User talk:Schwede66/Archive 39
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Administrators' newsletter – October 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).
- Following an RfC, consensus was found that if the rationale for a block depends on information that is not available to all administrators, that information should be sent to the Arbitration Committee, a checkuser or an oversighter for action (as applicable, per ArbCom's recent updated guidance) instead of the administrator making the block.
- Following an RfC, consensus has been found that, in the context of politics and science, the reliability of FoxNews.com is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use.
- Community comment on the revised Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines is requested until 8 October.
- The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.
- Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case will be rescinded 1 November following a motion.
- A modification to the deletion RfC remedy in the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been made to reaffirm the independence of the RfC and allow the moderators to split the RfC in two.
- The second phase of the 2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review closes 3 October.
- An administrator's account was recently compromised. Administrators are encouraged to check that their passwords are secure, and reminded that ArbCom reserves the right to not restore adminship in cases of poor account security. You can also use two-factor authentication (2FA) to provide an extra level of security.
- Self-nominations for the electoral commission for the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections open 2 October and close 8 October.
- You are invited to comment on candidates in the 2022 CUOS appointments process.
- An RfC is open to discuss whether to make Vector 2022 the default skin on desktop.
- Tech tip: You can do a fuzzy search of all deleted page titles at Special:Undelete.
Happy First Edit Day!
Template:Did you know nominations/Wesley Tann
Ooops, I didn't see that. Thanks for catching it. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- The wrong hook had already been on the main page for half a day by then, RoySmith. I didn’t catch it; it had been reported at WP:ERRORS. Schwede66 17:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Sigh. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- We all make mistakes; it’s not possible to get everything right all the time, RoySmith. It’s just puzzling that the checks-and-balances backup failed. It should have been spotted during the checks when promoting to queue. A hook struck on the nomination form isn’t subtle. Schwede66 19:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- So, this is weird. I looks like sometimes PSHAW is smart enough to drop struck hooks from the control panel and sometimes it's not. For example, on Template:Did you know nominations/Jack Johnson vs. James J. Jeffries, ALT1 and ALT2 get listed even though they've been struck. But on Template:Did you know nominations/National Māori flag, at least some of them are dropped. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- What says you, theleekycauldron? Is there a technical way of preventing struck hooks from being promoted? The issue here is a hook that was struck on the nomination form got promoted to prep (and the subsequent manual check during promotion to queue didn't pick it up). Schwede66 20:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- I remember attempting this, but running into some weird bugs. I'll make it a higher priority to get it working properly; as always, my talk page and the talk page of PSHAW are open for bug reports :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- I've just enabled a setting that will force PSHAW to remove all stricken text from consideration. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- What says you, theleekycauldron? Is there a technical way of preventing struck hooks from being promoted? The issue here is a hook that was struck on the nomination form got promoted to prep (and the subsequent manual check during promotion to queue didn't pick it up). Schwede66 20:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- So, this is weird. I looks like sometimes PSHAW is smart enough to drop struck hooks from the control panel and sometimes it's not. For example, on Template:Did you know nominations/Jack Johnson vs. James J. Jeffries, ALT1 and ALT2 get listed even though they've been struck. But on Template:Did you know nominations/National Māori flag, at least some of them are dropped. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- We all make mistakes; it’s not possible to get everything right all the time, RoySmith. It’s just puzzling that the checks-and-balances backup failed. It should have been spotted during the checks when promoting to queue. A hook struck on the nomination form isn’t subtle. Schwede66 19:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Sigh. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022
Hello Schwede66,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.
Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.
Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

Suggestions:
- There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
- Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
- Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
- This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.
Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!
- Reminders
- Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
- If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
- Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
- If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
- To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
File:Sam Uffindell.jpg
I declined your speedy deletion request for File:Sam Uffindell.jpg. I think you were looking for {{Di-replaceable non-free use}}, and retagged it with your rationale. If you are using Twinkle, that option is under "DI" and not "CSD" even though both are covered under F7. Cheers. -- Whpq (talk) 02:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, Whpq. I noticed that the Twinkle description didn't match what I was trying to do. Where I was led astray was here: Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline#Speedy deletion. Can that be worded more clearly? Schwede66 02:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- The reality of F7 is that it can be really speedy as in immediate deletion for images from commercial agencies; sort of speedy for replaceable non-free images as it can be deleted in 2 days; and not so speedy as described there which is 7 days. I think the confusion comes in because they are all covered under speedy deletion but the action of disputed non-free under F7 behaves more like a PROD for two of the three cases. I'll have a think on this and maybe propose some wording changes on that page. -- Whpq (talk) 02:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- Whpq Yeah, I've previously wondered about this "speedy deletion" that takes seven days. I'll watchlist that page and chip in if that's useful. Schwede66 02:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- I have updated the page to align the deletion guidelines with the actual options for F7. This should reduce the confusion somewhat but I expect that so long as some of the options for tagging is under DI in Twinkle, it will still be a bit confusing. -- Whpq (talk) 17:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, Whpq. That looks great and should be clear enough. Schwede66 17:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- Whpq Yeah, I've previously wondered about this "speedy deletion" that takes seven days. I'll watchlist that page and chip in if that's useful. Schwede66 02:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- The reality of F7 is that it can be really speedy as in immediate deletion for images from commercial agencies; sort of speedy for replaceable non-free images as it can be deleted in 2 days; and not so speedy as described there which is 7 days. I think the confusion comes in because they are all covered under speedy deletion but the action of disputed non-free under F7 behaves more like a PROD for two of the three cases. I'll have a think on this and maybe propose some wording changes on that page. -- Whpq (talk) 02:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Wellington Mayorality election 2022
Hi . I just wanted to give some feedback on the revert you did for my update for this page. There was an abundance of new but properly sourced material that in my view didnt follow WP:NPOV. I checked back on previous elections and 7 iterations seemed to be common for the winner to reach the quota or 50% . Hence its not 'decisive' as well but was more a personal opinion. The numbers show Ms Whanau well ahead of the runners up which would seem to be sufficient. The previous elections I can see what the quoted material meant to say, but of course thats my own research. Okerefalls (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback, Okerefalls. You removed the following content: "Eagle's fourth-place finish was described as an upset." It was referenced to a reliable source. I appreciate that in the final result, Eagle came third. To me, it would have seemed more appropriate to amend the sentence to reflect the final result (i.e. "third-place finish") but the "upset" would still hold true, wouldn't it? And by the way, personal opinions are irrelevant for Wikipedia; the only thing that matters are what reliable secondary sources say. That's where Wikipedia gets its content from; please have a look at WP:5P2. Schwede66 20:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for that . Im hoping to learn from this situation. But my issue wasnt with the 3rd place- getter, It was the 'boosterism' and departure from the NPOV in sourced material about the winner. I see this a lot in references to political events , although not as obvious in this situation. Unfortunately its a growing tendency to write up material as the 'biggest' or in this case ' decisive' when NPOV would suggest lesser terms Okerefalls (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
WP:GAC 1a helper
Hi there Schwede66. Per your post here, if you ever see a GAN you'd like to review and would like a second set of eyes to look over the prose, feel free to leave me a message or ping me and I'd be happy to do so. English is my native language, so usually the prose review is the relatively fun and easy part. I'm happy to leave the more tedious parts of the review in your hands. Cheers. Ajpolino (talk) 03:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- That's excellent, Ajpolino. Thanks for reaching out. Schwede66 08:32, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- Haha, I'm coming back to here to let you know that I've started my very first GA review. And I've managed to pick one of yours, Ajpolino! Rookie mistake. Ah well, Chocmilk03 has also volunteered to team up so if coverage issues can be addressed, I'll ask her to help with prose. Schwede66 01:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Schwede66! Let me know once you're ready for me to take a look at the prose; on a quick skim through it looks well-written and I doubt there would be much to highlight under the 1(a) and (b) criteria. :) Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- Haha, I'm coming back to here to let you know that I've started my very first GA review. And I've managed to pick one of yours, Ajpolino! Rookie mistake. Ah well, Chocmilk03 has also volunteered to team up so if coverage issues can be addressed, I'll ask her to help with prose. Schwede66 01:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)





