This is an archive of past discussions - do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I've added my co-nom below Melanie's and the RfA is ready to go. If you have a moment, please transclude it - I have to go out. BTW: Happy New Year! Chris, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Happy New Year! I think the ball is in Cyberpower's court - he needs to accept the nomination and answer the three standard questions before it goes live. WJBscribe(talk)10:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Note on availability
Just noting that due to professional commitments, my ability to participate in discussions is likely to drop away over the course of the next few days and I'm unlikely to be able to edit at all between 11 - 13 January (inclusive). WJBscribe(talk)15:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Nomination by a 'crat
I am mulling over whether it is a good idea for 'crats to nominate at RFA. Arguably, this discussion belongs at the noticeboard but I thought I'd start with you in case I'm missing something fundamental (perhaps this discussion has already occurred and I'm not aware of it.)
On the one hand, I don't tend to pay much attention to the identity of nominators, because I think it is best to make decisions on the merits of the nominated rather than the merits of the nominator. (Because of this, it is entirely possible that it is a very common practice and I just didn't realize it until now.) On the other hand, I've seen support votes which are not much more than "the nominator supports this so I will too".
I have no doubt that every existing 'crat would contend they could close a close RFA without giving undue weight to a 'crat nomination, but I know it would make me a little uncomfortable. I'd like to think I can make the right decision in such a circumstance but unconscious biases are, by definition not conscious.
I'm also struck by your very recent comment "...seeing how the consensus might change after very late opposition by a bureaucrat (a spectacularly bad reason)." Unless I misunderstood it, I thought you are making the point that a non-vote by a 'crat should not carry undue weight. I concur, and suggest that there are plenty of qualified nominators other than 'crats.--S Philbrick(Talk)15:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
In remarking on the extension of Ral315's RfB, the point I was making was that it was a bad idea for a bureaucrat to extend the discussion because another bureaucrat had opposed late and wanted to see what effect their opposition would have, i.e. bureaucrats giving other bureaucrats special treatment. I wasn't thinking that, were it not for the extension, there is anything special about a bureaucrat's support/oppose/neutral. I suspect that if people pay bureaucrats more attention, it would be because they have confidence in their judgment, not because they are bureaucrats. The same presumably arises from Arbitrator comments. You could equally ask if a nomination from a respected non-bureaucrat, say Newyorkbrad would have an undue effect on the outcome.
If we did restrict bureaucrat participation in RfAs, which we do on the basis that we could recuse from acting as bureaucrats later, is there a reason to treat nominations differently from supporting/opposing comments? Looking back at User:WJBscribe/RfA, it looks like I have nominated 5 users for adminship since becoming a bureaucrat (and one -Royalbroil - was roughly concurrent with my RfB). One of those of course turned out to be a particularly bad move, but we learn from our mistakes.
A nomination (or support/opposition) by a bureaucrat isn't something I'd give much thought to in closing a discussion, but I would draw your attention to Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Juliancolton 2/Bureaucrat discussion. In that discussion (somewhat problematically IMO) there is specific mention of the participation of 5 crats in the discussion, which wasn't really relevant.
There has been widespread discontent lately about how few admins are being promoted - which I share. I feel that bureaucrats have to take some responsibility for trying to address the issue. I have to say that this has motivated me - and may have motivated Xeno (although his previous nomination is much more recent than mine) to nominate good candidates in this particular drive to redress the balance. WJBscribe(talk)17:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Sure, I've lowered it to "template protection" as I would probably have applied that level of protection back in 2008 had it been available. WJBscribe(talk)15:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Dodger67's RfA
Hi there. I noticed you are monitoring this RfA. Do you think you could - at your discretion of course - move some of the discussion to the talk page? Esp. the one below SilkTork's oppose takes a lot of room (almost a whole page on my 24" screen) and the page might be hard to read for people with smaller screens. Since I !voted in said RfA, I don't think I should do any clerking which is why I came to ask you. Regards SoWhy13:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) @SoWhy: I'm not sure exactly how WJBscrie handles moving discussions, but personally I will only move discussions that are not pertinent to the candidacy. The discussion under SilkTork's oppose seems not to qualify. Also, RfA is, at base, a discussion and "taking up a lot of room" doesn't stand on its own as a reason to move a discussion. –xenotalk14:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I have to say that my thinking is along the same lines as Xeno's - I'd move off-topic discussions to the talkpage, but I'm not convinced that relevant discussion should be moved just because it is lengthy. WJBscribe(talk)14:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
No argument from me. As I said, as a participant I am certainly biased and thus don't feel in any way qualified to determine what parts of the discussion should be moved to the talk page. Regards SoWhy15:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
← I made some changes to the RfA talk page header to clarify that it is not simply the length, but the nature, of the discussion that qualifies it for a change of venue. –xenotalk15:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.
Technical news
When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.
JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Hmm... no need. I think retargeting to "Wikipedia#Policies and laws" is fine for both. We can have both redirects discussed at later time when things go less stable. George Ho (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Desysop
It's a long time ago, as you say, but I think my motivation was that I didn't want to roughshod reverse another Crat's action, especially as there seemed a courteous route to take, which is the one I went for. I think I may have inadvertently offended you, and I apologise for that. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned!10:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, but I wasn't offended. If my comment revealed a small amount of irritation, it was general rather than specific - it wasn't your action to overturn, but I was disappointed to be the lone voice to be calling for the action just to be undone. I felt that your approach prioritised courtesy to WTT over courtesy to Mr Gufstafson, who shouldn't have had to ask for the permissions back. WJBscribe(talk)09:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
{{Unblock|reason=Hello [[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]], this is 106.68.197.3. I noticed that you blocked me again. First, edit war is true, but I would like to explain it. I made some edits without using talk page, which made you frustrated and consider as vandalism and edit war. I apologise if that distracted you. Second, for changing behaviour, I am changing. I just need more time to get used to productive edits. As a user who has access to protected articles, I would like to say that I am trying to follow Wikipedia rules, but if administrators keep block me, I cannot develop as a good user and I won't be able to make good edits anymore in Wikipedia. It is very disappointing because I thought you are going to give me chance to reform, but you just destroyed the chance. I think it will be better if you give me chance to develop. Thank you :) [[Special:Contributions/106.68.197.3|106.68.197.3]] ([[User talk:106.68.197.3|talk]]) 15:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)}}
Reading through the cacophony various points and counterpoints at the recent Arbcom discussion I found yours to be consistently on point and addressing not only the issue at hand but keeping an eye to future outcomes and precedent. They were insightful, exceptionally well thought out, and I believe contributed greatly to the overall discussion. It is my pleasure to award you (yet another, but equally deserved) Socratic Barnstar. ~Mifter (talk) 02:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I confess that I feel rather depressed reading the latest contributions to WP:AE today. AE is a useful feature for dealing robustly with edit warriors and POV pushers, but it's sad to see it being used against a longstanding productive editor in this way. There would never have been a consensus for a 1 month block had it been proposed that one be imposed, but we've created a process that grants a tremendous advantage to the first mover. WJBscribe(talk)14:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree, the question is how can we modify (if at all) to try and minimize that first mover advantage? As it stands, its quite a bit of luck if the patrolling admin happens to have mercy or use the full power authorized by the sanction. I don't think a full 24 hour waiting period for AE solves our problem but closing a request 40 minutes after it is posted is not even close to getting community input or consensus (some users at AIV get longer between being reported and blocked). Mifter (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
MCann's actual complaint
It is important to read McCann’s article to understand the nature of his complaint. He does not like it existing at all, but then he says ‘even if my privacy no longer mattered, the issue of accuracy still did’. Then
(1) his first complaint is about the endless fruitless attempts to make contact via the Talk Page. He did not know that there was another avenue, but that is because the avenue was not advertised well.
(2) when he did get a reply, the editor questioned his identity. This is the ‘rabbit hole’ McCann complains about. The issue of principle is how the victims of BLP abuse are to prove who they are.
(3) Then he tried clicking the ‘edit’ button and was warned about ‘vandalism’. This is obvious to anyone familiar with Wikipedia, but he was not.
(4) Only then did he find out there is a formal procedure, but it is labyrinthine and tortuous. ‘The initial email I received from the ‘Wikipedia information team’ listed seven links to tortuously elaborate and badly written geek-speak ‘policy’ pages, which I was expected to study before commencing with a complaint.' I have to agree with him here.
(5) Finally he gets stuck in a discussion on the talk page that was not 'a calm and sober discussion. It was more like a squabble in the schoolyard, with both my request and me being ridiculed and abused'. I agree with him. At this point Blofeld, totally unprovoked, tells him to 'shut up'.
(6) He also complained, not in the article but on one of the pages, about the obscure terminology used on Wikipedia. Many three letter acronyms, and the term 'red link' which he does not understand. It's basic common sense that hospitality to strangers means avoiding all shop talk. It's not just confusing, it's also rude. Peter Damian (talk) 07:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Most of McCann's complaint therefore revolves around the tortuous and labyrinthine nature of the process, and the inaccuracy of the article, not the very existence of it. Surely there is a way to make complaints by BLP victims easier?
Regards, Peter Damian (talk) 07:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Even without reading the article, I rather gathered that those things would be issues - they are sadly all too common to the experience of BLP subjects who try to raise concerns about their articles. I still remember an incident from many years ago where the subject of an article wanted to correct an error with some basic information - it was either his birth name or birth date. The problem was that the Wikipedia article had copied an error in an article about the subject from a reliable publication. The article's subject was willing to provide copies of his passport and birth certificate to have the mistake in our article corrected. A length battle ensued in which Wikipedia editors objected to changing the article because this would mean using primary sources and constitute original research. Acronyms were thrown around & tempers flared.
Frankly, if WP:BLPKIND (excuse the acronym) had been followed, most of the issues complained of by Mr McCann should never have arisen. Perhaps we need to expand somewhere some conduct rules on how BLP subjects are to be treated - which also includes trying to avoid/explain commonly used jargon.
In terms of improving things, is it worth creating a short guide for BLP subjects explain how to go about raising concerns about their articles, maybe in the form of an FAQ? It could include an explanation of who to contact if they are being treated badly by other editors. It could also be free from jargon and try to explain the most likely jargon they will encounter. We could try to mandate that anyone claiming to be the subject of a BLP must be pointed to this guide? WJBscribe(talk)11:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Yup can't disagree. Perhaps a guide for users too, perhaps as an addition to BLPKIND. I haven't looked at the tortuously elaborate and badly written policy pages. Do you have any sense of what these were? Ideally you need a clear sign on BLP articles of where to go, plus a one page stop to help you. Peter Damian (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
My recommendation to people who wish to complain about their article here is to come straight to the BLP noticeboard; I think going to the talk page is bad advice as you're likely to encounter people who have worked closely on the article and clash with them. A while back, I had a friend of a friend who didn't like an article somebody had created about him as he felt it was borderline libellous. I've just looked for it but I've obviously forgotten the name as I can't find it, but I do know I made this edit to the help page in direct response. They had absolutely no idea where to turn or how to get relief from something plastered over the internet that they knew was incorrect. Ideally, there would be some WMF "customer service" representative who could handle complaints and manage the workload in a professional capacity. This is kind of analogous to the front desk of your local council who deal with Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells' green ink letters about reduced speed limits, traffic calming, or changes in bin collection. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I suppose OTRS is supposed to be our equivalent, but I don't have any recent experience to know how effective they are at dealing with people who raise concerns about their biographies. WJBscribe(talk)14:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
On supposed legal threat
Blofeld has archived this remark now, but I find it disturbing how he consistently misrepresents what happened. McCann did not say 'DO IT NOW, or I'll sue"', nor was he 'throwing his weight around'. He actually said 'I would like this to be solved speedily and cordially by removing the entry. If not, I will take legal advice, because this is an incomplete, misleading and potentially damaging. Graham McCann 92.23.93.50 (talk) 10:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)' Note the word 'cordially', and note he is looking to take legal advice, which is a world away from suing. I am still very uncomfortable with all this. Peter Damian (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I have to say that I thought Dr Blofeld's characterisation of his interactions with Mr McCann were somewhat self-serving and unsatisfactory, but I think it's human nature to try and portray oneself in the best light, even if that involves trying to squeeze a square peg into a round hole. I agree that that there wasn't a legal threat. That said, I think it's probably best to draw a line in the sand now that Dr Blofeld has agreed to avoid Mr McCann & his article, and to avoid interaction with BLP subjects. WJBscribe(talk)19:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Looks like we have another editor running afoul of the provision-that-keeps-on-giving, one who also wasn't quite cognizant of it or understood it. Honestly, it dosen't inspire that much confidence in the provision, when someone as careful as Huldra and with such a clean block log for an editor as intensely involved in ARBPIA articles, gets blocked over it. Maybe unblocking with a warning would be a good idea, in this case—I'm sure she'd had self-reverted if she knew that the provision encompassed her, too. El_C16:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't see misunderstanding a sanction and not knowing about it as being on the same footing. I have to say that I also don't see the AE sanction as being ambiguous. If you try and game a provision - which is what I think Huldra was doing - and get it wrong, you deserve the block. I'm sure that are lots of editors of ARBPIA articles who have managed to stay the right side of a block under the old 1RR sanctions, who will get caught out by this new sanction because it requires genuine discussion and consensus building. That has sadly become all too rare in this topic area. To my mind, challenging the attitude that everyone is entitled to 1RR without discussion is a feature, not a bug.
That said, if you and others disagree and think unblock & warn is an appropriate outcome to her appeal, there would be no hard feelings on my part. WJBscribe(talk)17:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
There seems to be a genuine misunderstanding on Huldra's part that I don't see as likely to be repeated. I'm leaning toward an unblock due to that, unless you object. El_C17:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry to be a pain, but I stand by my block. I'd like to see a few more comments in relation to the appeal at WP:AE before I would agree to an unblock. WJBscribe(talk)17:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
No, not at all, that's fair enough. I also take your point about each side having their 1RR per day and how untenable that can become without the provision. El_C17:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
For me, reading Huldra's recent comments reinforces the need for this block. Apparently the reason that Huldra didn't believe the AE sanction would apply to her edit was that it would be unworkable because "To decide what is "consensus" in such a case can, in [her] experience, be nearly impossible to determine". It seems that Huldra has become used to each side squaring off with their personal 1RR "entitlement", and only intended the 1RR sanction to be modified so as to remove a perceived first mover advantage (a balancing amendment if you will). Actually, I think ArbCom rightly had in mind breaking the ongoing edit war patterns and forcing editors to engage in proper consensus building discussion. Huldra didn't even try. She just jumped into the edit war because she thought (wrongly) that should could. I find that very problematic. Thinking in terms of 1RR/0RR etc only reinforces the battleground mindset that seems to be a common feature of the topic areas that are subject to AE sanctions. WJBscribe(talk)18:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Maybe so, but there is no denying she is careful and has been throughout the years (her clean block log is testament to that), and had she understood all of this, it would unlikely happen. Beyond this, I think the provision needs to have its own page in the projectspace where it can be further clarified and elaborated upon exactly due to such misunderstandings—kind of like how 3RR and 1RR have their own pages. One sentence is just not enough. El_C18:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Because someone had to, I've closed the AE thread with an unblock per apparent consensus on AGF, and because there is at least some support for the idea that the remedy can be interpreted in more than one way. As I said at least twice in the closing statement this is in no way a reflection on the block itself, which was a legitimate reading of the remedy and of appropriate length given the breach. It is merely a reading of an AGF-based consensus and the unlikelihood of repeat conduct in the remainder of the block period (or subsequently, pending ARCA clarification). Comments at AE made the valid point that regardless of interpretations of the remedy, it was important that Huldra not replicate this conduct if unblocked. I've left them a reminder to this effect on their talkpage.
Happy to discuss further, just wanted to come by and flag that the close is based on AGF and the AE consensus, and is in no way an implied criticism. In passing I agree with your comments in the post two above this one, including what Arbcom intended in imposing the remedy. Hope springs eternal that this current dispute will have had a positive effect on that approach. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm happy with an unblock on that basis. I'd already signaled to El C that I had no problem with him unblocking early if he was satisfied that there had been a commitment to observe the AE sanction in future, which I understand is how he interpreted Huldra's comments. WJBscribe(talk)11:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
To be honest, I can't remember if I knew at that time - it wasn't an important detail. As you rightly identified, my priority at the time was confirming that you were aware of the amendment to the AE sanction that prohibited reverting without establishing prior consensus. WJBscribe(talk)10:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Right. So basically you are saying that anybody else in the IP area could have done exactly the same edits I did, and not been blocked for it, as nobody else were notified of the amendment to the AE sanction. Huldra (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
No, I'm not saying that at all. Even if you were the only person who received the notification, other people's knowledge of the sanction could have been demonstrated in a different way - for example participation in a discussion such as the one that took place at WP:AE regarding Oncenawhile. Btw, were you aware of that discussion when you made the revert? That said, even if you were the only person aware of the AE sanction, I don't think that would be relevant - by definition someone will always be the first to know, and I don't think it would be an excuse that no one else had yet been notified. If anything, my opinion is that having been the very person who proposed a modification of an AE sanction is an aggravating factor if you then go on to breach the amended sanction, not a mitigating one. WJBscribe(talk)15:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
No, I was not aware of the WP:AE regarding Oncenawhile. (Actually, I was trying to get Al-Jammasin al-Gharbi and Al-Jammasin al-Sharqi to DYK, at the time, and was mostly concerned reading up on those subjects.)
And you are of course right in saying that a person who proposed a modification of an AE sanction, should be the first to follow it. But that assumes that an editor asks for rule A, gets rule A, then follows rule A. In my case, I asked for rule A, was sure I had gotten rule A, (But had in fact gotten rule B), then violates rule B. As Opabinia correctly notes here.
AFAIK, the Oncenawhile WP:AE is the first time anyone has been brought before AE for the "new" rule. And you very specifically wrote that you were unwilling to block as Oncenawhile might be unaware of the sanctions. And at this stage you could have used the same explanation for any other editor in front of AE. Except me.
Where our views differ is that I think you proposed rule A, got rule A, and then breached rule A.
Opabinia's views seem somewhat different to those of Euryalus in the thread above, so we will have to see what other arbitrators say. Also, I don't think the change proposed by Opabinia would have effected your block - she appears (rightly in my opinion) to propose an amendment that would keep the requirement that reverts require prior consensus. WJBscribe(talk)09:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Whaw, just ...whaw. That you actually seem to think that I broke the rules on purpose is the least WP:AGF I think I have ever met here. Just for the record: I’m not here for playing games. (I’m far, far too old for that.) I’m here for writing Palestinian history, for getting the history mentioned at, say, User:Huldra/HA, User:Huldra/Guerin, User:Huldra/Socin, in addition to the 1922 data, 1931 data and 1945 etc, into the various articles. And that is what I do; I have tried to keep at least 75% of my edits to the articles.
As for your ideas about "consensus" in the IP area, frankly, to my ears you are describing a fairy-tale land. Very enticing, yes. Too bad it doesn't have anything to do with reality. Huldra (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Cwmhiraeth. I'm sure you didn't mean your post above to seem rude, but it did come across as somewhat passive aggressive. I hope you appreciate that looking into the matters raised in your email properly will take me some time. I don't mind doing it, but (in addition to my having had to deal with the crat chat) I do have commitments in my life other than Wikipedia, so you'll have to bear with me. WJBscribe(talk)12:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you thought me rude. It was just that I thought that you might have overlooked the email, especially as I had not mentioned on this page that I had sent it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello WJBscribe - just out of curiosity, what is going on here? Here is my observation: to dismiss it as flippant, stupid, outraged, partisan drama-stirring. The same words said at the user's talk page might have gone rather more to heart. For the closing admin: brevity is a quality to be valued (says me!) User:GoldenRing. Would you be able to explain to me why this statement is visible? Thank you in advance. Patient Zerotalk11:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
It's just an error with the bot's parsing of an RfA when it has been closed (so there is no end date) but is still listed at WP:RFA. I don't know what causes the bot to select those particular words from the RfA... WJBscribe(talk)12:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I think the template is maintained by Cyberbot I, so probably best to drop a note with its operator at User talk:Cyberpower678. Maybe the bot could be programmed to put [Closed] under "Ending (UTC)" if it can't find an end time. WJBscribe(talk)12:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi. On the 'crat chat page, you wrote The one ground of opposition that falls within the latter category - mistakes in CSD tagging identified by SoWhy - is mentioned by only a tiny number of opposers, and is directlty. I think some words might have inadvertently gotten dropped at the end of that sentence. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
You wrote "That is usually regarded as weaker opposition that concerns (backed up with diffs) showing issues with temperament, or lack of understanding of key policies".
Did you mean than?
Kablammo (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Since the creation of Cold War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the article has undergone substantial changes. However, the editors keep inserting content for assumptive reasons, like panic or something. The content has been discussed at Talk:Cold War, including one ongoing RfC. Also, I have received requests for additions. I don't know how much I can handle the situation about the article subject. Somehow, deletion re-nomination is suggested there. --George Ho (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Looking at the previous AfD, it seems unlikely that there would be a consensus to delete that article if re-nominated. What sort of issues are there with the editing of the article? Is it something that discretionary sanctions, e.g. applying a 1RR limit, might help with? WJBscribe(talk)23:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
There were content issues, like original research perhaps. Therefore, I made cordial discussions without resorting to edit warring. I did reinsert what I deem as OR because of additions a couple months back. However, I hope another RfC will set another precedent to this. Well, I did try broadening the article's scope, but that led to Cold war (general term). I tried merger proposal for both articles, but that failed. Even many supported insertion of "Cold War II" as the "See also" part of Template:Cold War at Template talk:Cold War. --George Ho (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Diffs
I added an explnation, the content I removed about Ariel Sharon being "King of Israel" was restored, along with content I added in being removed. Please read the full complaint and not only the diff because the more serious allegations I don't think can be summed up in diffs, but I think the Committee must take them into consideration. The editors pattern of editing is disruptive - my violation of the consensus clause was unintentional. Part of the sanctions process is seeking dispute resolution between editors - I would have corrected it, if it had been brought to my attention. ARBCOM was not necessary. Filing this complaint in ARBCOM is part of a long-term edit war and pattern of disruption User:Shrike has been engaged in for years, and has previously been sanctioned for. How would I cite that with diffs? Seraphim System (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Happy belated birthday
Mine's tomorrow. Is there a good reason why errors should be allowed to fester for the entire day? I'm not blaming any individual, but my attempts to note these continually are attempts to BUMP the ERRORS page up on watchlists. And extreme edit summaries, more of the "???????????" type than the f-you type, are intended to attract the eye when browsing said watchlist. That's my attempt to stop errors etc on the main page. If people are deliberately ignoring my reports, that's a different matter I suppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: Thanks. And Happy Birthday to you! Maybe informative edit summaries (e.g. "3 Error reports requiring admin attention") could be worth a try for getting attention through watchlists? I also wonder if we could get a bot set up to manage a template like {{Cratstats}} that would tell interested admins how many unaddressed error reports there are? WJBscribe(talk)09:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I'll give it a go. I imagine a bot would find it difficult to count individual error reports unless they are managed in individual templates... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Bots Newsletter, April 2017
Bots Newsletter, April 2017
Greetings!
The BAG Newsletter is now the Bots Newsletter, per discussion. As such, we've subscribed all bot operators to the newsletter. You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding/removing your name from this list.
(You can unsubscribe from future newsletters by removing your name from this list.)
historical question
Was it possible at one time for 2 Wikipedia accounts to be merged into one? I thought it was but there is a page that says it cannot be done.Vanguard10 (talk) 04:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Hello, WJBscribe. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 07:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC). 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.
Hello WJBscribe! Follow the Wikimedia LGBT user group on Twitter at @wikilgbt for news, photos, and other topics of interest to LGBT Wikipedans and allies. Use #wikiLGBT to share any Wiki Loves Pride stuff that you would like to share (whether this month or any day of the year) or to alert folks to things that the LGBT Wikipedan community should know. RachelWex (talk)
For more information about Wiki Loves Pride, → click here ←.
Clarification: On 26 December 2016, WP:ARCA ratified a new amendment affecting all articles broadly construed with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, making all newly deleted content subject to consensus before it can be restored. But, as you can see by my edit made on 16 June 2017, where the word "illegal" was deleted (see edit), since it did not apply to settlements around Husan, User:Huldra followed in suit by deleting valid content, (see edit), that is to say, deleting content that was pertinent to the section and where we treated on Husan's current status following the Oslo Accords, knowing that she can hardly be held accountable in Palestinian-Israeli related articles after the ratification of the new amendment, although, in actuality, what she did is considered WP:Gaming the system. What disciplinary measures can be taken against this phenomenon, to assure that we maintain a continued basis of cordial collaborative editing, and without an editor abusing the system?Davidbena (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
you know what, I’m quite proud of the work I have done on Husan and Urif. Look through the history of those articles: before I started on them, there was virtually zero history. Now hundreds of years of Palestinian history has been documented. I’m not finished (actually, I have hardly started) on Khirbat Umm Burj, but I promise you; given half a chance I will expand that article, too. Huldra (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Anyway, I have just learned that the need to gain consensus before restoring a deleted edit has been removed. So, my concerns were unfounded. See Modification.Davidbena (talk) 01:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
User:Cathry
You were wrong about her account and claims of sockpuppetry. Does this look like admin User:Zefr created the Talk section, as he/Jytdog falsely claimed (misleading other admins on the noticeboard) to supposedly justify her original ban?
. The talk section was created by me (not Cathry, or Zefr/Jytdog), to defuse edit waring by Zefr/Jytdog (the same account?), against myself. It wasn't created against Cathry. My question of their reasons for deleting content (that was well evidenced and referenced), has still been left unanswered. Their claim in the edit content (saying reviews weren't about EGCG) don't hold up. Cathry's consistently used the Talk pages. Zefr has consistently ignored them, even when there's active talk sections & unanswered questions for the edits he's making (double reversions etc). If you go back through page history, you'll find it's been noted by more people than just myself, that he admonishes others for not using Talk (often as sole rationale for deleting their content), while ignoring using it himself. Once he doesn't answer, after a while, if other user assumes it's not coming and reverts his unexplained deletes, Zefr threatens bans. It's abusive and bullying. Seeing too many encounters like this affects people's impression of Wikipedia. I loved it when I started, now loathe it, probably because I didn't edit enough to bother seeking admin rights. For anyone who's not an admin, WP is a *completely* different experience today. Zefr/Jytdog's recalcitrant deletionism rationale is (paraphrasing) that 'Wikipedia is already complete now, so it's just maintenance, that's why contributions dropped off', which sounds like "nobody will ever need more than 640k of RAM!"). Instead, WP's just become subject to stagnation, obstinacy and groupthink, instead of the egalitarian and friendly place it once was. 120.17.83.90 (talk) 04:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
P.s. Another admin who reviewed it agrees , he's 99% certain Cathry isn't the same account she was accused of sockpuppetting. But that comment doesn't appear on her blocking record. 120.17.218.156 (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi WJBScribe. I do agree that the IP user above is almost certainly not Cathry(full disclosure: I've run a checkuser which pretty much confirms this, although the usual "CU can't prove a negative" caveat applies). Would you have any objections if I reverted your extension and reduced the block back to its original duration? Yunshui雲水08:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Quick message as I've been away for a bit. Nothing dramatic happening, just an unexpectedly very busy spell at work. I'm going to assume that stuff that was happening in March/April has probably resolved itself by now, but please let me know if there's anything that I have overlooked/not responded to anything that still needs attention. Best, WJBscribe(talk)10:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Bots Newsletter, July 2017
Bots Newsletter, July 2017
Greetings!
Here is the 4th issue of the Bots Newsletter (formerly the BAG Newletter). You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding/removing your name from this list.
21 inactive bots have been deflagged (see discussion).
WP:BOTISSUE has been updated to mention that BAG members can act as neutral mediators in bot-related disputes.
WP:INTERWIKIBOT has been updated to reflect the post-February 2013 practice of putting interwiki links on Wikidata, rather than on Wikipedia (see discussion).
Regarding this reversion: I agree that the talk page is the right place to discuss it. However, there are currently two parallel discussions on the same subject. They may reach different conclusions, and if they do consensus at the BLP Noticeboard overrides the WP:Local consensus. As such, it seems to me better to confine the discussion entirely to the Noticeboard seeing as the local discussion effectively carries no weight. TompaDompa (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I think you have misunderstood WP:CONLEVEL - it doesn't have a bearing on where a discussion takes place. It would be an issue if, for example, it was being suggested - either at the article talkpage or at a noticeboard - that a policy (in this case, WP:BLPCRIME) should not apply to the article. That would not be permissible. But this is a discussion about whether/how the policy applies to an article, which is appropriate to take place on the talkpage. Hypothetically, a discussion at an article talkpage could correctly apply a policy, and a discussion at BLPN could breach WP:local consensus. Keeping the discussion in one place would simplify things, but isn't mandated by policy - and you will see that when Goldenring started the BLPN discussion, he actually asked people to comment on the talkpage... At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter because the discussion has already been split between two pages - anyone assessing the consensus will have to read both pages (whether one discussion is hatted or not). The problem with hatting one discussion is that it can suggest that comments there aren't valued, or ought to be repeated at the other page (which isn't necessary). Often it's not worth worrying too much about the venue of a discussion, best just to encourage people to participate in it. WJBscribe(talk)18:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello Will. On 1 Oct, you visited my Talk page here to erase a comment from and block IP user 120.17.210.246 who has been persistently disrupting edits and discussions on EGCG, example here and Rheumatoid arthritis, here. I reported to sockpuppet investigations that this same user seems to be IP 14.200.91.233, example here, among many other entries. Today, there is a new IP 120.18.15.25 commenting on the same topic thread here. Other editors and I have explained reasons for not using a primary source this user insists on having discussed in the two articles. We have made revisions in both articles, establishing consensus among registered experienced editors. This ongoing badgering by the IP user is disruptive to the constructive process on the Talk pages for both articles. Would be grateful if you could review and provide action please. Following your response here. --Zefr (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Jumping in here, on same problem account(s). At Rheumatoid arthritis, 14.200.91.233 made changes to article, and then appears to have been disruptively commenting in Talk as 120.17.210.246 and 120.17.83.90 and 120.17.281.156 and 120.17.72.185 and 120.18.15.25 and 120.21.5.180. Mentioning also to @Zefr:. David notMD (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.
The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:
Hello, WJBscribe. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
When I saw that you had closed Mobushgu's RfA as successful, it hit me - you've been a bureaucrat for over ten years now. A full decade. I remember when I first joined, your name was everywhere. In June of this upcoming year, it will likewise have been ten years since I registered my account for the first time. 2007-2008 still feel relatively recent to me.
It has been a while. Well done for sticking with us. One of the problems with my lower activity here over the years as real life has increasingly monopolised my time (!) is that I too still think that what was going on in 2007/8 (when I was most active) is recent. It's easy to forget that not everyone still thinks and does things the same way as they did back then. Imagine how it feels for those who've been here since 2004 or earlier when the wiki was tiny and no one realised Wikipedia would become one of the world's top websites! WJBscribe(talk)11:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't know about you, but even now, going to the RfA page and seeing it empty or near-empty still elicits an empty feeling within me. I remember the days when having no active RfAs was a genuine rarity. Now it's the norm. They even add active RfAs to the centralized discussion template when they go live. Kurtis(talk)00:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
You closed User:Muboshgu RFA as successful and added admin status, but you did remove his EC status (an admin should automatically has EC right and no need to keep), please fix, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 05:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
