User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2019/2
 | This page 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. |
Administrators' newsletter – February 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
- Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
- A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.
Technical news
- A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.
Miscellaneous
- Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
- A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.
My oops
Thanks for your email TC. I did not examine the article closely enough to see the section you mentioned. My apologies. I do appreciate the time you took to examine the edits and to let me know my error. Regards. MarnetteD|Talk 02:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
SPI Helper script update
In a discussion at Template talk:Sockpuppet, Bbb23 suggested having the script automatically create sock categories when tagging, if they don't already exist. I've had a go at making it do that. You'll find the code here. Could have a look to make sure I haven't missed anything, and if it all works the way it should, roll the update out to everyone else? Thanks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Old AE ban in Cirt v. Tlroche
Hi there. You may or may not remember me. On 16 December 2016 you sanctioned me in Sagecandor v. Tlroche as follows: "SashiRolls is indefinitely prohibited from commenting on AE requests to which they are not a party. " source
I wrote:
- This case should not be decided without looking more carefully into the accuser's history, especially this case at ANI and this talk page deletion which together seem to indicate a strong aversion to transparency.
As you are no doubt aware, User:Sagecandor was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Cirt, which explains their aversion to transparency. Would you be willing to reverse your prohibition? I would not mind having the right to say something nice about Atsme. I would also think that since I was right back in 2016, perhaps I could be restored first-class citizenship and the privilege of fresh starting should I so desire, having no further outstanding restrictions on my editing. (I'm not sure I will exercise this privilege, I don't mind being transparent about my past and present.) Best, SashiRolls t · c 19:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- You were sanctioned for the manner in which you expressed these concerns, not the concerns themselves. That the concerns turned out to be well-founded is irrelevant to the sanction. T. Canens (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- OK, taking the paragraph above, cited in teal above, what could be better? That explanation will help me explain to others why you think that this penalty should indeed continue beyond 750 days. If there's nothing wrong with that sentence, could you please provide a single example of what you find inappropriate. Thank you. SashiRolls t · c 15:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)