This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).

Administrator changes

Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
• An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
• An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

• The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
• Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous

• The previously discussed unblocking of IP addresses indefinitely-blocked before 2009 was approved and has taken place.
• The 2019 talk pages consultation produced a report for Phase 1 and has entered Phase 2.

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Video games#RFC: Character guidelines. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 18:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

A quick update: I had to withdraw my nomination, since it was premature. Given the possibility of a centralized WP:MOS for all fictional characters in general, should we make a proposal to write it up at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Fictional characters, incorporating some of the elements from our proposal that we worked on, and consult with several other projects including WP:TELEVISION, WP:COMICS and WP:ANIME? Thanks. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 04:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I’m sorry I wasn’t there to help. I’ve been continually busy off-wiki. Sergecross73 msg me 01:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I was wondering if it would be possible to delete my user talk archive pages? I was going to use db-u1, but I figure dozens of instances of that might be disruptive. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 22:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I can do that for you. Are you sure though? Sergecross73 msg me 01:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Yep, trying to go with a clean slate. Also I finished Ayla (Chrono Trigger) and Faris Scherwiz, which I'm excited about. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 03:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Will do. Am I missing your table of contents listing what talk pages exist/need to be deleted? Also, nice work on Galactic Pinball. Probably the only pinball game I’ve ever actively enjoyed. Sergecross73 msg me 21:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I haven't even had one for years. [deleted] 19 20 21 - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 05:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry it took a bit - it was a busy week and I was stuck on mobile - but I’ve deleted them all now. Feel free to delete the links above if you are truly trying to get rid of everything. Sergecross73 msg me 13:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

No need to apologize for taking long to do a favor. Appreciated nonetheless. I actually had a question though - is it possible to wipe move logs/block logs? I don't really care as much about having my shameful block history as much as I do seeing the block log, for instance, having some block messages using he/him, and the move log removal would be appreciated insomuch as it prevents someone from following me from ALttP/NARH to my current account. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 08:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Here’s what I know: Years back, I once accidentally blocked someone for like 2 minutes - just clicked on the wrong name. I immediately unblocked them, and then found an option to delete/hide it from the block log, as I felt bad that I messed up their clean block log. Almost immediately I was called out by a long term admin who told me that was an inappropriate move. So I undid it. So, while I know it’s possible to remove block log stuff, if that wasn’t acceptable, I don’t know when it is. If you or anyone else can dig up any policy/guidance that supports it, I’d do it. But my wiki time is currently limited so I can’t research at the moment. Sergecross73 msg me 02:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello again. Just so you know, I opened a discussion regarding this proposal for the fictional character MoS on the village pump here. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 22:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I’ll do my best to keep an eye on it but my availability is going through another patch of being limited/inconsistent again. Sergecross73 msg me 23:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Could we add colon symbols to every game title? Like with how the majority of game series has them? I proposed a change to this to Wikipedia Projects for support on this, but hasn't received a response yet. Reason being is some titles don't have the colon symbol, like the Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles page, but other Final Fantasy pages have them. Tried having a redirect named Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles Remastered. Zacharyalejandro ( talk) 23:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I don’t really see the point. It doesn’t really matter due to redirects. Whether someone searches for “ Fire Emblem: Awakening” or “ Fire Emblem Awakening”, it leads the reader to the same article, and neither name is different in meaning or recognizability. Sergecross73 msg me 00:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Just adding that we should be making both redirects, just because we can't be sure what exactly people will search. ~ Dissident93 ^{( talk)} 18:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Can you review this discussion? Quiet (Metal Gear)#"Oversexualized" is only an opinion. I'm starting to see a pattern among a couple of editors where their personal opinion on the subject is affecting inclusion of info on the lead. But i don't want to assume bad-faith. Could you look into the discussion and let me know? Blue Pumpkin Pie ( talk) 06:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn’t mean for it to look like I was ignoring you - I wasn’t. But it’s hard for me to take action here. Partially because I’ve been short on editing time. And partially because I’m somewhat WP:INVOLVED - one editor being a long term collaborator, while the other I’ve had long-term disputes with. Hopefully they’ve worked it out by now, but if not, perhaps another editor or ( talk page stalker) can assist. Sergecross73 msg me 19:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Continuing from the discussion on Ocarina of Time's talk page, so as to not clog the page with irrelevant discussion. "It's true therefore it isn't offensive" is not valid by any stretch of the imagination and moreover, it wasn't true in the first place. You made an assumptious assertion about my "arguments", and you're still continuing to to do that now, even though there's no need for you to do as such whatsoever. You had no need to chime in with a pointless, and snide remark (you cannot argue that it was not snide. Something being "true" doesn't change the motivation behind it, and why would you bother commenting that without the explicit motivation to purposefully jab at me. It added no new argument, information, or assertion, and only served to jab at a party involved with a personal assertion of failure, even after said party had reached a conclusion that would satify everyone. Again, this is not the first time you've done this, and moreover, this isn't the first time you've decided to chime in with pointless comments that has added nothing to the conversation, and have only served to push conflict back into the mix of a discussion even after everyone has come to a consensus. You did this on the talk page for Hyrule Warriors too. And then even after that, when I tried to just let bygones be bygones and decide to stop clogging up the page with, what at that point turned into, irrelevant argument, you still wanted to push conflict into it. Even though there was zero need at that point, and all you would be doing is clogging up the talk page with pointless comments. Can you please stop doing this. I don't want to start anything, I'm trying to be civil here. I just feel like you're personally gunning for me, and that bothers me. 2A02:C7F:3A2B:3B00:10E5:9C68:A829:8D12 ( talk) 00:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit: Compare the different comments that you and Dissident93 made towards me on the exact same issue. That shows the difference in wording choice, and why I feel like your comment was, not just uneeded, but personal in nature. Dissident93 reminded me of the the wikipedia rules without any assumption regarding whether I was attempting to argue anything surrounding it or whether I happened to stumble into it, or whatever else. There was no assumptious nature to it. Then your comment is, "And as Dissident states, much of your argument fails". Whether you intended this to come across as a personal attack on me, it did. Because it was useless, added nothing, told me I "failed", which in turn assumes the position that there was something for me to fail over, and assumes I was trying to make any kind of argument in the first place, which isn't true. Dissident93 had the consideration to not be assumptious and to not judge my intent over bringing up the contradictory articles, and just give me a reminding nudge. This, I appreciate, and I don't mind one bit. But I do mind people assuming my intent was to purposefully or through error invoke wikipedia's "not-to-do-list", telling me I fail for doing this, and adding nothing to the conversation in the process. 2A02:C7F:3A2B:3B00:10E5:9C68:A829:8D12 ( talk) 00:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I quoted something you said, said that point was correct, and informed you the rest of your argument largely failed OSE. None of that is remotely against any policy. Sergecross73 msg me 03:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, in a unneeded, personal kind of way. You seem to keep side-stepping the point, which is that you 1) didn't need to add a pointless comment that just reiterated something already said but in more blunt langague, and 2) should have worded it better. I'm not saying you meant to personally attack me, or that you have a personal beef with me, but wording can make it seem like that's the case. And resorting right to stating that what you did doesn't go against policy just side-steps the issue this is about. It's not about breaking specific policy, it's about being a bit nicer, and not coming across like a stone-cold jerk, whether intentionally or otherwise. But I'll just let bygones be bygones now, since I don't have all day to worry about something so minor in the first place. I just wanted to inform you that you could maybe think to conduct yourself in a way that makes you more approachable? To be entirely, bluntly frank, the wording you've used towards me in basically all discussions we've had has just given me the impression of someone who's a bit full of himself, and a bit of a jerk. I don't wanna cast assertions on your character, since I don't know you. Plus it's hard to gauge a person's intended tone in text, so maybe I just read your comment the wrong way. But I'm just saying. I wanted this more to be me informing you that that comment gave the wrong impression of a stuck up Wikipedia official and to hopefully take it on board, especially when dealing with IPs. Anyway, you can archive this if you want now, or respond, either way I just wanted to say this. Do whatever you will with the information. 2A02:C7F:3A2B:3B00:10E5:9C68:A829:8D12 ( talk) 04:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I’m not side-stepping anything. It wasn’t unnecessary. You seemed unaware of the concept of WP:OSE. I’m still not certain you understand it honestly, as you’ve seemed to discuss everything but that in your extremely long-winded response. Sergecross73 msg me 09:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sergecross73. I've got the time and energy. May I ask your opinions on this draft? [1] I've never tried to get anyone banned before though, so I don't know if my draft is any good. Do you think I should add anything extra or omit anything? Any feedback would be appreciated. Damien Linnane ( talk) 13:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I’m glad you’ve got the time and energy, because I generally support the effort, but don’t have the time. It’s coming along good, but check with WP:VG editors to see if they can provide more difs with blatant disruptive comments. The more difs the better, that’s usually what really convinces people. Sergecross73 msg me 14:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

( talk page watcher)( edit conflict) Be aware that Niemti is under at least 4 editing restrictions at this time: A topic ban on Good Article, a 1RR restriction, a 1 account restriction and a general Civility restriction. -- ferret ( talk) 14:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know ferret, and thanks for your response Sergecross. Damien Linnane ( talk) 14:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Make that 5, he is topic banned broadly from Anita Sarkeesian -- ferret ( talk) 14:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, all of these, especially the Anita one, would be good things to mention. Sergecross73 msg me 15:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@ Damien Linnane: The diff you included is a few minutes after this one, which is a violation of his Sarkeesian TBAN. He is not allowed to discuss her at all, but everyone missed it at the time. You may also want to be aware that GamerGate and related topics (such as Women in Video Games) are still under Discretionary Sanctions. -- ferret ( talk) 15:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@ Ferret:. Thanks. Topic ban request is live. See here. Damien Linnane ( talk) 16:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I’ve commented. A word of advice. I’d try to hold the back-and-forth with Snake to a minimum if you can, as he’ll likely give endless lengthy, rambling, off-topic responses that either veer discussion off-topic or bring it to a standstill due to the walls of text. (Also, if I say this to you, then I’ll feel obligated to follow my own advice on this too. It can be hard to refrain from arguing with the things he says...) Sergecross73 msg me 16:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

That's good advice. I don't think I'll reply to him at all if it can be avoided. If he does his usual wall of text trick I'll probably just leave a one sentence reply pointing out wthat's an example of what I'm complaining about. :) Damien Linnane ( talk)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).

Administrator changes

28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam¹ • Flyguy649 • Fram² • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe

¹ Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

² Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment seeking to alleviate pressures on the request an account (ACC) process proposes either raising the account creation limit for extended confirmed editors or granting the account creator permission on request to new ACC tool users.

• In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

• The scope of CSD criterion G8 has been tightened such that the only redirects that it now applies to are those which target non-existent pages.
• The scope of CSD criterion 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).
• A request for comment seeks to determine whether Wikipedia:Office actions should be a policy page or an information page.

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous

• In February 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) changed its office actions policy to include temporary and project-specific bans. The WMF exercised this new ability for the first time on the English Wikipedia on 10 June 2019 to temporarily ban and desysop Fram. This action has resulted in significant community discussion, a request for arbitration ( permalink), and, either directly or indirectly, the resignations of numerous administrators and functionaries. The WMF Board of Trustees is aware of the situation, and discussions continue on a statement and a way forward. The Arbitration Committee has sent an open letter to the WMF Board.

Yikes, what happened to lose so many admin in one month? Was there some sort of drama or scandal or something? Sergecross73 msg me 21:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

( talk page watcher) You haven't heard? There's an ongoing user revolt over WMF's banning of Fram. This BuzzFeed News article does a good job of explaining it. JOE BRO 64 21:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

It's the "significant community discussion" cue there, aka WP:FRAM. I would recommend reading the /Summary subpage, because we're up to a medium-sized novel at this point if you read from beginning to end of current discussion. -- Izno ( talk) 21:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Whoa. Thank you both. I’d say I’ve been too busy in this last month to be up on things, but it looks like it’s been going on for a long-time, including my bouts of activity as well. Shame on me, having Buzzfeed be more up in things than me. (Though I do try to stay away from the drama boards too...) Sergecross73 msg me 22:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

( talk page watcher) Quick question: do you know if any of the WP:VG adminstrators have resigned because of this? Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 10:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I dont believe so, not that I’ve noticed. Let me know if I’m wrong, I’d like to know if I missed anyone. Sergecross73 msg me 11:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Wizardman works in some WP:VG lists, but otherwise no one I'm aware of being particularly involved in the project. -- ferret ( talk) 12:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Wow, he and 2 others were bureaucrats too. We don’t have many of those. Sergecross73 msg me 12:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, and Dennis Brown ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), the founder of WP:RETENTION, of which I'm a member of since 2012, has retired. But I think we should wait for at least 100 days to see if he comes back as per this comment. Power struggles, disruption and wiki-drama sometimes suck. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 22:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, seems like he’s taken breaks in the past before. I find it hard to believe a number of these guys are stopping cold-turkey after 5-10 years activity either honestly, though who knows. Sergecross73 msg me 00:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Of course. I'm also surprised about this situation. I'm not sure if you remember this, but to make a long story short, I had to take that temporary semi-retirement about 6 years ago precisely due to these issues as well as my studies; I've been doing a lot better ever since. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 00:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Yup, I do recall that, and that was a good call. First and foremost, you’ve got to be happy, or it isn’t worth it (we’re not paid) and it’s not sustainable (you risk permanent burnout). I’m glad you’re still around and doing well. Sergecross73 msg me 11:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Yep. Even after all this mess that lead to my semi-retirement, editors, bureaucrats, administrators and even arbitrators are volunteers and people too. I’ve seen other good editors get burned out. And you are absolutely right: at the end of the day, we’ve got to be happy or it isn’t worth our time and it’s not sustainable. :-) Thanks for your understanding. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 19:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you pushing against the idea of giving SNAAAAKE!! his umpteenth chance to do better. I just don't feel good knowing that a topic ban will just mean that editors in other areas will be discouraged to edit Wikipedia because of him. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 06:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I don’t usually push for it much, because so many editors, even very experienced ones, are so burned out with dealing with him, but as long as we’ve got editors willing to discuss what to do, I want to help as well. And it’s as you say as far as his effect on other editors - it’s very difficult to warn a new editor about being disruptive or uncivil, and then be able to rationalize how it is that Niemti is on his 15th block, who knows how many accounts, and is still rude as ever and still editing. And I can’t, because it can’t be reconciled with the current enforcement of the rules. Sergecross73 msg me 11:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Can you weigh in here? Regardless of what I think of SNAAAAKE!!, it feels really tawdry to be pinging someone to tell them something like that as all it's going to do is be disruptive. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 17:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

It looks like you’ve already come to an agreement on this, which is probably the same place I would have arrived at. Probably not a necessary ping, but a valid question. Sergecross73 msg me 22:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello again. I just became aware of the ongoing situation at AN and I'm surprised to say the least. You have my deepest sympathies; abuse and burnouts should never happen on Wikipedia. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 17:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

No worries, it’s not like he particularly abuses or bullies me or anything. I just don’t like how he aggressively and rudely treats virtually anyone and everyone he interacts with. Sergecross73 msg me 22:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, me neither. You have my full support in this. All the best for Independence Day. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 22:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sergecross73. I wanted to thank you for your polite and helpful suggestions at WT:SONG. As for some of the other discussants there, I have never felt quite so deliberately misconstrued in any previous discussion anywhere at Wikipedia. How dare I make suggestions without hard evidence to back them up! I don't know how many "acceptable" music channels there are at YouTube, but I imagine there are hundreds, or possibly thousands. How these can be fairly represented by a list of only the biggest 10, introduced with the line "here is a list... ", is beyond me. The approach seems to be reduce the risk of inappropriate linking by making the list of acceptable official sources look as small as possible. I think this does a real disservice to both editors and readers alike. One might think, mightn't one, that in these days of global real-time internet connectivity, it might be possible for the project to curate a live list of all acceptable YouTube channels. But it looks like that might be just too difficult to even contemplate. I'm really not sure it's worth my while taking my suggestions to any other, more distant, forum like Village Pump. Also still wondering what YouTube "licence statements" actually mean, in terms of copyright. But they seem to be wholly irrelevant to the acceptability of YT links at Wikipedia. Martinevans123 ( talk) 15:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Is That So?

"The Zen master Hakuin was praised by his neighbors as one living a pure life..." – The Zen Kōan " Is That So?" tells the story of a man at peace with the world and his place in it. As Rudyard Kipling made clear in his poem, " If— you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you,...- you'll be a Man..." You seem a peaceful man, and I appreciate it. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 02:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

or woman (just to be clear) :) Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 02:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both very much. I’ve gotten so many (extremely wrong) crazy accusations thrown at me this last month, that two people saying kind words helps me keep my wiki-sanity. Sergecross73 msg me 13:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

With vastly more than 47,324,918 doing the most important work on 6,818,368 and at least that many ancillary pages, tensions are sadly to be expected; I'm not so great wiv-da-numbaz but that's a lot of chances for negative interactions. Don't let the bastards grind you down; "Go placidly amid the noise and haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence..." – Desiderata by Max Ehrmann Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 18:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Could you please stop disturbing my life?,i have the right to edit anything i want here,and i'm also a newbie around here, can't disturb a newbie's life,i guess we're even now Kairipines ( talk) 03:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I understand that it takes time to learn how to edit Wikipedia well, but that does not include adding incorrect information to articles on purpose. I’m an admin, and I’m well aware of “what your rights are”. If you add wrong information to articles on purpose, that’s called WP:VANDALISM and it’ll get your account blocked if you do it again. Sergecross73 msg me 03:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Sergecross73 I think you might want to take a look at this editor's user page User: Kairipines...seems like they might be posting personal info and since they claim to be a middle school student that could especially be an issue... Shearonink ( talk) 04:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I've emailed an oversighter to take a look at it. -- ferret ( talk) 15:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

i'm currently reviewing Tux Racer but one of the problems i personally saw is having two infoboxes for two different versions of the game. Improvements are still being made, but i wanted to ask your opinion on it if it is worth having that second infobox, and if it impacts GA status. I personally find it confusing but maybe this is one of my first GA reviews. Blue Pumpkin Pie ( talk) 20:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I’m not entirely sure. It may depend on the preferences and pickiness of your GA reviewer. You could always see how they react, and be ready to condense it into one if they push for it. Sergecross73 msg me 16:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

( talk page watcher) @ Blue Pumpkin Pie: AFAIK there's nothing wrong with having another infobox for a different version of the game. For instance, Kirby's Adventure has a second infobox for Kirby: Nightmare in Dreamland. I think it depends on if the staff was different or if the rerelease is notable but should not be split. JOE BRO 64 16:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@ TheJoebro64: In my opinion, it seems to defeat the purpose of an Infobox whenever they're being pushed down in the middle of the content instead of being at the top. Kirby's adventure is non-intrusive. Revised games usually have a different staff. That's no difference. Final Fantasy III has only one infobox and that article mostly covers the 3D version. I'm not sure about Tux Racer, the article is very small and the additional infobox and images disrupt the flow of the article. Blue Pumpkin Pie ( talk) 17:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it does look like the two infoboxes in the Tux article are largely redundant, and could probably be pretty easily merged into the top one. I don’t think anyone would knock you for not having two, at least. Sergecross73 msg me 17:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey there. I'm redoing the List of Pac-Man video games article and noticed that the majority of the sources link to database pages on GameSpot. Are these pages usable as reliable sources or should these be removed entirely? Thanks. Namcokid47 ( talk) 22:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Electric Burst^{( Electron firings)}_{( Zaps)} 00:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Good lord, why? Any other wrong venues you’d like to take this to? Maybe the usernames noticeboard? Come on... Sergecross73 msg me 00:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

was adding a reference to a label really necessary? it's commonly known it is distributed there.. Moonlightfocus ( talk) 09:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, everything should be sourced, per WP:V. And its a high profile article getting a large number of views. I’m making sure things are done right. Sergecross73 msg me 15:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).

Administrator changes Johnuniq • Kosack • Valereee Ad Orientem • Ched • Gadfium • Jonathunder • Nick • Yelyos Bald Zebra • Beetstra • Doug Bell • Journalist • Ruud Koot • Splash • Voice of Clam Interface administrator changes Dinoguy1000

CheckUser changes RickinBaltimore Oversight changes Beeblebrox RickinBaltimore

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the page Wikipedia:Office actions has been changed from a policy page to an information page.
• A request for comment ( permalink) is in progress regarding the administrator inactivity policy.

Arbitration

• Editors may now use the template {{ Ds/aware}} to indicate that they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for a topic area, so it is unnecessary to alert them.

Miscellaneous

• Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
• The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

  Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.