Contents
Mailing list
The first Admin newsletter nearly 3 years ago was sent to all admins. Currently there are 575 users on the mailing list of whom 201 are not admins leaving only 374 admins subscribed. This is not many of the 1,153 (as of now) administrator accounts (active and otherwise). 500 of them active (as of 2019-10-13 ) - defined as 30 or more edits during the last two months.
However, many largely inactive admins dating back to 2004 or earlier occasionally do indeed carry out the occasional logged action from which it is evident that they may well not be familiar will all the important changes over the years which directly affect admin work. Perhaps it's time to encourage more admins to subscribe, but how can this now be achieved by not injuring the sensitivities of those who have not chosen to opt in, or who may not even have noticed the first newsletter before it was auto archived from their talk pages? Maybe from the beginning it should have been an opt-out rather than an op-in newsletter. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Pinging Amorymeltzer, Barek, Bishonen Boing! said Zebedee, Isaacl, Mkdw, MusikAnimal, Mz7, Samwalton9, and Xaosflux Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Kudpung: Before the first newsletter went out we had this discussion where consensus was against opt-out, which is how we arrived at the decision to send out the first issue to all admins and then go opt-in. Will give some thought to how we could encourage more admins to sign up. Sam Walton (talk) 02:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Kudpung: I chose not to opt-in, and instead have it transcluded into User:Barek/tools. I find that solution worked better for me. -- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- We don't want to force admins to get this talk post if they don't want it. We already post it at WP:AN, feel free to leave a note under the next one reminding that subscribing may be useful. Active admins that don't subscribe may simply be reading it there. — xaosflux Talk 03:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- One of the problems of posting it at AN, Xao is the same as that of rarely active admins not following that page. I consider myself to be a fairly active admin and generally up to date on most things because I take part in most discussions , especially those that concern policy and changes inn user rights, etc., but I must admit that I don't always pay attention to what gets posted at AN. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- Another mass message to admins notifying them of the newsletter and opt-in instructions could be considered. Mkdw talk 03:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- Which is exactly the reason why I started this thread. I may be wrong, but my feeling tells me there have been a lot more changes in the last 3 years than in any other similar sample period. I certainly see 'rarely active' admins (and new ones too) doing things that while they may not be wrong per se, based on what they should know cause me to raise an eyebrow. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- Now that I have read the original discussion (thank you Sam) I don't think Bishonen's fears are justified - there's a big difference between being educated and being informed. I think Sam made an unfortunate choice of vocabulary in this very appropriate comment. If he had used 'inform' instead of 'educate' perhaps Bish might have seen 'opt-out' in a more positive light. Beeblebrox referred to The Signpost but one should not overestimate the information power of the periodical. It informs, for sure, but not always on the things it should and not always in sufficient detail. It has a very ecclectic readership and admins are far from all being subscribed to it. Beeb is also one of the admins who keeps himself up to date anyway, and does so systematically after an absence from WP.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- I think admins need to accept the fact that from time to time they're going to receive a message about certain things related to being an admin, such as a reminder about the newsletter, changes to activity requirements, etc. etc. We want our admins to be informed and it's already an expectation that admins be familiar with current practices. Mkdw talk 05:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm not an admin any more and I'm not directly affected (and, frankly, I'm finding the community elements arguments regularly appearing on our drama boards as so increasingly toxic (an overused word, but it seems apposite) that the likelihood of my ever asking to return is diminishing - there's a fight on ANI at the moment involving very experienced Wikipedians (including an admin) that I find particularly repulsive). But in response to a ping by my friend Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, I'll offer my thoughts. I agree that admins need to be updated on what's changing (especially the less active ones who have not taken part in discussions that have led to changes), and I am convinced that AN is not sufficient for it. Usually, I would support newsletters as being opt-in (and I can't remember what I thought about the admin newsletter when it was last discussed), but in this case I currently think the admin newsletter should be opt-out. Admins should commit themselves to keeping up to date with changes, and opting out says "I'll keep up to date myself", but I think we need that active commitment. There should be no excuses for not knowing what has changed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2019
Simply adding "User talk:Zblobfish" to the list. Zblobfish (talk) 04:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Three years!
The January 2020 issue will make three full years published, perhaps we should note it? (for those doing math, the fist issue in the archives wasn't sent). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- Sure! Might also be a good time for a little retrospective and put out a call to see if there's anything folks feel like is missing or not useful. Sam Walton (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Congratulations and thanks to the diligence of everyone involved! It's rare enough for any initiative to get off the ground and continue for three years, and one managed by volunteers is remarkable. Good work! isaacl (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Obituaries?
Hi all! I was reviewing the admins' newsletter, as I regularly do, and took a look at the January 2020 edition (which is obviously in progress and under construction for publishing at that time). I saw that obituaries were listed on this issue for release (at least as of the time of this writing). Now, let me begin by saying that this discussion is absolutely not attempting to downplay, blow off, state, or imply that obituaries and news regarding the death of a member of the community and one of our own aren't a big deal and aren't things that we should care about. These are deeply saddening events, and I always extend my thoughts and well wishes towards those we lose and those who are impacted. That being said, I'm not sure if obituaries belong on the administrators' newsletter.
When this newsletter was formed and began its monthly publishing, I remember that their intended size, scope, and focus were to brief lists and summaries of events and changes, and restricted to information, discussions, events, and changes that were significant site-wide and/or had significant and site-wide impact, or had direct impact on administrator duties, technical abilities, policies, procedures, enforcement, etc. I don't believe that these obituaries fall into this scope.
Again, I'm not trying to downplay or blow off the fact that we lost a member of our community... And if I'm incorrect about what the size, scope, and focus of this newsletter is/was supposed to be, and if my idea of this scope limitation is wrong, please let me know... I just don't feel that this information fits within this particular newsletter's intended focus, nor is it in line with the information that this newsletter has been (at least to me) important and famous for doing: Summarizing significant key events, discussions, cases, requests, and rulings that impact this site and this community, or how administrators and advanced users (CU, OS, etc) perform their duties.
Comments, thoughts, and input are welcome. I just want to see how others feel about this as well, and whether or not they agree. :-) Thanks - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- I have no problem with the admin obituaries being published in the newsletter. — Maile (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- I need to give this a little more thought with respect to a general guideline on this, but just noting that there is a precedent in that the death of administrator JohnCD was mentioned in the first published newsletter. If I can recall, I believe the reasoning was that they were an active administrator. I think I'd feel uncomfortable with 'being an administrator' being the bar you need to pass to be listed in the newsletter, however. I'm inclined to agree that we should avoid listing these, but I'm open to hearing other opinions. Sam Walton (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- That's actually an issue right now — Angus was a sysop, Brian was not. I thought I was fine with listing them, but it's going to end up with folks drawing lines of "what obituaries get listed" and I'm not comfortable with where that will inevitably end up. "Was a sysop at some point" is the clearest demarcation that makes sense, but like you, I find myself uncomfortable with drawing that line, and it's a little CABAL-y. Any other line, however, will mean someone saying "this editor was meaningful enough to the community/sysop corps/etc. while this one was not" and the first time that happens will simply be inappropriate.
- I can make the argument for perm changes — it's helpful to know who sysops can reach out to for 2O or CUOS – but I'm doubting my initial okay-ness. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- This was exactly my thought as well. I would understand that an admin was mentioned on the newsletter due to being desysopped due to death, but I absolutely cannot, in good conscience, say that there should be a "bar" and that we only list current administrators who have died, as if the others didn't matter at all. Either we should list all users who died during that month, or none at all - I'm still keeping an open mind in this discussion and reading the input and thoughts of others about this.
- I think that the appropriate thing to do would be to avoid the "obituary listing" on the admin newsletter entirely, and simply list those admins among the others who have been desysopped during that month. Then we don't risk having the scope of this newsletter changed or perhaps slowly morphed and tweaked as time goes on, and we avoid any avenue that may inadvertently offend or disrespect users who have died but are not administrators. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- (I don't know if this inquiry is aimed at administrators only; if so, please feel free to ignore my response.) I feel that other venues for recognizing the departure of community members would be more suitable, and can likely be targeted at a wider audience. isaacl (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- Of course you and everyone can comment! I'm pretty sure I can speak for Oshwah on that point. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- Discussions that I start will always be open to anyone for input and comment. I can't think of a discussion that I've started where any restrictions were formally or informally applied regarding who can and cannot participate and comment. Amorymeltzer is correct; Isaacl, your input and your thoughts are absolutely welcome here. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- I added the qualification after posting an initial comment as I realized that administrators are the primary audience for the newsletter, and if the audience thinks it would be helpful, then I don't feel I ought to override that view. Thanks for your understanding! isaacl (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- If an administrator lost the flag because they died this has to be in the newsletter anyway. A compromise solution would be marking such administrators as dead (with the cross sign, or, it the cross sign is a symbol of Christianity and does not universally apply, may be there is another sign). I agree that users who were not administrators at the time they died should not be mentioned in the newsletter and are best commemorated by other means.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
There's not really a solid agreement here, but it seemed generally favorable toward removing them, so for now I've done so for this issue. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Possible RFD changes
The recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion#Links that have existed for a significant length of time and the immediately subsequent section about re-writing WP:RFD#HARMFUL might interest admins, assuming that the discussion continues to develop. (I'm not sure when your publication deadline is, but I thought you'd want as much notice as possible.) A quick, possibly unfair summary might be that Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions, including regulars at RFD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- Haha, that seems fair. I'm inclined to say there's not a great resolution or change to guidance, so while maybe a reminder could be included, there's not much meat to write about. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2020
Add User:Brownlowe.2 to the mailing list. (Is that what it’s called?) Brownlowe.2 (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Brownlowe.2: You can subscribe to the newsletter at Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Subscribe. Sam Walton (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)