User talk:Fayenatic london/Archive25

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).

Administrator changes

Hammersoft

Andres • Brion VIBBER • Rkitko • Thatcher

CheckUser changes

Barkeep49 • BDD • CaptainEek • Primefac

Oversight changes

Barkeep49 • BDD • CaptainEek

Joe Roe

Guideline and policy news

• Speedy deletion criterion T3 (duplication and hardcoded instances) has been repealed following a request for comment.

Technical news

• You can now put pages on your watchlist for a limited period of time.

Arbitration

• By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
• Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Red links left after CFDW

Hello,

Following-up a past discussion here with you, today I came upon a red link left here after this CfD discussion (resulting in move). I place a kind (I hope) word on the closing admin's talk page. However these are extremely hard to find if you don't really walk upon them by luck. Place Clichy (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, another red link found here after this CfD which you closed. I fixed it but did not check all incoming links to all categories renamed in this discussion (there may be a few). Place Clichy (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I claimed to have checked those here but missed that and one other, now fixed. Probably fat finger syndrome, closing two pages at once, or mistaking where I had got to when switching from one gadget to another. It was a long day. – Fayenatic London 12:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Russian Empire people

That speedy G6 housekeeping was a disaster. Several of those were separate nominations higher (later) up the same page, and others similarly were on other pages. In particular, the descent categories were discussed separately.

I'll relist those that I can find (with a note).
William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi William, I hadn't realised Timrollpickering was adding categories at CFDW that were still listed in separate open discussions. I spotted that he was doing some moves manually while JJMC89's bot was not working properly, and mopping up some omissions and mis-spellings from Johnpacklambert's main nomination (I had caught some others). I originally had in mind to clean up after that set, and then come back to that December 3 page for those remaining single-category nominations.

I have just reinstated and relinked the CFD banners on the category pages that you relisted.

As it turns out, it is just as well that you did relist some of these cases, because Johnpacklambert mis-linked three of the category pages to his main listing [1] [2] [3] instead of the specific discussions that he had started on those categories, so only people who browse the CFD log pages would have come across the separate discussions in December. Good grief, he even corrected a similar mistake on a later one [4] but still didn't check his work on the others.

Well, all's well that ends well. Thanks for your part in retrieving the situation. – Fayenatic London 21:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Roman Britain

What next? Nominate Category:Ukraine in the Roman era to renaming to Category:Roman Ukraine? Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

It would probably be helpful to undelete and redirect the United Kingdom category to Roman Britain, and link to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_January_23#Category:United_Kingdom_in_the_Roman_era on both talk pages.

Category:Roman Italy seems to be missing from Category:Roman history of modern countries and territories.

Are Category:Roman Cyprus and Category:Cyprus in the Roman era both needed? If you made one of them, would you consent to a quick merge C2E?

Likewise Syria... maybe more.

Ukraine and others that were not Roman provinces, and have no lead articles, probably make best sense as they are. – Fayenatic London 21:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that you may have missed the point of my contribution. I was being sarcastic by mentioning the appalling vista of inconsistencies in the parent tree that now exists as a result of the British decision. You say "Ukraine and others that were not Roman provinces"; that's true, but with the possible exception of Cyprus, there is no modern state that is entirely and exclusively within the bounds of a Roman province. Hence the need for 2 tree structures. This was a bad decision IMHO. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

And you may have missed WP:OVERLAPCAT, for which this seems to be a prime example.

Thank you for conceding the possibility of merger for Cyprus. This is now nominated at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_1, and so are Syria and Egypt. I think those will be all.

May I suggest you consider WP:DGAF? It's rudely expressed, but I find it helpful. We each express our own point of view, and may consider it reasonable, persuasive, even self-evident. However, sometimes a majority of editors prefer another outcome. For our own state of mind, it's healthy to shrug and move on. – Fayenatic London 13:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Sound advice. For the record, they do not overlap perfectly; that is the entire reason why it was a bad decision IMHO. As a parting word on the matter, I'll say that a closer has the obligation to regard the quality as well as the quantity of arguments. The decision, and the others that may well be imminent, will leave the parent tree with two confusing naming conventions. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021

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

Administrator changes

Hog Farm

Mattflaschen • Nandesuka • Savidan • Wangi

CheckUser changes

Berean Hunter • Xeno

Oversight changes

Someguy1221 • Xeno

Arbitration

• The standard discretionary sanctions authorized for American Politics were amended by motion to cover post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people, replacing the 1932 cutoff.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2021 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2021, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2021, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Wikipedia has now been around for 20 years, and recently saw its billionth edit!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Category:People of the Russian Empire

Hi. I'm looking at this discussion, which you closed. Something has gone wonky. The subcategories of Category:People of the Russian Empire are now in a mix of formats: some "FOOs of the Russian Empire", some "Russian Empire FOOs", and some (still) "Imperial Russian FOOs". One problem I think is that it appears that Johnpacklambert was creating categories while the discussion was ongoing, and he used "Russian Empire FOOs", perhaps assuming that this would be the result of the discussion. I'm just wondering what the best way forward is. I have linked Johnpacklambert to this conversation; I haven't approached him directly because whenever I do, he is unresponsive to me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

They could be nominated C2C for speedy renaming, but I'm inclined to simply add them to the list in that closure and implement them summarily under G6. I've seen and done this before where new sub-cats/siblings were created during a full CFD discussion. – Fayenatic London 14:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• What is wrong is the process of changing the nomination last minute when every single person for over a month had supported the nominated form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @Johnpacklambert: IYHO. What is questionable is cherry-picking certain precedents for a naming format and listing these in the nomination, without even acknowledging that these are a minority, or stating any rationale for preferring that minority format over the majority format. I allowed five more days to choose between those options, with two pings to all participants, and there was clear majority support among editors for the majority format. – Fayenatic London 17:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
    • No you abused your position of power to impose what was clearly not supported by the majority. You clearly had an opinion on the matter, so you should have let another administrator do this. I poured my heart and soul into this nomination, and I clearly explained that the shorter more distinct name is preferred. This is a clear abuse of power and is very hurtful to people who put so much work and effort into nominating over 100 categories. I had to go to each of those over 100 categories and individually create notifications of renaming. This took me over a week. This whole process shows continual abuse of power.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
      • If I had opined I would have supported 'XXX of the Russian Empire'. It seems to me that US preference is for short names (eg XXX alumni) whereas UK preference is for longer but clearer names (eg Alumni of XXX). My reading of the cfd is that nearly everyone eventually supported (or did not oppose) 'of the Russian Empire'. (I see that Category:Basutoland people and many similar - which ought to follow the parent cat Category:People of the British Empire - was created by Good Olfactory; not sure whether Canada follows US or UK. 'Russian Empire people' ... could there be Polish Russian Empire people? Cowasji Dinshaw Adenwalla is an Indian British Empire person.) 'of the Russian Empire' is quite obviously better. Oculi (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
        • I personally prefer "FOO people" when there is not an acceptable "FOOian people" form (for consistency with the overall by-nationality scheme), but I see no real problem with the other form or the way the discussion was closed. It was a large nomination and it probably would not have been practical to suggest a renomination to choose which form. I would have left it to another day, but that's probably influenced by my preference. "could there be Polish Russian Empire people?" Oculi, see here! At the end of the day, I think it's pretty dumb for category trees to have two separate formats – the US vs. UK thing for alumni is ridiculous. Users should be able to come together on a standard. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Johnpacklambert: I have tried talking to you directly, but like Good Ol'Factory said above, I found that you chose not to respond in conversation on your talk page.

You clearly expressed yourself in the course of expanding the nomination, that you were putting in a lot of effort to tag all the "Imperial" pages for renaming to "Empire". Even though your nomination included selective precedents for "Russian Empire people", I had not realised that you were personally invested in that specific naming format – because you had not given a rationale for it as opposed to "People of the Russian Empire" – and IMHO it would have been a waste the work that you had done in tagging all the categories, to have a separate further discussion between those two (even though Good Ol'Factory later suggested that). Hence my "Admin question" at the bottom of that CFD on 20 January.

Once I had initiated the question of choosing between the two "Russian Empire" options in place of "Imperial", I believe I handled and closed it correctly. It was to avoid accusations of WP:SUPERVOTE that I sent the second ping to all participants on 24 January, seeking a consensus one way or the other.

It was only after I raised that option that you stated that you preferred the concise form. Even then, I did not realise that you were personally invested in it.

I am sorry that my conduct turned out to be hurtful to you.

For the record, hundreds of edits were required by Timrollpickering, William Allen Simpson and myself[5] to implement the close, and there is still more to do.

May I respectfully offer you the same advice as I posted above to Laurel Lodged above at 13:00, 1 February 2021? – Fayenatic London 22:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

FYI, Johnpacklambert has opposed some of these clean-up changes at WP:CFDS. See here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Johnpacklambert: If you are not willing to sustain a conversation on either my talk page or yours, is there another page where you would do so? IMHO the Speedy CFD page is not a suitable venue for it.

Trying to remember where I might have offended you in the past, there was Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_December_30#American_and_Australian_people_of_Shanghainese_descent and the two below it, where I asked a question and stated Unless this is explained, the nomination appears to lack integrity and to require relisting with the rest of the hierarchy. You wrote, The above is a clear case of assuming bad faith. Statements like "lacks integrity" are clear attack statements. It is pure character assasination. I then explained that I did not mean to suggest that you as nominator lack integrity, but that it would be invidious to delete only part of a hierarchy when the rationale applies to the whole. It appears that you have not accepted my apology, and still consider that I am acting in bad faith.

Those were cases where you were nominating only parts of the relevant hierarchies. In the case of the Imperial Russian people categories, you attempted to nominate the full hierarchy (excluding some military categories, which you explained) and I commend you for this.

I have already explained the rationale for my actions above, and appear to have the support of the community apart from yourself.

If you wish to call my admin actions into question, the process for my recall is User:Fayenatic london/Recall. For the avoidance of doubt, I do count you as a "user in good standing"; if you seriously believe I am acting "out of process… against unanimous consensus", as you wrote at CFDS, find two more who agree with you. – Fayenatic London 22:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

You never apologized for your personal attack, You have doubled down on justifying your process that destroyed a clear consensus at the 11th hour. If I think a category should not be speedy renamed than i should make that fact public.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• I actually had forgotten you were the same thrower of insults who had engaged in those vituperative personal attacks in relation to the descent categories. What I object to is your destruction of a reasonable rename that took me over a week to frame. Other people could have joined in and help me tag all the more then 100 categories involved, but no they just threw up obstructionist garbage as I did so. It took a huge effort to do this, and everyone until just before close had supported the rename. I was not given an adequate chance ever to describe why the final proposals are just horrid and wrong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • John, you like to tell whoever's listening that you are tired of various things, but you are not yet tiring of taking offence where none is intended. – Fayenatic London 13:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
    • That is rich, really rich. Saying that someones actions lack integrity is the ultimate in character assasination, and you clearly still think you are justified in treating other people in an abominable and rude matter. What you did was extremely offensive, and you have never apologized for it, only tried to rationalize it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
      • For the record, I have now. – Fayenatic London 21:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• The xxxx alumni v alumni of xxxx is not a different in use in Britain and the US. It is an idiosyncratic difference reflecting the views of a few hard headed editors who pretend that their different views reflect language variation. People who have studied use more broadly have shown that in fact you can find British cities using formations like "Oxford University alumni" this is a case where the variation is a result of idiosyncranies of Wikipedia users that we have falsely allowed to stand because of people being able to hide behind the in this case false screen of English variation, and there being so many categories involved no one has the patientce to create a large scale nomination. Occuli's analysis is flawed. This is not an issue of language variation, it is an issue of personal preference.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @Johnpacklambert: there is now a follow-up discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_20#People_of_the_Russian_Empire, specifically to choose between the long or short naming format for "Russian Empire". I have made a commitment there to revise my close of the December 3 CFD if consensus for the short naming format emerges at the follow-up. – Fayenatic London 10:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1780s establishments in Bihar

A tag has been placed on Category:1780s establishments in Bihar requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Well, that was worth checking. Despite Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 1, the 1786 subcat had been emptied out-of-process by User:Johnpacklambert. – Fayenatic London 23:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Category:Church of England church buildings by city has been nominated for renaming

Category:Church of England church buildings by city has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

re: your edit summary querry

Here. I think first I added the non-existing new category with HotCat, then I created a redirect. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Piotrus: ah! Simple! I could have checked that for myself. BTW, I have just undeleted the original redirect, so the page history will look different now. – Fayenatic London 23:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Yemeni Civil War categories

The subcategories have been renamed. Are there any other Yemeni Civil War-related categories that need to be renamed? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2021

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

Administrator changes

TJMSmith

Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

Interface administrator changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
• A request for comment is in progress to remove F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a, which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
• A request for comment seeks to grant page movers the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at Wikipedia:Page mover/delete-redirect.
• A request for comment asks if sysops may place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
• There is a discussion in progress concerning automatic protection of each day's featured article with Pending Changes protection.

Technical news

• When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
• When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
• There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).

Arbitration

• By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
• The Kurds and Kurdistan case was closed, authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2021 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AmandaNP, Operator873, Stanglavine, Teles, and Wiki13.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Odisha categories

Odisha was called Orissa until 2011 and your category creations are populating redirects because of the templates - see User:RussBot/category redirect log. Please can amend or replace the templates so they populate the right categories? Timrollpickering (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim. I only built some parents above the year categories that were created by user:Johnpacklambert. I'll nominate them for Speedy renaming. – Fayenatic London 15:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• I think there is no good reason to treat this in the way you are suggesting. Odisha is one place, there was just a change of name. I do not think using to old name for pre-2011 categories is wise. I think we should use Odisha for all categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• This is the type of attacks by lazy editors who do nothing but criticize those of us who actually put in the work to create needed categories that makes Wikipedia so frustrating. I have created huge numbers of needed subcategories of various India establishments by year categories, and all you guys can do is attack and criticize. It is so frustrating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)