User talk:L235/Archive 15
 | 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. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 19 |
Administrators' newsletter – April 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).
Administrator changes
Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS
Guideline and policy news
- Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
- Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the
delete-redirectuserright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.
Technical news
- When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
- Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)
Arbitration
- A community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure is open until April 25.
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Perry Township Police Department
Hello, L235. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Perry Township Police Department, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 04:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Oversight
I'll send you an email shortly... and now sent. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- It's a good thing I was able to read (and screenshot) BB's useful explanation before it got suppressed. I have no problem with the original exchange between Futurist and BB being oversighted, but I wish you hadn't oversighted BB's explanation to me. The first was damaging to the project, but the second was not. Plus, in doing what you've done, you've left my question on the RD talk page hanging in the air, which makes me look stupid since it obviously can't be answered now. --Viennese Waltz 08:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Question
Would you mind taking a look at something? I came across an IP user who can be disruptive, but also very confrontational with even a passing interaction. They post very lengthy comments, but also looong edit summaries. Currently posting from 103.163.124.95 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), but also [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. They post on Al Jazeera related pages. Wasn't sure what to do until I noticed identical behavior from indef'd user Mohd.maaz864 (talk). For example, pointing out the perceived advantage that registered users have because of the their "WP:UAL"; [8] & [9]. Anyway, the user was blocked after this ANI you posted. Between your experience with this user and your knowledge of SPI (which I have little of), I thought I would ask you to take a look. Thanks - wolf 05:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, blocked. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- And thank you. That was quick. If I come across any other accounts, do I post them (w/ diffs etc.) on that case page? - wolf 06:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Yep, though that case will be archived soon, so you'll have to file a new report under the same name. It may be faster to ping me, but I also may not have the capacity at the time to address the issue. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Cool. Thanks again - wolf 08:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Yep, though that case will be archived soon, so you'll have to file a new report under the same name. It may be faster to ping me, but I also may not have the capacity at the time to address the issue. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- And thank you. That was quick. If I come across any other accounts, do I post them (w/ diffs etc.) on that case page? - wolf 06:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 April 2021
- From the editor: A change is gonna come
- Disinformation report: Paid editing by a former head of state's business enterprise
- In the media: Fernando, governance, and rugby
- Opinion: The (Universal) Code of Conduct
- Op-Ed: A Little Fun Goes A Long Way
- Changing the world: The reach of protest images on Wikipedia
- Recent research: Quality of aquatic and anatomical articles
- Traffic report: The verdict is guilty, guilty, guilty
- News from Wiki Education: Encouraging professional physicists to engage in outreach on Wikipedia
The Signpost: 25 April 2021
- From the editor: A change is gonna come
- Disinformation report: Paid editing by a former head of state's business enterprise
- In the media: Fernando, governance, and rugby
- Opinion: The (Universal) Code of Conduct
- Op-Ed: A Little Fun Goes A Long Way
- Changing the world: The reach of protest images on Wikipedia
- Recent research: Quality of aquatic and anatomical articles
- Traffic report: The verdict is guilty, guilty, guilty
- News from Wiki Education: Encouraging professional physicists to engage in outreach on Wikipedia
Your draft article, Draft:Perry Township Police Department
Hello, L235. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Perry Township Police Department".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 03:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, consensus was found that third party appeals are allowed but discouraged.
- The 2021 Desysop Policy RfC was closed with no consensus. Consensus was found in a previous RfC for a community based desysop procedure, though the procedure proposed in the 2021 RfC did not gain consensus.
Technical news
- The user group
oversightwill be renamed tosuppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.
- The user group
Arbitration
- The community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.
My topic bans
Dear Kevin, I have definite topic bans for edits concerning COVID-19 and Complementary and Alternative Medicine, imposed about a year ago. In the meantime, I have published several articles about COVID-19, including an editorial in a prestigious Springer journal: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10311-021-01249-0. Could I apply to the Abritration Committee to resonsider my bans? I have never done it so far, as the procedure seems very complicated.Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Sylwia Ufnalska: Thank you for your question. The procedure itself is not too complicated – it's listed at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Appeals_by_sanctioned_editors. You can appeal directly to the enforcing administrator(s) (in this case, myself and El C). You may also appeal to WP:AE or WP:AN; I will assist with technical details of doing so if you ask. You can appeal to ArbCom (in my opinion, as a last resort), but know that generally ArbCom only directly reverses AE actions if they are not just wrong but unreasonable. The process is the easy part, though. The more important part is the contents of the appeal, which should address either why El C and I were wrong to impose the sanctions in the first place or why we were right but the problematic behavior will not recur. My advice is to be pretty confident that your appeal shows one of those things before you appeal. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, Kevin for all your explanations. I'll try to appeal soon, I hope.Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
DS 2021 Review Update
Dear L235,
Thank you for participating in the recent discretionary sanctions community consultation. We are truly appreciative of the range of feedback we received and the high quality discussion which occurred during the process. We have now posted a summary of the feedback we've received and also a preview of some of what we expect to happen next. We hope that the second phase, a presentation of draft recommendations, will proceed on time in June or early July. You will be notified when this phase begins, unless you choose to to opt-out of future mailings by removing your name here.
--Barkeep49 & KevinL (aka L235) 21:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Which action to take?
Hi Kevin, regarding recent actions taken by an sysop revoking all of my Permissions because he did not like my answers and I made a few mistakes I just wanted to know which would be the right formal way to let this check and being revoked. I checked already DR but this is not the right place, looks more like an Arbcom issue??! CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorginak
Hi.
Thanks for checking the user's relationship. :)
Sorry, but the En wiki is not my usual one, so it's just for makingnsure I don't misunderstand.
I'm guessing the no comments about the IPs means that they don't get to be veryified not having been... endorsed or not having local reasons? Or is it something else? Thanks for your time. --Lost in subtitles (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Lost in subtitles: Hi, thanks for your message. The "no comments" note was because I am not allowed to link accounts with IP addresses per the CheckUser policy. It wasn't a comment about this case in particular at all. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Perfect then. Thanks. :)--Lost in subtitles (talk) 01:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Invitation for Functionary consultation 2021
Greetings,
I'm letting you know in advance about a meeting I'd like to invite you to regarding the Universal Code of Conduct and the community's ownership of its future enforcement. I'm still in the process of putting together the details, but I wanted to share the date with you: 27 June, 2021. I do not have a time on this date yet, but I will let you soon. We have created a meta page with basic information. Please take a look at the meta page and sign up your name under the appropriate section.
Thank you for your time.--BAnand (WMF) 15:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Not to nag...
... but do you have any idea when we can expect some action at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moksha88, now that all responses are in? The disruption has continued at the RFD, and they've started to use the SPI as a venue to accuse me of offenses ranging from using SPI to win disputes, all the way to racism. If there's technical/procedural stuff happening that I can't know about, of course I understand, but just thought I'd make sure this hasn't fallen off of your radar. All the best. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 16:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Tamzin: Sorry about the delay; it's a slightly more complicated case than most. I've been consulting some other folks about this one. Let me know with diffs if you want me to take action on behavior at SPI before I make a decision on the ultimate outcome. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for getting back to me. No rush, just wanted to make sure you hadn't forgotten about me.
;-)As to SPI disruption, it's fine for now. They're just trying to bait me into saying something stupid, and I have no intention to respond further to them. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 18:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for getting back to me. No rush, just wanted to make sure you hadn't forgotten about me.
Reverted an addition to your essay
FYI - I've just reverted the IP editor on User:L235/Our biggest challenge, they seemed lost but haven't edited since. Leijurv (talk) 05:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
my appeal
Dear Kevin, Please reconsider your decisions about my topic bans imposed in March 2020. First, I was topic banned from editing any pages that have to do with the COVID-19 topic area, and that decision was justified, due to my hasty editions concerning this important topic. The edits were based on discussions with experts but were not properly supported by publications at that time. I'm a biologist and Honorary Life Member of the European Association of Science Editors (EASE, https://ease.org.uk/about-us/honorary-life-members/) and since then, I've published many articles about COVID-19 in various medical and science journals. I promise to support my future edits in Wikipedia with reliable publications. My second topic ban, imposed soon after the first one, concerned Complementary and Alternative Medicine. It was partly unjustified in my opinion, as my reverted edit about stinging nettle (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Urtica_dioica&type=revision&diff=948781751&oldid=947955751) was based mostly on a well-documented secondary source. I mentioned also a Polish textbook about medicinal plants and a promising primary source, which should give an incentive to further research because of its importance and easy access to this valuable medicinal herb. Please let me know if you need any additional information.Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Sylwia Ufnalska: I have carefully considered your request and respectfully decline it.
- First, I stand by the topic ban as originally imposed; the diff you link clearly does not comport with MEDRS. You cite this study as the only support for one sentence, but that source was clearly not a secondary source (Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Types_of_sources). This came shortly after you were topic banned by another administrator in the related field of COVID-19 and should have been well aware of the very strict standards for biomedical information. Wikipedia must lag behind the science because Wikipedia is, by necessity, a tertiary source built by non-experts.
- Second, I am not convinced that the topic ban is no longer necessary, and therefore believe it would be inappropriate to lift the topic ban on a time-passed argument.
- I apologize for the hassle and I wish you the best. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for your answer, but please reconsider it once again. When writing about secondary source, I meant this article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6100552/. The original article mentioned by you concerned the SARS-CoV-1, not COVID-19. If it was considered inappropriate, only this one should be removed, instead of my whole edit. That is why in my opinion the ban on Complementary and Alternative Medicine should be lifted, as in fact it was unjustified since the very beginning. I suppose you thought I'm a dangerous maniac of natural methods who should be stopped from damaging the reputation of Wikipedia, but it was a wrong impression.Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- I am aware that your edit did not directly concern SARS-CoV-2; that's why I didn't simply sanction you for a topic ban violation. Instead I added a topic ban because you were adding biomedical information without complying with MEDRS after being told about it, and still don't seem to get why it was not OK. You added this sentence:
Moreover, inhibition of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus replication by stinging nettle lectin, Urtica dioica agglutinin was observed in a lethal SARS-CoV BALB/c mouse model.
What was it sourced to? A primary source. Was that OK under MEDRS? No. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)- Thanks for your explanations but what about the reference to the important secondary source? You've deleted it, too, and I cannot add it again because of the ban. Will you add it yourself? It's very important, but nobody has added it for more than a year.Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- I am aware that your edit did not directly concern SARS-CoV-2; that's why I didn't simply sanction you for a topic ban violation. Instead I added a topic ban because you were adding biomedical information without complying with MEDRS after being told about it, and still don't seem to get why it was not OK. You added this sentence:
- Thank you for your answer, but please reconsider it once again. When writing about secondary source, I meant this article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6100552/. The original article mentioned by you concerned the SARS-CoV-1, not COVID-19. If it was considered inappropriate, only this one should be removed, instead of my whole edit. That is why in my opinion the ban on Complementary and Alternative Medicine should be lifted, as in fact it was unjustified since the very beginning. I suppose you thought I'm a dangerous maniac of natural methods who should be stopped from damaging the reputation of Wikipedia, but it was a wrong impression.Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – June 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).
Administrator changes
Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless- Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)
Guideline and policy news
- Consensus was reached to deprecate Wikipedia:Editor assistance.
- Following a Request for Comment the Book namespace was deprecated.
Technical news
- Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.
Arbitration
- After a Clarification request, the Arbitration Committee modified Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case. This means sourcing expectations are a discretionary sanction instead of being present on all articles. It also details using the talk page or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to discuss disputed sources.
The Signpost: 27 June 2021
- News and notes: Elections, Wikimania, masking and more
- In the media: Boris and Joe, reliability, love, and money
- Disinformation report: Croatian Wikipedia: capture and release
- Recent research: Feminist critique of Wikipedia's epistemology, Black Americans vastly underrepresented among editors, Wiki Workshop report
- Traffic report: So no one told you life was gonna be this way
- News from the WMF: Searching for Wikipedia
- WikiProject report: WikiProject on open proxies interview
- Forum: Is WMF fundraising abusive?
- Discussion report: Reliability of WikiLeaks discussed
- Obituary: SarahSV
What just happened?
You announce that "solid diffs" are needed in a new section at 23:23, 28 June 2021. The SPI had confirmed the claim ten days ago. There were diffs, but before anyone could provide the diffs you closed the investigation at 2021-06-28T23:23:59 and then archived it. I don't see what the rush to close it was. Mind reopening it and unarchiving it? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Walter Görlitz: Sorry I didn't make this clear. Please open a new case under the same master by going to WP:SPI, opening the "How to open an investigation", and entering "Bergeronpp" as the name. Then you can add the new account and present further evidence. In practice, investigations that have lots of history in the current case take longer to get an admin's attention because they look complex, so this is the preferred way of adding new accounts to a case that has otherwise been resolved. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you Kevin. I did not see that you indefinitely blocked both accounts prior to closing. No need to open another SPI More than 90 minutes before my first comment here. Thank you again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Article Review
Seeking your input on a particular article that I feel does not meet the notability requirements for podcasts. I have watched and attempted to tag this article numerous times for notability, conflict of interest, advertising, etc. Since I know the individuals who run this podcast, another editor feels I have some sort of vendetta against them. I personally feel the value of the article is weak at best for the Wiki. Would you mind taking a glance and letting me know your thoughts? I appreciate your time and guidance. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Steve Lux, Jr. Regretfully, I don't currently have the capacity to look into projects that I'm not already working on right now. I wish you the best of luck. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- @KevinL No problem, I completely understand! I will reach out to another admin! Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 10:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – July 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
- An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.
Technical news
- IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.
Arbitration
- The community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.
User:James Lunscott
Hi Kevin,
I blocked the above user. My rationale was WP:UPE and "probable sock" (in the block log only). If you read the post-block discussion on James's Talk page, it should give you a pretty good idea of what was going through my mind, as well as why I unblocked him. However, I now have misgivings about unblocking him. He has an Anglo name and says he's a student in Virginia. I'm assuming that he's probably a native English speaker. I noticed that the English in his initial comments post-block was not great, but at that point I put that down to the low level of English skills these days, even with certain college students. In retrospect, I think that was wrong. But also the substance of what he said made sense to me. However, after I unblocked him and read his additional comments, I am struck by the following points:
- The repeated use of the word "sir", which is typical of Indian speakers and rarely used by Americans except in the military
- The English seems even worse than it did before
- The use of certain terms that most new users don't know like "sigcov" and "gng"
- The pushing to be permitted to recreate the Verma article
I am now thinking that my original instincts were correct. I noticed you acted a couple of times at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vivek.k.Verma/Archive, which is why I picked you to talk to. The Vivek Verma article has a rather chaotic history, having been created by socks, as well as by UPEs who are not necessarily socks. There's also a history of creating it with different names to bypass the full protection on creation. I'm not sure, particularly if there's no record of the UAs used by the blocked accounts (for example, at CU wiki), how much a check would help, but (1) it would help verify the veracity of some of his location claims, depending on when he left Virginia to go to New Delhi; and (2) you could also give me a second opinion on what you think I should do at this point. I'm willing to reblock, but not without technical or behavioral corroboration.
Thanks. Sorry this is so long.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Bbb23. I've looked at this a bit and my inclination is that no action is warranted at this time. There's no UA information on cuwiki, and given the geographical area, unfocused CU is going to be essentially useless. The creation of Vìvek Verma is pretty suspicious but the explanation checks out (at least as to the misspelled first name). At this time I don't think a sockblock is appropriate, but we shouldn't hesitate to reinstate the COI/PROMO block if warranted. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Future Arbcom unblocks
Simply say in all unblocks "you are still subject to all of our policies, this is not permission to ignore policy".Slatersteven (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for this feedback. I will be sure to include this or a similar sentiment when communicating with appellants when appropriate. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- In the case under discussion the issue seemed to be it was a block for A but (and here I am making an assumption based upon what they went on the claim) they discussed issue B, and asked if they could still do B. Maybe it should just (always) be a case of "your block for X has been overturned", and no other issues are mentioned or touched upon? Not just in "appropriate" cases (after all what would that even mean?) but in all cases.Slatersteven (talk) 09:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day!
Have a very happy first edit anniversary!
From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive
Hello L235:
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.
Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 2400 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.
Adrian V.S. Hill
Hi, I am totally puzzled. This article is tagged as needing extra citations. There is only one sentence that lacks a citation and several have multiple citations. There is an article on him in today's Irish Times. AnomieBot has put several tags in June re citations required. Am I free to remove the tag? Aineireland (talk) 17:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Aineireland: Apologies for the delay. I didn't post that tag; all I did was protect the page and remove a BLP violation. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Than you. I did not think you added tag. AnomieBot did. I was seeking advice given your expertise as administrator. Is it that the citations are not acceptable because of the sources? I thought it might be out of order to contradict a Bot. Aineireland (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Sorry
I edit conflicted with you when trying to clean-up 1fluidphysics. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Three years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Interesting read, our exchange back then. It could still get better ... - Next question to arb candidates will be if they would have listened to SlimVirgin. That would be the first question without mentioning infoboxes, - an improvement ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 July 2021
- News and notes: Wikimania and a million other news stories
- Special report: Hardball in Hong Kong
- In the media: Larry is at it again
- Board of Trustees candidates: See the candidates
- Traffic report: Football, tennis and marveling at Loki
- News from the WMF: Uncapping our growth potential – interview with James Baldwin, Finance and Administration Department
- Humour: A little verse
Merchandise Giveaway Nomination
Just to let you know, I've nominated you for a T-Shirt over at meta:Merchandise giveaways/Nominations/L235. Happy editing, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 08:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- Didn't realise that you had already got a t-shirt (didn't account for an old username), so I've withdrawn it. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
My AE
Hi Kevin, it was me that reached out to Jackson on Twitter to write this article [10]. I did tell him to reach out to the Arbitration Committee for comment and I very much agree with your comments, which are very pertinent to my current situation. I did also tell him to reach out to our colleagues Alexbrn and RandomCanadian who have been very much against us having the COVID-19 lab leak page, but they didn’t offer any comments. Now I am facing some very serious charges in an AE [11] and I am getting mixed messages from admins about the due date for my statement, so I would very much appreciate it if you or any other member of ArbCom could make a clarifying statement in this regard. I am also very much concerned about the integrity of the process and I am especially concerned that the proposed closer seems to have already ruled out a WP:BOOMERANG [12], even though a number of editors have pointed out that the OP made the same apparent mistake I did. Can you advise how I can make this a full ArbCom case to assure I have a fair hearing? CutePeach (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- @CutePeach: Thanks for your note. Regarding the AE thread, I'm not involved in this issue and have no intention of becoming involved. A cursory review indicates that an administrator has requested your comment; it is in your best interest to respond quickly.
- As for full ArbCom review, if the AE thread is closed with arbitration enforcement action taken against you, you have the option of appealing to the Arbitration Committee by filing a request at WP:ARCA; this option is detailed in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Standard provision: appeals and modifications (point #3). Be advised, however, that successful ARCA appeals are exceedingly rare (I can recall fewer than one per year since 2015), and the full Committee generally only reverses arbitration enforcement actions in exceptional circumstances (e.g. an abuse of administrative discretion). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Just as a general point, since I've discussed this topic before offwiki, don't you think what you describe is ArbCom abandoning its duties? Some arbs said they consider AE as "community control" which is why they don't like to overturn AE actions, but I don't see how that's the case at all. The community regularly elects 15 admins solely for the purpose of conduct resolution by fiat. Normally, a majority of those 15 arbs voting in favour would be required to enact the exact same sanction. But ArbCom offshores that responsibility to admins, who are users with lifetime terms not specifically elected for the purpose of reviewing conduct issues, who can take decisions unilaterally and most AEs will have 1-2 admins reviewing at best, and even the most popular AEs will have less than 15 reviewing. Those admins make bans under ArbCom's banning power, not under any community authorisation.
- So, really, shouldn't ArbCom as a full Committee of 15 be obliged to consider substantively any bans made under its name, if appealed? Given that you're the only users who the community elects to decide by fiat, and you're the only users who are accountable to the community for their actions (through re-election). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- No, I don't think so. ArbCom does not have the capacity to review all AE appeals de novo; doing so would open the floodgates for every dissatisfied user to appeal at ArbCom. AE works because admins can trust that their decisions will not be reversed by their colleagues or by ArbCom without good reason; it's centered around giving administrative discretion some level of finality, and allowing de novo appeals to ArbCom would defeat that. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- I feel I must agree with Proc here. Surely the floodgates must not be opened, but there are relatively few cases like this one, where while there may be majority support for DS action, there is unlikely to be true consensus (unless CutePeach's statement demonstrates that action is clearly necessary; I also must repeat that CutePeach's statement should be made as soon as possible -- I am not sure why CutePeach chose to make a statement here in lieu of one at AE). My understanding is that the ARBCOM of ten years ago would have already had a "COVID lab leak editors" case, assessing the behavior of even three editors in the area does not seem like an unreasonable burden. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- No, I don't think so. ArbCom does not have the capacity to review all AE appeals de novo; doing so would open the floodgates for every dissatisfied user to appeal at ArbCom. AE works because admins can trust that their decisions will not be reversed by their colleagues or by ArbCom without good reason; it's centered around giving administrative discretion some level of finality, and allowing de novo appeals to ArbCom would defeat that. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Kevin, the problem - as I’ve said in the AE - is that I’m extremely busy at work, and I would have to take the day off tomorrow in order to make the new 48 hour deadline imposed by In actu, so it would appreciate if someone on the ArbCom like you or HighinBC could clarify this matter. Four admins admins including ToBeFree, El_C, wbm1058 and DGG have acknowledged my request for more time, so this is really very confusing. Do you think I should just provide my statement after the judgement is made, since it seems to be premeditated anyway? CutePeach (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- @CutePeach: You don't need to provide Atlas Shrugged, just a statement. The length of your first post to Kevin (200-ish words), above, would be more than sufficient. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 15:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @CutePeach: you should definitely aim to provide your statement before the complaint is closed. Again, I'm fine with a week or two extension, myself, but if others are not as lax (especially in light of the bad look of you having done other wiki-stuff while that time extension request was pending), then it is what it is. Ultimately, I think it'd be a bit silly of you to not attempt to mount a robust defense just because it's looking grim right now. El_C 15:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- @CutePeach:, thisi s critical. You don't have to convince the people you've already convinced, you have to convince the skeptical. It might be possible to challenge a close on the basis of personal bias, but that tends to be a difficult and very unpleasant procedure that is best avoided. DGG ( talk ) 21:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- @DGG: unfortunately, there aren’t any sceptical people to convince. I am already condemned and tonight at midnight, In actu will put his noose around my neck and hang me from his Wiki gallows. Kevin here has said a successful appeal is
exceedingly rare
, so I have resigned myself to my fate. I am a 36 year old primigravida and this isn’t good for my health. I will post my statement to my sandbox later, but I will not dignify the AE with my presence. Most of the admins there are either involved in the topic or canvassed by editors. ToBeFree - who ignored my original complaint [13] - made a presumption of guilt from the start, and raised the word limit from 500 to 1500 to accommodate for Shibbolethink’s spaghetti flinging - and he is using nearly 1200 words himself! I knew it was over when I saw HighInBC’s first comment [14], and here he says again that I am highly likely to be banned [15], before even hearing my statement. I think they just want my statement to give the appearance of due process and fairness. My hopes went up when I saw CaptainEek join without making judgment, but then he called me out for canvassing two editors who also suffered WP:CRYNPA from Shibbolethink, and he didn’t say anything about Shibbolethink canvassing PaleoNeonate on my own wall [16], with support from ToBeFree [17]. Then El_C, who has called me a sock [18] joins in, followed by Bishonen, who has referred to me as bastard [19], and semi active Hut 8.5 who made this statement [20]. Finally, semi-active Johnuniq joins in too, reminding me of this statement they made [21]. I wonder if they have their own Twitch channel. CutePeach (talk) 23:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- @DGG: unfortunately, there aren’t any sceptical people to convince. I am already condemned and tonight at midnight, In actu will put his noose around my neck and hang me from his Wiki gallows. Kevin here has said a successful appeal is
- @El C: A seemingly relevant quote in today's WSJ:
We exaggeratedly underestimate the value of future gains and losses. Thus the satisfaction of finishing a project (a future reward) stands no chance against the fun of playing hooky for a day.
Here, however, CutePeach may not foresee any realreward
heading her way -- just more challenges and unanticipated or shifting deadlines. - Now let's say she somehow manages to get herself removed from the project (as by making obviously silly and mistaken comments on faraway talk pages). This might just turn out to be a mutually cost-free way for her to rid herself of all that stress. –Dervorguilla (talk) 06:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- @CutePeach:, thisi s critical. You don't have to convince the people you've already convinced, you have to convince the skeptical. It might be possible to challenge a close on the basis of personal bias, but that tends to be a difficult and very unpleasant procedure that is best avoided. DGG ( talk ) 21:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Accusing admins and regular editors of acting as a cabal is now a routine occurrence (see their previous edits on Tobias' talk page). The now even bolder and direct accusations of off-wiki collusion ("I wonder if they have their own Twitch channel") are just cherry on the cake. If only CP could listen when we ask for them to stop casting aspersions, and try collaborating and citing high-quality sources (instead of thinking of this as a "popularity contest in newspapers"), maybe it would never have come to AE in the first place. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- CutePeach, please be sensible. There is no conspiracy, there is no cabal. There are just a number of stubborn people, and that's nothing unusual at WP.
- Post a dignified reply, saying that you were merely trying to see that everything was covered fairly, and that you regret if you were too insistent about it. That's reeally all you need say. People are not even canvasing, they're watching each other just as we're doing here. All this is normal. It's unfortunate that as someone relatively inexperienced here you were caught up in it. At WP, the person who stays calm comes out better at the end. Trust me on that. You may feel angry, and probably you have the right to feel angry, but do not show it. Don't make it hard for otherpeopelto rescue as much ofthe situation as possible. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
There are just a number of stubborn people, and that's nothing unusual at WP
but more importantly, reliable sources that contradict the conclusions that the editor attempted to make articles express repeatedly, which seemed to be a main issue. In any case, the AE report is out there... —PaleoNeonate – 07:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- @DGG: I will post it tomorrow. I sensed that El_C might make a favourable reply, but then the
stubborn people
would surely paint him WP:INVOLVED for serving his WaPo side dish, so it doesn’t actually matter if he participates further or not. CutePeach (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)- Quoting myself ([22]) "I think the wiki-lawyering about what constitutes involved or not (none of the admins accused of doing so seem to have significantly edited in the topic area) is nothing more than a pedantic waste of time", but sure, keep following the advice given on this page. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- @DGG: I will post it tomorrow. I sensed that El_C might make a favourable reply, but then the
- CutePeach, yes, I was "75 percent sure" you were a sock of ScrupulousSribe at that time (something I've totally forgot about until you've mentioned it just now), because you popped up right around the same time as their sock did — a sock, whom they later claimed to be their brother or roommate (I forget which), so that's why I said that then. Otherwise, I've no familiarity with your edits afterwards, nor did I have any preconceived bias regarding these at AE. Check out my statement at WP:ARBCOVID for further clarity on my position in this matter. Finally, I'll note that you're the one who pinged me to this page. In summary, as one famous Twitch streamer had said: Fuck me.'
Definitely shouldn't have brought up that WaPo piece so as to even oblige myself to look further into this AE complaint, which I now will not do nor comment on further (i.e. I'm out). El_C 10:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – July 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.
Technical news
- Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)
Arbitration
- Following an amendment request, the committee has clarified that the Talk page exception to the 500/30 rule in remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case does not apply to requested move discussions.
Miscellaneous
- You can vote for candidates in the 2021 Board of Trustees elections from 4 August to 17 August. Four community elected seats are up for election.
Excised tangent
Hi Kevin, I wanted to reply to your comment but didn't have the space (and regardless it is a philosophical point unrelated to the request at hand). I wanted to focus specifically on ArbCom is not an investigative body. Our job is to decide disputes, not to go looking for them
and the impact that sentiment can have on reporting abuse.
To start, most of the links I provided in my original statement were taken from the block log. I believe it is more than reasonable to expect arbitrators to have seen that, and I believe it is reasonable to expect them to look at links other administrators thought important to include in that block log. In my opinion this is fundamental due diligence for any administrator responding to reports of harassment, and I do not believe the arbitration committee should be given a lighter burden of due diligence than any given responding administrator. I understand that ArbCom is not in the business of investigations, certainly I do not expect you to have gone digging for the additional context I provided, but that simply cannot be an excuse to avoid looking beyond the original complaint.
Harassment is not restricted to editors who understand the preferred styling of arbitrators, and expecting everyone initiating a request have sufficient embodied cultural capital to meet an undocumented procedural burden, frankly, protects abusers. Other editors facing harassment see the arbitration proceedings, and their decision to report hinges on whether they believe you will take it seriously or not. The committee is tasked with deciding disputes, and part of that task is responding to allegations of harassment. The consequence is that individual members need to consider whether they are creating an environment that encourages victims to report. Declining without comment does not do that, declining for procedural deficiencies does not do that, and declining based on the statement with no mention of the six-year-long block log does not do that. It creates an environment and perception where victims would rather leave our project or seek action from outside the community instead of opening themselves to further harassment in front of a committee that will give more than a cursory glance if they aren't perfect.
To be clear, I am pointing out the consequences if your statement were taken to its conclusion and the perceptions that reasonable outsiders would have about the committee. I know it is not your intention and that you care as much as I do about countering systemic bias on Wikipedia. It is quite possible that you looked deeply into this matter before I commented, but that is not apparent. Countering an institutional culture that protects abusers means we need to be aware of how our expectations and biases contribute to a culture that makes victims feel like their reports will not be worth the time or risk. I understand that we have a rapport and that you were making reference to previous statements I have made on this topic, but not everyone is aware of that context or be as sympathetic a reader as I am. I'm sorry for this being so long and confrontational, but if nothing else I hope it prompts you to think critically about how our received knowledge contributes to the reproduction of systemic barriers. — Wug·a·po·des 03:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
A bowl of strawberries for you!
|
Just noticed the essay in the main part of your userpage and read User:L235/Our biggest challenge and wanted to say I think they're really well written and contain lots for us all to think about. — Bilorv (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC) |
Universal Code of Conduct News – Issue 3
Universal Code of Conduct News
Issue 3, August 2021Read the full newsletter
Welcome to the third issue of Universal Code of Conduct News! This newsletter will help Wikimedians stay involved with the development of the new code and will distribute relevant news, research, and upcoming events related to the UCoC.
If you haven’t already, please remember to subscribe here if you would like to be notified about future editions of the newsletter, and also leave your username here if you’d like to be contacted to help with translations in the future.
- The Enforcement Draft Guidelines - The Enforcement Draft Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct has just been published on meta in different languages. These guidelines include some definitions of newly introduced terms and recommendations for local enforcement structures. (continue reading)
- Enforcement Draft Guidelines Review - Before the enforcement guidelines are finalized, they must be reviewed and discussed by the community. The facilitation team has set up various discussion means throughout this review period. (continue reading)
- Conversation Hours & Roundtables - To listen to community opinions and exchange ideas regarding enforcement draft guidelines proposed by the drafting committee, the UCoC facilitation team will be hosting weekly conversation hours. (continue reading)
- Wikimania Wrap-up - The facilitation team hosted a Roundtable at Wikimania 2021, featuring some WMF trustees and staff. The session offered some insights on how the Enforcement Draft Guidelines came about, and what next steps are being imagined. (continue reading)
- Translation - Because a considerable number of Wikimedians are not English speakers, and that UCoC applies to all members, projects across the wikimedia movement, it’s of a great importance to provide adequate language support throughout this process. (continue reading)
- Diff blogs - Check out some interesting publications about the UCoC on Wikimedia Diff blog. (continue reading)
- WMF's 2021 Board of Trustees election - Please read the Candidate Presentations and vote! (continue reading)
MNadzikiewicz (WMF) (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Can I ask, should there not be a section here Biographies on dealing with possible issues with people born in Jerusalem etc. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem only valid for three years? Does that need updating or not? I came to these pages simply because of the conversation started at WT:Football#Jerusalem. Regards. Govvy (talk) 09:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Govvy: I'm sorry, I read this several times and could not understand what you're asking. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- The Arb con page doesn't really discuss how to deal with biographies. Etc. That's what I was trying to say. Govvy (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Govvy: The page documents only remedies passed by the Arbitration Committee, and only generally imposed when the dispute is beyond the capacity of the community to resolve. That's why most issues in this area are not covered on the page. Apologies for the confusion. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- The Arb con page doesn't really discuss how to deal with biographies. Etc. That's what I was trying to say. Govvy (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 August 2021
- News and notes: Enough time left to vote! IP ban
- In the media: Vive la différence!
- Wikimedians of the year: Seven Wikimedians of the year
- Gallery: Our community in 20 graphs
- News from Wiki Education: Changing the face of Wikipedia
- Recent research: IP editors, inclusiveness and empathy, cyclones, and world heritage
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Days of the Year Interview
- Traffic report: Olympics, movies, and Afghanistan
- Community view: Making Olympic history on Wikipedia
Jerusalem
I was stalking your talkpage, Kevin, when I came across Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem. That looks like a successful arbcom mandated resolution to a difficult content dispute. I wonder if there are lessons we can apply from it towards Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics/Workshop.VR talk 23:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- I debated this but I think the successes of this model won't necessarily be replicated here, unless the MEK disputes can be put much more narrowly than they currently are. Happy to be convinced otherwise, though. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- MEK disputes may seem complex, but a good moderator would be able to break them down into simpler questions and help parties figure out what they agree on and what they don't (what I call "convergence"). Even after convergence the gap between parties might be significant but it would be narrower than before. A good moderator could also sort out which differences are matters of policy (so they can't be voted on), and which differences are a matter of editorial judgement. Vanamonde tried doing that on several occasions (see his first comment in this section).VR talk 00:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Vice regent: What are the most successful elements of the Jerusalem RfC, then? Is it the single question, the 3-year binding nature, the ArbCom-appointed moderators, or something else? Also, if you have a chance, could you link to this discussion on the workshop talk page, for transparency? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Kevin, I'm still looking at the archives at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion (they are a lot to go through). My first impression is that a good discussion moderator (Mr. Stradivarius) seems to have been the best element. And I've linked the discussion as you requested.VR talk 01:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- I have proposed the above as a remedy, requesting your kind feedback there. Thanks.VR talk 03:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Vice regent: What are the most successful elements of the Jerusalem RfC, then? Is it the single question, the 3-year binding nature, the ArbCom-appointed moderators, or something else? Also, if you have a chance, could you link to this discussion on the workshop talk page, for transparency? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- MEK disputes may seem complex, but a good moderator would be able to break them down into simpler questions and help parties figure out what they agree on and what they don't (what I call "convergence"). Even after convergence the gap between parties might be significant but it would be narrower than before. A good moderator could also sort out which differences are matters of policy (so they can't be voted on), and which differences are a matter of editorial judgement. Vanamonde tried doing that on several occasions (see his first comment in this section).VR talk 00:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Happy Adminship Anniversary!
Administrators' newsletter – September 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).
Administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- Feedback is requested on the Universal Code of Conduct enforcement draft by the Universal Code of Conduct Phase 2 drafting committee.
- A RfC is open on whether to allow administrators to use extended confirmed protection on high-risk templates.
- A discussion is open to decide when, if ever, should discord logs be eligible for removal when posted onwiki (including whether to oversight them)
- A RfC on the next steps after the trial of pending changes on TFAs has resulted in a 30 day trial of automatic semi protection for TFAs.
Technical news
- The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.
Arbitration
- A request for comment is in progress to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. Comments and new proposals are welcome.
Miscellaneous
- The 2021 RfA review is now open for comments.
The Signpost: 26 September 2021
- News and notes: New CEO, new board members, China bans
- In the media: The future of Wikipedia
- Op-Ed: I've been desysopped
- Disinformation report: Paid promotional paragraphs in German parliamentary pages
- Discussion report: Editors discuss Wikipedia's vetting process for administrators
- Recent research: Wikipedia images for machine learning; Experiment justifies Wikipedia's high search rankings
- Community view: Is writing Wikipedia like making a quilt?
- Traffic report: Kanye, Emma Raducanu and 9/11
- News from Diff: Welcome to the first grantees of the Knowledge Equity Fund
- WikiProject report: The Random and the Beautiful
Administrators' newsletter – October 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, extended confirmed protection may be used preemptively on certain high-risk templates.
- Following a discussion at the Village Pump, there is consensus to treat discord logs the same as IRC logs. This means that discord logs will be oversighted if posted onwiki.
Technical news
- DiscussionTools has superseded Enterprisey's reply-link script. Editors may switch using the "Discussion tools" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features.
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.
IP Returned, Blocked Indefinitely?
Hello, I've noticed you're the guy that blocked 2600:387:8:7:0:0:0:70 in 2018 for 31 hours. It seems that, since then, they have continued their vandalising. They're currently aiming for plantation-related articles (see his recent contributions) and removing large amount of notable content. It seems like nothing would stop him. @Uranium Site: has did a great job in reverting his edits, but since he's not a mod (I think), he can't really block the IP. I was wondering if you could block the IP indefinitely? I know it's harsh since it's an IP user, but I think it's only being used by one person, as all of his edits seem to be bad faith. Thanks! Aequilaterum (talk) 07:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
RfA 2021 review update
Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.
The following had consensus support of participating editors:
- Corrosive RfA atmosphere
- The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.
- Level of scrutiny
- Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.
- Standards needed to pass keep rising
- It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.
- Too few candidates
- There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.
- "No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins
The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:
- Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere)
Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere. - Admin permissions and unbundling
There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas. - RfA should not be the only road to adminship
Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.
Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.
There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Short question
Hello Kevin,
I noticed that you were involved in closing a RFC about the People’s Mujahedin of Iran and you also participated in the recent ArbCom case about Iranian politics. I have been reading through some of the new guidelines, but some things are not clear to me. I have a couple of questions and don’t know who to ask. May I ask you? Ypatch (talk) 06:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Ypatch: Happy to hear your question, but depending on what it is, I may not be able to answer. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- In articles about Iran politics post 1978: if an editor does something that seems inappropriate (like inserting something to Wikipedia that is not in the source), and I bring this to their attention but they still insist in reverting to this edit, what should I do? (start a RFC, report this editor, or what?) Ypatch (talk) 05:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Ypatch: You should follow the normal dispute resolution pathway found at WP:DR, if possible. But if there are conduct issues at play, it may be worth it to ask an administrator (not me, preferably one who regularly works in the topic area) for assistance. If you feel very strongly that someone is exhibiting sanctionable behavior, you can take it up at WP:AE, but before doing that I would talk it over with an administrator. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- In articles about Iran politics post 1978: if an editor does something that seems inappropriate (like inserting something to Wikipedia that is not in the source), and I bring this to their attention but they still insist in reverting to this edit, what should I do? (start a RFC, report this editor, or what?) Ypatch (talk) 05:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Universal Code of Conduct News – Issue 4
Universal Code of Conduct News
Issue 4, October 2021Read the full newsletter
Welcome to the fourth issue of Universal Code of Conduct News! This newsletter will help Wikimedians stay involved with the development of the new code and will distribute relevant news, research, and upcoming events related to the UCoC.
If you haven’t already, please remember to subscribe here if you would like to be notified about future editions of the newsletter, and also leave your username here if you’d like to be contacted to help with translations in the future.
- Enforcement Draft Guidelines Review Wrap-up - The Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Draft Guidelines Review will come to a close on 17 October 2021, after more than two months of extensive consultations. (continue reading)
- Roundtable Discussions and Conversation Hours - Another successful roundtable session happened on September 18, 2021 to discuss the EDGR. One last conversation hour will be happening on October 15th, 2021. (continue reading)
- Movement Charter Drafting Committee Elections - The Movement Charter Drafting Committee selection process has kicked off and will be open until October 25, 2021. Contributors to Wikimedia projects can elect their favorite candidates on to the committee. (continue reading)
- New Direction for the Newsletter - As we round-up the consultation processes for the Universal Code of Conduct, the facilitation team is currently envisioning new directions for the newsletter. (continue reading)
- Diff Blogs - Check out the most recent publications about the UCoC on Wikimedia Diff. (continue reading)
MNadzikiewicz (WMF) (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
A cup of coffee for you!
|
Thanks for creating Wikipedia:2021 Movement Charter Drafting Committee Election
You are so cool, you have done so much in the past, and now you do this. Now that this page is set up it seems so obvious and necessary, but no one recognized that until you made it. 💙💙💙💙💙 🐹🐹🐹🐹🐹🐹 ☕️☕️☕️☕️☕️☕️ Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC) |
RfA Reform 2021 Phase 2 has begun
Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.
There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 October 2021
- From the editor: Different stories, same place
- News and notes: The sockpuppet who ran for adminship and almost succeeded
- Discussion report: Editors brainstorm and propose changes to the Requests for adminship process
- Recent research: Welcome messages fail to improve newbie retention
- Community view: Reflections on the Chinese Wikipedia
- Traffic report: James Bond and the Giant Squid Game
- Technology report: Wikimedia Toolhub, winners of the Coolest Tool Award, and more
- Serendipity: How Wikipedia helped create a Serbian stamp
- Book review: Wikipedia and the Representation of Reality
- WikiProject report: Redirection
- Humour: A very Wiki crossword