This is an archive of past discussions with User:力. 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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi I am afraid I do not agree with your closing of the above discussion. Your justification of a 4-2 does not take into account the arguments and my comments and the lack of replies to my comments. Of the 4 keep !votes 1 weak keep claims he meets NPOL is met because it is a national or sub-national office. This is not a state post and as such he fails this criteria. The next keep !vote talks essentially about another person and the fact that the !voter met his granddaughter and then finishes up with "I think it is a pretty clear keep" but does not mention any policy or guidelines. The next keep !vote says "as an elected politician. Sort of an unusual scenario, but head of the Cherokee nation seems a sufficient post for inclusion at WP". the person is not the head of the Cherokee nation and not all elected politicians are notable. the next keep !vote says that the "intent" of NPOL is to include this kind of politician. No-one has addressed my comment about the sources not meeting GNG not even you when closing this. The Wikipedia:Notability (people) in a nutshell section says "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." and I would like to know which of the sources you think meet this criteria. To make a non-admin keep close as per Wikipedia:Non-admin_closure#Appropriate_closures there has to be " absent any contentious debate among participants" and as I am sure you will agree I have debated every keep !vote but as of yet none have replied, I think your closure is not appropriate and I would like an un-involved admin to make the closure. Domdeparis (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I am not bludgeoning the debate at all. I am saying that the sources do not show that he passes GNG and no-one has replied to my concerns but are saying that he meets the topic specific criteria. That may be or may not be true but that doesn't mean that GNG has to be met and proved when challenged. Just because no one has seen fit to reply to my comments doesn't mean there is no debate. And a contentious debate is not a dispute. Domdeparis (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
WP:N says "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
And WP:NPEOPLE (which is the subject-specific guideline) says "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." I am saying that this is not met. Domdeparis (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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 diff you see when you compare two different versions of a page has changed on MediaWiki.org and the test wiki. This is to make it easier to find a text change in a moved paragraph. It will hopefully soon come to more wikis. You can report bugs in Phabricator. [1]
A new user group on Commons will be able to upload MP3 files. The plan is to have this user group from 17 November. [2]
Wikis using Flagged Revisions will get the New filters for Edit Review by default on the recent changes pages. It will be possible to opt-out in user preferences. [3]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 14 November. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 15 November. It will be on all wikis from 16 November (calendar).
Meetings
You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 15 November at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Future changes
Support for uploading and viewing 3D models is coming soon to Wikimedia Commons. The feature will support the .STL file format. You can see an example on the test wiki. [4]
First, there appear to be no references to the existence of the meeting other than its own publications. There's also no claim that the meetings are notable. Simply because representatives of notable groups show up doesn't make it notable. It seem similar to a trade show, which are rarely notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Zimbabwe article
That was my bad. I did not see the prior edits, revisions, and reversions.
Joey Gibson (political activist), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
Hah I think you're may be mistaken on how the AfC process works. It's more about figuring out if something is likely - perhaps two-thirds chance (and this was one of the more borderline cases)- to pass AfD - I think AfD is the only way to figure out anything with any sort of definitiveness. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 17:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Hiya there! I came across your AfD over at Carmun.com, and although you may already be aware of it, I've noticed a good amount of the articles here are probably also candidates for AfD. I've thrown a few of them into the pile, but just thought you'd like to know, since two sets of eyes are better than one, or so I've been told. Oh and hi! Drewmutt(^ᴥ^)talk23:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Northeast India
Hi, I read your comment on the revert. Sounds great, thanks! If those are still useful, we should keep them. I was wondering if you had a way to check backlinks. That would be very helpful. Appreciate much, thanks! RenZutↂ07:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Power enwiki. Do you understand the problem with WP:Link rot in articles? If editors had been archiving links as is best practice, there would be no need to do them all at once. IAB is a sanctioned tool created by the Internet Archive and Cyberpower678 to make archiving links pro-actively an easy task. To that end, This revert of yours was unnecessary. Ping me back. Having fun! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}10:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)@Checkingfax: The archive version exists regardless of whether you code the archive parameters. Given that most sources don't die, many editors feel that the parameters should be added when one dies, not before. I used to add them beforehand but eventually decided it wasn't worth the trouble and the space in the wikitext. Objection to a 34% increase in page size is not completely without merit. Also note the notice at the top of WP:Link rot: "It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." In any case, this is a content issue and should be addressed in article talk, not user talk. If you can get consensus for it there, I of course have no objection. I also object to your across-the-board conversion of cite parameter spacing to your personal preference, modifying the article's predominant convention—a convention that is widely used throughout the project and has a sound basis. I am working on finding the supporting discussions, but I will be happy to elaborate as best I can in article talk. ―Mandruss☎10:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
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
If you use the Chrome web browser on Android you can see a download icon on the mobile website. You can download a formatted PDF. It will work in other mobile browsers in the future. [6]
The abuse filter now has a function called get_matches. You can use it to store matches from regular expressions – one of each capturing group. You can read more in Phabricator.
Problems
Last week's MediaWiki version didn't come to all Wikipedias because of a database crash. It will be on all wikis on 20 November. [7][8][9]
Changes later this week
There is no new MediaWiki version this week.
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 21 November at 19:30 (UTC). See how to join.
You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 22 November at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Future changes
Language converter syntax will no longer work inside external links. Wikitext like http://-{zh-cn:foo.com; zh-hk:bar.com; zh-tw:baz.com}- must be replaced. You will have to write -{zh-cn: http://foo.com ; zh-hk: http://bar.com ; zh-tw:http://baz.com }- instead. This only affects languages with Language Converter enabled. Examples of such languages are Chinese and Serbian. This will happen next week. [10][11]
Hello, Power~enwiki. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).
Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.
Want to plead you use your good office to patrol the article so it will be live on wikipedia and visible for all to see on google search.
Looking forward to a positive outcome from you.
I have no personal interest interest in the page, nor do I object to its removal. I was condensing another page and simply moved that list to its own to save space. After reviewing other similar pages, none of them have lists of trade paperbacks. Okay for speedy deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etzedek24 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
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
You can now test the new advanced search function beta feature on mediawiki.org. It makes it easier to use some of the special search functions that most editors don't know exist. It will come to German and Arabic Wikipedia this week. It will come to more wikis later. [12]
You can now upload large files with the Internet Archive upload tool. Previously you could not upload files larger than 100 MB. [13]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 28 November. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 29 November. It will be on all wikis from 30 November (calendar).
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 28 November at 19:30 (UTC). See how to join.
You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 29 November at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.
The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:
Hello, Power~enwiki. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
You can now use live updates for recent changes if you use the new filters. This feature updates the filtered recent changes every three seconds when you activate it. [16]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 5 December. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 6 December. It will be on all wikis from 7 December (calendar).
Very old versions of the Opera Web browser are no longer supported. This means that technical development will not be tested to make sure it works with those Opera versions. Use Opera 15 or above or another browser if you have problems. [18]
Almost 170 wikis with no high-priority errors in Linter categories will switch to use the Remex parsing library. This is to replace Tidy. A few larger wikis such as German and Italian Wikipedia will also make this switch. It will happen on 5 December. Other wikis will be recommended to switch soon when they have fixed the errors that must be fixed. Tidy will be removed in the middle of 2018. [19][20]
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 5 December at 19:30 (UTC). See how to join.
You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 6 December at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.
The Community Liaisons team at the Wikimedia Foundation is looking for active tech ambassadors. This is to make sure the Wikimedia communities get all the information they need about new features and can be involved in the technical development. [21]
My keep quoted you, and went on to assert Chang measured up to GNG.
power~enwiki wrote "The parents' case might be notable, but that doesn't make her notable." Being related to high-profile prisoners does not make Chang notable, because notability is not inherited. What makes this young woman notable is that the press coverage of her attempts to lobby the Trudeau government, on her parent's behalf, measures up to the criteria of GNG.
One interpretation of your comment was that you thought someone was claiming Amy Chang was notable because her parents were notable. I'd appreciate you clarifying, is that your position? Did you think someone was making that claim?
If so, I'd appreciate you explaining why your don't agree that the extensive press coverage that is focussed around Ms Chang, and not her parents, means she measures up to GNG.
I started the article after I saw her sit down for a meaningfully long interview on Power and Politics. Back in May I didn't see a lot of coverage ofher parents. This last week, with Trudeau and various Ministers visiting China, both Amy Change and her parents, were in the news again. I learned her dad (1) hosted Canadian athletes during the Beijing Olympics, temporarily turned over the firm's Beijing Offices, for that purpose; (2) Stephen Harper had him join his trade delegation in multiple trade expeditions. He was, apparently, profiled in Canadian Immigrant magazine.
So, yeah, I am now sure John Chang is notable enough for a standalone article.
It seems to me that Notability is not inherited does not preclude individuals having a standalone article, when they have a relative with a standalone article -- when RS support their independent notability.
I've got to warn you -- you can't rely on AFD nominators to effectively comply with WP:BEFORE. Some nominators simply refuse to try to comply with BEFORE. Other nominators do their best to comply, but their attempts fail, because they just aren't skilled at that kind of research. Most annoyingly, some nominators will claim they complied with BEFORE, but quietly skip this important step, of make a deeply inadequate pro-forma effort. I with our wikidocuments asked everyone weighing in at an AFD to do their own independent web search.
So, can I ask you to return to the discussion, and clarify your position? Geo Swan (talk)
Hi. I had meant to pose my questions to another editor, but I saw that you answered so quickly! I can get the questions and post them back here. I believe you agreed that the lead picture on the liposuction page is promotional. As far as the other picture that I recommend, I'm unsure what objection there would be to that since liposuction is an invasive surgery that is done by using a blind hand, unable to see the cannula that can puncture organs. The process ought to be transparently shown. Juliet Sabine (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for removing that promotional picture. Many of the plastic surgery pages have promotional photos up, many of them by Otto Placik such as breast reduction, buttock Augmentation, and others. I have a list somewhere. These photos ought to be removed. Thank you. Juliet Sabine (talk) 03:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I did get one thing wrong; I didn't realize the material in dispute was added in March 2016, I thought it was added in September of this year. As far as your more general point; the point is circular, how are we to determine whether copyright is violated. There are several off-wiki ways to do this (OTRS and office actions can handle copyright issues), as well as through FfD or F9 speedy deletion. As for the discussion that motivated this Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2017_July_5#File:Bob_Hasegawa_Official_Portrait.jpg, I don't see how two people saying delete and the file uploader saying "nope" is "No consensus" with or without this rule. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
My personal preference would be to include language along the lines of "Remember that assessing consensus involves assessing the strength of arguments and not simply the yes/no tallies. Valid copyright issues expressed in a FfD discussion should result in the file being deleted even in the face of delete votes being in the minority", but the VPP thread does not have consensus to add that language. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. Looks like that 10 year old stub completely failed to thrive via new sources coming to light, so no objection here. -- Kendrick7talk03:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
A new tag marks edits where a redirect was created or removed. This still works when the editor writes something else in the edit summary. You can see the tags for example in the recent changes feed, article history, user contributions or on your watchlist. [23]
If you use Chrome on Android, you can now use the print to PDF button to create a PDF of an article. [24]
Filter by number of edits or filter by time range have been grouped on a same menu on the recent changes page if you use the new filters. The "View new changes since $1" link is now more prominent. [25]
Some of the web fonts that were provided by the Universal Language Selector extension are being removed. This is to reduce the load time on pages. The web fonts were added many years ago to help users read text in scripts which did not have fonts or had broken fonts. This is not the case any more. You can check the status page for a list of all web fonts and whether they are currently being used and especially for special requirements. [26]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 12 December. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 13 December. It will be on all wikis from 14 December (calendar).
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 12 December at 19:30 (UTC). See how to join.
You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 13 December at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.
I strongly advise you to self-revert restoring challenged material until a consensus has been reached. You violated DS. Atsme📞📧00:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
No there isn't, but if you want it challenged at AE, don't do anything - there are only 3 supports so you lied your count wasn't accurate. Consensus is not a quickie local consensus. It's up to you. Atsme📞📧00:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello 力, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Backlog update:
The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!
Outreach and Invitations:
If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.
New Year New Page Review Drive
A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.
General project update:
ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.
I apologize to offend you there on the Roy Moore page. I now updated the picture to be newer than 6 years old. It is a picture from 2017 and it would be great if that could stay up to reflect the fact that he has changed in appearance in the last 6 years. Also? a newer picture would be preferred over an outdated one. I get that you don't want the sexual comments at the very top but I think we can agree that a newer picture of this man is better than one that is 6 years old. Roland311 (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Roland311, please note the warning at the top of Talk:Roy_Moore. In particular: Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit. I’m messing up Power~enwiki’s page with this note to keep it out of your talk page history.:) O3000 (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Your RfA
Hi PEW. I've seen you around and appreciate your willingness to step up at RfA. But, and please forgive my being blunt here, you are not going to pass. My guess is your RfA will be SNOW closed in the not too distant future. I would gently suggest that you withdraw first. Doing so might help if/when you decide to take another shot at this somewhere down the road. Dragging it out however, might be seen as wasting the community's time. Anyways thanks again for stepping up and I hope you do give this another shot after you have been around a little longer. best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm discounting some of the oppose votes so far, and don't feel there's a community consensus that "7 months" is not enough experience for an RfA. However, if it reaches -20 I'll withdraw. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Unless something unexpected happens, I'll probably withdraw in an hour. Some of the oppose votes are incredibly bizarre, but there's clearly enough support for the idea that 7 months is not enough tenure that the RFA is unlikely to pass. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Of course it's your call for now but I don't see any reason for delaying. With 13 opposes and only 1 (moral) support you are already in SNOW close territory. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:46, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
There are 1-2 more votes I'm considering responding to before closing, and I still think *somebody* is going to disagree with the apparent consensus that 7 months isn't enough experience. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I think you are making a mistake. You are getting buried and failing to withdraw is going to be seen as evidence that you lack good judgement and temperament. How you handle mistakes is something that is looked at very closely in RfAs, and this was a mistake. Your deportment here will be looked at if/when you decide to make another run at RfA. One of the harder things I had to learn here is that when everybody is telling me I am wrong, it almost always means that I am in fact wrong. Anyways, I've given my advice and it's your call. I am off to bed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Hey man, your heart's in the right place, and I think you'll make a great admin someday. Please take the criticism to heart, and use that feedback to pass your next one. SQLQuery me!05:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I apologize if my !vote was harsh but your self-nomination was bewildering, considering the ORCP results and the even more recent Roy Moore closure. Such hasty nominations create an impression that is almost impossible to shake and I hope your closure wasn't too late. Come back in a year, and, hey, work on the nom statement: it is after all, an opportunity, to present the best of your contributions to Wikipedia.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Clearly, one of the benefits of having a nominator (even just a regular contributor) is that it's much less awkward to have someone else talk about "the best of your contributions". Anyhow, I don't think it mattered; there was a stronger consensus for the "minimum 1 year tenure" than I was expecting. Perhaps the "moral support" votes on other candidates in the past distorted my view. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
While it's unquestionably a part, I don't think that "minimum 1 year tenure" is the main thrust of most of the opposition... ansh66607:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Thought I'd leave a note here with some unsolicited advice. Time is also important to me, much more than the actual number of edits. (I happen to think a year is too short and 5000 edits is plenty, provided they're actual edits and not semi-automated reverts and such.) But even more important than any of that is what you do when multiple people challenge you on something, because that WILL happen to you as an admin, and your response can have far-reaching and unintended consequences. How closely do you read and understand the arguments of people who disagree with you? How many people telling you that you're wrong will it take to get you to change your mind? Will you get caught in the loop of repeatedly trying to make your position clear while not fully understanding the positions of others? What do you do when you know you're right but a less-informed majority disagrees with you? At what point in a disagreement do you say you made a mistake and/or apologize? These are the types of things I look at in administrative candidates. Anyway I'm not trying to pile on here, and I hope this helps you prepare for the next RfA. (Also, I recommend waiting at least a year before the next one despite the people saying they'd support in 6 months.) I hope you'll take this, and the RfA comments as constructive criticism and not let them discourage you from the project, even though I'm sure it stings like a rejection. Wishing you the best, ~Awilley (talk)08:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
That would also be a mistake. I encourage you read the archives of WP:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll and WP:Advice for RfA candidates in great detail. You did pretty much everything wrong that could be done wrong: self-nom, too soon, not admitting to mistakes, arguing defensively against critics, editcountitis, not heeding any RfA-related advice, etc., etc. If you come back in exactly or nearly exactly a year, or 6 months, or 18 months, people are going to notice it and criticize it as desperation to get the tools. Your next RfA should appear, with multiple nominators, organically because you are ready, people see you are ready, and the time is right. PS: You're also mistaking the too-soon arguments as being about a clock. It's not "tenure" or "been active without a huge absence for X amount of time", really; it's level of continuous and broad participation that is sufficient to judge cluefullness, temperament, judgment under pressure, and other characteristics we look for in admins, and to have fully absorbed WP's very complex WP:P&G system. It is possible for very dedicated people to do it in 6 months, but this is quite rare (especially under modern RfA standards; in 2005 it was easy). The average editor has a hard time demonstrating this at the 1-year mark, these days, and often not at 1.5 to 2 years. If they don't by then, no one says not enough time has passed, they just cite a pile of diffs showing why the candidate is not suitable. And they'll do it with you. If you want to be an admin, you're going to have to be on best-behavior for a year+. Really exercise err-on-the-side-of-caution judgement about deletion, closures, and other matters that can come back to haunt you, like civility and WP:WINNING behavior. — SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 16:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC) PS: See also User:Sven Manguard/Failed RfA Advice. — SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 17:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
It's a mop, not a crown. If the community feels that bold moves to improve the encyclopedia are incompatible with the ability to clear AIV backlogs, be it on their heads. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I think you would make a great admin someday, but I highly encourage you to take SMcCandlish's advice on board. It is solid, even if you don't like it ideologically. My advice to everyone who asks me for it is to wait until you have multiple respected users making unsolicited offers to nominate you: this does happen as most admins do buy the no-big-deal ideal, and are actively looking for more people to join the ranks. When that happens, you know you will pass. If you look through the most recent RfA archives, for this year, you'll notice the biggest determining factor of a failed RfA is a self-nom or an inexperienced nom. Part of the job of a nominator is to advise the candidate on when they think they could pass and give feedback on the answers. You're really shooting yourself in the foot if you want to do a self-nom on principle. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
And it's not a mop any more, it's a mop with a rocket launcher attachment. RfA is an order of magnitude more serious today than ten years ago for one demonstrable reason. Short answer: WP:AC/DS; longer explanation here (2nd para. in that edit). — SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 02:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi Power~enwiki, I've seen quite a lot of your activity, with us both becoming active around the same time, and you being very prolific. I like you as an editor, you're an editor whose good faith requires no assumption. I have no doubt that you are committed to upholding Wikipedia's policies, I have no doubt that you're not here to edit in favour or against some particular agenda, I think Wikipedia would be a lot better if we had a lot more editors like you, especially in areas where upholding an NPOV is difficult. So I say this with the utmost respect: the idea of you becoming an administrator horrifies me. This has nothing to do with the amount of time you've been editing or your lack of co-nominator, but due to your enthusiasm to take actions or give opinions in areas where you've yet to have enough experience to be competent in those areas. I'm sure you recall the number of times your input or actions have been smacked down by more experienced editors. The RfA is kind of an example of that, no? Your enthusiasm is commendable, but has often verged on disruption.
I'd love to one day support a future Request for Adminship, but that will require not only more experience/competence in Wikipedia, but also a willingness to step back and slowly develop the required experience before taking certain actions. As an admin you will, after all be given a whole new toolkit. Learn to walk before you run. All the best. Cjhard (talk) 12:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
For clarification, I very deliberately broke 3 rules in closing the AfD:
Non-admins generally should avoid controversial AfD closes.
I was INVOLVED; I don't feel my snarky Wikinews comment qualified as a vote, but I had commented enough on related topics at Roy Moore.
I closed it about 72 hours early.
The main motivation was that I feel requiring a 7-day period for administrative proceedings on "breaking news" is clearly bad for the project. There is no rule (apart from WP:RAPID) that allows for to proceeding to go faster when time is of the essence. While I would like to propose such a rule (that would apply at discussions like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 New York City attempted bombing as well), I have not yet found any specific wording I'm willing to propose at an RfC.
As American Politics is controversial, I did not expect any other editor to do such a close, even if they agreed with me. In the spirit of WP:IAR, and feeling that the snowball clause applied clearly applied to the outcome (a no-consensus close would have the same result as a keep), I closed the AfD, fully aware that it might be controversial.
to head off one inevitable complaint, my question is because I think there are multiple potential concerns, not because I think there are none. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, not everyone thinks that was a bad close, at least not for all three reasons. There are a handful of us in the WP:Rouge editor camp (LOL) who take a favorable view to WP:IAR actions that are well-principled and in response to an actual need. Unfortunately for you, we're very much in the minority at RfA, so a) doing anything like that again or b) continuing to defy overall community criticism of that action is liable to self-sabotage your next RfA as well. You've already made it clear what your thought process was at the time. Now make it clear you accept that the reaction to your justifications has generally be negative, and never be defensive about it again. :-/ There's a big difference between "it seemed like a good idea at the time" and "it damned well was a good idea, and I'd do it again" (or even "I still think it was a good idea, but wouldn't dare do it again"). — SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 02:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ellen Season 13 Copyright
The guests are the same on every website. They can not be classed as copyright. EVERY website that has episode information states the same names. Please remove the copyright notification.Makro (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
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 8 January 2018.
Problems
When you import a page from another wiki the usernames of the users who edited the article on the wiki you imported it from are shown in the article history. This should link to the users on the original wiki. A script to fix this caused problems for Wikidata and German Wikipedia. It also created a large number of SUL accounts on wikis where editors had never edited. [27]
Some bot owners got email about their bots logging in from a new computer. If this is from one or a couple of wikis, you can turn these messages off in your preferences on those wikis until the problem has been solved. If not, you can report more about the problem in Phabricator.
Changes later this week
There is no new MediaWiki version this week. There will be no new MediaWiki version next week either.
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 19 December at 19:30 (UTC). See how to join.
Future changes
Files on Commons will have structured metadata in the future. The developers are now looking for examples of different kinds of metadata to make sure they are aware of them when they build prototypes for structured data on Commons. You can read more and help by giving examples of interesting media files.
The Structured Commons team are making sure Commons work with structured data. If you regularly contribute to Commons and Wikidata you can answer a survey that helps the team prioritise the tools that are important for the Commons and Wikidata communities. The survey ends on 22 December. You can read more on Commons. You can also help the team decide on better names for "captions" and "descriptions". This ends on 3 January 2018.
I'm not convinced these programs are notable or used for anything other than educational purposes. I'll wait for someone else to comment. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, 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 Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hello 力, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!
We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!
The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.
Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:
The total number of reviews completed for the month.
The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.
NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.
