This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.
Your signature
Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.
The reason I reacted the way I did was the way I interpreted 65HCA7's comments, they were implying that anyone with a high edit count would pass RfA, no matter if those edits are 100% automated, BLP-violating article creations, and/or useless AfD spamming. That's simply untrue, and anyone who's spent the amount of time at RfA that they say they have should know that any one of those things alone would sink an RfA faster than the RMS Titanic, and likely result in a topic ban from the areas of disruption. To top it off, see their oppose in the current RfA, which I assume was the trigger for this. For someone ostensibly complaining about inflating standards and editcountitis, that's IMO an extremely hypocritical oppose. ansh666 01:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I noticed 4 problems with the standard deviation image. Upon doing 5 minutes of crawling wikipedia, I found you independently found some of the same issues. So in case you want to pick this back up, here are the 4 problems I found, and I copied the discussion off of some moderator's talk page to jog your memory.
First, and most severe, it's shifted by 5 units. The "bins" of 10 units are graphed at the leading edge instead of at the midpoint. E.g., the samples falling between 90 and 100 are shown at the x=90 position instead of the x=95 position where they belong.
Second, the max and min bins (for the red sample) are handled differently. The max bin is graphed as a vertical line from its count, down to the origin; the min bin is graphed as a diagonal line from its count, over to the left neighbor bin's origin. The diagonal line method should be used in both places.
The samples do not have the mean and S.D. indicated. The RNG produces values with the given statistical properties, so the resultant samples represent a subset of values from a larger (infinite) population with the indicated mean and S.D. The samples shown have something close to, but not exactly, the indicated properties. This is handled by shifting and inflating/compressing the output data to match the desired values.
Finally, the x-axis is truncated at zero. I think the x-axis should include most or all data points, but it doesn't. And the fact that it truncates at 0, but not at the high end, gives the false impression that there is something special about 0, which is not the case when discussing the standard deviation and mean of a sample.
100.16.231.141 – Oh yes, I remember that. Looks like you found even more issues than what I had noticed. It may be that the best option is just make a new image with consistently plotted data with the specified statistics. What do you propose we do? Are you interested in making a new image for the page?
I removed the content of the discussion you pasted here just to avoid confusing my talkpage. Definitely on point, that was about the same picture.
P.S. you may be interested in registering an account. It makes communicating a bit easier and you’ll need it to upload images. Prodegotalk 04:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Prodego. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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.
An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of unaccredited institutions of higher education. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Lurking shadow (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Lurking shadow - popular consensus on what to include on the site and how to judge AfD outcomes has changed in the past decade or so. I agree that the arguments that were made at that AfD are not all relevant in the current climate. You are welcome to open a new AfD for that page, which would get some more contemporary responses on its inclusion for the site. Prodegotalk 23:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account.
What do I need to do?
Only to follow the instructions in this message.
Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites).
Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable).
Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers.
How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)?
Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
In what universe are maintenance templates (signalling undersourced BLPs and mangled English among other things, as you no doubt noticed in your thorough review) article content? In what universe is it ok to keep blindly removing templates after a final warning? Why do we even have a templated series of warnings for removal of maintenance tags, if that's a "content dispute"? --bonadeacontributionstalk 15:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Bonadea - sorry, I should have been a bit more descriptive in my response. I declined to block immediately because I was looking for some engagement on the article talk page or a user's talk page discussing why the tags were or weren't needed, and I didn't see any in my review. I didn't see that (please point me to it if I missed it), so I viewed this as a content dispute as to whether or not the tags were needed. If the user doesn't engage in a discussion on the talk page as to why the tags are needed, and continues to remove them, I'd be happy to block at that point. Alternately, feel free to seek a second opinion. Prodegotalk 15:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Can you please also block 74.178.156.219? They are now starting the same edits as the other IP you just blocked. S0091 (talk) 00:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@S0091: looks like it has been done. Let me know if you see any more. Prodegotalk 01:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Seems calm for now. S0091 (talk) 01:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
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.
If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Just to let you know that the thread in question was taken off of WP:ANI by RickinBaltimore. SSSB (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
SSSB - thanks for the info. Prodegotalk 23:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Hope you're doing well, my friend. BD2412T 00:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
@BD2412: You as well BDA - it has been a journey. Never would have been here without you and the experience on this site has definitely a positive impact on my life. Even if I am pretty inactive now :). So thank you! Prodegotalk 00:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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.
If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedian VandalProof moderators has been nominated for discussion
Category:Wikipedian VandalProof moderators has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. * Pppery *it has begun... 21:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)