| Revision as of 07:55, 2 January 2022 editKudpung (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors109,245 edits →RfA elections: re Barkeep49← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:08, 3 January 2022 edit undoBilledMammal (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users49,325 edits →January 2022: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 285: | Line 285: | ||
| 01:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC) | 01:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC) | ||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Barkeep49@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/2021_review/Update_list&oldid=1058818075 --> | <!-- Message sent by User:Barkeep49@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/2021_review/Update_list&oldid=1058818075 --> | ||
| == January 2022 == | |||
| You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at ] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the ] may be of use. | |||
| Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbitration CA notice --> ] (]) 04:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:08, 3 January 2022
Happy St. Patrick's Day
| Happy St. Patrick's Day! I hope your St. Patrick's Day is enjoyable and safe. Hopefully next year there will be more festive celebrations. Best wishes from Los Angeles. // Timothy :: talk |
YGM
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Thank you multiple times!
The Signpost: 29 November 2021
- In the media: Denial: climate change, mass killings and pornography
- WikiCup report: The WikiCup 2021
- Deletion report: What we lost, what we gained
- From a Misplaced Pages reader: What's Matt Amodio?
- Arbitration report: ArbCom in 2021
- Discussion report: On the brink of change – RFA reforms appear imminent
- Technology report: What does it take to upload a file?
- WikiProject report: Interview with contributors to WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers
- Recent research: Vandalizing Misplaced Pages as rational behavior
- Humour: A very new very Wiki crossword
Tech News: 2021-48
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 30 November. It will be on non-Misplaced Pages wikis and some Wikipedias from 1 December. It will be on all wikis from 2 December (calendar).
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
21:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Tech News: 2021-49
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Problems
- MediaWiki 1.38-wmf.11 was scheduled to be deployed on some wikis last week. The deployment was delayed because of unexpected problems.
Changes later this week
- The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 7 December. It will be on non-Misplaced Pages wikis and some Wikipedias from 8 December. It will be on all wikis from 9 December (calendar).
- At all Wikipedias, a Mentor Dashboard is now available at
Special:MentorDashboard. It allows registered mentors, who take care of newcomers' first steps, to monitor their assigned newcomers' activity. It is part of the Growth features. You can learn more about activating the mentor list on your wiki and about the mentor dashboard project. 
The predecessor to the current MediaWiki Action API (which was created in 2008), action=ajax, will be removed this week. Any scripts or bots using it will need to switch to the corresponding API module.- An old ResourceLoader module,
jquery.jStorage, which was deprecated in 2016, will be removed this week. Any scripts or bots using it will need to switch tomediawiki.storageinstead.
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
21:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
TFD thought
Just a thought for the future, if you relist a discussion with the intention of adding in extra templates, you should add those templates to the nomination (via {{tfd links}}) as well as tagging them. Right now, technically speaking, neither of them are actually nominated. Primefac (talk) 11:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- Good shout. Forgot some of the manual steps; somewhat spoilt by Twinkle and XfDCloser. Thanks for taking care of that for this discussion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Bots Newsletter, December 2021
| Bots Newsletter, December 2021 | ||
|---|---|---|
Welcome to the eighth issue of the English Misplaced Pages's Bots Newsletter, your source for all things bot. Maintainers disappeared to parts unknown... bots awakening from the slumber of æons... hundreds of thousands of short descriptions... these stories, and more, are brought to you by Misplaced Pages's most distinguished newsletter about bots. Our last issue was in August 2019, so there's quite a bit of catching up to do. Due to the vast quantity of things that have happened, the next few issues will only cover a few months at a time. This month, we'll go from September 2019 through the end of the year. I won't bore you with further introductions — instead, I'll bore you with a newsletter about bots. Overall
September 2019 .jpg)
October 2019
November 2019 
December 2019
In the next issue of Bots Newsletter:
These questions will be answered — and new questions raised — by the January 2022 Bots Newsletter. Tune in, or miss out! Signing off... jp×g 04:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC) (You can subscribe or unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding or removing your name from this list.) | ||
Y 25 were approved, and 8 were unsuccessful (
N2 3 denied, 
? 3 withdrawn, and 
2 expired).Editor retention
The editor retention project doesn't like to discuss purely speculative conjectures, either—well, at least I don't. isaacl (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Keep or delete the Monarch
Howdy. Just letting you know I've opened up an RFC at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Politics, for all the Year in constituent country articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Chicken Kiev
Template:Chicken Kiev has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Tech News: 2021-50
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- There are now default short aliases for the "Project:" namespace on most wikis. E.g. On Wikibooks wikis,
]will go to the local language default for the]namespace. This change is intended to help the smaller communities have easy access to this feature. Additional local aliases can still be requested via the usual process.
Changes later this week
- The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 14 December. It will be on non-Misplaced Pages wikis and some Wikipedias from 15 December. It will be on all wikis from 16 December (calendar).
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
22:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
AFD's
First off, I want to thank you for your works at Template editing, having said, I stumbled across some of the AFD's you have opened recently and it seems they are inundated with keep !votes, I do not necessarily see this as a failure on your part to do a proper WP:BEFORE as even the best of new page reviewers sometimes encounter such experiences, but rather, i see this as a gradual decay of the AFD process itself. This is a rather sad reality that Scope_creep noted a long time ago, when they stated “AFD's no longer works except it’s a slam-dunk AFD” In-fact, I myself (if it is not a promotional article) I too do not bother to nominate some non notable articles for deletion, rather I adopt the philosophy of John B123 where I just tag the article and move to the next article. My thinking is, if in the future you want to nominate an article for deletion, asking for feedback from here would prove very helpful. Celestina007 (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
- I think you're referring to the following three (currently unclosed) AfDs?
- I would say in the first two the keep vote is false; both in the assertion of GNG and the supplied source(s) (to which I've now responded), and in trying to sell an essay as an SNG. In the third AfD, it seems the first keep editor agrees NCORP isn't met but feels the article should be kept anyway, and the second makes an argument based on the encyclopaedic-ness of the content. I don't really check an AfD after I nominate an article, though now that you've reminded me of them I've replied in the first two AfDs, but regardless of what the end result ends up being I do think they're all valid AfDs and the articles in question should be deleted as they fail WP:N, though I respect those who feel otherwise. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
- You aren’t necessarily incorrect to sometimes nominate an article for deletion and then un-watch the article, in-fact, under Barkeep49, I learnt to open AFD's make a few comments and then walk away. AFD's or (NPP) in general are sometimes so tiring it has led to the retirement and vexation of Onel5969 who was one of my mentors(still is). You aren’t also wrong when you say some !votes are false, for example take a look at this AFD I opened, note how both editors (from WikiProject Ghana) are both !voting keeps without actually giving a salient reason. The decay in AFD's are so because knowledgeable editors who should participate in AFD’s aren’t participating anymore, hereby giving leeway to editors who aren’t grounded in policy to “play around” and yes you are correct all three named AFD's are valid, Later in the day I shall do a BEFORE and weigh in on them and cast my !vote objectively. Thank you for your time PR, do enjoy the rest of your day. Celestina007 (talk) 10:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
- Software is an interesting area at AfD. There are indeed many software articles that are lacking in RS coverage but I haven't nominated (and wouldn't) because I think they're encyclopaedic, which is why I respect the comments of those who are voting based on their view of the encyclopaedic-ness of the content. There are software packages that are used throughout the industry but don't really get coverage in mainstream RS and their articles are mostly sourced to changelogs etc. For example, Log4j probably didn't have amazing coverage in RS (although perhaps still enough for GNG) until recently when there was a major vulnerability that affected millions of users (see Log4Shell), also leading to a flurry of reliable source coverage.
- Though I do think these particular ones don't meet the bar, of sourcing or encyclopaedic-ness. It's just cookie-cutter commercial software sourced to basically a singular review, and Macworld (given its scope) will review almost any Mac app that isn't completely awful. Some of the reviews are just straight promo .
- Based on your example, I will express my view that I think AfD closers should treat comments that say
Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources
as if they were never written. Unless a comment either explicitly links to sources, or valid links have been made earlier in the discussion, or it's blatantly obvious from looking at the sources in the article, those commenting at AfD should be providing the links to said "significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources", otherwise they're just votes. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)- I've lost faith in AfD. With only a handful of editors participating in any AfD, it's hardly a representative consensus of community opinion. Whilst in theory the discussions are policy based, in practice a few people, either for or against, can sway the result based on liberal interpretation on policy.
- As far as NPP is concerned, a new article may not seem to be notable either because it's not notable or because the notability is not shown in the article. Whilst in an ideal world you'd search to see if the subject was indeed notable, the purpose of NPP is triage, so tagging and moving on is appropriate IMHO. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
- You aren’t necessarily incorrect to sometimes nominate an article for deletion and then un-watch the article, in-fact, under Barkeep49, I learnt to open AFD's make a few comments and then walk away. AFD's or (NPP) in general are sometimes so tiring it has led to the retirement and vexation of Onel5969 who was one of my mentors(still is). You aren’t also wrong when you say some !votes are false, for example take a look at this AFD I opened, note how both editors (from WikiProject Ghana) are both !voting keeps without actually giving a salient reason. The decay in AFD's are so because knowledgeable editors who should participate in AFD’s aren’t participating anymore, hereby giving leeway to editors who aren’t grounded in policy to “play around” and yes you are correct all three named AFD's are valid, Later in the day I shall do a BEFORE and weigh in on them and cast my !vote objectively. Thank you for your time PR, do enjoy the rest of your day. Celestina007 (talk) 10:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Tech News: 2021-51
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Tech News
- Because of the holidays the next issue of Tech News will be sent out on 10 January 2022.
Recent changes
- Queries made by the DynamicPageList extension (
<DynamicPageList>) are now only allowed to run for 10 seconds and error if they take longer. This is in response to multiple outages where long-running queries caused an outage on all wikis.
Changes later this week
- There is no new MediaWiki version this week or next week.
Future changes
- The developers of the Misplaced Pages iOS app are looking for testers who edit in multiple languages. You can read more and let them know if you are interested.
- The Wikimedia Cloud VPS hosts technical projects for the Wikimedia movement. Developers need to claim projects they use. This is because old and unused projects are removed once a year. Unclaimed projects can be shut down from February.
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
22:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Holiday greetings (2021)
ProcrastinatingReader,
I sincerely hope your holiday season goes well this year especially with what we went through last year. I'm optimistic that 2022 will be a better year for all of us: both in real life and on Misplaced Pages. Wishing you the best from, Interstellarity (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks! All the best to you and yours as well. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Books
Is there a residual project page for the Books: namespace and books that were userfied as a result? – SJ + 00:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- Aha, I had to read Misplaced Pages:Books/archive#Subpages again to understand it -- odd that only 15 books were undeleted, and I assumed others had been userfied without leaving a record. – SJ + 00:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- I guess it's possible some books were undeleted and then moved to the creator's userspace? eg I know David Eppstein moved his books to his userspace, albeit before the namespace's deletion. FWIW I didn't take part in the implementation of the closure decision, which was handled here, so Trialpears is probably better placed to answer implementation questions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- I know a bunch of books we're moved before deletion. I have been looking to compile a list now and I believe User:Discographer/Books, David Eppstein's books, listed on hist userpage, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Furry/Book and User:54nd60x/Books were all books moved before archiving. A few books have been refunded and not moved as you noticed. The following books have been moved from their archive location. Misplaced Pages:Books/archive/Fundamental_Data_Structures Misplaced Pages:Books/archive/Malaysia, Misplaced Pages:Books/archive/Ayn_Rand, Misplaced Pages:Books/archive/Electricity_Generation_using_Solar_Thermal_Technology, Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages:Books/archive/DIVYA_BHARTI, Misplaced Pages:Books/archive/Algorithms, Misplaced Pages:Books/archive/Carole_Lombard, Misplaced Pages:Books/archive/William_Holden, Misplaced Pages:Books/archive/Mental_health, Misplaced Pages:Books/archive/Michigan_State_Trunkline_Highway_System and Misplaced Pages:Books/archive/Managing_enterprises_with_advanced_ICT. I believe that is all moves prompted by the deletion process, but it doesn't include moves from bookspace before June 2021. --Trialpears (talk) 13:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- I guess it's possible some books were undeleted and then moved to the creator's userspace? eg I know David Eppstein moved his books to his userspace, albeit before the namespace's deletion. FWIW I didn't take part in the implementation of the closure decision, which was handled here, so Trialpears is probably better placed to answer implementation questions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
RfA elections
Hi. Whether you support secure poll for RfA or not, it's not the issue - I don't give two hoots about an alternative voting method either because there will always be a section to discuss the candidate(s) just like there is at ACE, and it would not be likely to prevent toxic comments. However, I am concerned that if an RfC were to be launched, it would provide the community with ample opportunity to decide which way they want to go. One is not compelled to vote 'Support, as proposer', how would you feel about co-drafting an RfC proposal? It's something I would not hesitate to do myself if I were not semi-retired and still had all my marbles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Kudpung: I think it's fair enough that there should be a good discussion on the issue via RfC. Personally though, I'm not enthusiastic enough about the elections idea to co-draft an RfC, and also am not sure I'm the best choice since I don't have a lot of experience with RfA. Maybe Worm That Turned (as the original drafter) or Wugapodes would make better co-drafters? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. I didn't ask them, because they have both been very busy lately with various RfC, but of course if they feel up to it they are welcome to do so. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- That said, of course, Wugapodes has been elected to the Arbcom and will probably find it such a time sink that he won't have time for much else. You have been extremely busy in governance issues since you began editing 18 months ago, and I haven't since I retired from active editing, so perhaps you have an idea who might be approachable (perhaps TonyBallioni?). OTOH, the issue of RfA elections might simply be left to die a natural death if the WMF can't be goaded into making the secret poll software available, so it would be back to the jolly old status quo of RfA with all its trials & tribulations. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- My massive policy RfC days are behind me. I will say this, the biggest hurdle to overcome if this is held as an independent RfC will be overcoming the very entrenched idea that RfAs aren't votes, even though they obviously are and always have been. Consensus can't redefine the English language. Trying to overcome the English Misplaced Pages's 20 year attempt to redefine what the word "vote" means to somehow exclude a discussion with strict numeric thresholds for succeeding will be much harder in an RfC on only one issue. Those type of things are easier to get through in omnibus RfCs when the people who would ordinarily oppose them on those ground might focus on other issues/not notice.On the idea itself, I agree with Risker's assessment somewhere that a secret ballot will decrease the passing percentage since the public nature of RfA actually makes people nicer than if it was private. See the one and only set functionary elections we held on en.wiki as an example. If you want to go down the election route, the way I would do it would be to have public elections held twice a year with strict numeric criteria for passing (let's say 70% and minimum 100 supports or something like that.) People would put in a statement at the beginning and then you'd vote with public comments. Anyone meeting the numeric thresholds would be elected with no maximum number being able to be promoted each election cycle.You'd have to work out the kinks, and I doubt it'd pass as a standalone RfC, but if anyone is interested in pursuing the elections idea, elections with public voting is significantly more likely to increase the promotion rate than elections with private voting, in my opinion. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- I knew ArbCom would be a time sink, and even still I underestimated how little time and energy I have left for other wiki tasks. My two cents, PR, is that your disinterest would make you a good drafter. On issues like this where there are entrenched ideological differences, it is hard to find a viable consensus if a proposal is only written by those on one side; having diverse views at drafting helps prevent surprises during consideration. My concern is that major changes be unambiguous and well thought through. Very often we only have one chance at major experiments like this, because it is hard to recover from failure. In the best case, it fails and serves as evidence against any similar proposals. At worst we're stuck with a broken process for years. Your disinterest in the actual substance means you're more likely to focus on the practical rather than philosophical aspects of an electoral system, and that's an asset. — Wug·a·po·des 06:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- In that case sure; Kudpung I’d be happy to co-draft with you. Let me know how you want to organise it. It probably helps that a discussion was already had on the issue, which means it’s easier to identify the main areas of community concern, and of course there’s the analysis you’ve already done too. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- I would like to thank TonyBallioni and Wugapodes for their valuable input. They both highlight fundamental issues surrounding such an exercise. Like all well intended RfA reforms before it, although Barkeep49's project identified the same most likely possible reasons for the dearth of admin candidates as all the other discussions did before it, it failed to result in any solutions directly related to it. Moreover, due to its structure, it evolved more into a reform of minor, non-RfA aspects of adminship where it did find some resonance. Much of the knowledge gaps which need to be filled are those that are still being bridged by popular conjecture. One needs to re-examine and establish what the core issues are without all the white noise, before expecting the community to join another big debate. I've emailed you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:12, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- FWIW, I agree with Tony that I think passing this as a standalone will face a lot of challenges and that if it were to pass support %s would plummet. But I wish good luck to anyone who is embarking on it - we need to make the process of appointing new admins better and this is one way that has some clear level of current community support to do so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49:, FWIW I've never been fond of omnibus RfCs. I was taught many years ago that it's better to address one thing at a time, and indeed that's what seems to work best on Misplaced Pages, at least in my experience. Besides, one would have to wait another 5 years before throwing another time consuming multi-faceted RfA project at the community. They tire easily and there's also a lot of questions going to be raised this year about the other one: ACE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- FWIW, I agree with Tony that I think passing this as a standalone will face a lot of challenges and that if it were to pass support %s would plummet. But I wish good luck to anyone who is embarking on it - we need to make the process of appointing new admins better and this is one way that has some clear level of current community support to do so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- I would like to thank TonyBallioni and Wugapodes for their valuable input. They both highlight fundamental issues surrounding such an exercise. Like all well intended RfA reforms before it, although Barkeep49's project identified the same most likely possible reasons for the dearth of admin candidates as all the other discussions did before it, it failed to result in any solutions directly related to it. Moreover, due to its structure, it evolved more into a reform of minor, non-RfA aspects of adminship where it did find some resonance. Much of the knowledge gaps which need to be filled are those that are still being bridged by popular conjecture. One needs to re-examine and establish what the core issues are without all the white noise, before expecting the community to join another big debate. I've emailed you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:12, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Happy Holidays
Rlink2 (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
)
KendalAndrew Strikes Back
Hey, I've been reverting edits made by User:Kendalandrew (a la ). They keep trying to add content similar to their other edits to Robert Courts like they did before. I'm worried that it's basically an edit war at this point. Would you mind helping out a bit? --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 07:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- @PerpetuityGrat: filed an AE; see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Kendalandrew. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Continued from AE
Continuing from my comment: In revision deleting the list of accounts both from AE and the user's talk page, I needed to revision delete the diff you mention, which I'm not overly happy about as it makes your complaint less transparent - so for context if needed in the future, I quoted three words from an email I received from Encyclopædius, which I believe to be well below the threshold of potential issues mentioned in Misplaced Pages:Emailing users#Reposting emails publicly. You are however correct in both cases; it is not against policy, but it is somewhat frowned upon.
I should note that all of my revision deletions have little to no standing in policy, and I am relying on WP:IAR - if anyone complains, I will revert myself without challenge.
On a personal note, I really do try to give people the benefit of the doubt - I don't always get that right. I hope Encyclopædius reconsiders -- TNT (talk • she/her) 10:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Well, the alt accounts are out there now. And just as well since it smells like there's been UPE. Probably this needs WP:SCRUTINY. Alexbrn (talk) 10:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- With emails, my view is that there's probably a reason the editor hasn't made the comments onwiki. For some reason or another, they want to have a conversation off-the-record or express something they would feel less comfortable doing onwiki, and while there's no policy obligation to respect that I still think it's good practice to do so.
- Regarding the accounts, my concern was pretty much just what I said at AE. A lot of CUs might've disclosed incidental findings off the bat, and I don't think that's good practice unless there's concern of misuse but it's common enough to be considered acceptable, but you didn't and I think you're a thoughtful functionary so I felt the need to express my concern. I think you handled the expressed concern very well, and I'm aware you were under no obligation to do it that way, so thanks. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 December 2021
- From the editor: Here is the news
- News and notes: Jimbo's NFT, new arbs, fixing RfA, and financial statements
- Serendipity: Born three months before her brother?
- In the media: The past is not even past
- Arbitration report: A new crew for '22
- By the numbers: Four billion words and a few numbers
- Deletion report: We laughed, we cried, we closed as "no consensus"
- Gallery: Wikicommons presents: 2021
- Traffic report: Spider-Man, football and the departed
- Crossword: Another Wiki crossword for one and all
- Humour: Buying Misplaced Pages
RFA 2021 Completed
The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular Primefac, Lee Vilenski, and Ymblanter for closing the most difficult conversations and for TonyBallioni for closing the review of one of the closes.
The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:
- Revision of standard question 1 to
Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
Special thanks to xaosflux for help with implementation. - A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
- Removal of autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to Wugapodes and Seddon for their help with implementation.
The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:
- An option for people to run for temporary adminship (proposal, discussion, & close)
- An optional election process (proposal & discussion and close review & re-close)
Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.
A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months.
This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned.
01:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
January 2022
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide may be of use.
Thanks, BilledMammal (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)