User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 69

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Quick questions
Hello Ealdgyth. I have three quick questions: Bede lists what I would call its Notes or maybe Footnotes (e.g., "Brooks 2006, p. 5") in a section titled References. Is the use of "References" for "Brooks 2006, p. 5" a fairly common format, or is it idiosyncratic? I ask because I am writing a script to flag various resource checking issues... and what's the logic for putting the multiply-cited "Fr. Paolo O. Pirlo, SHMI (1997)." in the References instead of the Sources?... and while I have already inconvenienced you, it it really common out there in the wild to put full book citations (with publisher etc.) in the footnotes or notes or whatever if they are cited only once, and in sources if cited more than once? It would be so amazingly more consistent and logical and clear to just put them all in the same place... Sorry to be so inquisitive. Thanks. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Bede isn’t really something I’ve worked much on, it’s references are rather scattered. Usually I do something like what is in Jacob Gens or Norman conquest of England.youll never get standardization of how references are presented on Wikipedia...just not going to happen. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks then... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Amyntas of Galatia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mark Anthony ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Amyntas_of_Galatia check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Amyntas_of_Galatia?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Skowonrek Article Edits.
Hi Ealdgyth- you are going to waste a lot of time and get your self very upset if you keep changing the Skowronek article, especially anything relating to the pedigree controversy unless you get consensus from the editors. Just saying. Save yourself some time, and take a look at the talk page of the article. Arabhorseguy (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you threatening to edit war over this? Because quite frankly, I am still only seeing one editor putting in stuff and that information being reverted (or objected to on the talk page) by a number of other editors. When its one editor against many, that's kind of the definition of WP:CONSENSUS. This post here sure looks like a threat to continue to edit war against multiple editors... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Consensus appears to be 5:1 against this guy.  Montanabw (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

You were mentioned
Here, Ealdgyth; I'd be flattered if you would find your way towards giving an opinion. Hope you're well!  >SerialNumber 54129 ...speculates 16:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Further to this, I've finished my minor expansion (no longer "in use")—I thought the WotR section needed fattening up. Cheers,  >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 17:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As a driveby comment, if you're planning on taking JdeM to FAC it definitely needs a mention of Shakespeare. I normally loathe "in popular culture", but in this case I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that over 99%—and probably over 99.9%—of people who've heard of him, have heard of him from his three-line cameo appearance in 3 Henrv VI. &#8209; Iridescent 17:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Driveby comments always welcome. Thanks ; I was going to ask about that—it's lower down in my brain, the highbrow stuff—but the only reason I haven't (precisely as you nod to) is that I thought it might open the floodgates to crapper entries (at some point he'll probably be mentioned in manga or something!)—but I'll go for it. Actors of him too, you think?  >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 18:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd say probably not for Shakespeare, given that he's a bit part. If he was a major character in something, or if an A-list star got his start because a producer saw him playing Norfolk and liked it, it would probably be worth mentioning. "In popular culture" isn't necessarily a bad thing when it comes to historic figures, as it demonstrates that people continue to find the person in question relevant. &#8209; Iridescent 18:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This kind of thing? —absolute bark finding stuff on a bloke what says three lines :)   >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 19:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

troll vandalizing articles
We've been dealing with a troll on the Skowronek article who if I remember made the change "the" Skowronek. Thanks for your patience as this gets cleaned up. Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC))
 * I don't care who first inserted it but here it is being restored right before my edit. It's a sign of someone using undo without actually checking the intervening edits. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And amazingly enough, I do know all about the troll, since I was also being reverted there on that article by that troll. Yes, I'm cranky, but this whole thing is getting old. And it's cold, wet, damp, and muddy� here with ice on the trees and on my feed buckets and everything else. It'd be nice if I could escape to editing WP without drama. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Its cold wet and muddy here too and the dog has paws that are full of mud and has tracked everywhere.... that said... we were in the midst of cleaning up after the troll on two different pages; I saw the error but decided to stop removing content which was being reverted immediately and go to AN/I to try and take care of the troll before more damage was done. So that's my story and I'm sticking' to it.... and hopes for you to have spring soon with out the mud.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC))

Three Bars pedigree question
The great Three Bars stallion who has an article and is in the AQHA Hall of Fame probably has a large progeny. I have run into another horse with the same name, and montanabw and I have researched her a bit. She is a mare called Three Bars, who was foaled circa 1961. She was a rodeo horse, a bareback bronc bucking horse. I'm trying to learn if she was a "real" Quarter Horse who is related to him. Also, if I create an article about her, what would be the proper name for her, since Three Bars is already taken? Three Bars (horse)? So as not to be confused with the great stallion. She's notable because she is in two rodeo halls of fame. If this is something that you can find relatively easily, great. Put it on hold if you are still as busy as ever, as there is no rush on my side. Thanks! dawnleelynn(talk) 23:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

https://www.canadianprorodeohalloffame.com/inductees.php?year=1989

http://www.prorodeohalloffame.com/inductees/by-category/livestock/three-bars/

(maybe Three Bars (bucking horse) )


 * There is no mare named "Three Bars" in the AQHA computer. Nor are any of her offspring/grandget there in the right time frame. My guess is, she's a grade mare, since neither blurb gives her breeding. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks a bunch! It's not totally surprising since the only things I can find on her in searches are rodeo and rodeo-related topics. Whoever named her was just probably someone that liked that name and thought highly of her, most likely. Obviously, the stallion is much more notable so it's good he got the article name first. dawnleelynn(talk) 23:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

About my edit
Dear Ealdgyth, I saw you reverted my edit Wulfstan (died 1023). All I wanted was to put Ƿynn in Old English text, in this short quote text, and it looked great with Ƿynn, because it was natural, it was the way it should've been. The tendency of using w instead of Ƿynn is not fair, I know sometimes this sound was written like u or uu, but it wasn't w and Ƿynn was the main letter for this sound. I didn't rewrite Wulfstan with Ƿynn, 'cause I knew it was hopeless but ths text was short and it's such a pity there's no way it can saty being written with Ƿynn.

Birdofadozentides (talk) 00:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * we don’t change quotations, even if we think it’s prettier. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I suppose it's because of copyrights. Thanks for answering. Birdofadozentides (talk) 01:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * And could you please delete this discussion? Because this joke about "purtier" made it all look wrong. Birdofadozentides (talk) 01:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Another successful month of scheduling
Gratz. - Dank (push to talk) 04:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Lourdes†
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V
 * † Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news
 * The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
 * Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
 * A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
 * A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news
 * CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
 * The edit filter has a new feature  that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous
 * Following the 2018 Steward elections, the following users are our new stewards:, , , ,.

Obituaries
 * Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 March newsletter
And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. With 53 contestants qualifying, the groups for round 2 are slightly smaller than usual, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining users.

Our top scorers in round 1 were:


 * 🇺🇸 Aoba47 led the field with a featured article, 8 good articles and 42 GARs, giving a total of 666 points.
 * 🇩🇪 FrB.TG, a WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points, gained from a featured article and masses of bonus points.
 * 🇮🇳 Ssven2, another WikiCup newcomer, was in third place with 403 points, garnered from a featured article, a featured list, a good article and twelve GARs.
 * 🇺🇸 Ceranthor, 🇮🇳 Numerounovedant, Carbrera, 🇳🇱 Farang Rak Tham and 🇷🇴 Cartoon network freak all had over 200 points, but like all the other contestants, now have to start again from scratch. A good achievement was the 193 GARs performed by WikiCup contestants, comparing very favourably with the 54 GAs they achieved.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) and Vanamonde (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

John Mowbray, 3rd Duke of Norfolk
Hullo, me again—You were kind enough to comment at this article's (somewhat informal!) peer review, and I thought I'd let you know it's now a featured article candidate. The discussion is here, and any further comments you may wishto make would be naturally very welcome. Thanks again!  ...SerialNumber 54129 ...speculates 11:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Some day I'll figure out how that bot's mind works. I can understand it giving you assorted Classical stuff based on lumping medievalism and antiquity together into "pre colonial era history", but Revolutionary Committee of the Chinese Kuomintang and Pierre Vaultier? &#8209; Iridescent 18:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I got Construction Battalion Maintenance Unit 302 in the lucky dip...how bout a trade :D   —SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 18:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've been doing some maitenance work on Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the DGRBM lately, since I haven't had enough time to actually do deep research for articles... so that's why the classical stuff. Not sure about the others. I think I keep SuggestBot just for the amusement value at this point... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I am minded to agree that the bot's choices are odd. User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus/Archive 34 - what made her think that I care about sports? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I am minded to agree that the bot's choices are odd. User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus/Archive 34 - what made her think that I care about sports? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you help me mentor this new editor?
Hi Ealdgyth,

I wonder if you'd be willing to have a look at the discussion on a new user's talk page, and offer your thoughts/and-or help me mentor him in creating his first article? So far, all his contribs have all been in talk space:. I remember well your assistance with Henia, and there are some aspects here that remind me a bit of her, but Fritz is quite different. I trust your judgment and opinions, and it would be better to have more than just one person involved in advising Fritz. I'm about to assist him in creating a new article he's very eager to see.

If you're willing, please have a look at User talk:Fritz Fehling. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you'll want to find someone else to help mentor - I'm afraid that I'm not really very patient with philosophy or political science topics - they bore me to tears. I have no wish my my detestation of the subject matter to spoil your mentoring efforts. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from edit terrorism
Please refrain from edit terrorism on Internet otherwise it may lead to your edit privileges being evoked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:24A3:AF97:0:0:6F3:F8B0 (talk) 12:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit terrorism
This member is a radical extremist fundamentalist christian terrorist and he is spreading edit terrorism on Wikipedia. Please refrain from edit terrorism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:24A3:AF97:0:0:6F3:F8B0 (talk) 12:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Last I checked I'm a female polytheisist... a member of the Religio Romana. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Urse d'Abetot scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Urse d'Abetot article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 14, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/April 14, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Should there be a word after the first "Norman" in the lead? if your co-writers are still active, can you please let them know of this nom?

Completely unrelated, do you want me to do something about the ip who posted the two preceding messages? Jimfbleak - talk to me?  14:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * nah, I find it amusing the lack of research on me that was done.... I’ll look at the Norman point...Ealdgyth - Talk 14:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Sources reviews
Thank you for your comment on the FAC talkpage. Most of the other comments thus far are negatively dreary, likely to inspire a "why should I bother?" response. Nevertheless I will write my "how to do" essay, and see what happens. I've an idea that you wrote something similar once, when we were young. Would you be prepared to look mine over when the draft is complete? I'll supply a link. ( Meantime, please refrain from edit terrorism. ) Brianboulton (talk) 15:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I don't think the necessity of refraining from Edit Terrorism can be over emphasised, actually...  —SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 15:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Brian .. I'll try to reply further to you, but would certainly be glad to look over what you have. What you're thinking of is ... Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches. Note it's not been updated to reflect the change to "high quality" that was made here. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. Your piece is, I find, linked on the FAC talkpage in the Featured content dispatch workshop, though I doubt many know that it's there. Although needing some updating, it's still useful, and until I can get my own act together, it would be a good idea to remind editors of it. Brianboulton (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I know I should get back to source reviews, but some of those pop culture reviews I did last ... really left a bad taste in my mouth. I don't have a lot of time to edit anyway... and when it's not fun, I'm really better off working on my own research and writing ... to be quite frank, I often felt unsupported in things. Featured article candidates/Alfred Shout/archive1 was really annoying - because I was busy with things and still recovering from a computer crash, my concerns were .. not ignored, but pushed aside. The fact that I hadn't struck my points probably should have been enough to make most folks think I still objected. It felt like the push was on to make sure the article passed, rather than making sure the article was actually fullfiling the criteria. And thus, my concerns went no-where. After the bruising fight over Jill Valentine, I just didn't have the energy to keep going. I think you can understand that a bit more now... to handle the job of doing source reviews, other reviewers need to support you... and it's not often that happens. Sorry if I sound nasty and petty but... FAC used to be enjoyable BECAUSE other reviewers supported when folks had objections. Now it feels sometimes too much like peer review and a new editor mentoring society. And it's ALWAYS felt like the sourcing criteria are of much lesser concern than stylistic and prose issues. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There's definitely a problem,but I wonder if it's really where Brian thinks it is. My view has always been that if one is going to support at FAC then one ought to have checked the nomination against all the criteria. Not necessarily all the sources, but a spot check of a few, especially where something doesn't seem quite right. Which is why I've always been puzzled by these "support on prose" votes. And Ealdgyth, trust me, we all sometimes feel that our opinions are being ignored at FAC. Eric   Corbett  00:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem I'm trying to address is certainly not the only one at FAC. Articles are often supported without the close reading and consideration that ought to be given – I find simple grammar and typo errors in articles which have gained multiple supports. I suppose I ought to oppose more, but Ealdgyth is right – the culture has changed, opposes are resented and can become a millstone to the opposer. Yesterday I went through the FAC list down to the "older nominations" and in the whole listing found just one oppose – from Eric as it happens – and that was struck. But that's not the particular issue I'm addressing. Source reviewing cannot remain dependent on the activity of a single editor. The FAC system will eventually collapse unless more  are prepared to share the chore, and I'm trying to ensure that editors are armed with at least some information to help them do it. Brianboulton (talk) 10:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Brian - I posted a long screed at Mike Christie's talk page ... if that helps. I'm a bit swamped today - sick housemate, ponies needing extra TLC (eldery), and real life computer gaming job screaming for attention. I will try to look over FAC and see if there are things I could point out. I do intend to do more source reviewing ... but ... as you know... its draining. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * That's all true Brian, and I hope you know that I'm in no way trying to get at you. Your point about a lack of opposes is well taken. There is indeed a lot pressure on opposers, particularly when the oppose comes late after a body of premature support, but I think we really have to bite the bullet and follow our consciences. As a matter of interest, have you ever opposed an article on the basis of your source review? Or you Ealdgyth? I most certainly would if I felt it was warranted. Eric   Corbett  13:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me get the ponies fed - but I posted links on Mike's page to a couple of FACs where I did oppose on sourcing. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * To answer Eric: yes, I do on occasion oppose on sources, the last time I remember being this one. This was a particularly disturbing case because the nomination had previously gained seven supports, including some from very experienced FA editors. Brianboulton (talk) 14:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Featured article candidates/Jill Valentine/archive1 and Featured article candidates/Revival (comics)/archive1. Sadly (and not to pick on you Brian, I totally understand the pressure) but Featured article candidates/Revival (comics)/archive3 passed with sources still in it that I'd opposed on from FAC1. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Something a 150 years closer
to your period than my last Duke of Norfolk, is currently at peer review; if you would care to glance over it and comment as much or as little as you like, you know it would be greatly appreciated. Hope you have a good week Ealdgyth! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia / cheap shit room 18:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

WT:FAC -- " I should write up the full process of doing a pop culture source review sometime"
I kinda almost refuse to check video or pop music articles because I'm lost in an alien world of Geocities-ish Internet links, far from my comfortable OUP and CUP. So... do you think you gave time to write it? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:14, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg 331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando

Guideline and policy news
 * Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
 * Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
 * The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
 * The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

Technical news
 * There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration
 * The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

Miscellaneous
 * A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
 * The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Treblinka again
May I ask you please to reinstate protection for Treblinka extermination camp due to the resurgence of disruptive editing, thanks. Perhaps a longer period of protection would be in order. I will leave it to your discretion.  Poeticbent  talk 03:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don’t find those edits disruptive on the merits. I note that a talk page discussion has been opened, perhaps it would be best if the edits were discussed without worrying who makes the edits. Certainly, the use of “famed” is quite at variance with WP:PEACOCK. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)