Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-02-25/News and notes

Though I'm really happy about the new administrators, and about the fact that we are getting more administrators faster, that we have in January and February passed as many administrators as a quarter of the entire year 2012 invites me to do the arithmatic myself (so, we have in two months done the same as a quarter in 2012, which is the equivalent of 3 months, so we're taking 33% less time to promote the same number of administrators, equivalent to promoting 50% more administrators). I have boldly changed this to "The four successful RfAs in January, combined with the three in February, make seven adminitrators promoted so far in 2013. In the first two months of 2012 we promoted only four adminitrators." This is far clearer to me. YMMV, feel free to revert. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the change, but it isn't really applicable. Other months of 2012 had different and higher numbers. I've tweaked this to instead read that "this figure is 25% of the administrators promoted last year (28), and if the trend continues, would make a 50% increase in administrators over the full year of 2013." Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I considered that, but reject my first thought about that since projecting the promotion velocity over the first two months to a whole year might not be applicable. The promotion rate has been very volatile in 2012 and we don't really have a reason to believe this will be different for 2013. With the "if the trend continues" you added that makes for a change I can support. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Your one-line Ombudsman coverage links through to a discussion which states that "the Ombudsman Commission will be flying to San Francisco for three days to take part in a series of meetings at the Wikimedia Foundation offices regarding the Ombudsman Commission. One of the topics that will be discussed is what we (the Commission and Foundation) think the remit of the Commission is, and what the remit should be." to support a statement that they are being flown to the office to discuss the role the commission plays in project governance. This is...very, very, technically, true. But I would suggest amending it to make clear that the interaction between the OC and individual projects is one of many things that will be discussed. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Also worth noting that the OC is currently soliciting opinions from the enwp community about its local remit and how it should interact with Arbcom and AUSC. I was surprised to see this not being linked to in the blurb here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for the notes. I have amended the article accordingly. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Re:Chapters Association elections

It is telling that Fæ, in his statement, has chosen to misrepresent the circumstances relating to his ban. Both Michaeldsuarez and I have posted requests for corrections. Since neither is able to post here, I will not comment further except to say that I would like to consider this episode closed, but Fæ seems to bring it up wherever and whenever he can. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * POTY
 * There should be an easy way to hover (or click in the lower right corner) in article images to view a larger version of the image. This would make it quicker and easier for users to appreciate these amazing photos (clicking on the image to take you to a new page disrupts flow). Currently they're confined to 200px which is just a shame. 74.202.39.3 (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)