Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
(694 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:
Line 1:
;Current Problems!
:Yesterday I initiated an upgrade of my workstation to Debian/Bookworm and the drivers (either AMD or Nvidia) have screwed it up so much I can't boot into a graphical interface, just the command line. As such I can't access the 2FA and password files. I'm currently trying to find updated drivers but, if that fails, it will be a full wipe-and-reinstall, so I only have tablet access which is restrictive. I'll try to check in when I can. --] (]) 18:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
<big>Notice</big>
<big>Notice</big>
:'''''Please note that whilst I am always interested in hearing about different tla arguments (eg.rfa) I am highly unlikely to actually get involved unless I already have some connection to the matter under discussion. Please do NOT email me direct or dump tons of information here therefore as, if anything, it might energise me to come in on the opposing side. Thankyou.'''''
:'''''Please note that whilst I am always interested in hearing about different tla arguments (eg.rfa) I am highly unlikely to actually get involved unless I already have some connection to the matter under discussion. Please do NOT email me direct or dump tons of information here therefore as, if anything, it might energise me to come in on the opposing side. Thank you.'''''
{{clr}}
;Please use link above to add a new section ''at the end of this page'', thank you.
{{clr}}{{bots|deny=DPL bot}}
==Archives==
==Archives==
] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] |
]
<!-- new stuff after this please, in order of arrival -->
== Administrators' newsletter – April 2023 ==
] from the past month (March 2023).
{{Col-begin}}
{{Col-2}}
] '''Administrator changes'''
:] ]
:] ]
{{Col-2}}
]
] '''CheckUser changes'''
:] ]
{{Col-end}}
] '''Guideline and policy news'''
* A ] is open to discuss whether reports primarily involving ] should be referred to the ].
] '''Technical news'''
* Some older ]s will not be able to use ] on Wikimedia wikis starting this week. This mainly affects users of ]. ({{phab|T178356}})
* The ] has found no consensus to rollback to Vector legacy, but has found rough consensus to disable "limited width" mode by default.
* A link to the user's ] page will now appear in the subtitle links shown on ]. This was voted #17 in the ].
] '''Arbitration'''
* The '']'' case has been closed.
* A case about ] has been opened, with the first evidence phase closing 6 April 2023.
----
{{center|{{flatlist|
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}
<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 17:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:Dreamy Jazz@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1146829295 -->
== Administrators' newsletter – May 2023 ==
] from the past month (April 2023).
{{Col-begin}}
{{Col-2}}
] '''Administrator changes'''
:] ]
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|] (])
|]
}}
{{Col-2}}
]
] '''CheckUser changes'''
:] ]
] '''Oversighter changes'''
:] ]
{{Col-end}}
] '''Guideline and policy news'''
* A ] about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.
] '''Technical news'''
* Progress has started on the ]. This is to address the concerns raised by the community in their ] that requested improvements be made to the tool.
] '''Arbitration'''
* The proposed decision in the ] case is expected 11 May 2023.
] '''Miscellaneous'''
* ] through May 19. The final plan will be published in July 2023.
----
{{center|{{flatlist|
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}
<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 09:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:Dreamy Jazz@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1152381652 -->
== Administrators' newsletter – June 2023 ==
] from the past month (May 2023).
{{Col-begin}}
{{Col-2}}
] '''Administrator changes'''
:] ]
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
}}
{{Col-2}}
]
] '''CheckUser changes'''
:] ]
{{Col-end}}
] '''Guideline and policy news'''
* Following ], editors indefinitely site-banned by ] will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
* As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's ] project, a ] that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An ] has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.
] '''Technical news'''
* Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of ]. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until ''at least'' October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Misplaced Pages until some time in 2024.
] '''Arbitration'''
* The arbitration case '']'' has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.
] '''Miscellaneous'''
* Following ], the ] has been modified to remove the ability for users to appeal remedies to {{noping|Jimbo Wales}}.
----
{{center|{{flatlist|
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}
<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 15:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:Dreamy Jazz@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1158597894 -->
== ] ==
Just so that the message gets through: what is ] is not encyclopedic. ] (]) 05:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
== Notice of Administrators' noticeboard discussion ==
] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ]. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:ANI-notice--> <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- ]</span><sup>]'']</sup> (she|they|xe)</span> 01:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
:Please note that per ] you are 'expected to respond promptly and civilly' to the concerns raised in the thread above. ] (]) 21:28, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
:Hi Alison. It's on your interests to engage with the thread. ] (]) 10:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
::I have, being today is the first time at a keyboard since last week. Years ago I would edit at 3am, now I don't. --] (]) 12:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
== A thought ==
AN/I is what it is. I don't think I'm telling you anything new.
I just thought I would mention 2 things worth thinking about.
The first is that if you voluntarily give up the tools right now (though not necessarily a bad idea), it would likely be considered "under a cloud" (See ].) And if you decided later you wanted them back, you would need to go through RfA, which probably would mean (at least) 6 months to a year of active editing prior to it.
Second, I look at your responses, and I can understand what you're reading and why you're interpreting the guidances in that way. But it's in the details. and also how you went about it.
An initial rollback due to unexplained removal? Could be fine, depending on the circumstances. Continued unexplained removal? Same thing.
But that's not what subsequently happened. The editor provided their reasoning. Now you, presumably, saw their interpretation of ] as flawed. But at that point - merely based upon your and their comments - it became a difference of opinion about whether certain content should or should not be added to an article per ]. And so it became not a behavioural issue, but then a content issue. And you were just drawn into a content discussion in edit summaries. It's a trap. Likely unintentional on all sides, but you seemingly fell into it nonetheless. It's easy to do. As an admin, you're trying to help, and oops. It's not uncommon. Hence why you're hearing several people suggest that you apologise. We're human, and mistakes can happen.
And that's probably also why you are seeing the responses about ], that you are.
One additional thing I'll note. I see that the editor removed the text with no explanation, and then restored it , and then removed it again with an explanation of ], the second time. I wonder if you got caught in between those edits and initially saw the unexplained revert. I note this, because it looks like, when you did your initial revert months later, your edit summary calls it an unexplained removal, and I wonder if you might not have seen the subsequent edits.
Anyway, I posted this here in the hopes that it better clarifies. And everything above was a.) with an outpouring of ], and b.) with my admin hat off, obviously.
I sincerely hope that this helps. - <b>]</b> 02:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
:I'm coming to this dispute completely fresh, and I've just recommended that Arbcom decline a case, explaining that I'll have a word here first, which I'm now going to do.
:First, some introductions - I've been on Misplaced Pages for years and years, an admin for quite some time now (though relatively recently in the grand scheme of things). I've also had my fair share of disputes with other users and identified what works and what doesn't. I'm also a regular at the London Meetups, though I don't ever recall meeting you personally (cf. ]).
:The problem you're getting here is, I think, rooted in how the community thinks RfA is unfair or difficult, there's never any consensus to change it, and are resentful towards those who passed RfA before about 2008 when standards were easier. Consequently, when any admin does something that's questionable or sub-optimal (as this was), there's a huge outcry from the community with a shout of "off with their heads". Which is why you've been dragged off to ANI and now Arbcom for this.
:The best thing you can do moving forward is a) Say what you did was wrong, ideally citing some policy such as ] : "{{xt|Blocking is a serious matter. The community expects that blocks will be made for good reasons only, based upon reviewable evidence and reasonable judgment, and that all factors that support a block are subject to independent peer review if requested.}}" b) Apologise to Veverve for blocking them, and recognise that it was wrong to do so. This is really important; I've probably managed to avoid sanctions on at least one occasion because I respected and realised why other people thought what I did was wrong, and apologised for it.
:As a worked example, consider ] (and related ) - even though I the block was justified and within policy, I reversed it anyway simply because another administrator disagreed with it. Indeed, my user page says "{{xt|Admins, if you think an administrative action (including, but not limited to protecting or deleting a page, or blocking a user) is not an improvement, just undo it.}}" and I think ''all'' admins should have this.
:I'm saying this because I've got no desire to see another admin dragged off to Arbcom and get desysopped, when it could have been avoided had the conversation turned a different direction. ] ] ] 11:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
::I'm sorry all this is happening. It's got to be painful since you've put so much of yourself into this project over the years.
::I agree with some of the criticism of your actions but I absolutely disagree with the tone. Mostly, I see shades of gray in your actions and those of the other editor. Sadly, the requires things get sorted into black and white.
::Like you, I'm a long time editor back after a long lull. The rules haven't changed much but the norms have. I'm carefully picking my way. It was probably a blessing in disguise that I was desysopped for inactivity -- I've had fewer opportunities to accidentally attract lightening. I suggest you be more cautious, relying on talk page discussions as opposed to edit summaries. It's what I'm doing for now.
::Anyway, I appreciate all you've done over the years.
:::Thank you for your kind comments, ]though as I've never been "away" I'm not actually a 'returning' editor. This sequence of events over recent days has shown that there is, indeed, something broken when my simple reversion of what appeared to be many cases of deletion vandalism has resulted in this situation. That current policy appears to vary wildly from past ethos (eg. 'assume good faith' appears to have disappeared?) is regrettable, and of course I regret acting against current policy, however much it has suggested to me that things are not right in the land of wiki. I'd massively disagree with ] and others that becoming an admin/sysop was much 'easier' back at the start, because back then it relied much more on direct personal interaction between editors and not just on-wiki activity levels. I also mostly attended those early meetups (I'm right in the middle here though I've also been at a few in the last ten years too. Anyway, I'm working on a fuller response. --] (]) 13:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
::::Alison, I've never interacted with you before and criticized you at the AN thread so you have no particular reason to listen to me, but for what it's worth. You say: {{tq|'assume good faith' appears to have disappeared?}} This whole incident began because you did not assume that Veverve was acting in good faith: even in your (which I realise you are revising) you apparently continue to hold that their edits were vandalism, and continue to assert that they were made without explanation when anyone uninvolved looking at the edit summaries you yourself quote can see an explanation clear as day. Please, please, practice what you preach and try to rewrite your statement starting with the assumption that Veverve was acting in good faith. ] (]) 19:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
:::::Thanks for your comment. Clearly if you believe that ''"apparently continue to hold that their edits were vandalism"'' applies I am not making myself sufficiently clear. I don't hold that the edits ''were'' vandalism, but that they ''appeared'' to be so. They have since made clarifications (]) which did not appear against the mass deletions which explain their actions. Your reference to 'good faith' is valid. I failed to assume someone making such major deletions with no explanation in the edit summary might actually be trying to good, and that was wrong of me. -] (]) 20:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
::::::Here are some thoughts I've had about the current situation:
::::::I think it's actually better if you use your admin tools than if you go on admin hiatus since many people's concern is admin rustiness. However, you've got a bunch of editors are currently wary of your abusing them. Acknowledge that you've learned you're rusty. Note that you've poured heart and soul into Misplaced Pages over the years; you want to continue to be a positive force.
::::::*Offer to take no administrative actions against registered, confirmed users for at least 2000 edits and/or 500 administrator actions (AIV blocks, deletions, etc.).
::::::*Ask for a bureaucrat to be a mentor (suggest you pick the bureaucrat).
::::::*Use article talk pages a lot
::::::**I think the drama at WP:ANI could be cut by a third if editors used article talk pages more as opposed to just edit summaries
::::::*Offer to have an ]. Perhaps now and then again at the end of the mentoring interval.
::::::**This is more wide-ranging covering all sorts of things such as AfD, editorial decisions, etc, not just the Veverve incident
::::::**The emphasis is supposed to be on improving admin performance
::::::**It's potentially less work for others such as ArbCom
:::::::I would have your mentor set it up and I'd give it a couple of weeks before starting - let everybody calm down and think about things
::::::These steps also set a good example for future admin controversies as opposed to some of our more common .
::::::Feel free to use any, all or none of this as you see fit. You've given a lot over the years and you have much more to give in the future. --<span style="font-family:Futura">] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span> 23:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
:::::::P.S., one more thought on the topic of "legacy" vs "modern" admins. There is value in any community in having some long-term continuity in leadership. Longevity in the community does not entitle one to deference but it does provide perspectives that are sometimes not obvious to others. <span style="font-family:Futura">] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span> 23:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
== Notification of request for Arbitration ==
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at ] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the ] and the ] may be of use.
The blank edit yesterday was me intending to only leave an edit message - that I cannot make further replies there because I would immediately exceed my permitted wordcount - without adding any additional text on the actual page. Turns out though that using the reply button didn't permit an edit comment. Whups! Thank you to those who queried me, on and off-wiki. --] (]) 18:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
:They have allowed you another 250 words for replies, if you want to use them. (Not sure if you saw the ping yesterday.) (Personally I was never a big fan of strict word limits, but probably not the best time to debate that.) Regards, ] (]) 13:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
== ''AlisonW'' case request accepted ==
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at ]. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at ]. '''Please add your evidence by June 30, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes.''' For a guide to the arbitration process, see ]. For the Arbitration Committee, ] <sup>'']'' | '']''</sup> 23:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Dreamy Jazz@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW/Update_list&oldid=1161317607 -->
:Noted. I will consider my position and options before responding. --] (]) 17:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
== Administrators' newsletter – July 2023 ==
] from the past month (June 2023).
]
] '''Administrator changes'''
:] ]
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
] '''Bureaucrat changes'''
:] ]
] '''Guideline and policy news'''
* Contributions to the English Misplaced Pages are now released under the ] (CC BY-SA 4.0) license instead of ]. Contributions are still also released under the ].
] '''Technical news'''
* ] regarding a proposed ]. Third-party resources are computer resources that reside outside of Wikimedia production websites.
] '''Arbitration'''
* Two arbitration cases are currently open. Proposed decisions are expected 5 July 2023 for the ] case and 9 July 2023 for the ] case.
----
{{center|{{flatlist|
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}
<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 12:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:Dreamy Jazz@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1161774768 -->
== I am sorry for your loss ==
You are ], real life comes before Misplaced Pages — ] (] • they/them) 13:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
*I am also very sorry to hear of your loss, and you have my condolences. Whatever our disagreements on Misplaced Pages may be makes no difference to that. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
*I'm sorry for your loss, and I'm also sorry that you have to go through this while also being subject to an ArbCom case. I hope that in real life, you have all the love and support you need to help you process the loss of your mom. ] ] 06:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
**Thank you to each of you for your kind words. Much appreciated. --] (]) 14:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
== Proposed decision posted for the ''AlisonW'' case ==
Hi AlisonW, in the open ] arbitration case, a ] which relates to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the ]. For a guide to the arbitration process, see ]. For the Arbitration Committee, ] <sup>'']'' | '']''</sup> 15:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Dreamy Jazz@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW/Update_list&oldid=1164699699 -->
:I have posted my reply there and accept my admonishment without reservation. --] (]) 15:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
::AlisonW, a clerk told you this on the proposed decision talk page, but just to make sure this information doesn't slip thru the cracks and you're surprised: The case is ''still open'' and there is still a decent chance that you'll be desysopped. While the admonishment has 7 votes and the desysop has 6, several of the admonishment votes are marked "second choice to desysop". ] (]) 18:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
::: Floq, Sorry, but that's false hope. ArbCom always votes to desysop, even if they have to drag up ]. Ok, nobody voted to support that FoF, but it's still in the case, still on the table, still read, still considered factual, still considered in the case. As if that's not enough, they also had to ] to convict. "Hey we've got a brilliant idea! Let's get a case started, see how Alison responds, and then use that response to convict!" Alison, whatever has happened, I'm very sorry that you have been victimized by ArbCom's misconduct. No, I'm not posting here as some platform to criticize ArbCom. I'm honestly sorry for you it's come to this. --] (]) 15:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
== ] closed ==
The arbitration case ] has been closed, and the final decision is viewable at the case page. The following remedy has been enacted:
* For failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, AlisonW's administrative user rights are removed. She may regain them at any time via a successful request for adminship.
For the Arbitration Committee, ] <sup>'']'' | '']''</sup> 17:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
: Discuss this at: ''']'''
<!-- Message sent by User:Dreamy Jazz@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW/Update_list&oldid=1164700035 -->
== Protected this talk page ==
Hi AlisonW, I've applied temporary semi-protection to this talk page to prevent further trolling. I know that you've edited this page from an IP address in the past when you were unable to access your account, so if you would prefer to leave it unprotected in the meantime, just let me know here (or on ]) and I'll do so. The current semi-protection will expire next week, in any case. Regards, ] (]) 19:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
== Administrators' newsletter – August 2023 ==
] from the past month (July 2023).
]
] '''Administrator changes'''
:] ]
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
] '''Interface administrator changes'''
:] ]
] '''Technical news'''
* The tag filter on ] and revision history pages can now be inverted. This allows hiding edits made by automated tools. ({{phab|T334338}})
* ] is a new tool that allows easier blocking of plain domains (and their subdomains). This is more easily searchable and is faster for the software to use than the existing ]. It does not support regex (for complex cases), URL path-matching, or the ]. ({{phab|T337431}})
] '''Arbitration'''
* The arbitration cases named ] and ] closed 10 July and 16 July respectively.
* The ] arbitration case is in the workshop phase.
----
{{center|{{flatlist|
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}
<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 08:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:Dreamy Jazz@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1167880714 -->
== Nomination for deletion of ] ==
]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> – ] (]) 20:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
== Nomination for deletion of ] ==
]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> – ] (]) 20:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
== Nomination for deletion of ] ==
]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> – ] (]) 16:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
== Nomination for deletion of ] ==
]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> – ] (]) 16:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
== Nomination for deletion of ] ==
]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> – ] (]) 16:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
== Nomination for deletion of ] ==
]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> – ] (]) 16:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
== Nomination for deletion of ] ==
]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> – ] (]) 16:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
== Administrators' newsletter – September 2023 ==
] from the past month (August 2023).
{{Col-begin}}
{{Col-2}}
] '''Administrator changes'''
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
{{Col-2}}
]
] '''CheckUser changes'''
:] ]
] '''Oversighter changes'''
:] ]
{{Col-end}}
] '''Guideline and policy news'''
* Following ], ] will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
* ] at ] about revision deletion and oversight for ] found that {{tq|ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment}}.
] '''Technical news'''
* ] now shows the user's local edit count and the account's creation date. ({{phab|T324166}})
] '''Arbitration'''
* The '']'' case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in ] have been reminded to be careful about forming {{tq|local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus}}. Regular closers of ] forums were also encouraged to {{tq|note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful}}.
] '''Miscellaneous'''
* '''Tech tip''': The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of ] can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.
----
{{center|{{flatlist|
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}
<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 09:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:Dreamy Jazz@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1172333663 -->
== ] of ] ==
]
The article ] has been ] because of the following concern:
<blockquote>'''Does not pass ].'''</blockquote>
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ] (]) 01:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
* I agree with you, indeed until I looked at the History page I'd not realised I'd had anything to do with it as the topic rang no bells. Chuck it in the bin! --] (]) 14:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
== ] of ] ==
]
The article ] has been ] because of the following concern:
<blockquote>'''Appears to fail ] and ]. Tagged for notability since 2021'''</blockquote>
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].
==Treasure Valley Rollergirls==
Please replace the Treasure Valley Rollergirls article. Not only is it a tyro ''bona fide'' Division Three roller derby league, there's a brand-new citation in the local media, namely Thrive. I put to you that the TVR is indeed significant as a) a DIY, grass roots effort which is one part of b) the current roller derby revival.
:That article was tagged for 'speedy deletion' by another editor on the grounds that the subject - Treasure Valley Rollergirls - isn't that notable. I looked at the article and agreed with the editor who tagged it and so I deleted it as, basically, it was one line of information and a list of people. It didn't meet our standards for ], basically, although the basic information about the team (ie excluding the names) would certainly be relevant on an article about the roller derby ''league'' it is difficult to see that individual articles on each division or every team would become important enough in their own right. --] 13:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
::Fair enough. But I suspect that this shall change as derby's popularity increases. I have redirected "TVR" and "Treasure Valley Rollergirls" to Wiki's "List of roller derby leagues"; people can still dig out the information they want. ] 22:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
== ] ==
I fail to see how this link describes how to organize a business conference. --] 10:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
:Yes, you might be right with that one. Useful information but the current tag isn't as accurate as it might once have been. --] 13:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The links are spam and have no useful content that describes business conferences. --] 11:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ] ] 17:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
== Lakeport Brewing company image ==
== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
Hi, you deleted the image ] used in the ] article recently and I'm still sort of unclear on the reasoning. It's been suggested to me that ''a free alternative exists'' in the fair use criteria actually means ''it is possible for someone to create a free alternative'' but this is hard for me to read into ] or reconcile it with ] which is filled (for example) with images of specific car brands, athletes, actos, what have you all of which seem to be essentially identical in circumstance to the one I was trying to use in the Lakeport article. If you have time, I was hoping you could clear this up for me. Thanks ] 13:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
<div class="afd-notice">
:Basically, the image you were using isn't a 'free' image for Misplaced Pages. It can't be reused elsewhere in the same way all our GFDL text and the majority of other images can be because it is a publicity image supplied by Lakeport and has restrictions on what can be done with it. In order that Misplaced Pages can meet its intention of providing free and open content that anyone can use then it needs to be replaced by an image that lets us continue to do that. The easiest way being to buy three bottles similar to those previously pictured, and take a photo yourself of them! You are also welcome to drink the contents, of course ;-P --] 13:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ] is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].
::Okay, but can you be less "basic" than that? Fair use images are used all the time, for things one could easily take a picture of. There are an uncountably large number of such photos in use - are they all inappropriate? To pick an example where I don't get the difference, the article on ] uses a publicitiy photo, where anyone could just go to a Blue Jays game and snap a photo - is that use inappropriate? What is it about the Lakeport image that made its use inappropriate while tons of other publicty photos are used? Or are they all inappropriate? Given the existence of ] that seems unlikely to me, but I may be mistaken. ] 14:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
:::While ''Fair use images are used all the time'' is true it is also a serious problem. "Fair use" doesn't apply outside the USA and also requires a number of legal tests to be passed. Misplaced Pages needs to remove - eventually - as many fair use images as possible and yes, publicity department-supplied pictures of baseball players amongst them. That category is currently being used as the basis for ''finding'' the images we need to most urgently replace. For more about how Misplaced Pages sees this problem refer to ]. --] 14:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at ''']''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
== Fair use ==
I'm pretty confused by this new update about FU for living people. See for instance <nowiki>]</nowiki> - there is a disclaimer at the website which seems to imply that it is copyrighted, but non-profit distribution/use which is not misused for pornopgraphy/obscenity, etc against the US Olympic Committee is allowed - does that make it "free" for non-profit promotion purposes, or does this need to be deleted. Thanks, ''']''' <nowiki>|</nowiki> ] 06:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
:Yeah, it isn't usable by WP projects in the long term *because* there are limitations on the use. Misplaced Pages is around to let people everywhere have access and that means that we don't want to have content that can't be reused elsewhere. An image that can *only* be used on Misplaced Pages might be fine for someone reading us online on Misplaced Pages, but isn't acceptable for the other uses people make for our content - on CDs, DVDs, course materials, etc. Ideally someone will have a camera around when Ryan is next 'doing his thing' and supply a photo that can be ''freely'' used. --] 09:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Hi, AlisonW. The September 9 ] clarifications generated a lot of heat discussions, with some editors claiming that it was more of a policy change than a simply clarification of an already existing (but often misinterpreted) policy. Some users complained that you were acting on your own while "''changing''" the policy, rather than expressing Jimbo's view on the matter.
== Administrators' newsletter – November 2023 ==
The user ], in a (imho) very sensible move, left a ] to ] asking for a confirmation of your statements in regard of your IRC conversation with Jimbo that led to the policy clarifications. After this move, the discussions somewhat coolled, as if everybody silently agreed that to wait for Jimbo's word was the best thing to do.
] from the past month (October 2023).
It has been some few days since Crzrussian's message and no word from Jimbo. I know his a busy person, and so are you, but.. can you, in some way, ask him to drop a note about the issue? It's doesn't need to be more that "''Yes, AlisonW is right''" or "''No way.''". Thanks in advance. Best regards, --] 03:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
:I've no idea which country he is in, and although I'll probably have an IRC log of his confirmation that the new paragraphs (which I note have been extensively edited since) are good copying IRC logs is generally not permitted! I'll see if I can track him down. --] 09:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
::The discussion has just been from his talk page, without a word from him about the matter :( --] 10:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
:::I believe he has been travelling a lot (as per usual, really!) so quite possibly never saw the comment in his talk page, though I did mention it to the office. Looking at FU's talkpage things seem to have settled down (somewhat) but if this is still an issue I'll chase it up further. --] 20:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
::::I believe things have settled down exaclty because, after the message was left to Jimbo, a "truce" has been silently declared and images are not being nominated for deletion based on the new clarification. I know of whole categories of images that should be deleted if that wording is confirmed, but I can forsee the hot waters one would put himsself into while trying to enforce the policy as it is explained now.
::::I highly appreciate you efforts in this issue so far, and if it's really not an abuse of your dedication, I'd like to accept your proposal to chase it further. And let me know if I could be of any help on this matter. Best regards, --] 01:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
]
== Replaceable fair use images ==
] '''Administrator changes'''
Greetings. I understand you are interested in, and knowlegeable about, Misplaced Pages's fair use guidelines. As I understand it, "reproduceable" non-free images are not allowed on Misplaced Pages. For some time, there has existed a {{tl|Fair use replace}} which was designed to fix the problem. Unfortunately, the tag is simply ignored 99% of the time. The tag also says that violating images should be replaced "as soon as possible", but allows the images to exist on Misplaced Pages until then. But as I understand it, these images are not allowed on Misplaced Pages at all, and should be deleted (rather than kept until a replacement is found, if one ever is). With that in mind, I created a new template that tags offending images as violation ] #1, and says they may be deleted in seven days if no one contests the assertion that the image is "replaceable". Discussion is ongoing ], and I would appreciate your input. – ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 20:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
:] ]
:] ]
:] ]
] '''Interface administrator changes'''
== Mywikibiz sockpuppets ==
:] ]
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}
] '''Guideline and policy news'''
Hi. Apparently, the blog of mywikibiz identifies you as their archennemy, I thought you might have some info to add to this sockpuppetry case I opened against various usernames used to edit in favor of their clients. ] ~~(edit by ]
] '''Technical news'''
:Oh my. I don't think I've been one of them before and I've no idea why I might be public enemy #1 in his eyes. Thanks for the update though! --] 22:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
* The WMF is working on making it possible for administrators to ]. This is similar to previous work on Special:EditGrowthConfig. A ] until November 08, where you can provide feedback.
* There is ] for re-enabling the Graph Extension. Feedback on this proposal ].
] '''Arbitration'''
==Adapted Image of logo (extinct institution) - ok? (opinion)==
* Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 12 November 2023 until 21 November 2023 to stand ].
Alison, I see you've contributed on copyright issues etc. I'd be most grateful if you could have a glance at (image removed) which I've just added. I hope this type of graphic adaptation is ok; - I'd value your comments. Thanks, ] 16:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
* {{noping|Xaosflux}}, {{noping|RoySmith}} and {{noping|Cyberpower678}} have been appointed to the ] for the ]. {{noping|BusterD}} is the reserve commissioner.
* Following ], the contentious topic designation of ''Prem Rawat'' has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
* Following ], multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the ''Editor conduct in e-cigs articles'', ''Liancourt Rocks'', ''Longevity'', ''Medicine'', ''September 11 conspiracy theories'', and ''Shakespeare authorship question'' cases.
* Following ], remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the ''Macedonia 2'' case have been rescinded.
* Following ], remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the ''The Troubles'' case has been amended.
* An arbitration case named '']'' has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.
] '''Miscellaneous'''
==Wikilogos==
* The ] is happening in November 2023, with 700+ drafts pending reviews for in the last 4 months or so. In addition to the AfC participants, all administrators and New Page Patrollers can conduct reviews using the helper script, Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in ]. ]
----
{{Center|{{Flatlist|
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}
<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 17:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:Dreamy Jazz@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1183901847 -->
== ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message ==
I've noticed you are a ] and have a big say here on wikipedia, you might be interested in my ] for Misplaced Pages use logo variations created by members of the wiki community to mark national and international ], ], notable anniversaries, and observance days. Please comment on ] and on my talk page. Thanks!] 05:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Alison - thanks for the heads-up. Yes, the article was by me - hope it didn't offend. ] 19:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
== ] ==
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)</small>
I have reverted additional information on his son a few times. I see you have done so too. Should there be any additional measures as it does not seem like this reversion war is going to stop anytime soon.--] 11:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
::Your response appreciated.--] 12:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
</div>
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2023/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1187131902 -->
== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message ==
== ] ==
Hey Alison, I am not quite sure as to whether you can help me: however, I saw your name on the list of admins, as I need to contact one of you on a matter regarding the page given above. In addition, I also felt it would be appropriate since you have experienced student politics at Open University.
Apparently, contrary to real facts, the name of the 2005-06 President "Prashant Sabharwal" is being changed to "Rick Line" or "Richard Line", which happens to be wrong. I am a Leicester student and know that the latter was not involved in the presidency. I have reverted this several times, with clear reasoning given. However, my corrections and requests have been ignored by a certain user who keeps replacing the name.
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
To make matters easier for you, if need be, I could provide you with the email addresses of Faculty members who will be able to confirm my assertions. May I ask you to protect the article in the version that acknowledges Prashant as the 2005-06 President and also ask any users (including the creator of the page, who erroneously put the other name as well) to refrain from changing this version. I'd appreciate a brief response (maybe on my talk page?), as well as your willingness to read this query of mine. Let me know what the best course of action might be in such a case. Thanks a lot, it's really appreciated! ] 19:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
== Archimedes Plutonium ==
Or however you spell it. Right now, you've wheel-warred to get the article deleted, and that's problematic in itself. Beyond that, on a more meta level, we have an open AfD for the article and an open DRV for your deletion. You'd probably save a ''lot'' of hassle on all fronts if you could undelete the article so the AfD could run through and we can reach a resolution. Do you think that's possible? --] <small>]</small> 20:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
: (posted here in case anyone else follows this thread, but also copied to your talkpage). You are out of date and should check as to who last deleted it. No wheel-warring from my POV btw, as the reinstatement was out of process, but that is now by-the-by. --] 22:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
</div>
::Hi. I noticed your comment on the Archimedes Plutonium talk page. It was pretty well spot-on. It may be helpful if you left something similar at ]. Thanks. ] 22:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
</div>
::Yeah, it was reversed to not continue the wheel warring you had begun. Ah well, hoped you might be able to help. Sorry if you get bit in the ass for it. --] <small>]</small> 23:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1258243333 -->
Latest revision as of 00:09, 19 November 2024
Current Problems!
Yesterday I initiated an upgrade of my workstation to Debian/Bookworm and the drivers (either AMD or Nvidia) have screwed it up so much I can't boot into a graphical interface, just the command line. As such I can't access the 2FA and password files. I'm currently trying to find updated drivers but, if that fails, it will be a full wipe-and-reinstall, so I only have tablet access which is restrictive. I'll try to check in when I can. --AlisonW (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Notice
Please note that whilst I am always interested in hearing about different tla arguments (eg.rfa) I am highly unlikely to actually get involved unless I already have some connection to the matter under discussion. Please do NOT email me direct or dump tons of information here therefore as, if anything, it might energise me to come in on the opposing side. Thank you.
Please use link above to add a new section at the end of this page, thank you.
The rollback of Vector 2022 RfC has found no consensus to rollback to Vector legacy, but has found rough consensus to disable "limited width" mode by default.
A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.
Technical news
Progress has started on the Page Triage improvement project. This is to address the concerns raised by the community in their 2022 WMF letter that requested improvements be made to the tool.
Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.
Technical news
Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Misplaced Pages until some time in 2024.
Arbitration
The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.
I have, being today is the first time at a keyboard since last week. Years ago I would edit at 3am, now I don't. --AlisonW (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
A thought
AN/I is what it is. I don't think I'm telling you anything new.
I just thought I would mention 2 things worth thinking about.
The first is that if you voluntarily give up the tools right now (though not necessarily a bad idea), it would likely be considered "under a cloud" (See Misplaced Pages:ADMIN#Restoration_of_admin_tools.) And if you decided later you wanted them back, you would need to go through RfA, which probably would mean (at least) 6 months to a year of active editing prior to it.
Second, I look at your responses, and I can understand what you're reading and why you're interpreting the guidances in that way. But it's in the details. and also how you went about it.
An initial rollback due to unexplained removal? Could be fine, depending on the circumstances. Continued unexplained removal? Same thing.
But that's not what subsequently happened. The editor provided their reasoning. Now you, presumably, saw their interpretation of WP:TRIVIA as flawed. But at that point - merely based upon your and their comments - it became a difference of opinion about whether certain content should or should not be added to an article per WP:TRIVIA. And so it became not a behavioural issue, but then a content issue. And you were just drawn into a content discussion in edit summaries. It's a trap. Likely unintentional on all sides, but you seemingly fell into it nonetheless. It's easy to do. As an admin, you're trying to help, and oops. It's not uncommon. Hence why you're hearing several people suggest that you apologise. We're human, and mistakes can happen.
And that's probably also why you are seeing the responses about WP:INVOLVED, that you are.
One additional thing I'll note. I see that the editor removed the text with no explanation, and then restored it , and then removed it again with an explanation of WP:TRIVIA, the second time. I wonder if you got caught in between those edits and initially saw the unexplained revert. I note this, because it looks like, when you did your initial revert months later, your edit summary calls it an unexplained removal, and I wonder if you might not have seen the subsequent edits.
Anyway, I posted this here in the hopes that it better clarifies. And everything above was a.) with an outpouring of good faith, and b.) with my admin hat off, obviously.
I'm coming to this dispute completely fresh, and I've just recommended that Arbcom decline a case, explaining that I'll have a word here first, which I'm now going to do.
First, some introductions - I've been on Misplaced Pages for years and years, an admin for quite some time now (though relatively recently in the grand scheme of things). I've also had my fair share of disputes with other users and identified what works and what doesn't. I'm also a regular at the London Meetups, though I don't ever recall meeting you personally (cf. User:Ritchie333/Drinking).
The problem you're getting here is, I think, rooted in how the community thinks RfA is unfair or difficult, there's never any consensus to change it, and are resentful towards those who passed RfA before about 2008 when standards were easier. Consequently, when any admin does something that's questionable or sub-optimal (as this was), there's a huge outcry from the community with a shout of "off with their heads". Which is why you've been dragged off to ANI and now Arbcom for this.
The best thing you can do moving forward is a) Say what you did was wrong, ideally citing some policy such as WP:EXPLAINBLOCK : "Blocking is a serious matter. The community expects that blocks will be made for good reasons only, based upon reviewable evidence and reasonable judgment, and that all factors that support a block are subject to independent peer review if requested." b) Apologise to Veverve for blocking them, and recognise that it was wrong to do so. This is really important; I've probably managed to avoid sanctions on at least one occasion because I respected and realised why other people thought what I did was wrong, and apologised for it.
As a worked example, consider User talk:Manticore/Archive 4#July 2021 (and related block log) - even though I the block was justified and within policy, I reversed it anyway simply because another administrator disagreed with it. Indeed, my user page says "Admins, if you think an administrative action (including, but not limited to protecting or deleting a page, or blocking a user) is not an improvement, just undo it." and I think all admins should have this.
I'm saying this because I've got no desire to see another admin dragged off to Arbcom and get desysopped, when it could have been avoided had the conversation turned a different direction. Ritchie33311:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry all this is happening. It's got to be painful since you've put so much of yourself into this project over the years.
I agree with some of the criticism of your actions but I absolutely disagree with the tone. Mostly, I see shades of gray in your actions and those of the other editor. Sadly, the dysfunctional WP:ANI culture requires things get sorted into black and white.
Like you, I'm a long time editor back after a long lull. The rules haven't changed much but the norms have. I'm carefully picking my way. It was probably a blessing in disguise that I was desysopped for inactivity -- I've had fewer opportunities to accidentally attract lightening. I suggest you be more cautious, relying on talk page discussions as opposed to edit summaries. It's what I'm doing for now.
Anyway, I appreciate all you've done over the years.
Thank you for your kind comments, though as I've never been "away" I'm not actually a 'returning' editor. This sequence of events over recent days has shown that there is, indeed, something broken when my simple reversion of what appeared to be many cases of deletion vandalism has resulted in this situation. That current policy appears to vary wildly from past ethos (eg. 'assume good faith' appears to have disappeared?) is regrettable, and of course I regret acting against current policy, however much it has suggested to me that things are not right in the land of wiki. I'd massively disagree with User:Ritchie333 and others that becoming an admin/sysop was much 'easier' back at the start, because back then it relied much more on direct personal interaction between editors and not just on-wiki activity levels. I also mostly attended those early meetups (I'm right in the middle here though I've also been at a few in the last ten years too. Anyway, I'm working on a fuller response. --AlisonW (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Alison, I've never interacted with you before and criticized you at the AN thread so you have no particular reason to listen to me, but for what it's worth. You say: 'assume good faith' appears to have disappeared? This whole incident began because you did not assume that Veverve was acting in good faith: even in your arbcom statement (which I realise you are revising) you apparently continue to hold that their edits were vandalism, and continue to assert that they were made without explanation when anyone uninvolved looking at the edit summaries you yourself quote can see an explanation clear as day. Please, please, practice what you preach and try to rewrite your statement starting with the assumption that Veverve was acting in good faith. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. Clearly if you believe that "apparently continue to hold that their edits were vandalism" applies I am not making myself sufficiently clear. I don't hold that the edits were vandalism, but that they appeared to be so. They have since made clarifications (comment by Veverve) which did not appear against the mass deletions which explain their actions. Your reference to 'good faith' is valid. I failed to assume someone making such major deletions with no explanation in the edit summary might actually be trying to good, and that was wrong of me. -AlisonW (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Here are some thoughts I've had about the current situation:
I think it's actually better if you use your admin tools than if you go on admin hiatus since many people's concern is admin rustiness. However, you've got a bunch of editors are currently wary of your abusing them. Acknowledge that you've learned you're rusty. Note that you've poured heart and soul into Misplaced Pages over the years; you want to continue to be a positive force.
Offer to take no administrative actions against registered, confirmed users for at least 2000 edits and/or 500 administrator actions (AIV blocks, deletions, etc.).
Ask for a bureaucrat to be a mentor (suggest you pick the bureaucrat).
Use article talk pages a lot
I think the drama at WP:ANI could be cut by a third if editors used article talk pages more as opposed to just edit summaries
Offer to have an Administrator review. Perhaps now and then again at the end of the mentoring interval.
This is more wide-ranging covering all sorts of things such as AfD, editorial decisions, etc, not just the Veverve incident
The emphasis is supposed to be on improving admin performance
It's potentially less work for others such as ArbCom
I would have your mentor set it up and I'd give it a couple of weeks before starting - let everybody calm down and think about things
These steps also set a good example for future admin controversies as opposed to some of our more common admin dramas.
Feel free to use any, all or none of this as you see fit. You've given a lot over the years and you have much more to give in the future. --A. B.23:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
P.S., one more thought on the topic of "legacy" vs "modern" admins. There is value in any community in having some long-term continuity in leadership. Longevity in the community does not entitle one to deference but it does provide perspectives that are sometimes not obvious to others. A. B.23:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Notification of request for Arbitration
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#AlisonW and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
The blank edit yesterday was me intending to only leave an edit message - that I cannot make further replies there because I would immediately exceed my permitted wordcount - without adding any additional text on the actual page. Turns out though that using the reply button didn't permit an edit comment. Whups! Thank you to those who queried me, on and off-wiki. --AlisonW (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
They have allowed you another 250 words for replies, if you want to use them. (Not sure if you saw the ping yesterday.) (Personally I was never a big fan of strict word limits, but probably not the best time to debate that.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
I am also very sorry to hear of your loss, and you have my condolences. Whatever our disagreements on Misplaced Pages may be makes no difference to that. Seraphimblade23:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry for your loss, and I'm also sorry that you have to go through this while also being subject to an ArbCom case. I hope that in real life, you have all the love and support you need to help you process the loss of your mom. Kurtis06:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
AlisonW, a clerk told you this on the proposed decision talk page, but just to make sure this information doesn't slip thru the cracks and you're surprised: The case is still open and there is still a decent chance that you'll be desysopped. While the admonishment has 7 votes and the desysop has 6, several of the admonishment votes are marked "second choice to desysop". Floquenbeam (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Floq, Sorry, but that's false hope. ArbCom always votes to desysop, even if they have to drag up 17 year old evidence to do so. Ok, nobody voted to support that FoF, but it's still in the case, still on the table, still read, still considered factual, still considered in the case. As if that's not enough, they also had to use statements Alison made in the case itself to convict. "Hey we've got a brilliant idea! Let's get a case started, see how Alison responds, and then use that response to convict!" Alison, whatever has happened, I'm very sorry that you have been victimized by ArbCom's misconduct. No, I'm not posting here as some platform to criticize ArbCom. I'm honestly sorry for you it's come to this. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
For failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, AlisonW's administrative user rights are removed. She may regain them at any time via a successful request for adminship.
Hi AlisonW, I've applied temporary semi-protection to this talk page to prevent further trolling. I know that you've edited this page from an IP address in the past when you were unable to access your account, so if you would prefer to leave it unprotected in the meantime, just let me know here (or on my talk page) and I'll do so. The current semi-protection will expire next week, in any case. Regards, DanCherek (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.
The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.
Miscellaneous
Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
I agree with you, indeed until I looked at the History page I'd not realised I'd had anything to do with it as the topic rang no bells. Chuck it in the bin! --AlisonW (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Thin Ice (2020 TV series) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.
Miscellaneous
The Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in November 2023, with 700+ drafts pending reviews for in the last 4 months or so. In addition to the AfC participants, all administrators and New Page Patrollers can conduct reviews using the helper script, Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages 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.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages 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.
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Arbitration
Miscellaneous
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Potentially involved block by AlisonW. Thank you. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 01:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Administrator changes
Bureaucrat changes
Interface administrator changes
Template:BS3text has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Thin Ice (2020 TV series) is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.