User talk:Legoktm/October 2021

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Administrators' newsletter – October 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
  • Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
  • The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.

Miscellaneous

  • Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
  • The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

16:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

(former Unicode lowercase)

Hi Lego! Been ages. The close of T219279 resulted in the creation of 44 22 "(former Unicode lowercase)" titles. I assume these are cases where the corresponding uppercase title already existed. Can these safely be G6'd, or is there some purpose they serve? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it should be safe to G6 them as long as they both point at the same redirect target, and there's no useful history in the (former Unicode lowercase) version, in which a histmerge might make sense. Legoktm (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
@Tamzin: Maintenance script did delete the ones that already pointed to the same target. The ones that are left are ones where the uppercase and lowercase titles pointed to different targets, and someone needs to go through and decide which target is better. It looks like for most of them the uppercase titles go to Osage (Unicode block) Osage script and the lowercase titles go to Osage (Unicode block). In the example at RfD, the redirect originally targeted Osage (Unicode block), and then Gorobay incorrectly claimed it targeted Osage script when starting them discussion. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
@Pppery: I assume you mean the uppercase ones target Osage script? Either way, seems to me that the best course of action would still be to G6 all of these and then, if desired, hold an RfD on whether to retarget the 44 ones they conflicted with. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
@Tamzin: Yes, I did. My point is that, before batch-deleting redirects, one should make sure to consider the possibility that the lowercase title had the correct target, rather than the uppercase one (I'm making no comment about the Osage cases specifically). The non-osage ones are, for what it's worth:
  1. Ꞟ (former Unicode lowercase) -> Volapük, is an article
  2. Ꜵ (former Unicode lowercase) -> Ligature (writing), -> List of Latin-script letters
  3. Ɽ (former Unicode lowercase) -> Voiced retroflex flap, -> R with tail
  4. Ɱ (former Unicode lowercase) -> Voiced labiodental nasal, is an article
  5. Ɒ (former Unicode lowercase) -> Open back unrounded vowel, -> Latin turned alpha
So, overall, it looks like the lowercase titles are correct and you can go ahead with the mass G6, except for , which could do with a discussion on the proper target. But it was important to do that analysis and not act blindly. I also only count 22 of these, not 44. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Well I wasn't planning on acting blindly. As I said at RfD, I was holding off on doing anything because I needed to take the time to analyze the situation. As to 44 vs. 22, I just forgot to divide by 2 when ctrl+f'ing (since the relevant string appears twice per entry). Anyways, I'll mass-tag the 21 later today or tomorrow, if no one beats me to it, and will RfD the Ꜵs. I think the current target for the Osage ones is preferable, but also think it would be reasonable for anyone who feels otherwise to RfD those en masse. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Okay, 20 tagged G6, 1 RfD'd, 1 already G7'd. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 06:08, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

15:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

20:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

BernsteinBot

Hello, Legoktm,

I thought I'd come to you directly since I'm not sure if MZMcBride is checking their talk page.

Any chance of Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories getting its regular update back? It's been four days since there has been a report. As a backup, I can use Special:UnusedCategories but it's not a "clean" report, it has a lot of empty categories that must be ignored because they are maintenance categories or WikiProject categories while the Database report only reported regular categories that had recently been emptied and could be tagged for CSD C1 deletion.

Also, the UnusedCategories report is issued every 3 days and it is really useful to tag empty categories on a daily basis as there are a number of editors who regularly check Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion and make sure there are no categories that have been deleted "out of process" (a WP:CFD term). It's much easier to manage a daily report of 15-40 empty categories than a report of 100 categories every 3 days. But I'll take whatever I can get! Thank you for looking into BernsteinBot's issues. Liz Read! Talk! 00:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

No updates on any pages today. It might be me, but I don't think daily updates to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits is of crucial importance. Liz Read! Talk! 00:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
@Liz, sorry, I broke it when trying to fix some other reports. It should be back now. I also fudged the time so the Empty categories report should next update around 1am UTC.
Some of the reports, like List of Wikipedians by number of edits, are run by different scripts and at least I didn't break those too. Legoktm (talk) 05:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Okay, so Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories got issued at 02:01 UTC tonight which is just fine! Thank you very much for your bot work...it's greatly appreciated. Liz Read! Talk! 02:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
I should probably have waited another hour until 05:00 UTC before posting here but I'm heading to bed soon and I thought I'd mention that the Empty Category report has been a little erratic in when it's been issued (see history of the report). If this was a human editor, I wouldn't expect consistency but with the BernsteinBot it was pretty regular, publishing at 01:02 UTC nightly so I thought I'd make an inquiry. I'm sure you're still working out the kinks, working on someone else's bot, but I thought I'd post a note. What do you bet it will issue a report a half an hour after I post this? Sheesh! Liz Read! Talk! 04:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Oof, I think I made a math error. Changed the timestamp again, let's see if it works this time. Legoktm (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
And I should have been more patient. Like I guessed, within an hour or posting this message, BernsteinBot had posted the daily report! Liz Read! Talk! 19:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
1:02, on the dot :) Now let's see if it keeps this up tomorrow... Legoktm (talk) 01:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

20:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2021