User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 126
 | This page 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. |
Administrators' newsletter – March 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- A RfC is open to change the wording of revision deletion criterion 1 to remove the sentence relating to non-infringing contributions.
- A RfC is open to discuss prohibiting draftification of articles over 90 days old.
Technical news
- The deployment of the reply tool as an opt-out feature, as announced in last month's newsletter, has been delayed to 7 March. Feedback and comments are being welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project. (T296645)
- Special:Nuke will now allow the selection of standard deletion reasons to be used when mass-deleting pages. This was a Community Wishlist Survey request from 2022. (T25020)
- The ability to undelete the talk page when undeleting a page using Special:Undelete or the API will be added soon. This change was requested in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey. (T295389)
Arbitration
- Several unused discretionary sanctions and article probation remedies have been rescinded. This follows the community feedback from the 2021 Discretionary Sanctions review.
Miscellaneous
- The 2022 appointees for the Ombuds commission are Érico, Faendalimas, Galahad, Infinite0694, Mykola7, Olugold, Udehb and Zabe as regular members and Ameisenigel and JJMC89 as advisory members.
- Following the 2022 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AntiCompositeNumber, BRPever, Hasley, TheresNoTime, and Vermont.
- The 2022 Community Wishlist Survey results have been published alongside the ranking of prioritized proposals.
Ireneus
hello :) for your recent review on the Ireneus, from here I got the text https://www.christianhistoryinstitute.org › ...PDF Midwife of the Christian Bible
but you passed on the following link: https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-80/why-reformers-read-fathers.html?id=7830&number=6&type=issueNext
I don't know if in that case the revision is maintained, but I just inform you this, in case there is a solution, thank you. Tuxzos22 (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, could use more assistance from you and Diannaa on persistent promotional and copyright issues. Thanks for helping thus far. 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:7E59 (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
April Editathons from Women in Red
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Books & Bytes – Issue 49
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 49, January – February 2022
- New library collections
- Blog post published detailing technical improvements
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Question
Hi, SP - can you advise as to how we go about moving a CC-By-SA 4.0 from en.WP to Commons (see Ticket #2022032910002245)? Atsme 💬 📧 13:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm semiretired and packing for trip to the final four. I plan to to reassess my Wikipedia involvement when I get back, hopefully for the positive. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Understood - just attended the Big 12 Conference - Equestrian - and OSU won the Championship (my granddaughter is an OSU Equestrian, and is there on a scholarship). Good luck to whatever team you're rooting for!! Atsme 💬 📧 18:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Wow, that's great! S Philbrick(Talk) 14:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Understood - just attended the Big 12 Conference - Equestrian - and OSU won the Championship (my granddaughter is an OSU Equestrian, and is there on a scholarship). Good luck to whatever team you're rooting for!! Atsme 💬 📧 18:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – April 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC is open proposing a change to the minimum activity requirements for administrators.
Technical news
- Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the
deletelogentryanddeletedhistoryrights. 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
- Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Opening of proceedings has been updated to reflect current practice following a motion.
- A arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has been closed.
- A arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been opened.
Miscellaneous
- Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines has closed, and the results were that 56.98% of voters supported the guidelines. The results of this vote mean the Wikimedia Foundation Board will now review the guidelines.
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:
- Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
- 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)
Robert Rubin?
Hi S Philbrick, I'm not sure if you're still on hiatus, but I thought I would say hello in any case. It's been a a little over a year since you last reviewed new material for the Robert Rubin article, but I'm still working with his team, and I wonder if you'd be willing to look at my latest suggested update? It think it's more straightforward than the derivatives topic we had discussed before, although I wouldn't say it's uncomplicated. I'd appreciate it if you can, but no worries if not. Hope all is well with you. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- I am partially returning from hiatus but at the moment I'm concentrating on Copyright Patrol plus a few selected article updates. However, I am going to be out of the country for couple weeks starting soon, and up to my eyeballs in preparation so can we chat again third week of May or so?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Replied to you on my talk page
Check that out please. Thanks. I still don't understand why I was reverted. Ak-eater06 (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Responded on your talk page S Philbrick(Talk) 20:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Replied again. Leaving this message just in case you don't get pings. Ak-eater06 (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
May 2022 at Women in Red
|
--Innisfree987 (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Administrators' newsletter – May 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2022).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, a change has been made to the administrators inactivity policy. Under the new policy, if an administrator has not made at least 100 edits over a period of 5 years they may be desysopped for inactivity.
- Following a discussion on the bureaucrat's noticeboard, a change has been made to the bureaucrats inactivity policy.
Technical news
- The ability to undelete the associated talk page when undeleting a page has been added. This was the 11th wish of the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey.
- A public status system for WMF wikis has been created. It is located at https://www.wikimediastatus.net/ and is hosted separately to WMF wikis so in the case of an outage it will remain viewable.
Arbitration
- Remedy 2 of the St Christopher case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to place a ban on single-purpose accounts who were disruptively editing on the article St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages from those pages.
Copyright material
Greetings Sphilbrick, Makov Borislav is persistently adding WP:COPYVIO material to Fédération Internationale de Sambo. I noticed you reverted them once already, however, the disruptions continue. I submitted an WP:AIV, but nothing is being done. Wondering if you can have a look/assist in protecting the article from further copyright violations. Much appreciated, Archives908 (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
The user who returned the text meant it. There was no editorial conflict. And the user did not edit here at all. You also delete it regardless of my text and edits. The copyrighted text was as follows: I deleted it. Please do not delete my content again. The rest of the content is not a copy at all. Also pay attention to the volume and bytes of that user's content. I deleted the copyright text. Pay attention to the following link. The rest of the content is not a copy.
No text has been copied or pasted.
I took the time to complete the article. All copyrighted material has been removed.
After your remark, I deleted all the copyrighted content more than ten times in the edits and explained it in the discussion page, and gave the link. Instead of accepting, he is arguing with me
June events from Women in Red
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 09:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Please template copyright violators.
What is the point of reverting copyright violations and simply welcoming users? Please in the future can you inform them that what they did was wrong in some fashion? Preferably in the form of a template eg. {{uw-copyright-new}} on their talk page. Thanks, Pabsoluterince (talk) 08:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- While I can not see this edit, the source apparently violated releases their text under CC-BY 4.0 license. Likely a revision deletion is not required, just attribution and linking to license. Pabsoluterince (talk) 08:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Could you clarify by what you meant in the edit summary "Copyright issue re revenski@att.net" in this edit? Where is the copyrighted material located? Pabsoluterince (talk) 08:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- The copyrighted material can be found here--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- In this edit, the source licenses material under CC-BY 4.0 license. Just linking to license is required. Pabsoluterince (talk) 08:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
In this edit, you state that content has been removed that infringes upon https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/can-europe-make-it/cold-reception-rise-of-antiislamic-sentiments-in-iceland/, though at the bottom of the article it displays its CC BY-NC 4.0 license. Likely requiring just attribution and linking to license. Not revdel. Pabsoluterince (talk) 08:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)- In this edit, the source licenses material under CC-BY 4.0 license. Just linking to license is required. Pabsoluterince (talk) 09:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) Pabsoluterince, CC BY-NC 4.0 is not a compatible licence in this project, revdeletion was appropriate. The nonsense at Nonverbal communication was copied from here or some similar source. You may have a point about the State Library of Queensland thing. Hi, Sphilbrick, hope you're well! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding Justlettersandnumbers. I've struck that one. I think part of the problem is the pace at which Sphilbrick reviews on copypatrol. Today Sphilbrick reviewed 5 cases[1][2][3][4][5] in two minutes including one that required action to fix, but failed to template the user. Likewise today this edit required revdel but didn't warrant a template or discussion about copyright with the user. Later that same user simply readded the content, before I reverted it. Sphilbrick has reviewed 25,421 cases, which at their estimated 1-2% error rate makes for 254-508 cases. The scale of editing does not excuse the scale of mistakes. However this likely estimates mistakes in pages Sphilbrick actioned to fix, as cases are not re-reviewed in copypatrol. Mistakes would likely only be brought up for incorrect actions, rather than incorrect inactions. Pabsoluterince (talk) 10:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) Pabsoluterince, CC BY-NC 4.0 is not a compatible licence in this project, revdeletion was appropriate. The nonsense at Nonverbal communication was copied from here or some similar source. You may have a point about the State Library of Queensland thing. Hi, Sphilbrick, hope you're well! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing your observations.
Curiously, when I was addressing some issues yesterday, I handled several in a row quickly, and casually wondered whether anyone would notice the short length of time between edits. I dismissed that thought, but I was clearly wrong. I have noticed on several occasions someone bringing a complaint to AN or ANI which involved an editor working too fast. In most cases, while the majority of the edits were fine there were a significant number of errors. Even a 10% error rate is too large, because of the burden places on others, so I take your suggestion seriously but I don't think it applies.
I am in general agreement that when regarding a copyright violation, it is important to notify the editor so they know what happened. It is my intention to always provide information in the edit summary which should be sufficient, albeit brief, to explain the situation, although you did run across a glitch whether did not happen as I intended. In addition to an edit summary, I often leave a specific message on the editor's talk page.
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 (Hundreds more examples upon request)
There are some cases where I do not leave a notification on a talk page.
I know there's an essay Wikipedia:IP editors are human too
I have years of experience with copyright issues. In the early years, I left messages on the talk pages of registered editors as well as IP's. It was my observation that three or 4% of the cases were I left notification on a registered editors page they would respond often with an objection. I was correct more often than not, but on occasion, they made good points and I quickly fixed my error. However, despite leaving messages on the talk pages of hundreds of IP addresses, I do not recall a single instance where an IP editor entered into a discussion. I'm happy to create a message for hundred registered editors even though only three or four may respond, but it's my assessment that leaving a message specifically relating to copyright issues for IP editors who never respond is a waste of time. (I do think leaving a courtesy note on IP editors talk pages when they engage in vandalism is worthwhile.)
I will respond to those five edits you identified later but I have some things I have to do right now.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the edits close together in time: First This edit constructed a table. The text entries were all short and in quotes, so it only took a few seconds to realize there were no problems. Obviously, no need to notify someone when there isn't a problem. Second This edit involves the addition of Lorem ipsum text. Not surprisingly that it registers in Copy Patrol, but clearly not a copyright issue. The edit was reverted but not by me. I did mark the issue as fixed, and arguably should've marked it as "no action needed". I vaguely thought about whether it was important to make that distinction and decided there wasn't. I didn't notify the editor as I made no reversions – I note that the editor who did the reversion did leave a notification. It takes less than 10 seconds to identify Lorem ipsum text, especially if you've seen it hundreds of times. Third This edit adds a list. While list can sometimes raise tricky copyright questions this one does not. In my opinion it only takes five seconds to identify this as a nonproblem. Obviously, no need to notify someone when there isn't a problem. Fourth This edit added seven extremely short sentences. I didn't even check the purported source which appears to be a porn site (assuming nudexxxx.com isn't a religious history site). While one might argue that if it is a simple copy and paste, and should be rewritten, I made the assessment that the passage was too short to create a likely problem. Obviously, no need to notify someone when there isn't a problem. Fifth This edit is primarily an info box with a couple of extremely short sentences. The info box, which doesn't contained any extended text is obviously not a problem. The other short sentences seem too short to be worth pursuing. Obviously, no need to notify someone when there isn't a problem.
While I could imagine another editor taking a more aggressive view on the last two, if they could find a source with that exact text, I'm comfortable that my assessment was acceptable. Frankly, I can't see anyone of these five taking more than 30 seconds to investigate so two minutes for the five of them sounds about right. None of them required notification to the editor, as there was literally nothing to say in for the five cases and in the fifth the editor who reverted the information had provided notification.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. I would suggest using templates to engage editors with copyright issues. This removes the time sink of writing a custom message to each editor and can be done easily through Twinkle. Templating users has several benefits, one is advising them what they did was wrong so they can learn from their mistake. The other is making the problem obvious to other users that may interact with them later. Leaving a notice on their talk page is also much more effective than the edit summary you're leaving. Generally copyright violators are new users who won't be able to learn much from "copyvio" or "Copyright issue", even if they want to understand. By leaving a massive template linking to basically all policies that they need to know, you can stop good faith copyright violatons. For bad faith/regular violators, you start the process of removing them from Wikipedia or more active interventions. If you don't template bad faith/regular violators, they will likely violate again before being templated, after which we can determine that they are unlikely to change. It's not all about whether they engage with the talk page message, it's also about flagging problem editors helpful for future interventions.
- I never look at past copypatrol cases, I don't think anyone does. Though, when seeing several problematic copyright actions from you and your #2 leader board position I thought that you might be working too quickly. In the fourth of five, the editor copied and pasted the text within Wikipedia, and did not provide an adequate edit summary. Not a large problem but should prompt a template to ensure that they understand correct proceedures for copying within Wikipedia. Some futher investigation and you'd discover that they editor has had >5 previous copyright warnings for images uploaded and 3 for text related copyright issues, including one already for copying within Wikipedia. This user likely needs a more active intervention, maybe a final warning in relation to copyright or addressing on a noticeboard (I did not have to search through all their contributions to get an idea of the scale of copyright violations, just a review of their talk page notices).
- The other problem is your disclaimer addressing a source of mistakes "Source page which has a full copyright notice at the bottom of the page but material within the page is properly licensed. Sometimes that license is buried in the page and sometimes on a separate page." To look for a websites terms and conditions is a necessary step. I was able to find three instances where it appears you did not go through with that step.
- I respect the years of work that you have worked to fix copyright issues and are a much greater net positive to the project than I am. I just want to point out some areas that may help in the future. Thanks, Pabsoluterince (talk) 00:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- In a different vein, is there a reason you deleted this revision, without deleting any of the edit? If so, it is important that the underlying reason for deletion be made clear in the log summary. Pabsoluterince (talk) 01:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- There is a reason. I'll be happy to share it with an admin of your choosing, but not you. I don't think you appreciate how infurating your condescending response comes across. It is best that I do not respond in anger - maybe tomorrow, maybe never. S Philbrick(Talk) 01:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
I was able to find three instances where it appears you did not go through with that step.
Accusations without diffs are exceedingly rude. Please identify. S Philbrick(Talk) 01:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)- I was refering to the cases that I brought up initially, 1 2 3. I am sorry for dropping this all here. I don't mean to be condescending, but with the obvious admin/non-admin, new user/veteran user dynamic, and me feeling that you've made some errors, that feels somewhat inevitable. I don't need any response! I just want to bring this to your attention for the future, because I think it would help collaborators. I think you've been exceptionally civil and calm considering, so thank you! If you think I could improve my communication in the future I'd be open for suggestions. Thanks, Pabsoluterince (talk) 02:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- In a different vein, is there a reason you deleted this revision, without deleting any of the edit? If so, it is important that the underlying reason for deletion be made clear in the log summary. Pabsoluterince (talk) 01:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 50
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 50, March – April 2022
- New library partner - SPIE
- 1Lib1Ref May 2022 underway
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC) (UTC)