Misplaced Pages

User talk:Elonka: Difference between revisions

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.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:29, 16 September 2008 editMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 7 thread(s) (older than 4d) to User talk:Elonka/Archive 26, User talk:Elonka/Archive 25.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:47, 5 January 2025 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,138,321 edits →Administrators' newsletter – January 2025: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery 
Line 1: Line 1:

{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{administrator}}{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K |maxarchivesize = 300K
|counter = 26 |counter = 45
|algo = old(4d) |algo = old(5d)
|archive = User talk:Elonka/Archive %(counter)d |archive = User talk:Elonka/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{| align="right" cellpadding="5" style="background:none;"
{{archives|auto=short|small=yes}}
|-
{{tocright}}
|
{{archives|auto=yes|search=yes}}
|}
{{tocleft}}{{-}}


== Two quotes in one day ==


== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message ==
You made my quotes! Two new favorite quotes added in one day is a real record (; ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 01:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
: Thanks. :) One of my own favorite quotes these days is by (now-retired) arbitrator ]: "''For me, contributing to Misplaced Pages is a noble act. Knowledge is power. We can all feel justifiably proud that the words we are helping to write, will help to empower untold millions of people, all over the world. However Misplaced Pages is not a perfect world. There are plenty of people, who go out of their way to attack and disrupt, more of us need to go out of our way to cherish and support. It is probably not enough for us to simply be polite, reasonable and constructive. We need to do more. We need to actively cultivate, nurture and sustain our fellow editors.''" --]]] 04:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
== Repeated BLP violations at ] ==
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div>
<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|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.
Elonka, ] is repeatedly insterting the same BLP violation (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ANahum_Shahaf&diff=237681605&oldid=235860520) that you had <s>sanctioned</s> warned ] <s>for</s> about, at the Talk page of Nahum Shahaf, and the talk page of Muhammad al-Durrah. This user is supposed to be editing under the guidance of a mentor, per restrictions placed on him by the ecommunity, but since his most recent case, he seems to be editing without one. ] (]) 16:18, 11 September 2008 (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>] (]) 00:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
:Elonka, perhaps you could remind this editor that a) you did not ban me, it was another admin, although you did support the ban; and b) the ban was not for any BLP violation, but for supposedly edit-warring (with oddly, yourself and this editor, but let's ignore that for now). I think this is the third time he has turned up on various pages to make the latter accusation, along with accusations that I am a "disruptive editor" eg , which is hardly backed up by the overall pattern of my editing. It seems to be little more than rather pointless muckspreading. I don't normally come to administrators, but since CM seems to make a habit of coming here to make complaints about me, I thought it only fair that I say something in response. I know you are concerned in particular about civility issues. --] (]) 16:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
::Nickhh, this is not about you, but about PR. Your coming here gives the impression that you are stalking me, or monitoring my contributions - please don't do that. And finally, since you have repeated this flase claim elswhere, let's set the record straight: You were banned for, among other things, BLP violations, as ] clearly indicated : 'you have persisted despite numerous warnings '''and expressed BLP concerns'''.' ] (]) 17:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Lots of people know about this claim you're making against me, because, by pure good fortune, I spotted what you were saying and I have informed everyone on my "I'll help but don't use my name in public" list. In the light of various intemperate behaviors, I was waiting for their response before defending myself. In the meantime, I would be happy to replace "conspiracy theorist" with "the fountainhead of al-Dura conspiracy mania" if that would pacify you. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
::::What to you mean by "by pure good fortune, I spotted what you were saying"? I made this comment as a repsonse to your own post, on that very page, a few hours earlier. I meant for you to see it, and asked you a question, which I will repeat again: who is your current mentor, as required by your editing restrictions? ] (]) 17:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


</div>
I looked into the complaints, and note that PalestineRemembered is not putting BLP violations into articles, but that there may be some "grey area" in terms of what's being said on talkpages. BLP does indeed has a little bit of leeway on talkpages, since sometimes it is necessary to talk about a term, in order to decide whether or not the sources are solid enough to include it in an article. So, for now, I've added the {{tl|NOINDEX}} tag to ] to keep it off the search engines, and I think it's reasonable to allow discussions to continue for a bit longer. Then later on, we can potentially courtesy-blank the relevant sections, depending on how the discussions go. See also ]. --]]] 22:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
</div>
:Hello Elonka - the deeper I look at every part of ], the more I'm alarmed by the BLP issue. It states (our words, not a quote): <font color="red">''"The "maximalist" narrative asserted that the entire incident had been a hoax staged for propaganda purposes, that the footage did not show al-Durrah being killed, and that the affair had been concocted as a "prime-time blood libel" by Charles Enderlin, the cameraman, the al-Durrahs and other Palestinian and Arab parties. Enderlin and others have criticized this view as a conspiracy theory."''</font>, referenced to #87 "Glick, Caroline. "Prime-time blood libels". Jerusalem Post, October 24, 2006", #10 "Schwartz, Adi. "In the footsteps of the al-Dura controversy", Haaretz, 8 November 2007.", #70 "Zlotowski, Michel. "French TV channel sues for libel over death of Palestinian boy in 2000". Jerusalem Post, 14 September 2006" and #31 "Israeli, Palestinian Soldiers Exchange Fire in Gaza." Xinhua News Agency, September 30, 2000".
<!-- 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 -->
:Now, only one of these reports () is on the web and verifiable. But it adds nothing to the parts of the story to which it is referenced - it has no "libel" (let alone "blood-libel"), no "concocted" (or "concoctions"), no "parties" (Palestinian, Arab or other), no "al-Duras" (let alone "al-Durrahs") - and not even any "cameraman"!. While it uses "maximalist", it actually says ''"in the blogosphere, the "maximalist version" developed"''. The only mention of "hoax" is a direct quote of Karsenty, and the article practically dismisses it eg <font color="red">''"two senior French journalists, Denis Jeambar and Daniel Leconte, leveled harsh criticism at Enderlin and his story. ... 'he had no possibility of determining that he was in fact dead, and even less so, that he had been shot by IDF soldiers.' At the same time, the two noted explicitly that, 'We do not share the opinion that the incident was staged.'"''</font>
:Under these circumstances, it would appear that parts of the article have been deliberately written as a BLP violation that has no basis in the verifiable record (and quite possibly, no basis whatsoever). The word "hoax" appears 5 times, including in the lead, in an article that almost looks as if it was written in order to ring alarm bells about journalist integrity in every reader. Yet our article barely mentions the word "blog" (2 out of 3 cases in the article section - while the Haaretz article above (just as an instance) uses "blogosphere" 3 times and "blogger" once.
:This article is picked up elsewhere in the project, eg top of a list of , so any BLP offense is becoming multiplied. (Needless to say, all this makes it even odder that I'm being threatened with being dragged over the coals for replacing "the fountainhead of al-Dura conspiracy mania" with "conspiracy theorist" in a comment on a TalkPage).
:I've previously argued for administrative action on the TalkPage - it now looks as if it's even more urgent at the article. If, as it would appear, there have been editors recklessly using the article to publish a BLP (with references that are at least partly falsified), then I must look to someone at a higher pay-grade than myself to suggest what to do about it. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 09:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


== Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards ==
::Elonka, as requested, can you please explain to this editor that I was not banned for BLP violations. This is in effect an implicit accusation that I have been committing libel via my contributions here. It is simply not true, the ban was very specifically for supposed ''edit warring'', as explained in full . Selectively quoting the ban notification as CM has done above, from the part where it separately mentions BLP "concerns" - which existed but which were a matter of genuine dispute - is borderline dishonest. And no CM I have not been following your contributions - you clearly have been following mine though, for example suddenly turning up on to revert some of my basic tidying up and appearing out of the blue after another editor dropped me a note on my talk page asking me to help out with it. Please find me any article dealing with unrelated issues where I have suddenly turned up after apparently following you there. To suggest that if I notice when you are spreading falsehoods about my editing I cannot respond and ask you to correct the misinformation you are putting about without being accused of stalking you, seems a little odd. I will admit that I do keep an eye on what you say in relation to the Durrah stuff, but that is simply because you seem to have chosen to launch some kind of campaign against me, taking every opportunity to accuse me of being a BLP-violator, disruptive editor or whatever across several talk pages.
::On the BLP issue itself, I think we need some clarity. We are not talking about accusations of wrong doing based on poor sourcing, for example sourcing a claim that "Mr X is guilty of fraud" to an internet blog. An attempt was made to include information that an individual was described in a certain way, which could be seen as negative, in one or more mainstream newspaper comment pieces. That information was properly attributed, rather than being included on the WP page as if it were a statement of fact. As far as I know there are no legal proceedings in hand against either paper on account of the columns. Let's take an equivalent example from a current and more high profile situation - would it be a BLP violation to include in the Barack Obama/Sarah Palin articles that "he/she has been described by in the Washington Post as lacking the necessary experience to be President/Vice-President"? In my view it would be pretty hard to make that claim. --] (]) 09:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
:I'm wondering why the numerous accusations that have been made against Charles Enderlin and Jamal al-Durrah by various POV-pushers have been ignored. I got involved in this mess in the first place because of the chronic BLP violations that were going on without any remedy. In the case of Enderlin, it's far more of a pressing concern than anything that might have been said about Shahaf - might I remind you all that the accusations against Enderlin are the subject of ongoing libel litigation? -- ] (]) 22:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


Voting is now open for the ] ] and ] awards for 2024! The top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Cast your votes ] and ] respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2024. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via ] (]) 23:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
== ] ==
<!-- Message sent by User:Hawkeye7@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Military_history/Members/Active&oldid=1259903100 -->


== Administrators' newsletter – December 2024 ==
Fine, feel free to rescind the topic ban. Because in that case the only realistic options I can see are (a) to restore Moreschi's block, or (b) as I said, to assign a mentor. Are you volunteering? <b>]</b> 19:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


] from the past month (November 2024).
Thanks for riding roughshod over that topic ban, despite the consensus at ANI that this is a tendentious editor. From now on, I shall expect you to be watching all of this editor's work, and reverting all of his problematic edits. <b>]</b> 22:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
: Black Kite, FYI, you cannot just issue a no-notice topic ban, on your say-so. Topic bans need either ] (which does not apply to this situation), or a clear community consensus. Even if there was an ArbCom case, then it would still require a formal warning to the user beforehand, and then logging the ban to the ArbCom case page. And if the ban was approved by community consensus, then you need to diff the proof of the discussion to the user's talkpage. As near as I can tell, you did none of these things. Also, the main problem that I have with Moreschi's block, is that he issued a 3-month block against a longtime contributor, without ever posting a single warning to the contributor's talkpage, ''and even though Moreschi was actively editing in the same topic area.'' Now, I'm willing to keep an eye on Dark Tea's edits, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to be following along behind them and reverting, especially since I am not familiar with the topic area. I will, however, be interested to see if editors who ''are'' familiar with the topic area, can provide specific proof of policy violations. What exactly did Dark Tea do? Did he add unsourced information? Use unreliable sources? Misinterpret information from reliable sources? Delete citations for no good reason? Edit an article in violation of talkpage consensus? Ignore the results of an RfC? Engage in edit wars? If so, please provide proof, as I'd be happy to take a look at it. --]]] 22:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
:: So let me get this right - you unilaterally revoked that topic ban despite (a) not being aware of the problematic nature of his edits (b) clearly not having read the ANI thread, with its multiple example diffs, and (c) not being willing to revert his problematic edits? Thanks for that. I'd suggest you go and read the ANI thread now. <b>]</b> 22:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
::: I've read every single diff provided at ], and I'm not seeing the problem. I do see cases where Dark Tea's writing style and formatting could be better, but I saw nothing blockworthy. Instead I saw Dark Tea being scrupulous about sourcing additions, and being equally careful about removing unsourced information. But, while looking deeper into this situation, here are some diffs that I ''did'' find, which are looking like abuse of administrator access: At ], Moreschi came in on September 11 and did some copyediting, including deletion of a large chunk of the article, including deleting many citations to what appear to be reliable sources. An hour later, Dark Tea reverted Moreschi. A half-hour later, Moreschi reverted Dark Tea. One minute later, Moreschi blocked Dark Tea for three months. This is exactly what administrators are told ''not'' to do. Administrators simply should not be using administrator tools in situations where they are personally involved, and especially not to gain the advantage in a content dispute. Moreschi blocked an established contributor, with not a single warning to that user's talkpage. So, Black Kite, if you'd like to be indignant about something, you might want to start with Moreschi's actions, not those of Dark Tea. --]]] 00:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
:::: I am disinterested in Moreschi's actions here; my only concern is to try and prevent Dark Tea degrading any more of our articles, something which I would have though you would also have an interest in. If you seriously can't see the problematic nature of Dark Tea's edits - repeatedly adding confused commentary and theories, and spurious/irrelevant material, often with a dash of synthesis of quotations and sources - then I would suggest that you let others deal with this. ], linked from that ANI thread, is useful as a basis of understanding for the scope and depth of the problem here; this quote is particularly relevant
::::*''"Misplaced Pages is now coming of age ... and we finally need an admin population that can recognize rambling nonsense when they see it, and feel obliged to help cleaning it up rather than throwing up obstacles for those who do on grounds of a muddle-headed idea of neutrality and political correctness."''
:::::<b>]</b> 08:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


]
== ] ==


] '''Administrator changes'''
Just to allay your , the BLP allegations were part of a complex series of semi-plausible (and not unamusing) vandalistic insertions by one user and some related IPs to a group of articles including this one. The give-away was the mention of the death penalty, abolished in Thanet many years ago. (One of those cases where subject knowledge came in handy, in short.) I have reverted back some way to the last apparently sensible version. ] (]) 21:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}


] '''Interface administrator changes'''
:Supplement: a nice little edit war is brewing up on that page now. I'm wondering whether it might not be an attempt to get these allegations back in under cover of a load of other nonsense. You were probably right to focus in on that. ] (]) 10:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
:] {{hlist|class=inline
:: Looks like the article is getting some rapid expansion/cleanup, which is good. The editors are also focusing on using sources, which is excellent. My inclination is to stay out of it unless things get "stuck". I've got it added to my watchlist... If it looks like things get stalled and an admin's presence would be helpful, let me know. --]]] 17:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
|]
|]
}}
:] ]


] '''CheckUser changes'''
== Wikistalking and genuinely disruptive editing. ==
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
Elonka. drive-by intervention, quite apart from suggesting that you are now following me around this place, was incredibly unhelpful. You have merely given encouragement to an editor who is is wandering through articles here deleting vast amounts of usually well sourced content in areas where he has absolutely no understanding of the issues at hand. I had suggested that what they were doing was close to vandalism (not vandalism per se) as a kind of informal warning to them, and you completely undermined that without even looking into the nature of the problem. Within an hour of your talk page post, that editor - who until that point had at least been held back and been engaged with great patience on the talk page - proceeded to the article with a series of 35 edits, mostly deletions of whole paragraphs and sections. Within ten minutes of finishing there, he moved on to another article and deleted in one edit. Admittedly the second page did have some citation issues, but this was clear-cut vandalism. Increasingly your actions as an admin seem to be more damaging than helpful. Not content with unilaterally maintaining what is now a perfectly stable page under continued extraordinary restrictions, without any attempt that I could see to consult any other, non-involved editors or admins (which could now last for as long as 6 months - unprecedented surely for an article that is not itself as an article generating off-wikipedia problems), you are now facilitating vandalism to other parts of the encyclopedia. Despite what you may think of my editing, most of what I do here is actually all about preventing this kind of damage, upholding WP policy and ensuring articles avoid glaring imbalance (when compared to reliable sources out in the real world). Perhaps you could assume good faith a little more? Thank you --] (]) 09:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
* Following ], the ] has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the ] within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity.
:Nickhh, I have sympathy for the fact that you feel that you are dealing with a POV-pusher. There are ], but calling them a vandal is not one of them. See ]. Instead, the most effective thing that you can do, is to prove, with diffs, that the alleged POV pusher is editing against consensus. Let me try and explain how things look to an intervening admin: When an admin comes in to a dispute and just sees two editors yelling at each other and both accusing each other of POV pushing, it's often difficult for the admin to tell who's in the "right" and who's in the "wrong". Especially when the truth is usually somewhere in the middle. Please also keep in mind that just because you're extremely familiar with another editor's contrib history, doesn't mean that an admin will be. An admin often arrives at a conflict, and sees editors saying things like, "Editor X is obviously a POV-pushing vandal! Just read their last 2,000 edits and you'll see what I mean!" But sorry, most admins just don't have time to spend hours researching every potential problem editor. To get an idea of how difficult this is, go to ], pick an edit war thread at random that you know nothing about, and try to come up to speed rapidly and figure out what should be done. I think you'll quickly see that it's very difficult to wade into a topic area that you know very little about, with editor names that you don't recognize, articles you've never read, and sources that you're not familiar with, and try to figure out where "neutrality" is. That's why in many of these cases, admins simply protect the page and move on, rather than trying to sort out who's doing what.
* Following a ], a new speedy deletion criterion, ], has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.


] '''Technical news'''
:Don't get me wrong: Most admins ''are'' open to taking administrative action on POV pushers, but for best results, you need to try and make their jobs as easy as possible, rather than requiring them to go trawling through everyone's contribs. Specific things that I personally like to see are actual ]. For example:
* Technical volunteers can now register for the ], which will take place in Istanbul, Turkey. is open from November 12 to December 10, 2024.
:* A diff of talkpage consensus, and a diff of the editor doing something which violated that consensus. Especially if such consensus is the result of an RfC.
:* A diff of an editor inserting unsourced (and plausibly false) information
:* A diff of an editor inserting apparently sourced information, that in actuality doesn't match up with the source that they're citing
:* A diff of an editor removing citations to reliable sources
:* A diff of an editor adding citations to (clearly) ''un''reliable sources
:* Diffs of an edit war (though remember, it takes two to edit war)
:* Diffs of an editor repeatedly inserting BLP-violating information
:* Diffs of an editor being uncivil, or commenting on contributors at an article talkpage, instead on engaging in good faith discussion about the article content.


] '''Arbitration'''
:I took a look at the diffs you provided, and have cautioned Raggz about page blanking. If there are further issues, or if you have diffs of anything else from the above list, let me know and I assure you that I'll take a look. Otherwise, I recommend proceeding to another step of ], such as filing an article ], requesting ], or posting for help at a relevant noticeboard. Then once you've got RfC results, you may be able to provide a diff that will match that first bullet point I mentioned. Hope that helps, --]]] 20:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
* The arbitration case '']'' (formerly titled '']'') has been closed.
* An arbitration case titled '']'' has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 14 December.


----
::I'd thought about doing something more formal and detailed, but going to ] or wherever and compiling diffs seemed a very cumbersome way of dealing with something that was so obviously problematic (I honestly wouldn't have known where to start detailing all the problems anyway). I was hoping that rational debate and occasional blunt speaking, along with other editors coming in to reinforce the point, would solve the problem. I appreciate that admins or other editors casually coming across an apparent dispute often won't see quite how objectively off the wall one side of the argument is, but that's kind of my point of course, especially when that intervening editor seems to have a negative view of one the editors involved. --] (]) 23:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
{{center|{{flatlist|
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 16:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1259680487 -->
== ] of ] ==
]


The article ] has been ]&#32;because of the following concern:
== Clarified recall parameters? ==
<blockquote>'''I see no evidence of notability per NCORP.'''</blockquote>


While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].
I noticed you're still in ]. Have you considered posting a clearer recall criteria, or removing yourself from the category? –<font face="Verdana">] (])</font> 20:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

: Yes, I am planning to stay in the category, but update my recall criteria. Still wordsmithing off-wiki though. --]]] 20:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
::cheers, –<font face="Verdana">] (])</font> 20:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Sorry, Elonka, I've probably already mentioned this to you, but just in case I haven't: I think it's a good idea to look at ] for ideas. <span style="color:Purple; font-size:1.5em;">☺</span> ] (]) 21:58, 15 September 2008 (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 --> ] (]) 22:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::: Yes, I'm familiar with Lar's criteria. However, I find them far too complicated, and most other admins that I have spoken to about it, agree. What I'd like to end up with is something fairly simple and easy to understand, which does allow the community to ask for resignation if an admin becomes a problem, but doesn't allow frivolous requests. Because of the areas where I am participating in ArbCom enforcement, it's been made clear to me that some groups of editors will stop at nothing to get me out of "their" topic area. I'm not crazy about the idea of having to undergo a recall request or RfC each time I implement a discretionary sanction.

== CIR issue with editor you warned once for lack of sources ==

See https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Proudbharati huge number of terrible changes, done in haste. ] ] 11:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

:Ignore, I CIR blocked. ] ] 12:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

== Administrators' newsletter – January 2025 ==

] from the past month (December 2024).

<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">

] '''Administrator changes'''
:] ]
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}

] '''CheckUser changes'''
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] ]
:] ]

</div>
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
]

] '''Oversight changes'''
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] ]


</div>
:::: What I'm leaning towards is a set of recall criteria which require proof that an admin has repeatedly misused admin tools. For example, if an admin has repeatedly deleted articles where the deletions were overturned at DRV, or blocked editors where the blocks were overturned at ANI, or an admin issued ArbCom discretionary sanctions and those sanctions were repeatedly overturned on appeal, then it would be reasonable to assume that the community might have concerns as to whether or not that admin should continue to maintain administrator access, and a recall might be legitimate. But in a case where an administrator has ''not'' abused tools or access, a recall should probably not be possible. So, I'm looking through various other administrators' ], and thinking hard about the entire situation, and trying to decide what to write up for my own criteria. --]]] 22:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
</div>
:::::You might look at ] and ] which have some twists other methods don't have. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 22:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::: Thanks! There's definitely some food for thought there... :) --]]] 22:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::For example, if an admin deletes a large number of articles, they should be able to have a certain small proportion of them overturned at DRV without being considered abusing the tools (and if they delete a very large number of articles, that could work out to a large number of DRV overturns). If an admin deletes only a small number of articles, they should be allowed to make some mistakes as someone relatively inexperienced at deletion.
:::::::Re complicated procedures: as in legal documents, each complexity is there for a reason. If you leave them out, you have to be prepared to face situations that may arise without the benefit of procedures that were well-designed for those particular situations. <span style="color:Red; font-size:1.5em;">☺</span> ] (]) 01:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
== Complaint against Elontra at the Administrators Board ==
* Following ], ] was adopted as a ].
* A ] is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
] '''Technical news'''
* The Nuke feature also now ] to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.


] '''Arbitration'''
I regret that this was necessary. My issues are listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Improper_and_unhelpful_intervention_by_Administrator_Elonka ] (]) 22:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
* Following the ], the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: {{noping|CaptainEek}}, {{noping|Daniel}}, {{noping|Elli}}, {{noping|KrakatoaKatie}}, {{noping|Liz}}, {{noping|Primefac}}, {{noping|ScottishFinnishRadish}}, {{noping|Theleekycauldron}}, {{noping|Worm That Turned}}.
:This has been marked "resolved" by ] with ''"Complaint has no merit, editor is suitably warned."''. <span style="color:Orange; font-size:1.5em;">☺</span> ] (]) 23:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


] '''Miscellaneous'''
== Thanks for your Suggestions on dealing with disputes at the Clarence Thomas biography ==
* A ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ]


----
Wow, you seem to have a lot going on here. How exciting. I just wanted to thank you for your input. I read your suggestions and found them helpful. Before I read them I added two requests for editprotects, to alter false statements in the article (supported by verifiable sources like the government archive at the library of congress...) that have not been disputed on the talk page. Mostly I just wanted to thank you though, and also to let you know that I did an RFC. I think that's what's it's called. I know it's not KFC. Anyway, I'm not wearing a flak jacket, so I better head out... Good luck and have fun. Thanks again.(] (]) 01:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC))
{{center|{{flatlist|
Oops, so much for my RfC. I can't seem to get the formatting correct. (] (]) 03:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC))
* ]
: Thanks for the kind words. :) And yes, I'll take a look. Oh, and sorry about the RfC difficulties you've been having... We've been having discussions on making the bot a bit more user-friendly, but it's not quite there yet. Glad to see you got it figured out though. :) --]]] 06:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
* ]
* ]
}}}}
<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1266956718 -->

Latest revision as of 15:47, 5 January 2025

Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45


This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.


ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2024! The top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Cast your votes here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2024. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2024).

Administrator changes

added
readded
removed

Interface administrator changes

added
readded Pppery

CheckUser changes

readded

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Games, Learning & Society Conference

Notice

The article Games, Learning & Society Conference has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I see no evidence of notability per NCORP.

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Drmies (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

CIR issue with editor you warned once for lack of sources

See https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Proudbharati huge number of terrible changes, done in haste. Doug Weller talk 11:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Ignore, I CIR blocked. Doug Weller talk 12:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).

Administrator changes

added Sennecaster
readded
removed

CheckUser changes

added
readded Worm That Turned
removed Ferret

Oversight changes

added
readded Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)