User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2022/07
Tech News: 2022-27
[edit]Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 5 July. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 6 July. It will be on all wikis from 7 July (calendar).- Some wikis will be in read-only for a few minutes because of a switch of their main database. It will be performed on 5 July at 07:00 UTC (targeted wikis) and on 7 July at 7:00 UTC (targeted wikis).
- The Beta Feature for DiscussionTools will be updated throughout July. Discussions will look different. You can see some of the proposed changes.
This change only affects pages in the main namespace in Wikisource. The Javascript config variable proofreadpage_source_hrefwill be removed frommw.configand be replaced with the variableprpSourceIndexPage. [1]
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
19:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
"Yellen" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Yellen and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 9#Yellen until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. TraderCharlotte (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – July 2022
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2022).
|
|
|
Technical news
user_global_editcountis a new variable that can be used in abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users. (T130439)
Arbitration
- An arbitration case regarding conduct in deletion-related editing has been opened.
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.
Tech News: 2022-28
[edit]Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- In the Vector 2022 skin, the page title is now displayed above the tabs such as Discussion, Read, Edit, View history, or More. Learn more. [2]
- It is now possible to easily view most of the configuration settings that apply to just one wiki, and to compare settings between two wikis if those settings are different. For example: Japanese Wiktionary settings, or settings that are different between the Spanish and Esperanto Wikipedias. Local communities may want to discuss and propose changes to their local settings. Details about each of the named settings can be found by searching MediaWiki.org. [3]
- The Anti-Harassment Tools team recently deployed the IP Info Feature as a Beta Feature at all wikis. This feature allows abuse fighters to access information about IP addresses. Please check our update on how to find and use the tool. Please share your feedback using a link you will be given within the tool itself.
Changes later this week
- There is no new MediaWiki version this week.
- Some wikis will be in read-only for a few minutes because of a switch of their main database. It will be performed on 12 July at 07:00 UTC (targeted wikis).
Future changes
- The Beta Feature for DiscussionTools will be updated throughout July. Discussions will look different. You can see some of the proposed changes.
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
19:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Tech News: 2022-29
[edit]Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Problems
- The feature on mobile web for Nearby Pages was missing last week. It will be fixed this week. [4]
Changes later this week
- The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 19 July. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 20 July. It will be on all wikis from 21 July (calendar).
Future changes
- The Technical Decision Forum is seeking community representatives. You can apply on wiki or by emailing TDFSupport@wikimedia.org before 12 August.
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
22:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Tech News: 2022-30
[edit]Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- The www.wikibooks.org and www.wikiquote.org portal pages now use an automated update system. Other project portals will be updated over the next few months. [5]
Problems
- Last week, some wikis were in read-only mode for a few minutes because of an emergency switch of their main database (targeted wikis). [6]
Changes later this week
- The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 26 July. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 27 July. It will be on all wikis from 28 July (calendar).
- The external link icon will change slightly in the skins Vector legacy and Vector 2022. The new icon uses simpler shapes to be more recognizable on low-fidelity screens. [7]
- Administrators will now see buttons on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. [8]
Future meetings
- The next open meeting with the Web team about Vector (2022) will take place tomorrow (26 July).
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
19:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Haya Maraachli speedy keep
[edit]Hi, I'm wondering how you concluded there were no new arguments
here compared to the first AfD when the arguments were completely different and included a different participant? Beccaynr managed to convince the sole keep !vote (and the strongest keep argument in the first AfD) that the subject was non-notable, which left the AfD with three delete !votes and no keeps. It seems overly bureaucratic to speedy keep an AfD that had made significant headway in assessing notability, solely on the basis that it was renominated "too soon" after a procedural speedy keep -- especially when the second was specifically rectifying the reason for the prior SK. Why not relist it and allow the discussion to play out? JoelleJay (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- "renominated 'too soon' after a procedural speedy keep" - not true. The first AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haya Maraachli, was closed as a substantial "keep" consensus after a full week-long discussion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am wondering which WP:SKCRIT criterion applies - I am thinking I will renominate the article after I figure out how to concisely explain its AfD history, and it would be helpful if I could more clearly understand how this AfD resulted in a speedy keep after new deletion rationales were added during the discussion. I was hoping a relist would happen for efficiency's sake, because as an editor uninvolved in the nominations, I feel I did offer new arguments. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- Immediate AfD renominations count as vexatious (criterion 2). Imagine an article with marginal sourcing, such that 50% of all people believe it should be kept and 50% believe it should be deleted. If everyone at AfD gave policy-based rationales, then the AfD would be decided solely by counting !votes, since people can have reasonable disagreement over the quality of sources and consensus means the most commonly held policy-based opinion. Each time it shows up at AfD, some random sample of the population will show up, and perhaps 60% of the time the result will be "no consensus", 20% of the time it will be "keep", and 20% of the time it will be "delete". If we did not ban repeated AfD renominations, then the process would be unfairly biased in favor of deletion, because someone on the "delete" side can just keep nominating it over and over again until they get the result they want even though nothing has changed. Once the article is deleted, there is no way for the "keep" side to get it restored unless new sources come out. If they try to recreate it, it will be deleted under G4; if they take it to DRV, it will be endorsed since the closer did not any mistake in closing the AfD. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- I was reading WP:SKCRIT#2 as including
The nomination was unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism or disruption and, since questionable motivations on the part of the nominator do not have a direct bearing on the validity of the nomination, no uninvolved editor has recommended deletion or redirection as an outcome of the discussion
as a necessary component, and my good-faith contribution rendering it inapplicable. Of course, I now see there is an "also" on a different guideline page describing speedy keeps. As I mentioned in the DRV discussion, I also now recognize that I should have !voted to procedurally close the AfD and considered opening a DRV. - I appreciate your further explanation about the problems with rapid renominations generally, and completely agree; from an WP:IAR standpoint, in this instance, the second AfD appears to be a good-faith effort to remove sock-created, likely-UPE, promotional spam from the encyclopedia, and I am not sure what to do about that, if anything. Could I tag the article as a WP:G11, based on the research and analysis of the second AfD? Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 20:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- Any article which has survived AfD is generally not eligible for speedy deletion. The only exception is objective criteria (e.g. G12) which were not discovered during the discussion. Pages that survive XfD can never be deleted under subjective criteria like A7, G10, G11, etc. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification, it is appreciated. There is plenty of other spammy promotional content to deal with in the meantime, and if this spam has to be kept because of a procedural issue, then that is what it is for now. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- Any article which has survived AfD is generally not eligible for speedy deletion. The only exception is objective criteria (e.g. G12) which were not discovered during the discussion. Pages that survive XfD can never be deleted under subjective criteria like A7, G10, G11, etc. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- I was reading WP:SKCRIT#2 as including
- Immediate AfD renominations count as vexatious (criterion 2). Imagine an article with marginal sourcing, such that 50% of all people believe it should be kept and 50% believe it should be deleted. If everyone at AfD gave policy-based rationales, then the AfD would be decided solely by counting !votes, since people can have reasonable disagreement over the quality of sources and consensus means the most commonly held policy-based opinion. Each time it shows up at AfD, some random sample of the population will show up, and perhaps 60% of the time the result will be "no consensus", 20% of the time it will be "keep", and 20% of the time it will be "delete". If we did not ban repeated AfD renominations, then the process would be unfairly biased in favor of deletion, because someone on the "delete" side can just keep nominating it over and over again until they get the result they want even though nothing has changed. Once the article is deleted, there is no way for the "keep" side to get it restored unless new sources come out. If they try to recreate it, it will be deleted under G4; if they take it to DRV, it will be endorsed since the closer did not any mistake in closing the AfD. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- Apologies, I conflated the keep !vote rationales with the close. Nevertheless, I still think the discussion would be better served by relisting and pinging the participants of the first AfD (or if we want to get really adventurous with IAR, merging the two AfDs and relisting). What is the harm in giving more editors a chance to analyze the subject in depth? I also still don't understand why you say there were no new arguments when that is objectively not the case? JoelleJay (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- The determination of whether there are new arguments or if it is just a rehash of the existing ones is a subjective one, so you cannot say that it "is objectively not the case". I simply followed the DRV consensus, which preferred speedy keep over relisting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am wondering which WP:SKCRIT criterion applies - I am thinking I will renominate the article after I figure out how to concisely explain its AfD history, and it would be helpful if I could more clearly understand how this AfD resulted in a speedy keep after new deletion rationales were added during the discussion. I was hoping a relist would happen for efficiency's sake, because as an editor uninvolved in the nominations, I feel I did offer new arguments. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Shabana Kausar
[edit]Hi, you mentioned "legitimate oppostion" to deletion when you closed the DRV for Shabana Kausar, however the fact remains that none of the Keep !votes at the AfD complied with our policies/guidelines or addressed the reason for deletion, which is that no significant-coverage sources were present in the article (as required by NSPORTS) and nobody presented any through the course of the two AfDs. Likewise it seems that most of the Endorse !votes made the same faulty argument. While I can understand that deletion was not a viable outcome here, it's hard to stomach the idea of closing as Keep when there were zero legitimate Keep !votes and zero SIGCOV sources. Would you consider changing the close to No Consensus and reevaluating the other two Cricketer DRV closes as well? Thanks –dlthewave ☎ 12:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- By "legitimate", I simply meant "good-faith". If an article is soft-deleted, then any user in good standing can request restoration at WP:REFUND for any reason whatsoever. I have amended my close to indicate that speedy renomination at AfD is permitted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. To be honest, I think that bad !votes should be disregarded even when they're made in good faith, but I appreciate the addition of NPASR which leaves the door open for further action in the future. –dlthewave ☎ 22:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)