obituaries fall into this scope.

Again, I'm not trying to downplay or blow off the fact that we lost a member of our community... And if I'm incorrect about what the size, scope, and focus of this newsletter is/was supposed to be, and if my idea of this scope limitation is wrong, please let me know... I just don't feel that this information fits within this particular newsletter's intended focus, nor is it in line with the information that this newsletter has been (at least to me) important and famous for doing: Summarizing significant key events, discussions, cases, requests, and rulings that impact this site and this community, or how administrators and advanced users (CU, OS, etc) perform their duties.

Comments, thoughts, and input are welcome. I just want to see how others feel about this as well, and whether or not they agree. :-) Thanks - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I have no problem with the admin obituaries being published in the newsletter. — Maile (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I need to give this a little more thought with respect to a general guideline on this, but just noting that there is a precedent in that the death of administrator JohnCD was mentioned in the first published newsletter. If I can recall, I believe the reasoning was that they were an active administrator. I think I'd feel uncomfortable with 'being an administrator' being the bar you need to pass to be listed in the newsletter, however. I'm inclined to agree that we should avoid listing these, but I'm open to hearing other opinions. Sam Walton (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

That's actually an issue right now — Angus was a sysop, Brian was not. I thought I was fine with listing them, but it's going to end up with folks drawing lines of "what obituaries get listed" and I'm not comfortable with where that will inevitably end up. "Was a sysop at some point" is the clearest demarcation that makes sense, but like you, I find myself uncomfortable with drawing that line, and it's a little CABAL-y. Any other line, however, will mean someone saying "this editor was meaningful enough to the community/sysop corps/etc. while this one was not" and the first time that happens will simply be inappropriate.

I can make the argument for perm changes — it's helpful to know who sysops can reach out to for 2O or CUOS – but I'm doubting my initial okay-ness. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

This was exactly my thought as well. I would understand that an admin was mentioned on the newsletter due to being desysopped due to death, but I absolutely cannot, in good conscience, say that there should be a "bar" and that we only list current administrators who have died, as if the others didn't matter at all. Either we should list all users who died during that month, or none at all - I'm still keeping an open mind in this discussion and reading the input and thoughts of others about this.

I think that the appropriate thing to do would be to avoid the "obituary listing" on the admin newsletter entirely, and simply list those admins among the others who have been desysopped during that month. Then we don't risk having the scope of this newsletter changed or perhaps slowly morphed and tweaked as time goes on, and we avoid any avenue that may inadvertently offend or disrespect users who have died but are not administrators. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

(I don't know if this inquiry is aimed at administrators only; if so, please feel free to ignore my response.) I feel that other venues for recognizing the departure of community members would be more suitable, and can likely be targeted at a wider audience. isaacl (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Of course you and everyone can comment! I'm pretty sure I can speak for Oshwah on that point. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussions that I start will always be open to anyone for input and comment. I can't think of a discussion that I've started where any restrictions were formally or informally applied regarding who can and cannot participate and comment. Amorymeltzer is correct; Isaacl, your input and your thoughts are absolutely welcome here. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I added the qualification after posting an initial comment as I realized that administrators are the primary audience for the newsletter, and if the audience thinks it would be helpful, then I don't feel I ought to override that view. Thanks for your understanding! isaacl (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

If an administrator lost the flag because they died this has to be in the newsletter anyway. A compromise solution would be marking such administrators as dead (with the cross sign, or, it the cross sign is a symbol of Christianity and does not universally apply, may be there is another sign). I agree that users who were not administrators at the time they died should not be mentioned in the newsletter and are best commemorated by other means.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• Angusmclellan • clpo13 • Edgar181 • Matthewedwards • NCurse

GMG^talk 21:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

There's not really a solid agreement here, but it seemed generally favorable toward removing them, so for now I've done so for this issue. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Three years!

The January 2020 issue will make three full years published, perhaps we should note it? (for those doing math, the fist issue in the archives wasn't sent). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Sure! Might also be a good time for a little retrospective and put out a call to see if there's anything folks feel like is missing or not useful. Sam Walton (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations and thanks to the diligence of everyone involved! It's rare enough for any initiative to get off the ground and continue for three years, and one managed by volunteers is remarkable. Good work! isaacl (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• keep per Isaacl - Nabla (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC) :-) Thanks

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2020

Add User:Brownlowe.2 to the mailing list. (Is that what it’s called?) Brownlowe.2 (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Brownlowe.2: You can subscribe to the newsletter at Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Subscribe. Sam Walton (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

May 2020 Newsletter

I think you failed to note that we've lost Anna Frodesiak of the admin corps. Unfortunately, she not able to access Wikipedia in China. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Liz, she (and Ron) are noted in the June issue, which covers May. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 09:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Preload template for write instructions

The first two steps of instructions at Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Write:

1. Start a new subpage at Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/2025/1 (next month's newsletter has already been created)
2. Add {{subst:Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Template}} to the page, and save.

could be automated using a preload template: Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Write/preload. I suggest replacing it with a single step:

1. Start a new subpage by clicking on the preload link and saving (next month's newsletter has already been created).

Next month it will look like this (just for demonstration):

1. Start a new subpage by clicking on the preload link and saving.

This approach has been at Wikipedia:Scripts++/Shell for preparing issues of Wikipedia:Scripts++. —⁠andrybak (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Ping recent contributors to Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Write: MusikAnimal, Amorymeltzer, and QEDK. —⁠andrybak (talk) 09:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, feel free to go ahead with this!​ --qedk (t 愛 c) 14:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done Special:Diff/969457785. —⁠andrybak (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Eddie891's RfA

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Eddie891 is still not linked on Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/2020/9 yet. A link to that RfA should be added as soon as possible. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done But also, anyone can (and should) edit the newsletter. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Adding "Next issue" link to the newsletter

Dear Wikipedians,

I think it is a great idea to add a simple, unobtrusive, "Next issue" link at the bottom of the newsletter so subscribers and the Community at large can have quick access to the most recent and developing news in the Admin world. Note that the current edition covers news for last month only, and yet the next issue is already being filled-in with current news and important information. Finally, having a next issue tie-in is common practice in virtually all monthly subscription magazines.

What does the Community think about this idea?

(you can see how it would look like here)

Please remember that this is about openness and easy access to vital information that benefits all the readers.

That's all folks, I spoke my peace, now you decide.

Cordially, History DMZ ^{(talk)+(ping)} 11:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

A note to the compilers: Wanted to let you know that your work is appreciated. Very helpful to get this digest each month. czar 23:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Likewise, I appreciate the efforts. –xeno^talk 12:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

What happened to October?

I never received the October issue by email. And looking at it, that issue seems to be exactly the same as the Sept newsletter. — Maile (talk) 02:11, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

There was an issue when I sent out the last issue, apparently I used the wrong title! But it looks like you correctly received the September and October issues. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah, so all is well then. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 12:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Special:CreateLocalAccount

This is expected to be available Thursday. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2021

I would like to add my name to the subscription list for the administrators' newsletter. AnotherEditor144 ^{talk contribs} 08:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC) AnotherEditor144 ^{talk contribs} 08:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@AnotherEditor144: You can add your name to Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Subscribe. Sam Walton (talk) 11:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

It is still semi-protected. I think I'll have to wait... AnotherEditor144 ^{talk contribs} 11:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, huh. I've added your talk page. Sam Walton (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Transfermarkt?

"Transfermarkt is not a reliable source", ich denke Transfermarkt ist die vertraulichste Website wenn es sich um Fußball handelt, die man sich wünschen kann. Ihre Abneigung gegenüber Transfermarkt ist mir unverständlich und ich sehe auch nicht ein, wieso Sie frei nach Ihrem Belieben Transfermarkt Links entfernen können ohne zumindest einen adequaten Ersatz einzufügen? Ich beziehe mich hier auf die englische Seite über "Ferdinand Feldhofer", ich habe die Transfermarkt Links lediglich von der deutschen übernommen (und die Sprache geändert) Ich bitte Sie dies in Zukunft zu unterlassen! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomanlage (talk • contribs) 22:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

First of all, please communicate in English. As for the reliability of Transfermarkt, according to its login page: Whether player info, coach info, club info, or match report – as a Transfermarkt user, you can edit and add to almost all data by yourself. This makes it a self published source, and therefore unreliable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I left them a message on their talk page directing them to RSN as well if they have further questions. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

August 2021 newsletter

Why has the August newsletter gone out headed July? Mjroots (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The title of the newsletter has always been a bit confusing - it gets sent in the first week of one month but is about events from the previous month, so it's easy to get confused and use the previous month as the title. Sam Walton (talk) 09:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Logo

I am really surprised you guys were still using the logo I made! Also, well done on keeping this thing running for what must be years by now. --Cheers, FriyMan ^{Per aspera ad astra} 16:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I've published a few of these newspapers now and I can say that they are a really great way to keep up with the latest developments in the community relating to the administrative tools. I would encourage other editors who want to contribute to add news items as one editor can't realistically find all the relevant news all of the time. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

+1 to this! 4.5 years is considerably longer than I thought this would last, props to everyone keeping it going! :) Sam Walton (talk) 09:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

LUCA (film) Trivia - question

Hi,

you omitted our contribution to create a "Trivia" section in the LUCA film entry. You say "unsourced". Well - who could start a "source" if nobody has so far written about it? Maybe you would want to suggest a method for this. Thanks for your help, we are new to contribute to Wikipedia. (This is a general question unregarding the fact that you find this detail "unnecessary". - Where is the fine line between "unnecessary" and maybe "necessary") Thanks for replies! 176.161.15.116 (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC) \

Summary of the arb case

With respect to the decision

" Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to take appropriate actions (pursuant to the discretionary sanctions authorization) to facilitate consensus through moderation of any Requests for Comments (RfC). These actions may include, but are not limited to: moratoriums up to one year on initiating RfCs on a particular dispute, ...

The decision does not specify that it applies to anything outside the area of the case.

The summary here says

"The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. "

I don't think this is a reasonable representation of the decision. I know it's the decision that governs, not what is written in this newsletter, but admins are in the habit of using the newsletter statements as actual policy. DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

As this has already gone out, short of using a bot to update the wording, I'm not sure much can be done here. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, I'm new and would love to join the admin newsletter! 2600:1006:B004:C2F1:DD26:CC15:3258:7C1 (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

If you want to read the newsletter you can visit this page every month to see the latest newsletter. If you want to help writing it, I suggest creating an account so that your contributions towards the newsletter are linked in one page. By creating an account you can then also add your username to the list of writers. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Before publication

Before I go ahead and mass message this month's out are there any points to add to guideline / policy news? I couldn't find any which are specifically related to administrators, but there may be some that I've missed. If I have missed them, do add them before publication. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

changes to functionaries list

This isn't an official request from the committee, just me, but I think it would be helpful if this change [2] was noted in the next issue. Not everyone watches WP:ACN, and I've very recently seen admins advising blocked users to "contact functionaries". Thanks for your consideration. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

From my point of view the newspaper is collaborative and like a mainspace article (in terms of anyone can edit), so if you (or any other editor) wants to add relevant news to the newsletter I encourage and appreciate it. For the last few newspapers I've generally been sending out the mass message (and thus make the final edits before publication to those who are mass message subscribed), but many other editors add in the news as the month progresses. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Upcoming newsletter

I'm busy IRL until the 4th of April, so if anyone else wants to write and release the newsletter go ahead. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 10:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

This months is behind schedule, though I intend to finish and publish today. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:23, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Published this months Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

recommend bot to scrub your newsletter delivery list

User:Yapperbot/Pruner is currently in use on WP:FRS, pruning the names of inactive editors from newsletter subscriber lists so their respective talk pages don't become over-filled with newsletter announcements. When I was Signpost's publication manager I irregularly scrubbed our list after finding massmessage error reports showing which talk pages were too big to receive messages. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chris troutman, User:Yapperbot/Pruner doesn't seem to work with Mass Message lists as far as I aware. I do get your reasoning, and in theory I could support use of this bot if it works with an inactivity time of a number of years no less than 1 year. This is because this newsletter is also an easier way for inactive admins to keep an eye on what is changing onwiki. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

late to the party but if this can be made to work with most newsletters that would be great. I've done many manual removals over the years and they are a pain to get done on those long lists. Usually it's because I see a talk page where bots are sending newsletters and archive bts are creating archive after archive of unread newsletters. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Yup. Ideally it would be good to get this to work. I was thinking about creating a pull request to JJMC89's bot source code to allow their mass message manager bot to auto remove while also looking for users to rename etc. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 01:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Otherwise, I would create a separate bot task for this (though as that bot is already making edits for those who are renamed, it makes sense IMO to combine this with inactivity removals). Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 01:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Query

I was surprised at the wording in today's newsletter about the new activity requirements for administrators, specifically, "if an administrator has not made at least 100 edits over a period of 5 years they may be desysopped for inactivity." What puzzles me is the "may"...does that mean that the requirements may apply sometimes and not other times? I'd take my question to the RfC but it's been closed for a while and I doubt anyone watches its talk page at this point so I'm bringing the question here to ask whether this wording was an editorial decision or taken directly from the RfC. Thanks for any information you can offer! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Liz, the wording of may in the newsletter is taken from the linked policy though this likely could be word-smithed on the policy page to be are automatically which is what I think the intent was. At the moment, technically, a bureaucrat still signs off on the removal of admin perms for inactivity and as such could choose to delay in theory? Again, I'm not sure why they would, but I suspect the choice of may does not have any particular importance and was just a difference in the non-finalised wording from the RfC to the wording used in the policy. Do correct me if I am wrong. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 01:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: The "may" formulation was used in the inactivity policy prior to the recent change. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for noting that. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional information, Espresso Addict and Dreamy Jazz. I did weigh in on that RFC when it was open but I didn't check back regularly to read over the closure decision. I realize that resysopping is left to the bureaucrats to decide but usually if there are any serious questions or doubts about a editor who wants the tools back, there is a pretty active discussion on WP:BN about it so it was surprising to consider that so much latitude would be left to bureaucrats to decide what to do in individual cases. Thanks again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

User Moriori

Hi Team,

Im not sure if this is the right place but unfortunately Moriori passed away this morning 1st June 2022, Aged 86 peacefully in Kerikeri, New Zealand. He was an Admin for over 16 years. He asked that I was to notify his admin friends

keriboi@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moriori (talk • contribs) 02:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I have notified WP:BN. May he rest in peace. Thank you for your service to the project. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 02:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Rest in peace - 86 years old is a long time... Thingofme (talk) 11:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

“Suppress” is an unfortunate term

The newsletter says that in a few days “Oversight” will be changed to”Suppress” for technical reasons. Do what you must behind the curtain, in the code, but please do not tell users that their contributions have been suppressed. It smacks of dictatorships, injustice, censorship, and suppression of free expression. Please leave the viewable text with Oversight. Words matter. Edison (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Edison as mentioned in the newsletter [t]his will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. This change is being made to the MediaWiki software but will not affect the displayed name on software generated pages. All this means from what I can understand is that the technical name, i.e. the one used in URL for Special:ListUsers/suppress will be "suppress" instead of "oversight". Once the change is made, based on MediaWiki:Group-suppress having the content "Oversighters", the software will use this word when referring to the user group. This means that users will only see "Oversighters" / "Oversight" when the software created page mentions this user group, such as on Special:ListUsers. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

We should rename Oversight to Suppress. TSOPar (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Per the very conversation you just replied to, that was done. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 16:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

This month's newsletter

I've been a bit busy and combined with my first look for news not finding much, I haven't sent out this month's newsletter yet. If anyone has anything to add / wants to publish then feel free to as I'll probably not be free enough until maybe Sunday to get to this. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Add an admin tech tip?

What would people think of including a single tep tich for administrators every month? A few I had in mind:

1. When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that rang.
2. A single IPv6 connection usually has access to a "subnet" of 18 quintillion IPs. Add /64 to the end of an IP in Special:Contributions to see all of a subnet's edits, and consider blocking the whole subnet rather than an IP that may change within a minute.
3. The "Browse history interactively" at the top of every diff view can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.
4. Wikimarkup in a block summary is parsed in the notice that the blockee sees. You can use templates with custom options to specify situations like {{rangeblock|create=yes}} or {{uw-ublock|contains profanity}}.
5. You can do a fuzzy search of all deleted page titles at Special:Undelete.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

don't forget the pipe trick! — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 02:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

IPv6 addresses usually have access to a lot more than the /64 if they own the connection vs using a public one or something like that PhantomTech[talk] 02:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Great idea for something to add. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 07:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

August newsletter

Hey, Dreamy Jazz,

There was another kind of big arbitration case that closed before this newsletter came out today that wasn't mentioned which was kind of a surprised. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The newsletter generally covers things that have happened in the last month except for things that have a set time period that would be too late to announce in the next one (such as voting or wikimania). The case was closed on the 2 August, so it's in next month's newsletter. I personally don't mind if the newsletter is always the past month (within limit) or is all news from when the mass message is sent out. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Next newsletter

I was a bit surprised that Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_13#Special_Circumstances_Blocks didn't make it into the newsletter – perhaps the next one could include it? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:26, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

It's been added into next months one. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Next newsletter

possibly an advisory for admins to add themselves to WP:LA/TZ? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:26, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron, sure. Looks relevant and I'd support it's addition. Would be best to be in the Misc section I think. If you have any suggested wording please feel free to add it to the newsletter. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)