User talk:RL0919/Archive 2022

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Administrators' newsletter – January 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • 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.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • 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.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

Precious
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).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed suppress 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.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

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)

Orphaned non-free image File:Roy Brewer Life magazine 1946.jpg

⚠
⚠

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).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

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

  1. ^ https://m.imdb.com/title/tt18260516/?ref_=india_t_up
  2. ^ https://celpox.com/media/the-man-and-the-angel-2022?ID=6349
  3. ^ https://celpox.com/celebs/rupesh-paul?ID=46229
  4. ^ https://www.tellychakkar.com/digital/exclusive-aamir-rafiq-and-selina-sood-roped-short-movie-210814%3famp
@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).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory 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)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

List of Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 edition monsters

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)
Thank you! :) And could you please also do the same with the talk page? BOZ (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 Done --RL0919 (talk) 18:12, 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:

  1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
  2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

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).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here!
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.

(t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

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).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • 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.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

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)

Jstor tool?

On Nu Beta Epsilon, I thought there might be a bot that did that replacement. It looks like from your comment that there is a tool/javascript. What is the tool, if it exists?Naraht (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Naraht:Sorry, I didn't use a tool. I just followed the JSTOR link to get the info. --RL0919 (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
So I pushed off the work onto you. Sorry. Is there a category that the article was placed into with a jstor and more or less nothing else?Naraht (talk) 01:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
A CS1 parameter error. You had a typo in “jstor”, so even if there is a bot that would fill it in, it would not have gotten that one. --RL0919 (talk) 01:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
"sound made by hitting head against wall" - yeah. Thanx!Naraht (talk) 01:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2022).

Technical news

  • user_global_editcount is a new variable that can be used in abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users. (T130439)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2022).

Administrator changes

readded Valereee
removed Anthony Appleyard (deceased) • Capitalistroadster • Samsara

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
  • An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.

Technical news

  • The Wikimania 2022 Hackathon will take place virtually from 11 August to 14 August.
  • Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
  • Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
  • Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).

Guideline and policy news

  • A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
  • An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
  • The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
  • Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

AFDs

Hello, RL0919,

I just wanted to say that I appreciate you offering a closure rationale when you close AFDs, whether they are contentious or there are just mixed opinions on an article's fate. Most admins closing AFDs just provide the outcome (me included) and while that's fine when the opinions are unanimous or one-sided towards Keeping or Deleting an article, it's very helpful to read how a closer came to their final decision.

I often go back to AFDs that I passed on closing to see how another admin decided to close a complicated or divided discussion and I usually learn something from reading your decisions. I still consider myself relatively new to the AFD world so thank you for sharing your thought process when weighing conflicting opinions on what should happen to an article. Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I second those comments. Thorough rationales are much appreciated. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 16:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Thirded. I just read your summary on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/December 15, 2022 Twitter suspensions and it was fantastic. Thanks for being a model for good behavior. Fogsparrow (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).

CheckUser changes

removed TheresNoTime

Oversight changes

removed TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

List of Tandy CoCo games

I had just finished adding an intro section to the article to help establish notability. In other words explaining the distinctive situation in the TRS-80 market where Tandy attempted to create an entirely closed market for software, including games, for its computers. Which is why it makes sense in this case to have separate first-party and third-party lists. Did you see that intro item? The existing AfD discussion does not reflect the existence of that sourced information.

Please note: I previously reverted my posting above because I was confused by your newsletter and similar content and thought I misplaced my message. Sorry for the confusion. Carney333 (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Update/new comment: Although I appreciate the existence of this page Draft:List of Color Computer 1 and 2 Games from Tandy I'm puzzled as to why it seems to be a major reversion shorn of much information, now lacking not only the introductory text and citations, but also the extensive citations I provided from various reliable sources about individual games on the list.Carney333 (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

After looking at the edit history, my best guess about the draft is this: The draft appears to be the result of another editor moving your first version of the page, probably while you were still editing it. When you saved your second edit, it recreated the article without you even realizing it had been moved to draft. The re-created article is what was then nominated for deletion, and deleted, but the moved original still sits in draft. Very confusing! But it's the only way I can interpret the histories that makes sense.
In any case, I can still view the final version, and don't see anything in the introductory material that addresses the arguments for deletion that were presented in the AfD. --RL0919 (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
OK thanks for explaining the existence of the draft and the state of its contents. And for assuring me that you saw the final version. Obviously I disagree on it addressing issues at hand but no point rehashing that; just wanted to make sure you'd seen it. Sigh oh well Carney333 (talk) 01:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Nick Fuentes, Donald Trump, and Kanye West meeting

Per your closure of this AfD, I'd like the article restored as a userspace draft in my name. I acknowledge that any speedy recreation may be subject to a G4 deletion. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDude: Restored and moved to User:FormalDude/Nick Fuentes, Donald Trump, and Kanye West meeting. --RL0919 (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Daily Dozen deletion review

Hi, I have submitted the recent Daily Dozen AfD closure for review. By my count, 10 voted for Keep, while 12 voted for Delete. This should be grounds for relisting in most instances, never mind an AfD that has become so contentious, and has triggered many more AfDs, some seemingly made on a whim. Moreover, it would seem reasonable to expect that those voting Keep would like it to Merged as the next best alternative, in which case there would also have been a clear consensus to Merge. In any case, it does not seem obvious to me that a consensus to Delete emerged from the discussion. Best regards, KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 21:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see this was closed when multiple votes were cast even today. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
I created a spreadsheet to track the positions taken and how they were supported. You are correct that 10 editors supported keeping, although two of these did not cite policy-based reasons and one argued that notability guidelines are "advisory". There were 13 editors explicitly supporting deletion, all citing policy-based reasons (typically WP:SIGCOV and/or WP:NCORP). Four editors supported merge as their primary position; three of these also said the subject lacked notability, giving the same reasons as the pro-delete editors. One editor who otherwise strongly argued for deletion said that merging was an acceptable alternative; no editors who supported keeping gave merging as an alternative. One editor made a humorous comment that I think was probably favoring deletion, but it was not clear so it isn't counted in the 13. One repeatedly queried the sources but never took any clear position about the outcome. Another switched positions twice, ending up as neutral. Plus there was a smattering of meta-comments and other noncommittal remarks.
To summarize, 16 of 27 editors with explicit positions said the subject was not notable. That's the clear majority I referred to. Of those, 13 called for deletion, which is the plurality among specific positions. It's hard to make a consensus for merge out of that, and impossible to make a consensus for keep, unless the arguments on the other side were obviously defective/off-topic, which isn't the case here.
As to the possibility of relisting, some of the ongoing commenters had dug in positions and the discussion was becoming increasingly personalized, which did not bode well for a relist being beneficial. --RL0919 (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
You deserve some kind of medal for taking on that close. Re merging, the fact that the result wasn't Merge never means a WP:DUE amount of material (in this case, one sentence) can't be added to an appropriate other article (in this case, Pike Place Market), per WP:NNC. EEng 23:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, the option of mentioning this subject in the Pike Place Market article is definitely allowed. One of the "no clear position" commenters mentioned that specifically in one of the merge-related threads. --RL0919 (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Going further, the goals of merging are sometimes better served by a delete outcome than by a merge outcome. The deletion discussion itself, this one in particular, is a permanent record of references that can support one to two sentence long content in the target article, making it much easier to produce a desirable merge result, without carrying over any cruft (i.e. without having to go trough the whole article thinking what to merge in the first place, what not to merge, and what and how to condense; takes many times more effort). So yeah, everything is great here. —Alalch E. 23:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Strongly disagree. The article history and talk page history should be preserved, IMO. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
I replied to this point at the DRV, toward the end of this diff. Flatscan (talk) 05:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Well done on your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/December 15, 2022 Twitter suspensions. That was a complex discussion to close and you did so masterfully with a well written closing statement explaining your rationale. TheSandDoctor Talk 05:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Props also go to @DatGuy and ToBeFree: for protecting the page when the discussion started to derail due to an apparent campaign of disruptive editing. TheSandDoctor Talk 05:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
😅 A few hours of that are mine. The barnstar is probably well-deserved, I don't judge – but as noone has challenged the closure, it seems to be pretty objectively good. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
@ToBeFree: My apologies for not acknowledging this; I didn't know you were involved in its closure as it wasn't a panel closure. TheSandDoctor Talk 22:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
No no no, I mean only a few hours of the protection were caused by my action! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Either way you helped @ToBeFree:! Don't short-change yourself TheSandDoctor Talk 06:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Continuing from the DRV...

Thank you for continuing to engage in discussion. I find it a privilege to disagree with people like yourself who are articulate and cordial, if not outright kind.
With respect to the first issue, I do not think that considering redirection or merging as regular editing or improvement is as much a stretch as you think it might be. The entire page at WP:DEL is talking about deletion, an act that only administrators can undertake. If you read the policy as a whole, this really stands out in the ATD section. That section goes on to explicitly encompass everything less than deletion, specifically editing, tagging, merging, redirection, incubation, and transwikiing in that order. That is, in the context of WP:DEL anything other than deletion counts as "editing" because that is what headlines the whole alternatives to deletion section.
With respect to your second point--this is not how things are normally done--you have my complete agreement. I maintain that it is 1) what we're supposed to do "on paper" and has been for years, and 2) the actually optimum way to handle things. If you get taken to DRV for merging instead of deleting something like the article that spawned the discussion, I can't prevent that, but I can--and will--show up to defend you or any other admin who takes the time to solve the problem (content not ready for mainspace) in the least destructive way appropriate. Following policy is not supervoting, no more than it would be if 20 people wanted a copyvio kept and you deleted it anyways.
Again, than you for taking the time to try and do the right thing in a difficult situation, even if I would have handled it differently. Jclemens (talk) 03:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RL0919/Archive_2022&oldid=1185736013"