User talk:Pbsouthwood/Archive 20
 | 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 talk page. |
| Archive 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
Administrators' newsletter – December 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).
Administrator changes
Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- There is a request for comment in progress to either remove T3 (duplicated and hardcoded instances) as a speedy deletion criterion or eliminate its seven-day waiting period.
Technical news
- Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.
Arbitration
- Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 7 December 2020 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.
New Page Patrol December Newsletter
Hello Pbsouthwood,
- Year in review
It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.
| Rank | Username | Num reviews | Log |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | DannyS712 bot III (talk) | 67,552 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 2 | Rosguill (talk) | 63,821 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 3 | John B123 (talk) | 21,697 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 4 | Onel5969 (talk) | 19,879 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 5 | JTtheOG (talk) | 12,901 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 6 | Mcampany (talk) | 9,103 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 7 | DragonflySixtyseven (talk) | 6,401 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 8 | Mccapra (talk) | 4,918 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 9 | Hughesdarren (talk) | 4,520 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 10 | Utopes (talk) | 3,958 | Patrol Page Curation |
- Reviewer of the Year
John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.
- NPP Technical Achievement Award
As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
|
Merry Christmas Pbsouthwood!!
|
Hi Pbsouthwood, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
Thanks for all you do--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC) |
Disambiguation link notification for December 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Carbonates on Mars, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WCL.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – January 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Speedy deletion criterion T3 (duplication and hardcoded instances) has been repealed following a request for comment.
Technical news
- You can now put pages on your watchlist for a limited period of time.
Arbitration
- By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized
for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes)
. The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason). - Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.
- By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized
Messed up my ping
Thought it easier to just come here and let you know about my proposal - Talk:Environmental impact of recreational diving. Atsme 💬 📧 17:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and Wikipedia talk:Notability on "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comments, and at Talk:Yedikule on a "Geography and places" Good Article nomination, and at Talk:Newton MRT station on a "Engineering and technology" Good Article nomination, and at Talk:Beryl May Dent and Talk:Pacific Meridional Mode on "Natural sciences" Good Article nominations, and at Talk:Bayswater, Western Australia on a "Geography and places" Good Article nomination, and at Talk:Biotin and Talk:Antonín Vězda on "Natural sciences" Good Article nominations, and at Talk:Bishan MRT station, Talk:Kovan MRT station and Talk:K-53 (Kansas highway) on "Engineering and technology" Good Article nominations, and at Talk:Kemp Caldera on a "Geography and places" Good Article nomination, and at Talk:Preening (bird) on a "Natural sciences" Good Article nomination, and at Talk:North Carolina Highway 403 on a "Engineering and technology" Good Article nomination, and at Talk:Sungai Lembing and Talk:Rockaway Beach and Boardwalk on "Geography and places" Good Article nominations. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I realize your busy (being an administrator), however some time ago you reviewed Western African Ebola virus epidemic, should you have a chance/time I was wondering if you could take a look at [1] ...if you dont have the time I'd understand, thank you as always--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- I will take another look, but it is a large and dense article, and I doubt I will have time to do a proper job on it. I will leave any comments on the talk page in case someone else takes up the baton. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Peter, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- I will wait (no rush) on if this will remain informal or formal review, take your time and thank you again--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Peter, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – February 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).
|
|
|
Arbitration
- The standard discretionary sanctions authorized for American Politics were amended by motion to cover
post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people
, replacing the 1932 cutoff.
- The standard discretionary sanctions authorized for American Politics were amended by motion to cover
Miscellaneous
- Voting in the 2021 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2021, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2021, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
- Wikipedia has now been around for 20 years, and recently saw its billionth edit!
Feedback request: Engineering and technology Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Gateway Generating Station on a "Engineering and technology" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Geography and places Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Russia on a "Geography and places" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Natural sciences Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Joel S. Levine on a "Natural sciences" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
February flowers
 |
happy Valentine's! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, Gerda, for this kind thought :-) · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Edit summaries
Pbsouthwood, could you please increase your usage of edit summaries, particularly when editing articles? Xtools gives you 22% edit summary usage among major edits for 150 last edits, and 47.4% edit summary usage for all major edits. I am not sure I've ever seen such low edit summary usage numbers for an admin. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Nsk92, Have you considered the type of edits I have been doing in your analysis? Can you explain why edit summaries for those edits would be such a benefit to the encyclopedia and the editing community that I should disrupt my workflow to provide them? I apologise if I have neglected to explain anything that might reasonably have been confusing or controversial to a competent editor. Feel free to point out any such instances. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 10:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Err, not especially, not until you asked. I consider it a given that all Wikipedians are expected to use edit summaries for all or almost all their edits as a matter of course, for the reasons explained in Help:Edit summary. It is not an imposition but a basic requirement existing to inform other users about the substance of one's edits. I have never heard it described as disrupting one's workflow. For an admin, I would view the expectation in terms of providing edit summaries, both in mainspace and in projectspace, to be even higher, in light of WP:ADMINACCT and the higher standards for transparency and communication. In terms of specific examples, IMO, edits like these [2][3][4], introducing significant new content into articles, definitely require edit summaries, to summarize for the other editors the substance of such edits. Nsk92 (talk) 11:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Nsk92, If one wants to know the substance of an edit, the obvious method is to look at the diff. Adding content is not usually a startling or controversial action, it is the very basis of Wikipedia, particularly when references are included. Adding an edit summary saying added referenced content does not add much value, as it is immediately obvious from the diff. I am far more likely to explain removal of content or references, for reasons that should be obvious but I can explain if there is a need. Edit summaries are very useful when copying, merging, moving, and that sort of thing, where the exact action can not always be determined by simple inspection, and the motivation may not be obvious. I make an effort to ensure that I do give an adequate edit summary in those cases. I would have expected you to be aware that edit summaries are optional in most cases, and Help:Edit summary is neither policy nor guidance. I also do not see the specific relevance of WP:ADMINACCT in this matter, perhaps you would like to explain your point. Cheers,· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 13:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- You are of course correct that Help:Edit summary is neither policy nor a guideline (although perhaps it should be). But it is a widely accepted norm. To me, an edit without edit summary is always unfriendly and unncommunicative. It says nothing at all about what the edit was, and one has to look up the diff to figure out what happened. Even a small hint would be preferable and helpful over a blank summary. I consider an edit summary "added a reference" much more helpful than no summary at all. Regarding admins, at RfA these days high edit summary usage is considered a basic prerequisite for adminship; I believe it is viewed as a part of the necessary communication skills. I am quite certain that if an RfA candidate now voiced the type of opinion you are voicing above regarding edit summaries disrupting your workflow, they would be SNOW failed, and quickly. Regarding WP:ADMINACCT more specifically, I believe it sets a higher general bar for admins in terms of transparency for all their actions, including regular edits; that includes providing substantive edit summaries. Nsk92 (talk) 14:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Interesting that you mention that, Nsk92, as I expressed my philosophy on edit summaries during my RfA when asked. Can you cite some policy or guidance or an RfC, or any reasonably reliable evidence for your claim that
at RfA these days high edit summary usage is considered a basic prerequisite for adminship
, since I have not noticed this trend. Your beliefs regarding RfA and ADMINACCT are not necessarily shared by a majority, but I accept that you believe them, while not feeling obliged to take any action as a consequence. If you want to get edit summaries made compulsory you can start a RfC any time you like, and if it passes, it should not be difficult to make it impossible to save without an edit summary. You could even try to make it compulsory just for admins. I would be interested to see how it would be received. I remain open to persuasion by logic and evidence. It is still unclear to me how transparency of my actions is affected by not stating in an edit summary that which can be seen by simply looking at the edit. Since you consider a small hint would be helpful even for a fairly obvious edit, you should be able to explain just how it would be helpful, and to whom. Please feel welcome to elucidate. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 18:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)- Nsk92, I took a look at your recent contributions, in the hope that I might gain some understanding of your point of view, but the majority of your edit summaries do not help me understand your edits at all, while looking at the actual diff is generally sufficient as well as necessary. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 18:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- I did just start a thread on the topic at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Not an RfC, just a discussion to see what others have to say. I don't know how long ago your RfA was, but my observations from watching the recent RfAs indicate that edit summary usage periodically comes up as a reason to oppose. I don't remember anyone there making an argument that edit summaries are really optional and not always helpful. And I do remember RfA candidates with low edit summary usage getting clobbered. I don't think there is any such thing as an "obvious" edit when an edit is not supplied with an edit summary. An article edit, in particular, can do all sorts of different things, and can add or subtract all kinds of information. For an article edit I'd always want to see an edit summary that is substantive and not perfunctory. E.g. "added referenced info" is too generic and uninformative. While "added info about DOB, with ref" is substantive. But when I see an article edit such as this [5] show up in my watchlist, I have absolutely no idea what the edit means. There is nothing obvious about it. For an article that I am interested in, I am forced to looked up the diff and see what's what there. If there was a substantive edit summary provided, I would most likely just read the edit summary and in most cases not look at the diff. For projectspace edits, at least for regular editors, I believe that perfunctory edit summaries such as "comment", "reply", "delete", "keep", etc are perfectly fine. But for article edits I do want to see more. Regarding my own edits, I am probably not as detailed as I should be with article edit summaries, but I do try to say something substantive there. Nsk92 (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Nsk92, since there is nothing to force the edit summary to be accurate, I consider it necessary to check the diff anyway to know what is there. Perhaps you have more faith in the accuracy of edit summaries than me. I check based on my trust of the editor (or lack thereof), or if I am interested enough. I consider an inaccurate edit summary to be worse than none as it may be misleading. After a large and complex edit, it may take a lot of effort to compose an accurate non-trivial summary. I would rather use that effort to improve content as my availability and time are finite. I was opposed on grounds of low numbers of edit summaries, but the opposer was informed by someone else that it was not legitimate grounds to oppose as they are not compulsory. I will watch the discussion with interest, and may join if I see a need. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 04:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Of course there is nothing to force an edit summary to be accurate. That's what AGF is for. Yes, I do generally trust that the edit summaries are accurate or at least not intenionally misleading. In my observations, in the overwhelming majority of cases, they are. I use edit summaries as a helping tool in deciding, when viewing my watchlist or a history log of some page, whether to look up a diff for specific edit. I believe that most other editors do the same. It is helpful and saves a great deal of time. Conversely, for an edit without an edit summary that shows up on my watchlist for an article that I am interested in, especially if it looks like an edit that added or subtracted a non-negligible amount information, I am forced to look up the diff and try to understand what the edit was about. That takes time, often a fair amount of it, and in most cases the edits turn out to be benign. But sometimes not and a follow up is required. Edit summaries, even brief ones, make identifying edits that really need to be looked up considerably easier. Nsk92 (talk) 11:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Nsk92, I am going to put this on hold while the discussion goes on at the VP, as some important parts of the issue may be decided there by a broader section of the community. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 15:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Of course there is nothing to force an edit summary to be accurate. That's what AGF is for. Yes, I do generally trust that the edit summaries are accurate or at least not intenionally misleading. In my observations, in the overwhelming majority of cases, they are. I use edit summaries as a helping tool in deciding, when viewing my watchlist or a history log of some page, whether to look up a diff for specific edit. I believe that most other editors do the same. It is helpful and saves a great deal of time. Conversely, for an edit without an edit summary that shows up on my watchlist for an article that I am interested in, especially if it looks like an edit that added or subtracted a non-negligible amount information, I am forced to look up the diff and try to understand what the edit was about. That takes time, often a fair amount of it, and in most cases the edits turn out to be benign. But sometimes not and a follow up is required. Edit summaries, even brief ones, make identifying edits that really need to be looked up considerably easier. Nsk92 (talk) 11:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Nsk92, since there is nothing to force the edit summary to be accurate, I consider it necessary to check the diff anyway to know what is there. Perhaps you have more faith in the accuracy of edit summaries than me. I check based on my trust of the editor (or lack thereof), or if I am interested enough. I consider an inaccurate edit summary to be worse than none as it may be misleading. After a large and complex edit, it may take a lot of effort to compose an accurate non-trivial summary. I would rather use that effort to improve content as my availability and time are finite. I was opposed on grounds of low numbers of edit summaries, but the opposer was informed by someone else that it was not legitimate grounds to oppose as they are not compulsory. I will watch the discussion with interest, and may join if I see a need. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 04:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- I did just start a thread on the topic at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Not an RfC, just a discussion to see what others have to say. I don't know how long ago your RfA was, but my observations from watching the recent RfAs indicate that edit summary usage periodically comes up as a reason to oppose. I don't remember anyone there making an argument that edit summaries are really optional and not always helpful. And I do remember RfA candidates with low edit summary usage getting clobbered. I don't think there is any such thing as an "obvious" edit when an edit is not supplied with an edit summary. An article edit, in particular, can do all sorts of different things, and can add or subtract all kinds of information. For an article edit I'd always want to see an edit summary that is substantive and not perfunctory. E.g. "added referenced info" is too generic and uninformative. While "added info about DOB, with ref" is substantive. But when I see an article edit such as this [5] show up in my watchlist, I have absolutely no idea what the edit means. There is nothing obvious about it. For an article that I am interested in, I am forced to looked up the diff and see what's what there. If there was a substantive edit summary provided, I would most likely just read the edit summary and in most cases not look at the diff. For projectspace edits, at least for regular editors, I believe that perfunctory edit summaries such as "comment", "reply", "delete", "keep", etc are perfectly fine. But for article edits I do want to see more. Regarding my own edits, I am probably not as detailed as I should be with article edit summaries, but I do try to say something substantive there. Nsk92 (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Nsk92, I took a look at your recent contributions, in the hope that I might gain some understanding of your point of view, but the majority of your edit summaries do not help me understand your edits at all, while looking at the actual diff is generally sufficient as well as necessary. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 18:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Interesting that you mention that, Nsk92, as I expressed my philosophy on edit summaries during my RfA when asked. Can you cite some policy or guidance or an RfC, or any reasonably reliable evidence for your claim that
- You are of course correct that Help:Edit summary is neither policy nor a guideline (although perhaps it should be). But it is a widely accepted norm. To me, an edit without edit summary is always unfriendly and unncommunicative. It says nothing at all about what the edit was, and one has to look up the diff to figure out what happened. Even a small hint would be preferable and helpful over a blank summary. I consider an edit summary "added a reference" much more helpful than no summary at all. Regarding admins, at RfA these days high edit summary usage is considered a basic prerequisite for adminship; I believe it is viewed as a part of the necessary communication skills. I am quite certain that if an RfA candidate now voiced the type of opinion you are voicing above regarding edit summaries disrupting your workflow, they would be SNOW failed, and quickly. Regarding WP:ADMINACCT more specifically, I believe it sets a higher general bar for admins in terms of transparency for all their actions, including regular edits; that includes providing substantive edit summaries. Nsk92 (talk) 14:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Nsk92, If one wants to know the substance of an edit, the obvious method is to look at the diff. Adding content is not usually a startling or controversial action, it is the very basis of Wikipedia, particularly when references are included. Adding an edit summary saying added referenced content does not add much value, as it is immediately obvious from the diff. I am far more likely to explain removal of content or references, for reasons that should be obvious but I can explain if there is a need. Edit summaries are very useful when copying, merging, moving, and that sort of thing, where the exact action can not always be determined by simple inspection, and the motivation may not be obvious. I make an effort to ensure that I do give an adequate edit summary in those cases. I would have expected you to be aware that edit summaries are optional in most cases, and Help:Edit summary is neither policy nor guidance. I also do not see the specific relevance of WP:ADMINACCT in this matter, perhaps you would like to explain your point. Cheers,· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 13:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Err, not especially, not until you asked. I consider it a given that all Wikipedians are expected to use edit summaries for all or almost all their edits as a matter of course, for the reasons explained in Help:Edit summary. It is not an imposition but a basic requirement existing to inform other users about the substance of one's edits. I have never heard it described as disrupting one's workflow. For an admin, I would view the expectation in terms of providing edit summaries, both in mainspace and in projectspace, to be even higher, in light of WP:ADMINACCT and the higher standards for transparency and communication. In terms of specific examples, IMO, edits like these [2][3][4], introducing significant new content into articles, definitely require edit summaries, to summarize for the other editors the substance of such edits. Nsk92 (talk) 11:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- I came here from the link in the Village Pump discussion and having read this discussion I would just like to point out that, although Peter Southwood being judicious in their use of edit summaries should (obviously?) not be seen as a point against edit summaries in general, perhaps the existence of an active admin in good standing who uses them at his discretion should give certain RFA-regulars pause regarding a bright line % of edit summaries being a helpful prognostication tool in the selection of future administrators. Primergrey (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Primergrey, I would only recommend not leaving an edit summary for cases where the edit summary would be misleading. I have no objections to other people using summaries that serve no useful purpose as long as they do no harm, and while I appreciate the moral support, would also point out that as an admin, I was given the tools because of community trust that I would not misuse them, and an implicit approval of my interpersonal behaviour history, editing competence, communication, and general dedication to the purposes of the encyclopedia, even if sometimes expressed as "not a jerk, has a clue", or equivalent, and probably not for special authority on interpretation of policy or customs. Logic, rational reasoning and evidence should take priority over opinion and personal preference, which is why consensus should not be confused with a majority opinion, and why Wikipedia is not a democracy. I entirely agree that a mere percentage usage of edit summaries is a generally useless measure, much as time served (years as a registered editor), and edit counts are not appropriate measures of one's value to the editing community or suitability to use the admin tool set, while "not a jerk, has a clue", though flippant, actually concisely summarises the qualities we should be looking for. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- 10-4 Primergrey (talk) 08:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – March 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
- A request for comment is in progress to remove F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a, which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
- A request for comment seeks to grant page movers the
delete-redirectuserright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at Wikipedia:Page mover/delete-redirect. - A request for comment asks if sysops may
place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions
? - There is a discussion in progress concerning automatic protection of each day's featured article with Pending Changes protection.
Technical news
- When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
- When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
- There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).
Arbitration
- By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions
authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people.
Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions. - The Kurds and Kurdistan case was closed, authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for
the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed
.
- By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions
Miscellaneous
- Following the 2021 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AmandaNP, Operator873, Stanglavine, Teles, and Wiki13.
Disambiguation link notification for March 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Floating production storage and offloading, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page APL.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for helping with the Surfing Etiquette article
Hi PbSouthwood, Thank you for your suggestions and comments. Yes, I could have inserted this information in the Surfing article, however, due to its importance and necessity I was trying to submit as a stand alone article. I made this choice so that it would be better accessible under search parameters. I will review other comments, and if still necessary, than include in the Surfing article. It's still not my first choice. Thank you again, Navymom9194 (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC).
- Navymom9194, You are welcome, I have no problem in principle with the topic being a stand-alone, but one of the things you will find working on Wikipedia is that it is very easy to expand an article with relevant content, but your first new articles will be scrutinised quite thoroughly for proof of notability. If you decide to merge it into Surfing, the titles that would reasonably be appropriate for the stand- alone article should be created as redirects to the section, so the content will be found without any difficulty, using any of the obvious search strings. A redirect needs no proof of notability, just a reasonable probability of usefulness. Splitting the contemt out again later is also not a big problem, and this sequence is very common. I have merged and split many articles, and the results are as good as starting them independently. If you find you need a hand, give me a call. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – April 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).
Administrator changes
- Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS
Guideline and policy news
- Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
- Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the
delete-redirectuserright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.
Technical news
- When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
- Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)
Arbitration
- A community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure is open until April 25.
Underwater diving
@Pbsouthwood: Greetings! There are some citation needed tags in the Underwater diving article. Could you take care of them? Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Wretchskull:, When I can get access to reliable sources I will add the refs. Those statements are sort of common knowledge and/or common practice in the industry, but mostly documented in places like internal codes of practice and policies and operations manuals that are not easily accessible. I have emailed a couple of industry associations, but they have not replied yet. There are probably also requirements laid out in environmental protection regulations somewhere, but so far I have not been able to find any. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- Found some EP regs listing cases where assessments must be made. Some will be associated with diving operations some of the time. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Nomination of Underwater diving in popular culture for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Underwater diving in popular culture, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Underwater diving in popular culture until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
National Sea Rescue Institute Assessment Rating
Hello,
I see that you are editing the National Sea Rescue Institute article. I just accessed the article, but can come back and reassess once you are done with your major edit work.
Ping me when you would like me to reassess it.
Prairie Astronomer Talk 22:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Prairie Astronomer. You can reassess it any time you like, as can anyone else, so I don't understand your invitation. Would you like to clarify? I will be working on it as and when sources become available and I have the time and inclination. As it happens, I am in Simon's Town quite often, so I may have opportunities to get photos of the new boat and station building. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- Once I assess an article that I didn't create or majorly contribute to, chances are I will never see that article again. I just thought I would reassess this one since I know it may be expanded more. Adios, Prairie Astronomer Talk 00:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Fair enough, Prairie Astronomer, I appreciate your interest, but it may be some time before enough changes have been made to make a reassessment worth the effort. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Once I assess an article that I didn't create or majorly contribute to, chances are I will never see that article again. I just thought I would reassess this one since I know it may be expanded more. Adios, Prairie Astronomer Talk 00:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, consensus was found that third party appeals are allowed but discouraged.
- The 2021 Desysop Policy RfC was closed with no consensus. Consensus was found in a previous RfC for a community based desysop procedure, though the procedure proposed in the 2021 RfC did not gain consensus.
Technical news
- The user group
oversightwill be renamed tosuppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.
- The user group
Arbitration
- The community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Three years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Feels like longer. Thanks Gerda · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Question about a hatnote
Hi, I am just a little unclear what you meant to say here? It just says: "What Nick Moyes said." Perhaps the issue about hatnotes is broader which is why I thought I'd ask here for clarification rather than on the article's talk page. Hope you don't mind. EMsmile (talk) 04:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- EMsmile I was expressing agreement with the previous statement by Nick Moyes. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 04:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Happy adminship anniversary!
|
|
Wishing Pbsouthwood a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! History DMZ (HQ) † (wire) 01:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC) |
Happy Adminship Anniversary!
Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!
Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – June 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).
Administrator changes
Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless- Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)
Guideline and policy news
- Consensus was reached to deprecate Wikipedia:Editor assistance.
- Following a Request for Comment the Book namespace was deprecated.
Technical news
- Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.
Arbitration
- After a Clarification request, the Arbitration Committee modified Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case. This means sourcing expectations are a discretionary sanction instead of being present on all articles. It also details using the talk page or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to discuss disputed sources.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
--Hipal (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- Duly noted. Particularly interesting in that the current discussion is whether the topic actually qualifies as pseudoscience or fringe science. Posting this notice does not make it so. That should be decided on the merits of the evidence presented. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – July 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
- An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.
Technical news
- IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.
Arbitration
- The community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.
Underwater diving in the UK category
The category is for broad underwater diving, such as training and organisations DinosaursLoveExistence (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- DinosaursLoveExistence Where did I ask about this? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Outline of underwater diving
Thanks for your efforts. Unfortunately, the red The time allocated for running scripts has expired. issue is still there, starting with the Diving medical research organisations section to the end of the article. Truthanado (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- Revisiting the article a few minutes later, everything is good now. Maybe there was an issue with cache in my browser. Thanks for the fix. Truthanado (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- No worries Truthanado, It was an interesting learning experience. Let me know if you run into the same problem again. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)