User talk:Legoktm/October 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago by MediaWiki message delivery in topic Tech News: 2022-44

The Signpost: 30 September 2022

Administrators' newsletter – October 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • 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.

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-40

MediaWiki message delivery 00:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donetsk People's Republic (Russia)

Hi

You should close this AfD too. Panam2014 (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Done, thanks, I hadn't seen this one yet. Legoktm (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)


Close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kherson Oblast (Russia)

Could I ask you to reconsider your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kherson Oblast (Russia)? Discussion was still ongoing and there did not appear to be a clear consensus at the point you closed it, and if it needed to be closed at that point, should've been closed as "no consensus" (but ideally, relisted to get a more clear consensus). Elli (talk | contribs) 07:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

This also applies to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lugansk People's Republic (Russia), which involved pretty much the same arguments. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Elli, I didn't consider relisting it since it already saw wide participation and I didn't expect letting it stay open for longer to raise any novel arguments or really, clarify things. I tried to explain how I weighed the arguments to determine consensus in the Kherson Oblast AfD, do you see a flaw in that reasoning that would've led to a no consensus result? Legoktm (talk) 19:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
The arguments citing WP:POVFORK were very flawed, seemingly not understanding what a POV fork is. The Russian Oblast and the Ukrainian Oblast are two separate governmental entities that have overlapping territory; covering them in the same article would be a total mess.
The WP:CRYSTALBALL argument was strongly pushed by a certain editor (who effectively bludgeoned the discussion), but it was refuted by Szmenderowiecki (who didn't even support keeping the article, but seemed to think that particular argument was weak).
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS wasn't a sufficient refutation of the arguments in favor of keeping the article. Citing precedent isn't inherently invalid; showing that other articles of this type exist is a pretty strong argument against POV fork claims (since the Taiwan article, for example, isn't a POV fork, and that's pretty obvious). Just because these have been established more recently doesn't mean we should use a different standard.
Speaking more generally, I know that many editors, myself included, feel strongly about this conflict, and don't want to legitimize Russia's actions. However, this of course will sometimes cloud people's judgement. If the USA invaded Mexico and claimed that Baja California was a US state, and then established an interim government and legislature, I am absolutely sure we would have an article on that state. However, because most of the relevant sources discussing the details of the administrative changes caused by the invasion are not in English, it's easier for some editors to push a narrative that the Russian Oblast and the Ukrainian Oblast are the same entity, or that the Russian one doesn't exist yet, even though neither of these is actually the case.
I hope that explains where I'm coming from here. This was a pretty complicated AfD, with decent arguments on both sides that were somewhat obscured by a ton of drive-by votes (also on both sides). Elli (talk | contribs) 21:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Please don't do as the user above requests; I think your decision is correct. I was coming here to ask what should be done about the rash of single-purpose accounts participating in that AfD, some of whom are also posting counterfactual material on other articles relating to the war in Ukraine. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@GenevieveDEon: I don't have a simple answer for that, I think/hope the new strict protection regime will reduce the amount of SPAs interrupting/participating in these discussions. Legoktm (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Note: As an uninvolved admin, I endorse this close. BD2412 T 18:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Deletion review for Kherson Oblast (Russia)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kherson Oblast (Russia). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — kashmīrī TALK 21:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-41

14:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Kopf

Hi @Legoktm: How goes it? I was wondering how you managed to come to a no-consensus decision on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Kopf when there was raw reading saw four deletes, two keeps and userfy request. It seems quite reasonable to consider deletion in that state, considering the state of the references? scope_creepTalk — Preceding undated comment added 04:54, 8 October 2022‎ (UTC)

@Scope creep: I've replied at the DRV. Though I don't really understand what the point of asking me for an explanation and then filing a deletion review 4 minutes later was... Legoktm (talk) 23:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Rfd close

Thank you for closing the long winded, complex discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_September_29#Most_massive. I was wondering about your finding of a consensus to retarget the two redirects with "object" while finding no consensus for "most massive". To me, there was no consensus between retargeting or deletion across the board for all 3 redirects, but unanimous consensus against the status quo. A finding of no consensus for the "object" redirects would not change the outcome, as they should be retargeted as an improvement over the current target pending future discussion. I already boldly retargeted "most massive" to the target that garnered the most support given the universal disagreement with the status quo, per WP:NCRET (and analogous to WP:NOGOODOPTIONS for page moves). So, I request you take another look at your close and consider revising it as no consensus, or comment on what tipped the scales for the "object" redirects, for instance, was Crouch's weak delete vote enough to push "most massive" into no consensus territory? If so, it would suggest the weakest possible consensus for the other redirects being discussed. Among those favoring retargeting, there was not universal agreement about the best target, with some users favoring the top of Orders of magnitude (mass) rather than a section of it, and Jay expressly objecting to targeting a section at that page. Arguably, considering the targets proposed by those favoring retargeting, there was more agreement for "Most massive" than the other two redirects for which you found consensus. Cheers, Mdewman6 (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@Mdewman6: Hi! Agreed that there was universal consensus against the status quo. I closed it as no consensus because there didn't seem to be a preferred target of where it should point. I think your bold action is fine, I will update the close to be a "no consensus and redirect" decision.
For the object ones, there were 3 delete comments, and 5 retarget comments (noting that one was not supportive of the section and another was weak) - I didn't see any specific comments that made arguments that I felt were particularly strong or weak. Given the preference against the status quo, I thought there was a consensus for retargetting (not a very strong one of course).
Does that seem reasonable/make sense to you? Legoktm (talk) 01:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
I still disagree there was consensus, and believe there was actually more consensus for which category to point "most massive" to than there was for where to point the other two redirects so don't quite follow your reasoning. 3 users in the delete camp, 5 users in the retarget camp, with 2 of them against targeting the section favored by the other 3, and 1 of whom seems fine with either retargeting or deletion but is simply strongly against the status quo, with reasonable arguments on both sides (I think mine were stronger, but I am very biased!) does not point me to any sort of consensus. I must conclude if there were consensus it was extremely weak consensus, and it was only the final 'weak delete' comment for "most massive" that caused you to make a distinction between the redirects regarding consensus or lack thereof. Given it's a minor distinction that won't change the practical outcome, I'm fine leaving it at that. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

User:BernsteinBot

Hello, Legoktm,

I didn't know until I looked at this bot's User page that you also oversaw this bot's activities so you are probably familiar with how it works. Is there a chance that we might see another bot (maybe BernsteinBot2.0 or LegoktmBot) taking over some of its responsibilities? I know a bot isn't created in a day, I'm just wondering if I can hope for a replacement eventually. Thanks for any clue you can provide! Liz Read! Talk! 01:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: that's the plan. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HaleBot. Legoktm (talk) 01:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, and I just saw your response at Wikipedia:Bot requests#BernsteinBot has retired which I should have checked first! Liz Read! Talk! 01:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Yeah for HaleBot, Legoktm! You know, I got so used to BernsteinBot's reporting time that I didn't even check the database report until now. If you coud return the report being issued at the 01:02 UTC time, that would return things to the status quo.
Thank you so much for your swift work! I hope you find partners to help you with the bot monitoring part of all this. Liz Read! Talk! 01:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-42

MediaWiki message delivery 21:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

You've got mail

 
Hello, Legoktm. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
@Rsjaffe:   Done Legoktm (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

database-reports OAuth

Can I have a URL to authorize the application? I translated a report from python and I would like to test it. 0xDeadbeef→∞ 11:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

@0xDeadbeef: Hi! So you don't need a URL. Visit m:Special:OAuthConsumerRegistration/propose/oauth2, and make sure you tick the "This consumer is for use only by <username>" (it's fine to do this on your main account). That should automatically approve your consumer and give you the token to use (and save it to ~/.dbreps.toml).
Then copy a replica.my.cnf from Toolforge (if you don't have an account yet you'll need to sign up) to your machine at ~/replica.my.cnf and add a local='true' key (see docs). Then open a tunnel for mysql with ssh -N dev.toolforge.org -L 3306:enwiki.analytics.db.svc.wikimedia.cloud:3306.
Finally, cargo run -- --report="<title>" will kick off the specific report you are testing, but it'll just print the results instead of saving to the wiki. Legoktm (talk) 03:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-43

MediaWiki message delivery 21:21, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Possible replacement for Legobot writing WP:GAN

Hi -- I know you've stopped maintaining Legobot, at least as far as the GAN functionality is concerned. ChristieBot, a bot I originally started working on for other reasons has morphed into having the ability to write WP:GAN by iterating over the {{GA nominee}} transclusions. There's a discussion at WT:GAN about the use of ChristieBot to generate alternative sorted lists to WP:GAN, but I think it would make more sense now to have ChristieBot write the page itself, and take over that function from Legobot. Do you have any reason to think that's a bad idea? Or any other input? Legobot's GA functions have been enormous time-savers over the years, and I don't want to sound like I'm ungrateful or unaware how immensely useful the bot has been. But if you're really unable to maintain it, I think it would be good to have that function pass to another bot. I'm about to post some suggested RfC text in the WT:GAN discussion, so please comment there if you're interested. And am I right in thinking that it would be easy and harmless to stop Legobot from writing WP:GAN every 20 minutes? That is, removing that functionality wouldn't break anything else? Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

This is great, thank you for taking it on! I've replied at the BRFA. Legoktm (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

WikiWednesday

How did the NYC group's WikiWednesday go? Did I miss anything interesting or relevant? Wish I could have been there! – ClockworkSoul 14:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2022

Tech News: 2022-44

MediaWiki message delivery 21:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)