Jump to content

User talk:Wugapodes/Archive 27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30

NSPORTS RFC (2)

Apologies for reopening this, but I would like to request a minor clarification - I don't intend to dispute your decision. Is the consensus for subproposal three limited to athletes, or does it extend to other participants such as coaches? BilledMammal (talk) 01:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  • For example, WP:NFOOTY; I believe those managers would be covered under proposal #3, but the exact wording of the first paragraph of the close suggests they may not be covered, though the other paragraphs suggest that they are. BilledMammal (talk) 12:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
    • BilledMammal should have given you the link to the push back he is getting to applying the RfC decision to coaches - that discussion is here. Rikster2 (talk) 12:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
      • @BilledMammal: The discussion focused on athletes who played in events. Whether this applies to coaches and managers needs further discussion, but my hunch would be that participation-based criteria, rather than merit-based criteria are going to be difficult to gain consensus for. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Wugapodes, given you closed the RFC, you should be the one to edit WP:NSPORTS to reflect your reading of the consensus. It is entirely inappropriate for any other editor (from any, or no, sides) to do that. GiantSnowman 19:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Giantsnowman: I disagree. The community can and should continue to build consensus on further details not covered in the discussion. Imposing policy wording by closer-fiat is not something that I believe is appropriate for a community-maintained policy. The close gives guidance on community sentiment, and those most knowledgeable about the guideline are best equipped to figure out how to implement it. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
This will result only in edit wars and more disruption as those on both sides argue over semantics and what was meant. What a mealy mouthed reply. You cannot close and then wash your hands of it. GiantSnowman 20:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Edit wars and disruption can be dealt with using the typical tools. You can call it "washing my hands of it", but I call it the normal consensus building process. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
I just had to address an edit war at NSPORTS by fully protecting it for three days. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
sigh guess I was wrong assuming people would be reasonable about this. Thanks Muboshgu for the protection. I'll be home in about an hour and will take a closer look at everything. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
I've opened a close review at AN and the talk page seems to be working for now. I've got to head out again, but I'll be back in a few hours to see if anything has caught fire. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I think a close review was the right decision to make and hopefully it doesn't result in a restart of the RFC. Any closure of such a divisive RFC would be controversial and I applaud you for volunteering to sort things out. Whatever decision you made would have resulted in pushback, the question now really is about the wording of the closure and how that ushers in implementation of the decision. Liz Read! Talk! 01:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
The big mistake, I think, is that I was unaware of how divisive this guideline was and didn't expect the consensus process to break down like this. For now I think it's best to let the AN thread develop; if I were to suggest an implementation plan I doubt it would be taken particularly seriously without some confirmation of the close. I think this will need more than just me to unwind, so I hope that the AN review brings more eyes and more clarity to the situation. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Subproposal 1, discussion 2.0

I see there have been objections to your interpretation of this proposal, but you don't really seem to have addressed them (and, anyways, that was a wee bit ago, so now that at least some amount of the dust has settled, it might be time to revisit that). In short, I don't understand how a "no consensus" close can override a clear existing consensus, or the text of the guideline as written (which was not explicitly repealed, and states, quite unequivocally, that Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean they do not have to meet the general notability guideline? A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline..
On top of that, your summary of the discussion, that The ammount of opposition suggests this is in fact not the consensus understanding (regarding articles needing to meet GNG), beyond the fact that it shouldn't be saying that (as the previous consensus, that they do, was not repealed) seems inaccurate, or at least focuses on a rather minor point, as the main argument of those who opposed was not that GNG was not required (although there were a few, or some who did not provide a rationale at all), but rather claims that requiring GNG would be a "backdoor to abolishing the SNG" (an argument whose validity is very much questionable, but that doesn't change the fact there probably was no consensus on the specific subproposal, so let's not get bogged down). Looking at the proposal in depth provides hard evidence to back this up. Beyond some additional opposition which is either not at all persuasive (opposing because this "unfairly targets sports" - I hope that's not from the same people complaining this was a trainwreck, because then that would've been even worse) or actually clearly not disagreeing with GNG ("Agree with athletes must demonstrate GNG, but proposal overly bureaucratic"); the vast majority of opposition was not that GNG shouldn't be met (only 3 comments that directly mention this), but that this was a "backdoor way of removing SNGs" (17 comments, by my count). In fact, many of those arguing against didn't argue much but just pointed to Cbl62's comment, which says, rather explicitly, I favor imposing a requirement of including one example of SIGCOV (above and beyond a database) as a better solution. So rather clear that GNG (or a slightly less stringent requirement, at least as a temporary measure) must still apply.
In short, you should probably amend your close so as to A) not override an existing consensus which is documented in both previous discussions and in the guideline as written and which was not explicitly overridden; and B) properly summarise that the opposition was very much not about GNG but about a perception (validity of said perception said aside) that this was a "backdoor" into removing SNGs altogether. What do you think of that? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Note also that subproposal 11, which advocated for the removal of NSPORT's dependence on GNG (thus implying that such dependence already exists), failed. So the previous consensus wasn't overturned. Avilich (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
@RandomCanadian: I'll try to make my explanation clear, and I'll apologize for what will be a lengthy reply. My argument relies primarily on two sections of WP:Consensus (1) no consensus and (2) consensus can change.
The view that "no consensus retains the status quo" is generally correct and useful in structured discussions. The problem here is that the proposal was claimed to be documenting the status quo. That claim is based on the 2017 discussion you linked. While that discussion is helpful, it is not written in stone because consensus can change. For example, the close states that There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline, and this is not strictly true. WP:N states in the lead that A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG), and the section WP:SNG references specific guidelines that are substitutes for the GNG. This is a nitpick, of course, but I point it out as an example of how consensus has changed in the last 5 years. For example, the October 2017 version of WP:N has no section on SNGs, it was added later and the lead never changed despite that closure. A 5-year-old discussion is helpful, but what's important is how participants understand policies and their relationship now. So as a further example, consider the opposition you characterized as arguing proposal 1 being a "backdoor way of removing SNGs". In my reading, those comments were indirectly referencing WP:SNG, the section of N which contradicts the 2017 consensus you reference (this isn't just my invention, Jkudlick specifically references the conflict with WP:N in their 13 Feb !vote).
So let's return to proposal 1 of the discussion. Supporters argue that it is documenting the status quo by documenting the conclusion of the 2017 discussion. Others argue that it's not the status quo (pointing to, e.g., WP:SNG which was added after the 2017 discussion and contradicts it) or that it shouldn't be the case (e.g., because it will increase systemic bias). These are not frivolous objections, and they cast doubt on the idea that the proposed change is simply a documentation of existing understandings. It helps to think about it from the other direction as well: if we accept the supporters' arguments that this simply documents an existing consensus then we should see robust agreement to implement it. Except we don't. The discussion is better attended than the 2017 discussion, so it's hard to argue it's because of a lack of participation. Opposition references the current version of N, one of our most fundamental guidelines (arguably policy), so it's hard to say it's not policy backed. We get DRVs which uphold closures that interpret SNGs in line with N, so it's hard to say that the interpretation is unreasonable. We got pretty good agreement on proposal 5, so it's hard to say that participants couldn't come to a consensus if they wanted. The central question to consider is: if we take as true the claim that proposal 1 documents the status-quo consensus, why did it struggle to actually achieve consensus?
I don't propose to answer that question. I don't think I can, but it points out the issue of "no consensus retains the status quo" in this situation: the discussion cast doubt on what the status quo even is. So I think we all agree that, without consensus for the proposed wording, the existing "should" language is retained for now, but what does it mean? Some people think it equals "must" others think it is more lax than that, and the "status quo" is found in a 5-year-old discussion that's of questionable utility based on this discussion. The best answer I have, and what I tried to articulate in the close, is that there's no consensus on any of this. Right now the community simply hasn't agreed on an answer. There's no consensus to make "should" into "must", but there isn't consensus to outright remove a connection between NSPORTS and GNG. The obvious solution, in my eyes, is to just sidestep the issue and use the existing wording with its usual meaning: "strongly recommended but not strictly required". Subsequent RfCs can clarify this---I think that would be a good idea---but at the moment there simply doesn't seem to be a consensus on this.
The policy at WP:NOCONSENSUS tells us what we should do in normal situations, but I don't see this as a particularly normal situation. No one seems to agree on what our policies say or what they ought to say. It's attractive to paper-over that disagreement by pointing to some distant past where we did agree, but given my reading of the discussion, I don't think that's an adequate summary of the community sentiment. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Wug, I think you didn't quite get what I was saying. I don't disagree that there's no consensus, but I just think that your reading of the discussion is flawed. Maybe I should have been more concise: most of those opposing did not do so on grounds related to GNG - the main opposition (17 comments out of the slightly above 20 that opposed) was that this was a "backdoor" into removing SNGs altogether. Many of them explicitly cited Cbl's !vote, which was itself quite open to having some form of relationship between NSPORTS and GNG. So your reading of the discussion, that The ammount of opposition suggests this [n.b. "this" being "the existing consensus that In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline"] is in fact not the consensus understanding (see also deletion review outcome)., seems inaccurate, as most of the opposition has nothing to do with GNG, with only very few of those opposing the proposal opposing the application of GNG.
I'm also baffled by the "consensus can change" reference, as there are plenty of sections (including the very first sentence) in NSPORTS which make the relationship between GNG and NSPORTS rather explicit, and those were not repealed or amended in any way, so it's hard to see how "consensus has changed" when it simply hasn't.
I'm also surprised by the reference to one singular DRV which seems to have gone against the prevailing trend, when there are quite a few more which went the other way...
In short, and the reason why I am objecting to the closing statement for proposal 1 (not the result in itself) is that your close suggests that the relationship between GNG and NSPORTS is in doubt, when most of those opposing the proposal did not comment on that, or explicitly still agreed with the principle that there should be some relationship between GNG and NSPORTS. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
@RandomCanadian I explained how I disagree with your reading of those comments: So as a further example, consider the opposition you characterized as arguing proposal 1 being a "backdoor way of removing SNGs". In my reading, those comments were indirectly referencing WP:SNG, the section of N which contradicts the 2017 consensus you reference (this isn't just my invention, Jkudlick specifically references the conflict with WP:N in their 13 Feb !vote). The GNG is part of a wider guideline, and its relationship to SNGs is written about other places than just NSPORTS. The relationship between them does need clarified, but I do take the point that that part of the close may lead to interpretations that are more strict than is warranted. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
With that in mind, consider at least amending this part of your closing statement: I would also point out that "should" (in the guideline) and "must" (in the proposal) are meaningfully distinct. This isn't right, as the guideline also uses the word "must". A significant part of your closing rationale still in fact relies on that idea, and you made a big deal earlier about the difference between "should" and "must". Avilich (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I appreciate these detailed responses. I apologize for the aggressiveness in my earlier comments, and I've tried to tone down the combativeness, but several questions still remain regarding the close reasoning:
1. The 2017 RfC was one of many examples of precedent I and others listed demonstrating the consensus NSPORT interpretation. What about the hundreds of recent sportsperson deletions, the dozens of recent AfD and DRV close statements (comprising the overwhelming majority of cases that came down to "GNG vs NSPORT"), and the recent RfCs that tightened SSG criteria expressly because they weren't predicting GNG well enough?
2. Can you please explain how the "GNG or SNG" statement at WP:N precludes an SNG from itself ultimately requiring the GNG (or equivalent criteria)?
a. Why can't an SNG serve as a guide to predicting which subjects are likely to be notable and insist article subjects still meet the SNG's particular overarching definition of "notable" (and "eventually" directly demonstrate meeting this criterion with refs in the article)? WP:N does not claim or mandate that the notability criteria within an SNG (as in, the SSGs in NSPORT) always bypass GNG (like they do in NPROF); WP:SNG implies the opposite, by explicitly mentioning that some SNGs do work outside of GNG. Why would this sentence exist if all SNG criteria were independent of GNG? Furthermore, WP:SNG also specifies The subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic. How is this not compatible with SNGs "predicting" which subjects are likely to have "appropriate sourcing", and then defining the latter as "multiple pieces of SIGCOV in ISRS"?
b. Why can't the benefit of an SNG be from relaxing initial sourcing requirements such that a GNG-notable subject is allowed in mainspace with just the evidence they meet SNG criteria, under the rebuttable presumption the requisite GNG SIGCOV exists? And maybe with a bit more leeway at AfDs wherein it's generally understood the BEFORE should be more comprehensive than what is expected for other AfD subjects? FYI, fully half of all SNGs operate in this way.
3. Why do you assume the oppose !voters who brought up prop 1 "abolishing SNGs" are referring to "abolishing automatic sportsperson notability through SNGs", and not the presumption of notability offered in the above model? Or, even more relevant, maybe they are opposing the actual proposal, which was essentially to advance the deadline for demonstrating the presumed GNG sources indeed exist from a vague "eventually" to "when notability is challenged at AfD" (e.g. when BEFORE has failed)? That's in fact a large part of Cbl62's oppose: A rule stating that passing NSPORTS would have zero effect in AfD discussions would render meaningless the "presumption of notability" created by the SNG. ... A topic should have at least a year after the article is created for editors to search for SIGCOV in libraries, paper archives, etc.
Full accounting of !votes
  1. I counted 4 opposes that explicitly claim prop 1 would remove the purpose of NSPORT;
  2. 2+ that explicitly stated they thought the proposal would affect all SNGs (their !votes should not be read as "abolishing NSPORT's purpose"; Hut 8.5 even highlights the impact on SNGs that are alternatives to GNG, and does not include NSPORT among them);
  3. only 1 with the specific "but WP:N says" argument that you referenced;
  4. and another 10 that appealed to "abolishing SNGs" without clarifying what they meant -- some of these might be misunderstanding the scope of the proposal, some might be conflating SNGs with SSGs (like NFOOTY), some might be opposed to removing the "presumption" status of SNGs, and some might indeed believe as you claim, that prop 1 would remove the whole purpose of NSPORT.
  5. Then there are the ~5 that explicitly acknowledged GNG is the end goal etc. etc., plus another 3 that !voted "per [one of the 5]" (and only one of the 5; things like "per Cbl62's and StickyWicket's rationale" were included in the other opposer's category). Let's simplify and say only 5 specifically didn't align with your claim.
  6. The remaining handful of opposes are more inscrutable, so let's ignore them (you couldn't have counted them among the opposes you said disputed the [GNG etc.] consensus interpretation, anyway, right?).
  7. Now let's say all 10 of the "SNGs vaguewave" !votes are aligned with your assumption, and we'll throw in Hut's and the other "all SNGs" opposes that really shouldn't be counted here: that gives us 17 !votes, as RandomCanadian also found.
  8. Of the supports, I counted 16 that explicitly stated GNG was already required, with another 2+ "per [one of 16]" !votes. Another 2+ comments also cite the existing consensus. Let's ignore those and the rest of the supports that didn't directly reference consensus in their !votes on proposal 1 (even if they did in other proposals) and just stick with 16.
Even in this absolute best-case scenario for your claim of "amount of opposition suggests [GNG etc.] is not the consensus", the number of participants directly affirming [GNG etc. consensus] is still higher than those disputing it (21 to 17). Considering this percentage (~55%) was not enough to pass proposal 1 on strictly numerical grounds (i.e. not removing the mistaken opposes or counting the supportive comments), how can you assert it is enough to overturn the [GNG etc.] interpretation, which wasn't even the subject of this proposal?
4. Finally, why did you invoke the "failure" of proposal 1 in your justification for failing part of proposal 8, but ignored the very strong opposition to overturning the existing [GNG etc.] consensus put forth in proposal 11 when writing your proposal 1 close? Was this just an oversight where you'd already written prop 1 and forgot what you'd said in it by the time you got to prop 11? JoelleJay (talk) 05:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
@JoelleJay (1) Your interpretation isn't unfounded or wrong, but neither is the other side's. These "hundreds" of examples didn't come up in the discussion; there were a handful, mostly brought up by you, but they were largely ignored except by Hut 8.5 who challenged your interpretation of them. In fact, the point I've been making this whole time was made by Hut in a conversation with you The fact that this is getting so much opposition should be a hint that it's not merely codifying existing accepted practice. If that was the case it wouldn't be controversial.
(2) It doesn't, but some editors think it should. "or" in English is ambiguous between inclusive or and exclusive or. A significant minority of editors believe meeting an SNG should be sufficient, and this is consistent with wider policy.
(3) You conveniently leave out parts of Cbl's comment which contradict your interpretation. This is an entirely new and different RfC that would dramatically change NSPORTS....imposing new restrictions that do not apply to academics, entertainers, politicians, businessmen, or any other group or category. (emphasis added). I'd suggest that you consider whether you're actually looking at this discussion objectively. To get to your actual question though: Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, decisions are not made by voting, and a previous consensus is not an iron law that must be "overturned". Consensus is a statement about the level of agreement in the community at a given time and place, and the community does not agree that the "NSPORTS equals GNG" interpretation is correct. If it was correct, we would have seen your proposal to add such wording pass easily, but it didn't. This was explained to you, directly, in the original discussion. If you want to assert that a particular interpretation has the force of a policy or guideline, you need something stronger than a technicality.
(4) Proposal 11 had minimal participation, mostly from people who (continue to) bludgeon the discussion. I ignored proposal 11 because there's no consensus to be found there given the low and biased participation. Perhaps "failure" was too strong, but the point is that using proposal 8 to get around the lack of consensus at proposal 1 is gaming the process. Raising the same point over and over again until opposition tires does not make a great case for consensus (see WP:BLUDGEON). That aspect of proposal 8 was brought up repeatedly in the discussion, and is reflected in the relatively low participation compared to the earlier proposals in the RfC. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you again for your comprehensive response. I will try to keep this brief...
(1) a) There's a big difference between saying "the subjects of sports biographies must meet the GNG" and "all subjects of sports biographies will be deleted at AfD unless evidence that the subject meets the GNG is presented right now". The former is the status quo ante for NSPORT, the latter was proposal 1, and your quote from Hut 8.5 was strictly concerning opposition to the latter. I cannot stress enough that these should not be conflated! b) That comment was made shortly after sports project editors were canvased through very non-neutral RfC notices, and ultimately it is inapplicable anyway since the sentiment in subsequent weeks was much much more supportive.
(2) I'm familiar with logical operators, thank you. I still do not understand why any weight should be given to the small minority of arguments that relied on both a misinterpretation (or willful misrepresentation) of the "or" in WP:N as being mutually exclusive (despite half of the SNGs actively requiring GNG-equivalent sourcing), and the selective excision of the only text in NSPORT concerning the notability requirements for meriting an article.
(3) Again, There's a big difference between saying "the subjects of sports biographies must meet the GNG" and "all subjects of sports biographies will be deleted at AfD unless evidence that the subject meets the GNG is presented right now". The latter is exactly what Cbl62 is objecting to in his comment, it is exactly what many other !voters were opposing, and it also happens to be what the majority of proposal 1 participants !voted for. "the subjects of sports biographies must meet the GNG" was not the topic of the proposal, and the (minority) opposition to the proposal absolutely does not override the consensus interpretation literally invoked in the overwhelming majority of AfD and DRV closing statements that directly addressed the NSPORT-GNG relationship, or the hundreds of AfDs where an SSG-meeting athlete was uncontroversially deleted.
(4) It doesn't matter that proposal 11 had minimal participation (and 6 support to 14 oppose is hardly "no consensus" or a "slight numerical edge [for opposition]"!). It was a proposal to Rewrite the introductory paragraph to put this guideline on a similar footing to other SNGs, removing the dependence on the GNG, which directly confirms the accepted NSPORT interpretation was that it is "dependent on the GNG". JoelleJay (talk) 03:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
@JoelleJay I don't get the same reading from your exchange with Hut 8.5, and I've previously written on how the order of comments in a discussion is not an accurate tool for assessing consensus. Arguments other than yours are given weight because they are consistent with policy; just because someone has a different reading than you doesn't mean their opinion gets thrown out. Your proposal, quite literally, said athlete biographies must demonstrate GNG when notability is challenged at AfD, so I don't take seriously your assertion now that "the subjects of sports biographies must meet the GNG" was not the topic of the proposal. 20 people, many of whom bludgeoned discussion for over a month, self-selected from a discussion of nearly 90 is low participation and it's not valid to draw conclusions from it.
I don't plan to respond further. I think it's obvious by this point that I disagree with your reading of the discussion and your ability to objectively assess the consensus in that proposal. If your question is "why" I did something, I've explained it to you multiple times, in multiple ways, for a week now. If you think I'm wrong, I've opened a close review where you can try to convince the community of your arguments. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
I proposed athletes must demonstrate they meet GNG at AfD; for the third time, as Hut 8.5 said, There's a big difference between saying "the subjects of sports biographies must meet the GNG" and "all subjects of sports biographies will be deleted at AfD unless evidence that the subject meets the GNG is presented right now". A significant proportion of the opposers explicitly acknowledged this difference in their !votes, many more are aware of and recognize that the current guideline requires GNG is met and eventually demonstrated. I don't know how this could be any clearer. I will indeed take this to the closure review. JoelleJay (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Here's my take. I was initially pretty upset with Wug's close of subproposals 5 and 8. After cooling down, I see that Wug gave something to everybody -- a bit of solomonic wisdom. To push for a change of the closing statement on sub 1 would be to tilt the outcome entirely in favor of the anti-sports brigade. I say just leave everything as is and implement subs 3 and 5 and let the Wikiprojects come up with tighter criteria. Cbl62 (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
    Cbl, I don't disagree with the result, I just think that the summary of it is quite wrong and could possibly leave an incorrect impression upon some editors... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-11

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 Wikipedia Android app it is now possible to change the toolbar at the bottom so the tools you use more often are easier to click on. The app now also has a focused reading mode. [1][2]

Problems

  • There was a problem with the collection of some page-view data from June 2021 to January 2022 on all wikis. This means the statistics are incomplete. To help calculate which projects and regions were most affected, relevant datasets are being retained for 30 extra days. You can read more on Meta-wiki.
  • There was a problem with the databases on March 10. All wikis were unreachable for logged-in users for 12 minutes. Logged-out users could read pages but could not edit or access uncached content then. [3]

Changes later this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 15 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 16 March. It will be on all wikis from 17 March (calendar).
  • When using uselang=qqx to find localisation messages, it will now show all possible message keys for navigation tabs such as "View history". [4]
  • Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights through their group memberships. Before, only those with the deleterevision right could access this special page. [5]
  • On the Special:Undelete pages for diffs and revisions, there will be a link back to the main Undelete page with the list of revisions. [6]

Future changes

Events

  • The Wikimedia Hackathon 2022 will take place as a hybrid event on 20-22 May 2022. The Hackathon will be held online and there are grants available to support local in-person meetups around the world. Grants can be requested until 20 March.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

22:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Involved violation by User:Wugapodes

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Wikipedia:Notability (sports)) for a period of 36 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
  • You are most definitely WP:Involved - you can't block someone from a conflict that you precipitated. The block doesn't even make sense - which pages - you only mention one. The very one for which you've told me to discuss at the talk page. And really - you want to block me for 36 hours from the page I've ask be indefinitely frozen - I'm already limited by 3RR, so how is this not completely redundant (depending on what other pages you are referring to) Nfitz (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
    • As I said on your talk page, requesting a page be protected to prevent edit wars and then starting an edit war yourself is plainly disruptive. Don't edit war. Don't revert after you are warned about edit warring. As for WP:INVOLVED I haven't participated in a conflict. My only participation has been administrative, closing an RfC, responding to concerns, and ensuring that the project moves forward without disruption. Throughout this process, other administrators have specifically asked me to do more to ensure the orderly implementation of the RfC, so I never got the sense that my closure prevents me from making edit-war blocks. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
      • As I already noted, this is not what happened. How are you not involved in NSPORTS? If you don't see that, then there's a bigger issue. Besides, there was no bright-line violation; it's clear that the edits were contentious - and I initiated a discussion on the subject. Nfitz (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
        • That's the correct sequence. Above you said I'd requested the page be protected and then started an edit war. Surely it's the other way around ... I'm not sure how your diffs show otherwise. Nfitz (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Growth Newsletter #20

Welcome to the twentieth newsletter from the Growth team!

The Growth team's objective is to work on software changes that help retain new contributors in Wikimedia projects.

Suggested edits

As of February, 300,000 suggested edits have been completed since the feature was first deployed in December 2019.

Add a link is the team's first structured task, deployed in May 2021. It has improved outcomes for newcomers. The team is now working on a second iteration based on community feedback and data analysis. Improvements will include: improved algorithmic suggestions, guardrails to prevent too many similar links to be added, and clearer encouragement for users to continue making edits. After adding these improvements, we will deploy this task to more Wikipedias.

Add an image is the second structured task built by our team. It was deployed in November 2021 to four pilot Wikipedias. This is a more challenging task for newcomers. However, it adds more value to articles (so far, over 1,000 images have been added). We are currently learning from communities and from the data on what is working well and what needs improvements. The project page contains links to interactive prototypes. We are very interested to hear your thoughts on this idea as we build and test the early versions. We will soon deploy this task to more Wikipedias as a test.

"Add a link" and "Add an image" now both have a limitation on how many of these tasks newcomers can do per day. It is meant to discourage careless newcomers from making too many problematic edits.

Positive reinforcement

Over the last two years, the Growth team has focused on building suggested edits: easy tasks for newcomers to start with. We have learned with this experience that these tasks help many newcomers to make their first edits. Now, the team is starting a new project : "positive reinforcement". Its goal is to make newcomers proud of their editing and to make them want to come back for more of them. With the positive reinforcement project, we are considering three kinds of features:

  • Impact stats: give newcomers the ability to see how many people read the articles they edit.
  • Leveling up: encourage newcomers to progress from easier tasks to harder tasks.
  • Personalized praise: encourage mentors and other editors to "thank" and award newcomers for good work.

This project is just beginning, and we hope for community thoughts on the direction. We know that things can wrong if we offer the wrong incentives to newcomers, so we want to be careful. Please visit the talk page to help guide the project!

News for mentors

  • The mentor dashboard is available at all wikis. It helps mentors see who their mentees are and keep track of their activity. It is automatically activated where a list of mentors has been created. If you need assistance to create a list of mentors, please contact us.
  • The mentor dashboard has a new module: settings. It is now possible for mentors to define their status (active or away). They can specify the volume of questions they want to receive, and they can claim mentees in an easier way. It is also possible for mentors to quit, which will automatically reassign their mentees to other mentors.
  • We are working on an ability for a mentee to opt-out (and back in) to having a mentor.
  • Previously, in the table that displays mentees activity, the filters displayed all mentees, even the ones with zero edits or lots of edits. We have changed this so that only mentees with between 1 and 500 edits are visible by default. Mentors can change this value in their filters.
  • We are currently working on a special page for mentors to sign-up.

Some wikis have created userboxes that mentors can display on the user pages. If your wiki has one, please link it to Wikidata!

Scaling

Previously, at most Wikipedias, only 80% of newcomers were getting the Growth features. This was done for experimentation, to have a control group. We have changed this setting. Now 100% of new accounts at all Wikipedias get the Growth features (except a few, kept as test wikis). We invite communities to update their onboarding documentation and tutorials. Please include the Growth features in it. To help you, we have created an help page that can be translated and adapted to your wiki.

How to help

Do you have questions about the Growth features? This translatable FAQ contains answers to the most common questions about the Growth team work. We regularly update it.

Interface translations are important for newcomers. Please help for your language, by translating or copyediting interface translations for the Growth features.

Growth team's newsletter prepared by the Growth team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

17:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ussc/rewrite

Template:Ussc/rewrite has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 12:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Notification of administrators without tools

Greetings, Wugapodes. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
  • Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow.
  • To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-12

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

New code release schedule for this week

  • There will be four MediaWiki releases this week, instead of just one. This is an experiment which should lead to fewer problems and to faster feature updates. The releases will be on all wikis, at different times, on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. You can read more about this project.

Recent changes

Future changes

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

16:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

First edit day

{{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

7 years and still pretty accurate. Looking forward to the day I get to write more linguistics articles! Thanks for the trip down memory lane, @Sdkb: — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Question from Ajitkumarpanicker (11:39, 21 March 2022)

Hi Sir,

How can change name space? Could you please help me? --Ajitkumarpanicker (talk). 11:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ajit, definitely. If you go to the advanced search page there is a field "Search in" that lets you change what namespace you search in. If you click that bar, it will drop down and then you can use the "Add namespaces..." field to select what name space you want to search in. Once you find the page, you can link to it by putting the namespace before the page name, and separating the two with a colon. Some examples User:Wugapodes, Help:Link, Wikipedia:Five pillars. The first is my userpage, it's the "User" namespace, a colon, and then my username. The second is a help page on linking in the "Help" namespace. The third is one of our policy pages and is in the "Wikipedia" or "Project" namespace. Hope that helps, and let me know if you have other questions! — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

He is back

Hi Wugapodes, that persistent disruptive editing person is back again with another ip 172.58.172.5. drmies had his other ip blocked last month for 6 months but now he's back with another one. This guy has a long history of this kind of stuff going back 4 years. Please help. Thanks Doriden (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Already blocked by Ohnoitsjamie. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

March songs

March songs

Thank you for support in the RfC for DYK - music with a chance to listen, - the piece by Anna Korsun begins after about one hour, and the voices afterwards call "Freiheit!" instead of "Freude". Music every day, pictured in songs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda Arendt, I was looking forward to these! The change you mention is powerful, and the intertextual aspect is equally interesting: what is freedom without joy, and what is joy without freedom? Apparently Leonard Bernstein made the same change in celebration of the fall of the Berlin Wall, so Korsun's decision is also interesting as a historical commentary. Wonderful work, and I'm glad it got to run. I was on the fence but the points made by you and others convinced me to not be so hesitant. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, just I think the decision to speak of freedom first was not Korsun's - her work is very gentle chamber music without words. The idea to follow the Bernstein model may have been the conductor's, - I don't know. Did you know that I had the good luck to take a pic at last year's RMF opening of the minister-president of Hesse and the festival leader (together with our President), two people behind the 2022 concert? I would have liked to go but it was already sold out when I tried. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
St. Patrick's Day, more music and today's sunset --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
wishing you good recovery! - on Bach's birthday: the places where I sang his Dona nobis pacem --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
The Prayer is on the Main page, finally + new flowers --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Sunday flowers and sounds, don't miss the extraordinary marriage of the beginnings of the theme of Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1, and Prayer for Ukraine - here! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 March 2022

  • Eyewitness Wikimedian, Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-13

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

  • There is a simple new Wikimedia Commons upload tool available for macOS users, Sunflower.

Changes later this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 29 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 30 March. It will be on all wikis from 31 March (calendar).
  • Some wikis will be in read-only for a few minutes because of regular database maintenance. It will be performed on 29 March at 7:00 UTC (targeted wikis) and on 31 March at 7:00 UTC (targeted wikis). [11][12]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

19:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Question from Proguyyh (01:29, 29 March 2022)

hello --Proguyyh (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Stanley Kubrick 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 12:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

NSPORTS RFC Review

Hi, the review has been archived without any clear consensus on whether proposal 3 should be implemented. Soon after page protection was lifted proposal 3 was implemented on the NSPORTS page with the mass removal of participation criteria. I reverted that on the basis that more discussion and a consensus is needed. Can you please give your opinion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) as that will help resolve the matter, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 01:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Atlantic306: I replied on the NSPORTS talk page. Thanks for giving me a heads-up. — Wug·a·po·des? 02:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Your comments there were very helpful, particularly encouraging collaborative discussion (which is what many users are trying to do at the moment). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Wugapodes. On this same subject, I completely agree with Atlantic306 and Joseph2302 about the confusion and chaos at NSPORTS this morning. Like them, I have tried to revert the changes because there was no statement of intent and I think doing something like that without notice is disrespectful to the people who have built those projects. The SNGs for both codes of rugby football were completely removed, as if the two sports no longer exist, and I restored them.
There are huge issues around the development and now the implementation of this RfC. If you look at this discussion by the cricket project, the frustration and disillusionment felt by many editors is summed up in the opening statement by AssociateAffiliate. How on Earth can anyone justify reducing the cricket SNG to a single line about umpires! Due diligence? Common sense? No, sheer negligence. Equally, please see Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/Association football and Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Association football which GiantSnowman has opened. The removal of the rugby union SNG follows this discussion raised by Nicknack009, who makes some highly salient points.
I find these discussions, and others like them, very worrying because you can see the negative impact caused by the issues and I think several good editors might just call it a day. The confusion will surely discourage new editors too. As one CRIC editor has put it: "I couldn't be bothered to spend 30 minutes reading the 13 proposals and their different arguments and counter-arguments". In reply, another editor said: "I think that's a very apt summary of what went on. Instead of just one proposal with a support/oppose choice, it soon went out of control, putting many editors off the whole thing". That is not the way to conduct an RfC. It's farcical.
There is no doubt that the issues have resulted in a dispute that is unlikely to be resolved by collaborative discussion and, personally, I think the whole affair should be referred to ARBCOM for investigation. We had one proposal becoming 13 and now we have NSPORTS being kicked around like a football because of all the uncertainty about what should be implemented and when and how. My solution would be to reopen the original proposal from scratch and ban additional or counter proposals until that one has been fully discussed on its own merits and a consensus has been reached. People can't be expected to deal with thirteen proposals, one on top of the other and one or two of them, frankly, total nonsense. After a fiasco like that, it's hardly surprising that the implementation is an even bigger farce with no one knowing what is supposed to be happening.
As a member of ARBCOM, do you think the issue should be referred there? Thank you. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
@No Great Shaker: The RfC was open for nearly two months, advertised on the centralized discussion template that whole time, and was advertised to multiple wikiprojects a month before the RfC closed (to the point where others complained about canvassing). In fact, the Cricket wikiproject you point to was notified and the people complaining in the thread you linked even replied to that notice. If editors missed all that or chose not to engage with the other proposals, there's not much I can do. I work with the discussion that happened, and the reality is that if editors choose not to participate in a decision then that decision gets made without them. The RfC and many sub-proposals were widely participated in because of the multiple, project-wide notices given; editors don't get a veto when they couldn't be bothered to participate and the outcome doesn't go their way. The time to register concerns was during the 5 weeks that the sub-proposals were open.
Arbitration is unlikely to be successful largely because this is a content issue which ArbCom does not deal with. To the degree that there are conduct issues (which ArbCom does deal with) other methods of resolution have not been exhausted. If anything, editors have been treated softly over this. Most administrators are still using page protection when I would have used blocks (and in one case did). We don't need ArbCom to weigh in before administrators start blocking disruptive editors. I get that some editors are invested in preserving their niche, but the wider community has discussed and come to a decision. The next step is to implement the decision. I get that not everyone will be happy with that---the community has made decisions in the past that I've objected to as well---but stonewalling is not going to be a successful strategy. I've been lenient in the hopes that editors come to their senses and behave themselves. My plan now is to be more liberal with blocking editors who cannot resolve this through collaborative discussion. We don't need ArbCom for that. — Wug·a·po·des? 08:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your response, Wugapodes. I didn't know content disputes are outside the Arbcom remit, so, fair enough. Also, although I took part in the RfC discussions, I was unaware of the scale of advertising – I remember seeing a link on another editor's talk page and I got involved that way. Everything you've said above is fair comment and helpful. I have no problem with the consensus, but I have had a problem with the attitude of certain individuals who show a desire to trample over both the sports projects and one specific editor in their desire to implement it. There needs to be an approved means of implementation which respects the project members who have invested a lot of time and effort in building the encyclopaedia. FOOTY and CRIC are both seeking a way forward and should be given the time and space in which to complete. Anyway, you've answered my questions and I don't think I can do anything else now except take part in the project discussions, so I'm stepping aside. Thanks again for your time. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
  1. I don't think I've reverted anything, I've simply argued that any change made needs to leave the policy in a usable state. Some of the pro-RfC editors have been constructive, but too many of them have just insisted that the closure of the RfC gives them the right to delete stuff without any thought as to what's left, and it's up to the rest of us to clean up their mess. For the record, I do think there are too many articles on non-notable sports figures, and I have done my best to suggest replacement policies and approaches that would help editors comply with the new policy, but most of my efforts have been thrown back in my face. Faced with an apparent wall of determined non-constructiveness, I have, as No Great Shaker says, given up trying. I'm going to continue editing based on my own understanding of what's notable and what's not, and have identified some articles I think should probably be deleted, but I'm not going to propose any until things have settled down a bit. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
@Nicknack009 I have done my best to suggest replacement policies and approaches that would help editors comply with the new policy, but most of my efforts have been thrown back in my face I would like to look into this more. Could you point me to those discussions? — Wug·a·po·des​ 08:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Main one is this section of the discussion. I've tried going through the discussion to find more examples, but frankly I can't face any more of the triumphalist spite on display. I had more or less given up on Wikipedia a number of years ago because of how unhappy participation increasingly made me, but I got it into my head recently that the coverage of rugby union could be improved and maybe I could contribute to that. Lesson learned, I'm bowing out again. Maybe I'll make something on Wikia. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Sig at the bottom

I think just the one sig at the bottom of the closing statement would have sufficed, if it's all material written by you. Because, originally, the bottom of your closing statement was unsigned (and in plain text), which was visually confusing to me. Anyway, thanks for the ping, I guess, but I'll never look at that page again, so no need to include me in any further anything regarding it. I am blocking it out of my mind. See ya. El_C 12:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ the more signatures the merrier. You're not the only one who's been confused so might as well be on the safe side. I look forward to the day when I too can block it out of my mind. Thanks for your help, and sorry you got caught in the middle. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
No worries, I'm sure it was a good close in its substance. You know I'm a long time fan of your closes. Sorry I didn't get to read it. Initially, I couldn't spare the time, then afterwards, I just got soured from the entire thing. It really rubbed me the wrong way to have veteran editors basically say: 'if you don't have time, unprotect the page' (what, so that the edit war could just keep going?). So I refused to lift the protection, but I did expressly give permission to any uninvolved admin to take over the protection and do whatever. Standard practice. I even said that [it] would be ideal for me if that were to happen.
And that should have been the end of that (WP:ADMINACCT-wise). But some people, apparently, lose all concept of WP:VOLUNTARY and take on a disconcertingly presumptuous attitude (i.e. "ffs dude"). Even if they're right on the (RfC) content, it's something I don't appreciate and refuse to consider when expressed in such a manner. There was also the one user, whom I blocked for a week a week prior, who had said that my protecting the m:Wrong version was an "endorsement" of that version. Good times.
I don't know a lot about this conflict, but I'd wager you've suffered much worse than me in the course of (massively) assisting with it. I just have a low tolerance for nonsense lately (except my own, obviously), so I wanted to shut that down quickly. Of course, the badgering and bludgeoning just kept going (better than more edit warring, though), until you stepped in. Thanks again for that. Talk soon. El_C 23:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Will Smith 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 19:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Agirlie54455

Hey. Thanks for blocking that editor, I was in the process of writing up an ANI thread for them. Any chance you could hide/revdel the personal attack made here please? Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: I've removed it from the page. At the moment I don't think revision deletion is the best idea. If you do wind up making a report about this person, being able to link to their conduct would be more useful. If you feel strongly about having it revision deleted though, let me know and I'll look into it further. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
At the moment they're indeffed, so I don't see much point in making a report. I'll keep an eye on their user page though in case they appeal. Thanks though for removing it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Question from GamingSquiddy (00:45, 4 April 2022)

Hello, I need someone to make me an article for something. I will provide you with the details once you respond back to me. --GamingSquiddy (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wugapodes/Archive_27&oldid=1083317281"