MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13

Important rfc

WP:TOUSL: Make sure as many community members as possible can contribute. InvalidOS (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done @InvalidOS: with this already going to a SNOW solution, doesn't really seem like something we need to summon editors to even more (besides is already linked from Signpost that is both here and on user talks, an T:CENT). Additionally, even the lead in to that RfC makes this appear to be a global problem, not something only for us to deal with on the English Wikipedia - moving this to a meta-wiki RfC may be even more appropriate. — xaosflux Talk 19:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The nameless "foundation officials" in the RfC sounds a bit dubious, WMF legal doesn't usually require a community buy in to enforce their own terms of use - especially if something is actually a global problem (has somone said they want every single community to have a discussion first??) — xaosflux Talk 19:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Alright, thanks. Also, yeah, it is a little dubious now that you mention it. InvalidOS (talk) 13:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

RFC of interest

An ongoing discussion of interest to watchers of this page is happening here. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 13:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

March Signpost notice

The March edition is now out. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done qedk (t 桜 c) 22:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Open access for federally funded research

I'd like to list this request for information from the US Office of Science and Technology Policy pertaining to open access to federally sponsored research. This issue is absolutely central to the movement. Volunteers, the Foundation, chapters and affiliates have been trying to achieve it for decades. It's not technically a discussion, and was removed from WP:CENT for that reason, and while I reverted that, it's probably more appropriate here as a watchlist notice than a WP:CENT item, or a sitenotice, as we should prefer that more experienced editors respond instead of soliciting readers. Please note the solicitation has a deadline of March 16. EllenCT (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, IMO, a geonotice (as discussed on WT:CENT) seems like an optimal solution here. -- Visviva (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
That maybe, I'm also a bit confused what do you want editors to do? If it is to leave Wikipedia and go to an external site that really isn't watchlist type stuff. — xaosflux Talk 01:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
We want them to send email. I assumed that was clear from the bolded portions. EllenCT (talk) 08:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

How do I request a geonotice? EllenCT (talk) 08:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Geonotice (per item 5 in the box). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
@Redrose64:  Done Thank you. EllenCT (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

March Signpost notice

The March edition is now out. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Izno (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

April Signpost notice

The April edition is now out. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done qedk (t 愛 c) 19:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

May Signpost notice

The May edition is now out. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done qedk (t 愛 c) 19:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

BLM drive mockups

Following up from : Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Alternative_3:_A_BLM_article_improvement_drive:


Mockup above. — xaosflux Talk 16:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Noting that AID's are not normal watchlist messages, but there has been some use in the past (e.g. for WP:WIR). — xaosflux Talk 16:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but presenting like this is still a really bad idea. A notice specifically advertising something under the banner of a political movement which is very controversial even in its country of origin is just not a good idea. Imagine, for a moment, what the expected reaction would be to posting a notice using the name of a political movement that one particularly opposed in whatever country one comes from; it makes Wikipedia less neutral, and less welcoming. --Yair rand (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
No. --qedk (t 愛 c) 20:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not really advocating for this, was just a mock-up from that other discussion - would need to have a strong consensus to move forward. — xaosflux Talk 21:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia the new advertising platform? So, how do Wikipedians get paid?, is like YouTube, whenever you click on an article a video pops up? In this case watchlist. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 14:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
This editing drive doesn't merit a watchlist notice, and I'm opposed to using Wikipedia for politically-charged campaigns like this. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
So was SOPA/PIPA and that was basically *politics*, BLM/racism is a social issue, which has political impact by transitivity. This is really not using Wikipedia, it's telling people to improve articles on BLM in time that's needed, don't misconstrue Xaos' intention to make a WP:POINT. --qedk (t 愛 c) 15:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Key, at least to me when I was suggesting this elsewhere, was NOT to mention the specific current events (eg the killing of George Floyd or the protests). An intelligent editor will recognize this message and those events are tied, but it is not being a blatant political message, but as QEDK says, a call to help improve these articles at a time while there is a heightened awareness of these issues. --Masem (t) 15:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Re SOPA/PIPA: I have seen, in the past, "slippery slope" arguments that we should not do X, because it may lead to doing Y. I have seen slippery slope fallacy arguments, pointing out that X does not necessarily lead to Y, and we can make decisions based on multiple facts at once, so it's not dangerous to do X. But rarely do I see an argument that goes, "We did X, therefore because slippery slope we should do Y."
SOPA/PIPA was understood to be an existential threat to Wikipedia, and still there were many who opposed it because it might lead to people thinking that unrelated activism/advocacy would be acceptable. Wikipedia remains neutral. --Yair rand (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
...unrelated activism/advocacy I'm glad you live in a place that does not treat their people of colour like trash. Perhaps it's time for you to understand that most people in the world live in places where their skin of colour determines how they get treated. If social issues affect Wikipedians, it affects Wikipedia. SOPA/PIPA does not come close to the stigma that people of colour face. --qedk (t 愛 c) 17:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@QEDK: Per WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, our editing here is not meant to be a vehicle for social justice. I am all for encouraging improvement of articles, whether about black people, women, places in Africa, forgotten indigenous people, etc. BLM is a political movement unrelated to black people as a whole. We should not have a WikiProject about it, let alone encourage participation in their activities. Of course, tribalism is too powerful for mere Wikipedians to ignore, Women in Red as a case in point. It used to be editors on this website cared about writing articles in a general sense and we didn't always glom onto the loud voices seeking to control history as a method of getting editors to volunteer the labor that they can't manage to sell. I was opposed to the SOPA blackout for the same reasons. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Then we should immediately close up any project that purposes a "social" goal like this or the Women in Red project -- which, no. There is absolutely nothing wrong with like-minded editors, as a group, working within WP policies, to expand articles on topics of their interest, which could be released to a social or political goal, as long as they aren't forcing that social or political goal on the rest of Wikipedia, but instead working within it. Working to expand articles on minorities and racism, and calling for interested editors to help, is within that context, particularly in light of editors that might be wondering what they can do to help the larger situation. If one has no interest in helping, the suggested message is not a political one, it's not WP taking a stance on the matter, and one can move on. And, given whre discussion on Jimbo's talk page has recently gone, it actually is in the overall interest of WP to get more editors interested in working to add and improve articles on underrepresented groups, as long as they're edited to WP policies w/ sourcing and notability. That is a net improvement to the project, regardless the motive driving it. --Masem (t) 17:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: BLM is a political movement unrelated to black people as a whole. Firstly, it's a movement, it's a movement for black people, it was an old movement that started back in 2013 after the shooting of Trevon Martin. By your definition of a political movement (which you consider BLM to be), all movements should be considered political and guess what, you're right, but that's the very definition of a movement. If your point is that the BLM movement is being subverted to serve other political agendas, sure, but that's the case with every movement, feminism, the LGBT movement, literally anything in this political climate. Don't make blanket assumptions when you are not in the position of the affected. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm fine with like-minded editors, just like we have WikiProjects for those interested in military history or railroads, among many others. The difference is that those groups write articles about objective fact. We have socially-aligned WikiProjects about conservatism and Christianity, for example, and they could hold their own editing events. Would you oppose using a sitewide notice for those? You can imagine how some editors would balk at the seeming en-wiki endorsement of values they themselves don't hold. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
The day I see white Christian Americans getting oppressed for their beliefs and/or skin colour, and they wish to conduct an article drive to improve the quality of the encyclopedia, I will support them, yes. Also, this is not a sitenotice, this is a watchlist message, which means only logged-in users who use their watchlists will see it (and like most other notices, they can dismiss it). We already serve tons of notices to editors from specific regions (geonotices) relating to article drives, edit-a-thons based on political themes like POC, LGBT and feminism, so this is basically the same thing. --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
This right here. Yes, Mainspace is not here to right great wrongs, but we can be fully cognizant of where we are lacking good article coverage, and even if these projects have more subjective goals, as long as they are building out within the policies and neutrality demanded by WP in mainspace, its fair to at least give them a bit of air time when it is appropriate. Most of the time it is not. I believe the past Women in Red drives have correlated to Wikithon events, that's appropriate. This is a reasonable timing given that one can see view counts are up across many WP edits, and while not an organized even, it seems highly apropos. --Masem (t) 04:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Though I support a site notice, this seems controversial. Perhaps it would be better to ask at WP:VPR to get a broader consensus? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed that wider discussion might be good. And agreed with Masem that if we add a notice, it should not be explicitly tied to recent events, so as to minimize any appearance of activism. Also, we might want to make this a geonotice applying only to the U.S. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Didn't we come from VPP or VPR for this? This came out of two reject proposals to black out the site in support... --Masem (t) 04:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

June Signpost notice

The June edition is now out. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

QEDK or xaosflux, can you help out. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 Done qedk (t 愛 c) 17:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

August Signpost notice

The August edition is now out. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux Talk 21:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC that affects CITEVAR

This RfC would affect WP:CITEVAR, which is an issue that provokes very strong feelings on both sides of the issue among many editors. I think it deserves a watchlist notice to ensure that any decision has a chance to be seen as legitimate. I suggested as much to the RfC's proposer, CaptainEek, but they felt it was unnecessary. I asked Iridescent's opinion here; some editors (but not all) who responded agreed that a watchlist notice was necessary, and I suggest reading that discussion. I'll post a link to this request at the RfC and also at Iridescent's talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: I don't think this is impactful enough to bother with a WLN, T:CENT should be enough. However, I did comment in that discussion so will leave this open for another admin to close. — xaosflux Talk 19:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support watchlist notice. The number of articles this affects is small, but it's a big deal insofar as it touches on the range of allowed styles and the value of inter-article consistency versus within-article reasons to use one style or another. --Trovatore (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Can anyone recall the last time we advertised a policy RfC as a watchlist notice? I think this wholly unnecessary. It's already on the central discussion template, and has dozens of votes. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
    In the last year, there have been three watchlist notices about RfCs. The earlier two both stayed up a fair length of time - these concerned the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 ArbCom election and the 2019 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission; but the third, presumably concerning a backlog of some sort, was pulled after a few hours. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The general viewpoint is that these are not appreciated on the watchlist. Unless it's something truly wiki-breaking, there's no cause for inclusion (and if you want to get consensus, please do it at VPP, not here). --qedk (t 愛 c) 20:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support watchlist notice. This may seem very inside-baseball, but banning a given citation style is a fundamental change to the way Wikipedia operates. Anyone who's not interested can dismiss the notice with a single click. What minimal nuisance a watchlist notice will cause is more than offset by reducing the scope for "why wasn't I told about this?" complaints, and for the inevitable appeals should the proposal be accepted. ‑ Iridescent 16:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • It should be included. Those who find a dismiss click too much bother regarding how content creators format references should be using another website. Johnuniq (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support watchlist notice. (Note: I'm tempted to vote in this matter, although I doubt it will make a difference.) Passing a rule that tells Wikipedians will always engender anger & backlash. "You did this & didn't tell anyone!" numerous Wikipedians will protest -- & sometimes with a valid point. (You want a reliable source for this statement? have a look at WP:LAME.) Let's make an effort to publicize it as much as possible, so when someone does make that claim, the response will be, "We did everything to let people know. If you don't speak up in time, how are we supposed to know you were opposed?" -- llywrch (talk) 06:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
plus Added until 4 September when I believe the RfC will be up for closing. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

August Signpost notice

The August edition is now out. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux Talk 19:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

ACERFC

Please add: 


{{Display/watchlist
 |until= September 14, 2020
 |cookie=nnn
 |text=A '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020|request for comment]]''' is in progress to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the arbitration committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
}}
This is the annual arbcom election RfC, similiar to the one placed last year. Ping to @Cyberpower678: who was looking in to this. — xaosflux Talk 14:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Looks like the "arbitration committee" part was left out, leaving just "the election" (not self-evident -- there are lots of elections). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: think this is fixed now, are you still seeing a problem? — xaosflux Talk 16:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done via Template:ACEWatchlistNotice by Cyberpower. — xaosflux Talk 16:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library collections

The Wikipedia Library has just launched three new collections. Could we add the following notice?

New Wikipedia Library research access: Al Manhal (Arabic journals and ebooks), Ancestry.com (genealogical and historical records), RILM (music reference). Many other resources are freely available on the Library Card platform!

Thanks, Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 09:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Samwalton9 (WMF): we normally only bold the call-to-action link (what you most want someone to click on), would that be wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org or the local page? — xaosflux Talk 14:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org - thanks! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done (slight tweaks for space). — xaosflux Talk 14:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Thanks! Could the last part be reworded to "Get free access"? You don't need to apply for many of the collections now :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
@Samwalton9 (WMF):  Done — xaosflux Talk 16:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 16 September 2020

Please update the next cookie to be used (in the html comment) to 463 following Special:Diff/978776711. CC @Stephen --DannyS712 (talk) 23:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Done, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen (talk • contribs) 23:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

September Signpost notice

The September edition is now out. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

November Signpost notice

The November edition is now out. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 21:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

November Signpost notice

The November edition is now out. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done Will be there till the 6th of December. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 18:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

December Signpost notice

The December edition is now out. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done qedk (t 愛 c) 09:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
@QEDK: you didn't need to bump the cookie number when amending the date. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Ahh well, didn't want to risk it. Thanks for letting me know! --qedk (t 愛 c) 12:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 December 2020

Since the arbitration committee election is over, please remove {{ACEWatchlistNotice|rfccookie=458|eccookie=453|ececookie=464|nomcookie=454|votecookie=455}}. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 03:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Going by this edit it seems like the notice is supposed to be on the page year-round, with the template automatically hiding the display when there is no election. So it isn't actually necessary to remove the template. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 Done @Jo-Jo Eumerus: while it doesn't display anything now, it is at least minimally useful to remove it for the majority of the year that we aren't in ace season. — xaosflux Talk 12:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

January Signpost notice

The January edition is now out. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done and will be present until the 7th of February. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 21:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library - new collections available

Hi, The Wikipedia Library has just made new free research collections available. Could the following be added?

New Wikipedia Library research collections now available: Taxmann (taxation and law), PNAS (science journal), EBSCO (new Spanish and Arabic databases). Get free access on the Library Card platform.

Thanks, Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 13:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Mockup

— xaosflux Talk 16:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 21 February 2021

WLN posted. — xaosflux Talk 11:26, 23 February 2021 (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.

@Xaosflux: Should Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Desysop Policy (2021) be added here? Seems like major policy RfCs have been advertised on watchlists in the past (unbundlings, ACTRIAL, etc). I'm guessing this proposal is on that level? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: it seems big enough, lets give it a day and see if anyone comments. — xaosflux Talk 20:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
While waiting, do you have specific verbiage to recommend? These should be fairly short and include only one bolded link - the link you most want people to follow as a call to action. — xaosflux Talk 20:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
^ TonyBallioni? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
No strong opinions. Watchlist notices can turn things messy, but they also have a purpose; so I’m fine either way. For wording A request for comment is open to discuss changes to the policy on removing administrative permissions. Feel free to wordsmith if we do it. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps something more direct? Will get attention better.
"A request for comments is open to establish a community desysopping process" ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
That’s somewhat jarginy (desysoping), which I was trying to avoid on a watchlist notice, but I think it’s neutral, and if others think it’s better, I have no objections. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Fair point. Possibly "A request for comments is open proposing a new community process to remove administrative permissions." (give or take wordsmithing) - just think it should be explicit what the change is (a desysopping proposal). Otherwise it could easily read like it's a change on the inactivity requirements or something, and get less clickthroughs. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader and TonyBallioni: (see mockup below) - I'm not loving this verbiage - it's not clear to someone uninvolved that this is about a process to review and remove individuals as administrators - could be interpeted as a process to remove some access for all admins. — xaosflux Talk 12:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't love #2 below - but maybe closer? — xaosflux Talk 12:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
All except "desysopping" (jargon) fine to me. The suffix "for cause" is not needed in my opinion; brevity helps to bring the general message across. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
2&3 are too wordy. I prefer 1. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: yea I don't love the length - but it doesn't say WHAT/WHO this will remove from. Perhaps #4? — xaosflux Talk 14:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Is "new" necessary in this language? Can that be assumed as part of "proposed"? How about ...is open proposing a community process for...MarginalCost (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree that "new" is redundant. How about: "A request for comment is open proposing a process for the community to revoke administrative privileges from a user." isaacl (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  1. 5 added. — xaosflux Talk 15:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
(and 6, user-->editor). — xaosflux Talk 15:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Probably remove the "from an editor". imo the User:Tony1/Redundancy exercises: removing fluff from your writing test applies. Who else would the perms be removed from if not a user/editor? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader: we all know what this is about, so to answer you : the collective group of admins (i.e. a process for forced devolving of permissions to other groups) vs removing a person from being an administrator. — xaosflux Talk 17:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
How about 8? — xaosflux Talk 17:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Hammersoft might have something to say about "demotion", lol. I don't like the wording personally, since it gives off too much of the promotion/ladder/hierarchy vibe. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Prefer 7 or 5, in that order. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    I think 7 is a clear #1 for me, 5 is a distant second choice. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • OK, I'm putting up 7 now, haven't seen anyone say we shouldn't have a notice at all - and it seems to be succinct and neutral enough; can always be adjusted. Thank you for the feedback! — xaosflux Talk 19:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    To be honest, I would have proposed version 7 initially; I was just trying to address the issue you raised. Thanks to everyone for your collaborative efforts. isaacl (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    • @Xaosflux: "administrative privileges" has many connotations (look at Privilege and go on from there), please can you rephrase the notice? 'access' or 'tools' are much more neutral, and in line with them being mop-like. Or if you want to start awarding gold-plated mops...? ;-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    • P.S. "is open proposing" -> "is open that proposes" is better grammar. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
      •  Done @Mike Peel: I tweaked the grammar; I'm not really sure what the "best" other part is - despite the mop-history, most editors seem to agree that "being an admin" is more than "having access to the permissions bundled in to the sysop group" - how about "status" instead of "privileges"? — xaosflux Talk 21:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
        • 7 is fine. "Privileges" is a technical term that correctly describes the entries at Special:ListGroupRights. "Status" sounds as if having these privileges was something special. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
        • There's a typo in the fix. Guess I should have put that comma after "open" that I was considering (I ended up eliding it, as was done in the other proposals). Personally, I prefer privileges (unsurprisingly, since I deliberately chose the word). In addition to the technical reasons, to my mind it accurately describes that some editors have been given the additional privilege of performing certain administrative actions, and that the community can withdraw this grant. isaacl (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
          • @Xaosflux: "status" is slightly better than "privileges" but much worse than 'access' or 'tools'. Mike Peel (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • We could do to revoke administrative permissions maybe? — xaosflux Talk 23:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    Permissions is fine ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
    Permissions is good. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Mockups

  1. A request for comment is open proposing a new community process to remove administrative permissions
  2. A request for comment is open proposing a new process for the community to review inappropriate administrator actions, which may lead to access revocation for cause.
  3. A request for comment is open proposing a new process for the community to review administrator behavior, which may lead to access revocation for cause.
  4. A request for comment proposes a new community process that could remove an administrator's advanced access.
  5. A request for comment is open proposing a process for the community to revoke administrative privileges from a user.
  6. A request for comment is open proposing a process for the community to revoke administrative privileges from an editor.
  7. A request for comment is open proposing a process for the community to revoke administrative privileges.
  8. A request for comment is open proposing a process for the community to demote administrators.
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.

February Signpost notice

The February edition is now out. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Done Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

ADMIN terms and polls

@Xaosflux:: Is Wikipedia:Request for comment/Adminship term length also eligible for this, and is a watchlist notice desirable for that RfC? Courtesy ping Worm That Turned. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: probably - any comment from WTT would be welcome - I'm assuming the RfC will run for about a month, and we normally WLN for about 2 weeks - suggest waiting until day 5 or 7 to make sure it doesn't get SNOWed first, also sometimes the very early discussion results in material changes that require re-notifying all the prior participants (another reason to delay the masses). I see it's up on CENT, so that's a good start. While considering timing, feel free to mock up the vebiage suggested below. — xaosflux Talk 14:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
The last blurb was:
A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions.
— xaosflux Talk 14:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

March Signpost notice

The March edition is now out. DannyS712 (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 20:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

April Fool's joke

The RfA listed on this notice is an April Fool's joke. Please remove from watchlist notifications. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux Talk 18:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

RfC notice

@Lourdes: is there any reason why Please discuss before adding. wasn't followed? I don't really think this should be advertised on watchlists. This isn't a ratification vote, and there isn't even a properly formulated change to ARBPOL proposed. The RfC itself is imo premature. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi PR. This is a proposal that requires site-wide inputs, and there's no iron-clad policy measure to discuss clear-cut cases. Xao has now bolded the addition with this edit, and I thank them for that. Your opinions are appreciated. That said, that's about it. (And to be candid, giving it a wide notice will ensure we have both opposing and supporting views with their true weight). Lourdes 14:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I really don't feel like that should've been done. Is this really so important that everyone must see it? Couldn't this have been just announced at AN? Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 14:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Should not a proposal involving ArbCom invite site-wide participation? AN would be only viewed by AN regulars imo. Lourdes 14:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree with PR and Moneytrees, the notice should not have been added without consensus. It's especially bad form for the RfC's initiator to make the decision unilaterally – it gives the impression an agenda is being pushed. Xaosflux could you please remove the notice until a consensus emerges that it's appropriate? – Teratix ₵ 14:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Just saw this on my watchlist. That was an abuse of watchlist messaging. I've removed it. Use WP:CENT instead. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
@Teratix: note my edit was purely procedural and was not an "endorsement" of this - but following discussion above this has been removed already. I agree this seems to be at the the least 'too soon' for this to be on WLN and that T:CENT is a good start. — xaosflux Talk 14:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

April Signpost notice

The April edition is now out. DannyS712 (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux Talk 21:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

June Signpost notice

The June edition is now out. DannyS712 (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 21:45, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

July 2021 good article nomination backlog drive

Starting on July 1, and running for a month, there will be a backlog drive for good article nominations. Would it be possible to set up a watch-page message alerting users about the drive? Ideally it would run on June 30 and/or July 1, and say something like

Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 04:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Seems OK, run till 20210707. Holding in case there are any objections. — xaosflux Talk 18:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Xaosflux. If possible to start running this today to get it out before the drive starts, that would be great. But I understand if you would rather wait a bit longer. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 Done — xaosflux Talk 19:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

RFA notice

Is the RFA notice working correctly? I see it at MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages, but in my watchlist I haven't seen it yet, and also the Signpost notice popped up again after I dismissed it a few days ago. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae Xaosflux updated the Signpost cookie instead of the RfA cookie yesterday making the signpost reappear if you had it dismissed but still hiding the RfA notice if you dismissed it the last time around. This should now be fixed. --Trialpears (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Great. Thanks for your help. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Articles for creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive

Hi, a bit of dis-organisation here but the AfC backlog drive is go, so it would be good to get the message out even if it's 7 days late - suggested message:

Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@KylieTastic: we already ran that banner for a week. — xaosflux Talk 20:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of having this as a watchlist notice given that not everyone has AfC rights and can help out. AfC could really use some more reviewers though.
Xaosflux the banner you're thinking about was for the GA drive. --Trialpears (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
@Trialpears: oops, yes they were just so similar. But yes I agree, the AfC process is not really "open" to every editor, what with them wanting to use special scripts and all. A project talk, or project newsletter would be better here. — xaosflux Talk 20:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 Not done And with Wikipedia_talk:Mass_message_senders#Request_for_mass_message_delivery:_July_7,_2021 being posted, think it is safe to decline this. — xaosflux Talk 20:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough and I really want sure myself and would not even have considered until I saw the GA one that also seamed specialised. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

July Signpost notice

The July edition is now out. DannyS712 (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 11:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

August Signpost notice

The August edition is now out. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done qedk (t 愛 c) 07:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Upcoming request to start 18 Aug 00:00 and expire 31 Aug 23:59 UTC : BoT election voting

Suggest the following message (according to Wikipedia:Watchlist notices#Standing notices) - 

Voting has begun in the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections! Voting ends at 23:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC). [[:m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Voting|Verify your eligibility and vote now]].

Please let me know if any questions. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@Xeno (WMF): is this going to be listed as a CentralNotice? — xaosflux Talk 00:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
xaosflux: It's listed here: m:CentralNotice/Request/2021 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Election. Would it be redundant in this case? Xeno (WMF) (talk) 02:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
@Xeno (WMF): generally the CN is considered higher visibility, making this redundant; but this is important enough to perhaps also run. Leaving open for comments below. — xaosflux Talk 10:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Just to note that the dates have since changed and voting has been pushed back per this. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 21:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
I can confirm per m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2021/2021-08-02/Delay of the 2021 Board of Trustees election. I've updated the title with the new provisional dates. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 Done as CN could be missed based on certain settings. — xaosflux Talk 10:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

September Signpost notice

The September edition is now out. DannyS712 (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

 Already done by QEDK. — xaosflux Talk 15:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 October 2021

Remove the current RFA as it got closed early and the user got blocked by ArbCom as can be seen at WP:ACN -- lomrjyo 🐱 (✉ • 📝) 01:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)  Already done * Pppery * it has begun... 02:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Movement Charter/Drafting Committee/Elections

Prep - follow up from Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Urgent:_MCDC_election_watchlist/MassMessage_and_local_info_page 

{{Display/watchlist
 |until= October 24, 2021
 |cookie=nnn
 |text=Voting has begun for the [[Wikipedia:2021 Movement Charter Drafting Committee Election|Wikimedia Movement Charter Drafting Committee]] election! Voting ends at 23:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC). [[:m:Special:MyLanguage/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Elections|'''View the candidates and vote now.''']]
}}

Displays as:

— xaosflux Talk 11:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 Done. I've gone ahead and added this WP:BOLDly in light of the support at that discussion. Mz7 (talk) 02:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Xaosflux and Mz7: Apologies for not noticing this earlier. The election ends 11:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC) (imo, no need to update the cookie since it extends, rather than contracts, the time allowed.) Xeno (WMF) (talk) 03:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
    • @Xeno (WMF): ah ok, looks like this is from someone using that ridiculous AoE timezone! To confirm, it ends 2021-10-25 11:59:59 UTC correct? — xaosflux Talk 10:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
      • And not a second later! Thank you :) –xenotalk 17:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

October Signpost notice

The October edition is now out. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Eddie891: great. What's the usual wording? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
@MSGJ, see prev diff for an example. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

en-xx Discouragements added

Following up from this discussion - which I proposed and had wide support (though not formally closed as an RfC) - I've added some discouragement to en-ca and en-gb on to the watchlist. This will only be seen if your language is set to those values. See an example here. There may be some other places this could be useful, trying to not be overly intrusive though. — xaosflux Talk 11:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

RfA 2021 notice

I am proposing, beginning on 7 Nov 2021 (after the deadline for new proposals has happened), a watchlist notice that would read:

A discussion on changes to how Wikipedia appoints administrators is underway.

This follows WL notices earlier this year around desysop and term limits and seems equivalent in scope. I am not picky about this verbiage and if there is consensus to do this I am happy to do the legwork myself. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  • This seems like a big enough deal to warrant advertisement, perhaps for 1 week. I don't love the verbiage, perhaps:
@Barkeep49: thoughts? This is more aligned with prior WLN's, and I think it maintains neutrality and still has the right call to action (i.e. Hey you, go to this RfC and participate if you care about this stuff!) — xaosflux Talk 17:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Works for me. I genuinely am not picky about this language. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: is that RfC in "no new proposals" mode now? — xaosflux Talk 00:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
@Xaosflux it'll be ready at about 16:30 tomorrow. I came here shortly after opening the RfC. I plan to use your language. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

preferences fixes

Hey @MusikAnimal: - once we can verify that all these preference things are fixed, we should probably post a note to somewhere like WP:VPT and maybe even go so far as to link to it from here - I think the impact is much more widespread than was reported, with small things just mysteriously breaking for people (e.g. even my own enwiki wikimail got turned off and I didn't notice for a while). — xaosflux Talk 16:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Xaosflux I doubt they're all fixed, yet, see QA notes at phab:T286271#7503827. But yes, once we verify the bigger problem (phab:T294675) is fixed, we can advertise it along with notes that you need to re-save your GlobalPreferences and/or overrides accordingly. We will send something out on TechNews, too. — MusikAnimal talk 17:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

November Signpost notice

The November edition is now out. jp×g 00:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux Talk 15:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

December Signpost notice

The December edition is now out. DannyS712 (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux Talk 00:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

January 2022 good article nomination backlog drive

Starting on January 1, and running for a month, there will be a backlog drive for good article nominations. Would it be possible to set up a watch-page message alerting users about the drive? Perhaps from December 31 to January 7, saying something like:

Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Enqueued, seems OK, week duration seems OK. — xaosflux Talk 19:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
  •  On hold pending date. — xaosflux Talk 00:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
  •  Done — xaosflux Talk 05:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

January Signpost notice

The January edition is now out. jp×g 20:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Reply tool coming

  • The talk page reply tool has been enabled for all desktop editors. Should you have any issues or feedback for the Talk Pages project team, please join the discussion at the project talk page.
    •  On hold until this is ready to launch. — xaosflux Talk 01:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
    @Xaosflux: The wording of the current "it's coming soon" message is unclear, I think, to dumb less technically competent people like me. Not everyone (including me, until I looked it up) knows what a gamma test is; that jargon needs to be changed. Also, if I understand correctly, the gamma testing is the current opt-in phase, right? And it's going to become opt-out on March 7th? Is "enabled" more software terminology that means something different to techies and to laymen? I'd have said it's already "enabled" now as an opt-in, and will be changed to opt-out on the 7th. Also, shouldn't we explain how to opt-in? If I understand correctly, should it be reworded to something like:
    The talk page reply tool is planned to be enabled as an opt-out gadget(task) for all editors using the desktop interface on 7 March 2022. All registered editors are welcome to opt-in ahead of time to the Gamma Test (available in Preferences - Beta features - Discussion tools) and provide any feedback, ask questions, or report issues to the Talk Pages project team in the discussion at the project talk page.
    (signed) a very non-techincal Floquenbeam (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
    @Floquenbeam: thanks for the feedback, lets massage this a bit! One important note is that all editors include ip editors, who will not be able to "opt out". How's this:
    • The talk page reply tool is planned to be turned on(task) for all editors using the desktop interface on 7 March 2022. Registered editors are welcome to opt-in to the final testing period and provide any feedback, ask questions, or report issues to the Talk Pages project team in the discussion at the project talk page.
    After the actual launch, we'll update the message that this feature is now on by default, how to opt out (registered users only), and where to leave any other feedback. The current call to action is "let us know if something is broken that we need to abort the launch about" really. — xaosflux Talk 22:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
    @Xaosflux: that seems much easier to understand for non-tech people, I think. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
     Done — xaosflux Talk 22:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

    February Signpost notice

    The February edition is now out. jp×g 20:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

     Done qedk (t 愛 c) 06:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

    Improve link to reply tool preferences

    Please change the link from [[Special:Preferences|preferences]] to [[Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion|preferences]]. Matma Rex talk 21:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

     Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

    Bump RFA Cookie

    Would someone bump the RFA cookie ID if it seems appropriate, I'm involved with that RFA. Thanks! — xaosflux Talk 19:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

     Done --Trialpears (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

    UCoC Enforcement guidelines ratification 7 - 21 March 2022

    A vote is ongoing 7 - 21 March 2022 as part of the ratification process for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) enforcement guidelines.
    • Just a suggestion, let me know if any questions. There may also be a CentralNotice, however I think that double-booking is reasonable. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
      @Xeno (WMF) WLN's should have a call to action, specifically what do you want people to click on (a bold link) and is there something that needs defining (like "UCOC" or "enforcement guidelines") that should be linked to for reference? — xaosflux Talk 22:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
      Thanks xaosflux, added links above- please let me know your thoughts. Of course feel free to change it further if desired. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
      @Xeno (WMF) thanks for the note, seems appropriate. I'm assuming this shouldn't be launched until the vote is live. Please set the edit request to active when ready if missed. — xaosflux Talk 15:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
    •  On hold — xaosflux Talk 15:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
    • I'm thinking this:
    {{Display/watchlist
 |until= March 21, 2022
 |cookie=nnn
 |text= [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines/Voting|'''Voting''']] on the ratification of the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct|Universal Code of Conduct]] (UCoC) [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines|enforcement guidelines]] is open until 21 March 2022.
}}
    • — xaosflux Talk 15:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
      Or the link, but really the call to action page will need to be ready to go (e.g. need to have a big button to actually get to the vote perhaps). — xaosflux Talk 15:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
      Much obliged; and yes, the button will be going up soon. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
     Done — xaosflux Talk 01:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
    • xaosflux: Since the poll is still running throughout the UTC day (there was a brief hiccup where it was dark for an hour), should it still be running? Sorry I didn't realize it wasn't an inclusive field. (I think we might have updated the end date, after you looked at this request also.) Xeno (WMF) (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
      @Xeno (WMF) It said: "is open until 21 March 2022" it already IS 21 March 2022; is this now running "until 22 march 2022"? — xaosflux Talk 02:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
      xaosflux: Right, there was a change as it was announced as "7 to 21", yet wasn't clear if it was inclusive of the 21. It guess it should have read 'until 23:59 UTC 21 March 2022'. (This is perhaps why there was that "AoE" experiment the last time!) Xeno (WMF) (talk) 02:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
      ok, bumped it back on, will expire at the end of the day. — xaosflux Talk 09:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
      Much obliged. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 10:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
      @Xaosflux: Can we use @Xeno (WMF)'s wording? "Until 22 March 2022" sounds as if votes on 22 March 2022 will count, and that is definitely wrong in many timezones. —Kusma (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
      @Kusma I put the exact time 2022-03-22T00:00 (UTC) from the voting server in there (many people have scripts that may display that in 'local time'); the English Wikipedia is international and our "local" timezone is UTC. — xaosflux Talk 14:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
      @Xaosflux, works for me. —Kusma (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

    Admin activity RFC

    Copying in the proposal to add Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Request for comment on administrator activity requirements, our last major admin-related RFC posted here was the proposed desysop policy. The RFC seems to be SNOW-proof now, suggest 1 week. Any objections? — xaosflux Talk 00:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

    @Worm That Turned and Wugapodes: from rfc talk. — xaosflux Talk 00:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
    No objection from me. WormTT(talk) 13:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
    Looks good to me. Minor nitpick: I'd suggest including "for administrators" in the linked text to better clarify what the linked policy is about. It's fine without that though. — Wug·a·po·des​ 17:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
    Proposed:
    {{Display/watchlist
 |until= Month d, yyyy (7 days after launch)
 |cookie=nnn
 |text=A [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Request for comment on administrator activity requirements|'''request for comment''']] is open proposing a change to the minimum [[Wikipedia:Administrators#Procedural_removal_for_inactive_administrators|activity requirements]] for administrators.
}}
    — xaosflux Talk 13:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
     Done –xenotalk 00:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

    March Signpost notice

    The March edition is now out. jp×g 20:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

    Going to put this  On hold for at least 24 hours while the ever growing noticeboard discussions about signpost are in progress. — xaosflux Talk 01:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
    Pile of stuff includes disagreement with Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-03-27/From the Signpost team
    — xaosflux Talk 13:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
     Done — xaosflux Talk 02:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

    Protected edit request on 31 March 2022

    Please remove the admin activity RFC as expired. Thanks! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 18:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

     Done — xaosflux Talk 18:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

    April Signpost notice

    The April edition is now out. jp×g 20:38, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

     Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

    Protected edit request on 2 May 2022

    Please remove both messages; the RfA is closed and The Signpost message is expired. Thanks! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 04:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

     Done expired removed, I think the Rfa has aged off upstream. — xaosflux Talk 18:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

    2022 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election - apply to be a candidate

    Thoughts on announcing the call for candidates here? The deadline was just extended.

    Proposed:
    {{Display/watchlist
 |until= May 17, 2022
 |cookie=nnn
 |text=You can [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2022/Apply to be a Candidate|'''apply to be a candidate''']] in the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2022|2022 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election]] until 23:59 UTC on '''16 May 2022'''.
}}

    Xeno (WMF) (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

    @Xeno (WMF) is there a CentralNotice for this already? — xaosflux Talk 18:09, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
    xaosflux: No CentralNotice in the works to my knowledge. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
    Seems reasonable, we definitely need community members here to be aware so they can run to be on the board. Galobtter (pingó mió) 22:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
    Added with minor format tweak, 16may expiry (we usually go a week on these, but this gives it 2 weekends) — xaosflux Talk 15:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

    Protected edit request on 31 May 2022

    Please remove the expired item. Thanks! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 17:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

     Done — xaosflux Talk 18:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

    May Signpost notice

    The May edition is now out. jp×g 20:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

     Done — xaosflux Talk 18:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

    GAN backlog drive

    Starting on 1 June, and running for a month, there will be a backlog drive for good article nominations. Would it be possible to set up a watch-page message alerting users about the drive? Ideally it would run on 30 May and/or 1 June, and say something like

    Thanks in advance, (t · c) buidhe 03:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

    @Buidhe: how is something like this? Notably I took out the "starting tomorrow" since it would run for a week.
    {{Display/watchlist
 |until= June 8, 2022
 |cookie=nnn
 |text=Want to win barnstars and reduce backlog? Then sign up for the '''[[WP:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/June 2022|June 2022 Good Article Nomination backlog drive]]'''.
}}
    — xaosflux Talk 18:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
    That would be great! Thanks so much xaosflux! (t · c) buidhe 18:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
     Done @Buidhe: this is live now. — xaosflux Talk 14:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

    Protected edit request on 7 June 2022

    Please remove the expired item. Thanks! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 00:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

     Done @EpicPupper: unless these are sitting around for a while (say a week) we don't really need ER's to clean these up. — xaosflux Talk 13:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

    June Signpost notice

    The June edition is now out. jp×g 22:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

     Done — xaosflux Talk 22:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

    August Signpost notice

    The August edition is now out. jp×g 00:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

     Done — xaosflux Talk 00:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

    GOCE Blitz notice

    Please add The Guild of Copyeditors' August Blitz runs from the 14th August to the 20th August. Sign up [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/August 2022|here]]. Thanks, Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 10:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

     Done @Zippybonzo: sorry this went out so late though. — xaosflux Talk 13:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
    If you want to extend the Blitz date let me know and I'll update the message and expiry for this. — xaosflux Talk 13:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
    @Xaosflux I doubt that I will need it extending. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 15:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

    WP:PVITAL edit drive

    Please add The [[WP:Vital articles|Vital article]]'s 30 kB drive runs from the 26th July to the 31st August. Sign up [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Vital Articles/30 kB drive|here]]. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

     Done — xaosflux Talk 13:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
    Xaosflux, thanks a lot! The drive, though highly efficient, desperately need more editors to achieve its goal. Maybe you should join too :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
    Noting that I've copyedited the message slightly (removing the apostrophe from "Vital article's"). If the intent was to make it possessive (e.g. "WikiProject Vital Articles' 30kB drive...") rather than declarative then say and I can fix. firefly ( t · c ) 15:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
    Yeah, I intentionally place to place to 's there, but there's no need to fix the message as this is also fine for me. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Watchlist-messages/Archive_11&oldid=1109432443"