Administrators' newsletter – January 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).
- Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.
- Additionally, consensus for proposal 6C of the 2021 RfA review has led to the creation of an administrative action review process. The purpose of this process will be to review individual administrator actions and individual actions taken by users holding advanced permissions.
- Following the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Cabayi, Donald Albury, Enterprisey, Izno, Opabinia regalis, Worm That Turned, Wugapodes.
- The functionaries email list (functionaries-en
lists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glenn Spears
I would like to contest this deletion. The table that lists the sources was incomplete, and I believe inaccurate. I think this deletion discussion should have more time. Semper fi! FieldMarine (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not inclined to re-open a discussion that produced several days of speculation about the possibility of GNG-supporting sources without proving any – the opportunity to provide them was there. As an alternative, if you want to work on the article as a draft to find and add GNG-supporting sources without any particular deadline, I'm happy to restore it for that (in userspace or draftspace). --RL0919 (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, I was actually still working on the article when it was deleted, and did not get a chance to respond yet because I was still adding sources. I believe there was an additional 15 sources added since the table was created evaluating the sources, so it was incomplete. Also, IMHO, I do not believe all the evaluations on the table were accurate, and planned on challenging some and getting clarification on others. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, I have some questions for you. In your experience, as a rule of thumb, how many GNG sources are generally required for an article to meet the Keep requirement? Also, for a source to be considered GNG, how much coverage on the subject should there be? Is there some guidance or discussion on this somewhere? Thanks, Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- The only official minimum number of sources is "multiple sources", meaning more than one. Unofficially, many editors recommend the approach outlined in the WP:THREE essay. As to the amount of coverage, I assume you mean how much content is needed in a specific source for it to be "significant coverage" as discussed in WP:GNG. This is unfortunately harder to quantify, and there are several essays about it with varying advice, none of which I can point to as especially popular among AfD participants. This is where the participation of editors in the discussion is especially valuable. There is also the potential complication of routine coverage being discounted, although I think this will be less likely to apply to a military officer than it would to some other subjects. Finally, an important consideration for several of the sources already discussed in this case is whether the sources are independent. Content produced by a subject's employer (in this case, the US government) would typically not be accepted as showing notability.
- Anyhow, I will restore the article and relist the discussion for another week to give you a chance to bring any additional sources and arguments. --RL0919 (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, I appreciate the help. The links are very helpful. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 14:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, I have some questions for you. In your experience, as a rule of thumb, how many GNG sources are generally required for an article to meet the Keep requirement? Also, for a source to be considered GNG, how much coverage on the subject should there be? Is there some guidance or discussion on this somewhere? Thanks, Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, I was actually still working on the article when it was deleted, and did not get a chance to respond yet because I was still adding sources. I believe there was an additional 15 sources added since the table was created evaluating the sources, so it was incomplete. Also, IMHO, I do not believe all the evaluations on the table were accurate, and planned on challenging some and getting clarification on others. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
How we will see unregistered users
Hi!
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
Thank you. /Johan (WMF)
18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I had to revert your close
It's your opinion that any given rule has to be rigidly followed, period, so I consider your close a supervote. By headcount, I have 38 participants to date, only five favored a procedural close. Almost half those are admins, and none of them recommended proceduralg, let alone DID close, altho they could have. I think that says something. I know you meant well by the light given you and it's not possible to prove that you're wrong and I'm right or vice versa, but I feel strongly enough that I felt compelled to do this.
I'd let it lie. Let a thousand flowers bloom. Clearly a number of people want to debate this here, so why not let them. What a mess this has been! But making new things is messy. It'll work out, let the people have their say. Herostratus (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Herostratus: As you may have already noticed, I reverted your reopening and protected the page. It is not a "supervote" to close wrong-venue discussions in accordance with the rules of the venue. People are certainly welcome to have their say about the topic, in an appropriate place. If you want to appeal my close, the process for that is also well-established. --RL0919 (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- Herostratus, before you get too upset about the reclose and protection, consider this: While RL0919's close is factually incorrect - MFD does not say what the close says it does - the page appears to be morphing back to a proposal stage, which MFD does say is not applicable. Since proposal stage is where it should have been all along, at the end of the day we're at the right place - a non-deleted proposal phase page - even if the route we took to get there was messed up several times. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- The instructions regarding "Policies, guidelines and process pages" are clear enough: "Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy." And for proposals: "Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page." So if it is an active process page, it should not be nominated at MfD, and if it is a proposal for one, it should also not be nominated at MfD. --RL0919 (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- "Established pages" can't possibly refer to a 2-week old process that 5-10 people developed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- A panel of three uninvolved administrators closed the RfC proposing the board on 10 December 2021, declaring it successful. There were 48 editors in support. The board has been operational since 14 December 2021, with over 70 editors participating in discussions on it. Whether the implementation of it was handled well or poorly is something that can be discussed in forums intended for such discussions – which MfD is not. Anyhow, that you could describe it in the manner that you did above simply reminds me that WP:UNINVOLVED is one of our most important administration policies. --RL0919 (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- I mean you, RL0919, been heavily involved (and edit warring) when you protected the page, so why are you saying this? Herostratus (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- A panel of three uninvolved administrators closed the RfC proposing the board on 10 December 2021, declaring it successful. There were 48 editors in support. The board has been operational since 14 December 2021, with over 70 editors participating in discussions on it. Whether the implementation of it was handled well or poorly is something that can be discussed in forums intended for such discussions – which MfD is not. Anyhow, that you could describe it in the manner that you did above simply reminds me that WP:UNINVOLVED is one of our most important administration policies. --RL0919 (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- "Established pages" can't possibly refer to a 2-week old process that 5-10 people developed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- The instructions regarding "Policies, guidelines and process pages" are clear enough: "Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy." And for proposals: "Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page." So if it is an active process page, it should not be nominated at MfD, and if it is a proposal for one, it should also not be nominated at MfD. --RL0919 (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- Herostratus, before you get too upset about the reclose and protection, consider this: While RL0919's close is factually incorrect - MFD does not say what the close says it does - the page appears to be morphing back to a proposal stage, which MFD does say is not applicable. Since proposal stage is where it should have been all along, at the end of the day we're at the right place - a non-deleted proposal phase page - even if the route we took to get there was messed up several times. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Guys... it is the wrong venue according to your personal interpretation. You're cherry picking quotes and you know you are. W:NOT points to WP:NOTBURO which may I remind you is a policy. That page says
Wikipedia...is not governed by statute... Although some rules may be enforced, the written rules themselves do not set accepted practice. Rather, they document already-existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected. While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without consideration for their principles.
So then, moving over to WP:MFD's instructions about itself. The lede (which summarizes the basic thrust of what a page is about) opens with:
Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus as evident from the discussion, consistent with policy, and with careful judgment of the rough consensus if required.
The first section below that has
What may be nominated for deletion here: Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: ...Wikipedia [namespace]... [and] Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.
It is true that, way down below, a row in a table described as "guidelines to consider (underlining added), it says that pages to not send to MFD include "Policies, guidelines and process pages" (emphasis added; WP:XRV is indeed a process page). The detailed text then opens with "Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated" (emphasis added, and note that Wikipedia:Administrative action review is labeled up top as "This is a newly created process...".) The detailed instructions then go on to say "This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy [NB: XRV is not a policy]. Instead consider tagging the policy as {{historical}} or redirecting it somewhere." I don't think you should do either of those, but if you want to be a slave to what's written that's what's suggested.
That's way down below, on a page that (unlike NOTBURO) is not a policy page as far as I know. What thought went into writing those few words, how well-attended and cogent was the discussion that led to it, how powerful the consensus was... I don't know (could be researched). If it's taken to mean "If somebody publishes a new process, you can't MfD it. You have to either accept it, mark it as historical (silly for a brand-new page), or unilaterally blank it and redirect it [where?]", as you seem to be, my opinion is that that is not excellent or even functional and wouldn't fly anyway.
Whatever. He said, she said. This rule, that rule. You're wrong, and it happens. God knows we all are. But what we don't want to do is be wrong and then double and triple down and then protect our error. It's objectively a bad thing to do, as that is not what admin powers are for.
I mean, I too actually think the page should be kept and said so. But that means nothing. What matters is that the community gets to have its say. One way to interpret your actions is that you're being like "Discussion? I don't give a rat's ass about any discussion. I don't like this discussion, and I'm ending it, and using my extraordinary powers to shove that down your throats, and you guys'll take it and like it, capice? Now go fix some spelling errors or whatever you people do."
I'm not saying you think that, exactly, but the point is it could be taken that way, or at any rate engender that type of emotional response, and that alone is something we don't want. It is demoralizing. That is not how you nurture a volunteer organization.
Yes Floq the discussion was morphing some I guess, if you say. Discussions among human beings do. Is that bad. You don't like the way the discussion is going? Go do something else, don't be like "I suppose 35 people (and growing rapidly, and including you yourself Floq) are voting with their feet that it is worthwhile to take the time to think about this and participate, and its a quite lively and interesting and idk maybe productive discussion, but guess what? I personally don't like the trend here so I feel like throwing all that work away and making them start over somewhere else, and nobody can stop me."
The suggestion to go to WP:DRV is kind of insulting actually. You know that that takes time, a week maybe, and active discussions that are closed down that long are dead. (Anyway I've been informed that DRV is not for closes and that the correct venue for that is WP:AI.)
One more time: I'm requesting that you re-open the discussion and quickly (before it becomes moot -- its already damaged), if you would be so kind. Herostratus (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- MfD is not the right place to overturn a recent RfC by deleting a process page that the RfC called for creating. MfD is also not the place to discuss the details of how to implement such a process page. Those are discussions that should be held at the relevant Wikipedia Talk page or perhaps a general forum such as the Village Pump – and such discussions are in fact happening right now. By closing the MfD, all I have done is keep the discussion out of a venue where it doesn't belong and help it go where it does belong, and that's all I was trying to do. I don't care much what the outcome is for the AARV page itself. Re-opening the MfD is not consistent with my "personal interpretation" of the MfD guidelines, and I do not see a net benefit to it even as a WP:NOTBURO or WP:IAR option, so I won't be doing that. If you want to seek the interpretations of others in the hope of resurrecting it, you are free to do that at the drama board of your choosing. But really, why, when there is what seems like more productive discussion to be had elsewhere about the substance of the matter? --RL0919 (talk) 03:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
![]() | |
Five years! |
---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello
Would you mind history merging Draft:Out of Time (The Weeknd song) to Out of Time (The Weeknd song). Cheers --Megan B.... It’s all coming to me till the end of time 07:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Synoman Barris: Sorry, but I'm not sure I understand this request. Looking at the deleted edits for Draft:Out of Time (The Weeknd song), there does not appear to be any meaningful history to merge. The draft was moved to mainspace, and the relevant history followed it there, leaving only deleted redirects in the history of the old draft title. --RL0919 (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Never mind, I realised the history was not significant. Thank you for replying and cheers. Megan B.... It’s all coming to me till the end of time 17:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Notification of VP discussion
A discussion you may be interested in has been opened regarding whether athletes meeting a sport-specific guideline must demonstrate GNG at AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Need help in publishing draft
Please sir/mam, help me. I want to publish my draft and I send it for review some 3 weeks ago but there is no any response by anyone. May you please check and publish my draft. I am giving you the link: [1]
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobe8q8661 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Bobe8q8661: I don't often review AFC submissions and the subject of the article is not my expertise, so I'm not really the best person to help you. It can take some time for a reviewer to get to a draft; 3 weeks is not an unusually long wait. Someone will review it eventually if you can wait a while longer. --RL0919 (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Average new users first article when an Ultimate Vanguard Editor who single-handedly created donald trumps wikipedia page finds the article
I believe your determination of consensus of this MfD is mistaken. From a pure numbers perspective, those who did not want to delete the article outnumbered those who did. From a reasoning perspective, five editors provided detailed reasoning for either userspace or keep, four editors provided detailed reasoning for delete, and Robert McClenon is the outlier with a "delete or userfy" vote. Below is my rough analysis, with a "(+)" beside those I deemed to have detailed reasoning instead of a simple vote.
Move to userspace: ToBeFree (+) Skarmory Hut 8.5 (+) Oppose deletion: MarshallKe (+) Godsy Plutonical (+) Lallint (+) Delete or Userfy: Robert McClenon (+) Delete: Liz (+) Vitaium (+) Tamzin (+) Scotty Wong P199 (+)
MarshallKe (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- @MarshallKe: Numbers are not the deciding factor in this case. Once it was brought out that the page was admittedly created to criticize another specific user, deletion was the position with the stronger basis in policy/guidelines. In any case, the editor in question already created a different but similar parody page in his user space. --RL0919 (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you for the explanation. No objection to that. MarshallKe (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – February 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).
- The Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines have been published for consideration. Voting to ratify this guideline is planned to take place 7 March to 21 March. Comments can be made on the talk page.
- The user group
oversight
will be renamedsuppress
in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections. - The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.
- The user group
- Community input is requested on several motions aimed at addressing discretionary sanctions that are no longer needed or overly broad.
- The Arbitration Committee has published a generalised comment regarding successful appeals of sanctions that it can review (such as checkuser blocks).
- A motion related to the Antisemitism in Poland case was passed following a declined case request.
- Voting in the 2022 Steward elections will begin on 07 February 2022, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2022, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
- Voting in the 2022 Community Wishlist Survey is open until 11 February 2022.
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 February 3#Pathan (film)
Hi RL0919. You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pathan (film) (2nd nomination). I have asked the community to restore Pathan (film) to Draft:Pathan (film) at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 February 3#Pathan (film). Cunard (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Sadhbh O'Neill
Hi, I believe that the Sadhbh O'Neill article was recommended for deletion and replaced with a redirect to an upcoming political event, in which she is due to stand. Can I ask why this was subject to deletion? This is a person of considerable note in Ireland, which plenty of political history and a lot of media coverage - both domestic and international There is no clear note on why this was subject to deletion - or why it is more helpful for Wikipedia users to land on an event page, rather than a person page — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrPaperwings (talk • contribs) 16:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- @MrPaperwings: There is a longstanding consensus (reflected in the guideline at WP:POLITICIAN) that coverage generated by a political candidacy does not make a candidate notable. Much of this coverage is routine and does not reflect any lasting interest in the specific people involved. It is also hard to ensure the reliability and neutrality of content about otherwise non-notable candidates due to the heavy amount of spin put out for and against candidates, and the frequent conflicts of interest among those who heavily edit such articles. If you believe she was already notable prior to her candidacy, please be aware that holders of lesser local political offices (such as city councilors) are also not usually considered notable.
- In any case, the back-and-forth over the redirect is not acceptable, and I have protected the page to prevent that from continuing. If you believe her notability can be demonstrated even with the issues above accounted for, you could submit the question to WP:DRV, where previously uninvolved parties can review the potential for restoring the article. (FYI to User:Sdrqaz, who mentioned me elsewhere in regard to this issue.) --RL0919 (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- @MrPaperwings: You ask
why this was subject to deletion?
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sadhbh O'Neill - it was linked on your talk page, but just 6 minutes before you posted above so you were probably busy typing already and didn't see it. PamD 18:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- @MrPaperwings: You ask
Orphaned non-free image File:Roy Brewer Life magazine 1946.jpg
![⚠ ⚠](https://web.archive.org/web/20220701215416im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Ambox_warning_blue.svg/35px-Ambox_warning_blue.svg.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Roy Brewer Life magazine 1946.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Deletion review for List of hip hop albums considered to be influential
An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of hip hop albums considered to be influential. 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. 78.18.237.81 (talk) 03:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
WP:AFC Helper News
Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.
- AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
- The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.
Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
ISBNs
Hello. As far as I can tell the hyphens in ISBNs have no impact on the links. For example, the Objectivism and libertarianism Ayn Rand book will get the same Book sources result whether we use ISBN 978-0-19-532487-7, ISBN 978-0195324877, or ISBN 9780195324877. And then the Book sources links (Amazon, OCLC, OL, etc.) all produce listings with non-hyphenated ISBNs. (My WikiGnomish effort is to provide consistency of presentation.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- I realize it is not widely known these days, but resources exist that are not a "link". The specific number groups in an ISBN (which are only identifiable by a human reader with separators) have meaning, including one that represents country/language and one that represents the publisher. A knowledgable reader could identify something to follow up without having to click on a link. (For example, a long publisher id usually indicates a very small publisher, which could motivate further investigation about reliability.) So whether the links are impacted is not the only consideration. Regardless, if the links are not impacted, then there was no reason to remove the hyphens that were already consistently present on every ISBN in an article (except for one you added yourself). --RL0919 (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. What you say about human readers looking at the components of ISBNs is true, but it does not matter even for those human readers. We typically cite books to include a date/year and publisher. The language is usually English, and when something else the language is evident or tagged. There are some on-line resources that can add hyphens to ISBNs, but what good are they? The end result is the same because WorldCat, Amazon, et al are not using hyphens. And the guidance from WP says use the 13-ISBNs. In any event I hope you enjoy your WikiPedia-editing-venture. – S. Rich (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
What was the point of deleting the Jacknjellify page?
I mean, we have thousands of articles about these random baseball players who played for 2 days in the 1800's yet we can't have a page for a popular YouTube channel with over a million subscribers and over 800 million views? --BFlamer99 (talk) 15:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) See the extensive discussion which took place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacknjellify. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- @BFlamer99: Orange Mike is correct to point you to the deletion discussion, since these things are decided case-by-case. I have also seen a number of AfDs for obscure baseball players, so they are not getting a free pass. I'm sure the standards for notability are not being applied with full consistency in every case, but as an administrator I don't have the ability to force consistency onto a large and diverse community.
- That said, I do think there is an important distinction between contemporary YouTubers and 19th-century ballplayers. Long-dead players will not be trying to use Wikipedia as a platform for self-promotion. Nor are they likely to have enemies who want to use Wikipedia to defame them. With living people, those problems are an important concern, so it is relevant for us to apply tougher scrutiny to WP:BLP articles. --RL0919 (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – March 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).
|
|
- A RfC is open to change the wording of revision deletion criterion 1 to remove the sentence relating to non-infringing contributions.
- A RfC is open to discuss prohibiting draftification of articles over 90 days old.
- The deployment of the reply tool as an opt-out feature, as announced in last month's newsletter, has been delayed to 7 March. Feedback and comments are being welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project. (T296645)
- Special:Nuke will now allow the selection of standard deletion reasons to be used when mass-deleting pages. This was a Community Wishlist Survey request from 2022. (T25020)
- The ability to undelete the talk page when undeleting a page using Special:Undelete or the API will be added soon. This change was requested in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey. (T295389)
- Several unused discretionary sanctions and article probation remedies have been rescinded. This follows the community feedback from the 2021 Discretionary Sanctions review.
- The 2022 appointees for the Ombuds commission are Érico, Faendalimas, Galahad, Infinite0694, Mykola7, Olugold, Udehb and Zabe as regular members and Ameisenigel and JJMC89 as advisory members.
- Following the 2022 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AntiCompositeNumber, BRPever, Hasley, TheresNoTime, and Vermont.
- The 2022 Community Wishlist Survey results have been published alongside the ranking of prioritized proposals.
The man & The Angel WP: UNDELETE
Requesting to undelete it ,providing some references [1][2][3][4] Odlwcsu (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
References
- @Odlwcsu: After reviewing the deleted article, the deletion discussion, and the sources you provided, I'm afraid I do not see anything in these sources that would support restoring the article. The TellyChakkar article was in the deleted version. IMDB is not considered a reliable source. The Celpox links are IMDB-style database entries with no indication of reliable, independent reporting. Therefore I am declining your request to undelete. --RL0919 (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – April 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).
- An RfC is open proposing a change to the minimum activity requirements for administrators.
- Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the
deletelogentry
anddeletedhistory
rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928) - When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)
- Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Opening of proceedings has been updated to reflect current practice following a motion.
- A arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has been closed.
- A arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been opened.
- Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines has closed, and the results were that 56.98% of voters supported the guidelines. The results of this vote mean the Wikimedia Foundation Board will now review the guidelines.
List of Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 edition monsters
- List of Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 edition monsters · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]
I am requesting to have this article and its talk page restored and moved to Draft space. It was deleted at AFD, but independent reliable sources have been found that discuss the topic, and I would like to work on it in draft space and see what else could be found. Sources with extensive discussion on monsters in the game include, but are not limited to:
exciting space-saving feature!
|
---|
|
Thank you. BOZ (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- No problem. Restored and moved to Draft:List of Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 edition monsters. --RL0919 (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
New administrator activity requirement
The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.
Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:
Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work. |
22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2022).
|
|
- Following an RfC, a change has been made to the administrators inactivity policy. Under the new policy, if an administrator has not made at least 100 edits over a period of 5 years they may be desysopped for inactivity.
- Following a discussion on the bureaucrat's noticeboard, a change has been made to the bureaucrats inactivity policy.
- The ability to undelete the associated talk page when undeleting a page has been added. This was the 11th wish of the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey.
- A public status system for WMF wikis has been created. It is located at https://www.wikimediastatus.net/ and is hosted separately to WMF wikis so in the case of an outage it will remain viewable.
- Remedy 2 of the St Christopher case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to place a ban on single-purpose accounts who were disruptively editing on the article St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages from those pages.
June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive
Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. |
please reconsider your close
Please reconsider your close of this as a soft delete - it was low participation but it is very obviously a hoax and should not be restored on request. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Considering that the accounts that built this out haven't edited at all in over a decade, I think it's pretty low risk. If it is recreated, you may want to ask for WP:CSD#G3 deletion next time. --RL0919 (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – June 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2022).
|
|
- Several areas of improvement collated from community member votes have been identified in the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines. The areas of improvement have been sent back for review and you are invited to provide input on these areas.
- Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
- The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.
- Remedy 2 of the Rachel Marsden case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to delete or reduce to a stub, together with their talk pages, articles related to Rachel Marsden when they violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy.
- An arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been closed.
Close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Oppenheim
Re: your close at the above. How does a redirect make sense when it is not even clear that there was actually a player called Harry Oppenheim? FOARP (talk) 07:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- You argued about that in the AfD and didn't convince the other participants. If you believe the list content is mistaken, I'd suggest taking that up at the article talk page or a relevant wikiproject. --RL0919 (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response and for clarifying the reasoning behind your close somewhat. This is probably not worth another full discussion as this is far from the worst issue caused by importing this football database into Wikipedia so happy to leave as-is unless someone else wants to pick it up. I think I would get a thorough (and probably deserved) trouting if I ever tried to DELREV a redirect close into a delete close. FOARP (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Question
Why were the lists of fatal dog attacks by decade deleted? 73.11.240.64 (talk) 00:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- It was the outcome of a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fatal dog attacks in the United States (2014). --RL0919 (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)