Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitextInline

Revision as of 20:41, 3 May 2010 editThe Wordsmith (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators15,541 editsm Reverted edits by The Wordsmith (talk) to last version by BozMo← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 15:48, 5 January 2025 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,138,451 edits →Administrators' newsletter – January 2025: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery
Line 2:		Line 2:
	{{User:Mindspillage/userpages}}		{{User:Mindspillage/userpages}}
	<br/>		<br/>
	My real name is Larry Pieniazek and I like ](r) Brand building elements. Feel free to mail me with comments or concerns if you don't want to post.		My real name is Larry Pieniazek and I like ](r) Brand building elements. Feel free to mail me with comments or concerns if you don't want to post. As a note, I rarely get involved in anything any more, I confine my activity at WMF projects to a little light editing here and there, so your email is most likely to get a response on your talk page that I got it and I'm not going to do anything about it.
	* Here about a ] that's persistently getting vandalized and you want me to ] it? Leave a note below, (] is no longer in use) and I or one of my ]s will get it.		* Here about a ] that's persistently getting vandalized and you want me to ] it? Leave a note below, (] is no longer in use) and I or one of my ]s will get it.
Line 23:		Line 23:
	{{usertalkheader|noarchive=yes|search=yes|arpol=no|wp=no|disclaimer=yes}}		{{usertalkheader|noarchive=yes|search=yes|arpol=no|wp=no|disclaimer=yes}}
	== Following up on concerns about ]'s use of citations ==
	Please see . I'm not sure why this couldn't have been dealt with at ANI, but since it wasn't I'm following up with an RFC/U as suggested. I have Ash of my intention to file this, for what it's worth. Let me know if you have any comments or additions (feel free to just make changes). I'll submit it in the next day or so, depending on the feedback I receive. Thanks. ] (]) 18:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
	:The link Dc has provided you where he states he "told Ash of his intention to file" this is incorrect. Ash has not been properly advised of Dc's intent. ] (]) 21:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
	::Why, how helpful of you to turn up to point this out! What matters most is the notification itself, not who does it, so why don't you be even more helpful and go notify Ash yourself, whoever you are? ++]: ]/] 01:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::</your sarcasm>. ] (]) 05:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::Point stands nevertheless. Whoever you are. ++]: ]/] 15:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::::I didn't create the RfC and so it was not my responsibility to notify the subject...who, BTW, has been notified properly now. PS- Have you read ]? "While having a username has a lot of benefits, editing already existing pages without one is perfectly acceptable, and in fact, is very much welcome." ] (]) 17:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::::: We welcome editing by IPs. IF they don't have an account. If they do, then they ought to use their account so we have proper context. If you have an issue with how DC set up the RfC why bring it to me? I find your contributions here on my page less than helpful, and not particularly welcome either, although I have an open door policy under which I don't remove comments merely because I find them unhelpful. Your edits show essentially no article space editing, which is what that IP policy is intended to foster. If you want to participate in WikiPolitics (which appears to be the sole area of interest) and you want my respect or acknowledgement, be a mensch, don't use an IP to hide. ++]: ]/] 19:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
			== Administrators' newsletter – January 2023 ==
	Lar, I doubt ] will come as much of a surprise... ] (]) 18:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
	:Interesting. ++]: ]/] 19:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
			] from the past month (December 2022).
	== My recent actions and comments regarding WMC ==
			<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
	<!--Of course it is humour (or humor) - which is why I am saving this before commencing the rest of my comment... although there is a lesson at the end.-->
			<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
	You might have wondered about my motivation for acting in the manner I am, so I am laying my cards on the table. I intend to be considered by the majority of reviewers as someone acting firmly but, within a reasonable definition, fairly in respect of WMC. Once this reputation is firmly established among all but a few editors, all of whom are noted to usually speak and act in accordance to WMC's own inclinations re CC, I can then abuse my flags to remove WMC (a very well informed contributor to the subject of AGW) from the subject area for a minor infraction <small>(or simply make one up)</small> and then suggest that the reaction is typical of that on the previous many instances where I have acted appropriately. It is important that my recent efforts appear both to be fair, and habitually decried as nonconstructive or biased by certain inclined parties for this to work.
			] '''Administrator changes'''
	WMC has been reacting appropriately, and I must say I am disappointed that you seem to have missed this strategy. Perhaps I should have emailed you before setting out on this strategy. Nevermind - I suppose I can trust you to keep this to yourself. ] (]) 21:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC) <!-- I am aware Lar has very many page watchers.-->
			:] {{hlist|class=inline
			|]
			|]
			}}
			:] ]
			:] {{hlist|class=inline
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			}}
			] '''Interface administrator changes'''
	:Indeed I did miss that missive. Not to worry, though, will know. Tis a cunning plot. ++]: ]/] 22:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
			:] ]
			</div>
			<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
			]
	::How will anybody find this out? LHVU has hacked all DNS servers to point to a copy of Misplaced Pages. Only you can see this text! <!-- And I live in an appropriate time zone --> --] (]) 22:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
			] '''CheckUser changes'''
	Is LHVU holidaying in the East? ++]: ]/] 03:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
			:] ]
	:I told you! Nobody can see this but us! --] (]) 17:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
			:] {{hlist|class=inline
	== Can you please semi-prot Hank Johnson? ==
			|]
			|]
			}}
			] '''Oversighter changes'''
			:] {{hlist|class=inline
			|]
			|]
			}}
			:] {{hlist|class=inline
			|]
			|]
			}}
			</div>
	A lot of blogs are talking about a really stupid comment he made regarding Guam, and while there is video it is possible this is simply a well-executed April Fool's joke. I've explained in more detail on the talk page there. Cheers, ] (]) 19:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
			</div>
			] '''Guideline and policy news'''
	:What specific edits are vandalistic? Please provide diffs. I'm not going to get involved in a content related matter regarding this article. ++]: ]/] 20:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
			*] ] (transwikied articles) has been repealed following an ].
			] '''Arbitration'''
	::Oh it has already been semi-protected (one of the reasons I asked here was because I knew it was watched so much). The main problem is that a lot of the edits about (well worth the watch if you haven't seen it) were being sourced to blogs. ] (]) 22:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
			* Following the ], the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: {{Noping|Barkeep49}}, {{Noping|CaptainEek}}, {{Noping|GeneralNotability}}, {{Noping|Guerillero}}, {{Noping|L235}}, {{Noping|Moneytrees}}, {{Noping|Primefac}}, {{Noping|SilkTork}}.
			* The ] has ] with many changes to the ] procedure including a change of the name to "contentious topics". The changes are being implemented over the coming month.
			* The arbitration case '']'' has been closed.
			] '''Miscellaneous'''
	== Community sanctions ==
			* Voting for the ] has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
			* '''Tech tip''': You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using which won the Newcomer award in the recent ].
			----
			{{center|{{flatlist|
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			}}}}
			<!--
			-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 01:09, 6 January 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=1131844294 -->
			== Administrators' newsletter – February 2023 ==
	You're correct in that its my first visit to this sanctions page; I've been active with a few others, IIRC all were ArbCom sanctions, except for the Sarah Palin probation. There seems to be a new level of failing to AGF that admins in these areas are doing their best for Misplaced Pages, and their utmost to examine evidence given and behavior of involved parties and be fair to all concerned. I also contributed to an instance on ] (#Gatoclass) and the editor who filed first demanded I produce difs to support my view; when I replied my view was based on examining the difs and contribs in the case, s/he implied directly that I had not "actually look into contributions" and demanded I "provid differences to support the verdict" - and I saw similar complaints on MastCell's talk page, where demands were made of him that he "produce difs" to support his view. This is backwards-think; its not up to the 'judge', so to speak, to provide the evidence, but to examine and weigh it. When did this start, and have you any thoughts on how to educate and counter this trend? Or am I overly concerned with a couple of new editors who don't understand the process, and seeing a trend where there is none?
			] from the past month (January 2023).
	Btw, I do appreciate the welcome to the community sanctions, and will continue to try to help there when I can. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 15:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
			{{Col-begin}}
	:I think providing diffs is a good practice, to be encouraged, but I agree with you that it's not up to the admin being asked to act, it's up to the request initiator. ++]: ]/] 21:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
			{{Col-2}}
			] '''Administrator changes'''
	::You do realize that's not what I was asking about, right? ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 11:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
			:] ]
			:] {{hlist|class=inline
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			}}
			{{Col-2}}
	::: I think you were asking if this practice, which we both agree is bad, is an aberration or a new trend, and if the latter, how to counteract it. I'm not sure when it started exactly but I don't think it's been around all that long. I hope it's an aberration, but sometimes aberrations become accepted practice if not nipped. I'm not quite sure how to counteract it other than by saying "no, that's not how things are done". ++]: ]/] 11:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
			]
	:::: Thank you, yes. I had hoped you'd have a brighter idea than mine, but at least we agree on the one approach. :-/ ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 13:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
			] '''CheckUser changes'''
	== Is it possible? ==
			:] {{hlist|class=inline
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			}}
			] '''Oversighter changes'''
	To indefinitely semi-protect ? It is clear as day that the IP's, likely from free hotspots he found somewhere, are the topic banned user known as "Mantamoreland." ] (]) 18:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
			:] {{hlist|class=inline
	:Have you asked at ] ? You also might consider filing an ] to have a CU look into the matter. ++]: ]/] 20:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			}}
			{{Col-end}}
	::I hadn't heard of RFPP before, but I don't think the issue is one of sockpuppets so much (it may be I haven't looked too much into the history), but rather he is using IPs for a few edits that are pointless (and probably harmful) to ban. ] (]) 21:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
	::: I think you'll want to take this to the ArbCom enforcement board maybe? I'm reducing my current involvement to a few limited areas. ++]: ]/] 21:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
			] '''Guideline and policy news'''
	::::Okay, I'll look into that, thanks. ] (]) 22:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
			*Following ], the ] now requires that prior written consent be gained from the ] to mark a block as only appealable to the committee.
			*Following ], consensus has been found to impose the ] over the topic areas of ] and ].
			] '''Technical news'''
	== Sticky prods ==
			* The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Misplaced Pages.
			] '''Arbitration'''
	] Hi ''{{PAGENAME}}'''! You participated earlier in the ]. The sticky prods are now in use, but there are still a few ].<br>There are now a few ] on the table to conclude the process. I encourage your input, whatever it might be. Thanks. --] (]) 07:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
			*The arbitration case '']'' has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 24 February 2023.
	:Thanks for the notice, but with SlimVirgin, Crum375 AND Jayjg involved... I think I'll pass for now. I've got enough stress in my life as it is. ++]: ]/] 11:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
			*In December, the ] was adopted which replaces the ]. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial ]. There is ] of the changes and ] for the new procedure. The arbitration clerk team are taking suggestions, concerns, and unresolved questions about this new system at ].
			] '''Miscellaneous'''
			*Voting in the ] will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The ] of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically to vote.
			* Voting in the ] will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
			*'''Tech tip''': ] is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.
			----
	== Assumes facts not in evidence ==
			{{center|{{flatlist|
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			}}}}
			<!--
			-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 01:38, 2 February 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=1136849481 -->
			== Administrators' newsletter – March 2023 ==
	This is a statement that you shouldn't be using - especially not with comments like the following diffs, note that it is pure coincidence that this is mostly from a WMC case - i took comments from your contribution list one by one:
	* (no evidence of poisoning environment)
	* (no evidence of "hindering that process more than helping it")
	* (no evidence of any group thinking anything)
	* (no evindence given for baiting ''at all'', or even statements about what Mark was (attempted?) to be baited into)
	While people can hold (and do) many different opinions about the validity or the veracity of the above comments - they all fall into the "assumes facts not in evidence" category. --] (]) 12:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
	:Suffice it to say for now I disagree. More later. ++]: ]/] 17:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
	::On second thought I'm not sure it's a good use of my time to rebut someone that apparently doesn't admit they are wrong. Why bother? The science club will deny there is a problem, regardless of what you do or say, apparently. And that's a big part of the problem, how they close ranks and defend at all costs. ++]: ]/] 00:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::Throwing accusations of bad faith on top. Is not really helping is it? --] (]) 13:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
			] from the past month (February 2023).
	== Liberal Semi ==
			{{Col-begin}}
	Hello Lar, I was wondering if you might be interested in redeploying your Liberal Semi criteria as an addition to the Protection Policy? The process you used may be inactive, but I think the idea of it is logically sound. Since it seems we're never getting flaggedrevs, it might be a worthwhile stopgap measure. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 13:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
			{{Col-2}}
	:Can you elaborate? I'd love to see the criteria we were using at LS added to the protection policy but I wasn't sure that was workable... it was enough that they were within discretion. I'm game though. ++]: ]/] 18:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
	::I wouldn't have thought it was workable either, and before now it probably wasn't. In fact, not too long ago, I hated the liberal semi idea. However, with mounting frustration over us not having FP/PR, as well as the remnants of the BLP movement's momentum, I think we would probably have a reasonable shot. I'll look into drafting a proposal to make it happen. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 18:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
			] '''Administrator changes'''
	== Rollback? ==
			:] ]
			:] {{hlist|class=inline
			|]
			|] (])
			}}
			{{Col-2}}
	Hi mate, i have been doing some recent change patrol and came across a tool called huggle whic hmakes life easier. But it says i need something called rollback? What is that and am i allowed to have it? ] (]) 14:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
	:See ] for more information. Typically rollback is granted to non admin users who have a good history of sound edits and of not edit warring, because it is a tool that can be misused to make edit warring easier. There is a page to apply, or you can ask an admin directly, as you apparently are doing here. (see ] for more specifics) Based on your prior history I'm not sure I'd grant rollback to you at this time, I'm afraid. ++]: ]/] 18:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
	::No worrys mate, i did find that request page and did request :-) i suspect they will also say no lol, a well i`ll have to continue to do it the old fashioned way, thanks ] (]) 18:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
			]
	== The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010) ==
	The ''']''' of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.<br /><small>This has been an automated delivery by ] (]) 22:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)</small>
			] '''CheckUser changes'''
	== Macai; discussion before CC topic bans? ==
			:] ]
			] '''Oversighter changes'''
	You are absolutely correct at the ] page that I was remiss in not ensuring that my explanation was posted. It might be buried in the sections above, but I have started a discussion at ] regarding whether we should encourage or require that lengthy sanctions be discussed at that page. Personally I could go either way so long as we are clear about it, but I would really like to hear what others have to say. Regards, - ] <small>(])</small> 04:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
			:] ]
	:I think you should opine again. I feel rather the only enforcement admin there, beleaguered by a bunch of non admins and admins who don't enforce, at least not at that page. ++]: ]/] 23:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
	:: Last time I read through that discussion this afternoon it seemed to have turned into precisely my least favorite type of conversation, full of posturing, hard lines, and people talking past each other (not to mention the classic signal/noise problem). I will go see if I can refocus a bit on the issue of long term sanctions being placed before the moot before or after being enacted, but it is late here and my brain might abandon me before I can write something cogent. I think I can definitely see the logic at least to calling in a sanity check in cases where time is not of the essence, or even encouraging discussion if that will make the probation run more smoothly. On an unrelated note, I think that that section title might be evidence that I need to hang around with more native English speakers. - ] <small>(])</small> 04:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
	::: Pretty apt summary. Which is why I think hearing from more admins that actually work there might be good. As for the subject line, I was tempted to change the word order but I figured it would break a fair number of links. Maybe I should anyway. For the record, I was not aware you were not a native English speaker, your phrasing and word choice surely don't give such away. ++]: ]/] 05:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::: Feel free to change it - {{tl|anchor}} will even preserve section links (though I suspect setting the HTML id= directly might be kinder on the servers). I made a stab at ]; maybe we can close down that thread soon.
	:::: And thank you, but I actually am a native English speaker :). I work in physics, though, and spend a fair bit of time in the minority in that regard. This leads me to pick up somewhat idiosyncratic speech patterns sometimes, such as a tendency to arrange word order by importance instead of grammar or asking "what means foo". - ] <small>(])</small> 16:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
			{{Col-end}}
	If I am any judge of character, you are far too smart to make a ] of ... How can we de-escalate this? I really do not see the point to most of the verbiage over at that talk page over the last few days, and it is starting to generate bad blood. I am reticent, though, to attempt to close down discussion among long term reasonable editors - do you have any advice? Would an appeal to reason actually do any good in a thread like that, or should I just let it burn itself out and take to heart smidgens of solid advice concealed in the drama? - ] <small>(])</small> 23:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
	:I'm not making a point. I think talking first works better. But I am very willing to try not talking first and seeing how well it works. That's not making a point, that's experimenting. Because maybe I'm wrong! Who knows. Those accusing me of ] seem to be... well... not very collegial. You'd think they had already prejudged that it wasn't going to work. ++]: ]/] 23:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
	:: My point precisely :). But seriously - if that discussion were on an article talk page I would already have requested people to take their drama-llama elsewhere. I am not posting here in some back-handed attempt to make it out that you are the problem or the instigator or anything like that. It simply pains me to see that level of unlevelheadedness on a discussion page devoted to calming troubled waters (yes, this is part of why I mostly avoid ArbCom); you are quite generally thoughtful and clueful, and I genuinely do not know what I can do to nudge that page back towards collegial collaboration mode. Ah well, I am out for the night now anyway - good luck. - ] <small>(])</small> 23:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
	::: Well another approach might be to not even announce, just start blocking people that are bringing more heat than light to the enforcement page and see what happens. It's tempting. But no. Have fun. ++]: ]/] 23:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
			] '''Guideline and policy news'''
	==I don't know whether this is getting through to you==
			*Following a ], ] (useless non-media files) has been deprecated.
	There is absolutely no way in which an action by an administrator can be limited by the prior existence of the probation. If you want a talking shop, that's fine, but the talking shop cannot pre-empt the power of an administrator to take action on the basis of the probation. Subsequent discussion of the action is appropriate, but obviously you wouldn't want to stop administrators taking what they regard as appropriate action, as 2over0 believes he did.
			*Following a ], the Portal CSD criteria (] (portal subject to CSD as an article) and ] (underpopulated portal)) have been deprecated.
			*A ] is open to discuss making the ] for the ] process a guideline.
			] '''Technical news'''
	I thought at first that you were being ambivalent about this, then I thought you had definitively affirmed the probation, and then I found that you had apparently said it was subject to evolution on the page (which would be okay, though it would have been nice to know in advance that what we were agreeing to was in fact, the reverse of what we thought we were agreeing to--to wit, a reduction in administrative discretion under the guise of an express enhancement of administrative discretion).
			* The results of the ] have been ].
			] '''Arbitration'''
	I think you're bobbing around and looking for tactical advantage on this one. I have the tactical advantage that I'm not. This won't work. It's too ridiculously bureaucratic. --] 22:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
			* ] of the ] has ].
			* The proposed decision for the ] case is expected 7 March 2023.
			* A case related to the ] is expected to be opened soon.
			] '''Miscellaneous'''
	:I disagree and I'm not sure where to even start but here goes. The status quo at a page is what is done at that page. You can't deny that the way the page operates is that we ''mostly'' talk first. The log of enforcement actions proves it. Maybe you think it's wrong. Maybe it is against how other pages do it. But it's how it's done on that page. And it works well enough that I'm not going to push for change in the status quo. You can if you want. You'll need to seek consensus for it though. (subject of course that local consensus doesn't override global once you get the global consensus). Maybe I'm dense. Maybe you and KC are, dunno. Maybe we're actually agreeing and don't know it. ++]: ]/] 23:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
			* The 2023 appointees for the ] are ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and ] as regular members and ] as advisory members.
			* Following the ], the following editors have been appointed as stewards: ], ], and ].
			* The ] has started, which ] a {{tq|roposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing}}. Feedback is being accepted until 24 April 2023.
			----
	=== 220 questions, 221 questions, whatever it takes ===
			{{center|{{flatlist|
	You're talking at cross purposes here. Let me try a new approach - bear with me, I think this is worth trying, if you'll be patient and go with me for a bit:]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 16:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			}}}}
			<!--
			-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 13:19, 1 March 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=1142235595 -->
			== Administrators' newsletter – April 2023 ==
	OK, as long as you answer my questions too. Minus snark. I don't like being condescended to. ++]: ]/] 18:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
	:Try this first. I'm thinking we need to start with Shared Ground first. Tiny increments. If it doesn't work, then I'll try your attempt. Fair enough? ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 20:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
	::Nope. One question for one question, or I don't want to play your game. I've answered one, it's your turn. ++]: ]/] 21:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
	My god, what are you, five? No, I was going to try to start with common ground and lead up to the point where views diverged, as it seems obvious to me you simply do not understand what TS and I are saying, since your arguments simply do not apply. But this bullshit of "I won't take your help unless you jump through my hoops" is just too juvenile and silly to even contemplate. I tried; you wanted to play games. I'm done. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 17:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
	:So I won't play on your terms? Sorry, but that is how it is. This is not a matter of my needing your "help" with anything, it's a matter of you being confused and intransigent, and apparently having too much invested in being right. Whatever. It seems to be a defining characteristic of your interaction with me, that you are always trying to lecture me about something, from a position of perceived moral superiority, rather than treating me as an equal. Very immature of you. You don't get to come in and dictate terms of how to discuss things and your continuing condescension is noted. Go try to talk down to someone else, it won't wash with me. Come back when you're ready to collegially and civilly discuss matters rather than lecture. Or don't come back at all. Because your unwillingness to answer reasonable questions proves that you're not interested in discussion. ++]: ]/] 18:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
	You are wrong about my intent, my feelings, and my opinions. You are also quite wrong about my confusion; I am not confused. You are in error about my "playing" - I was in all sincerity attempting to help resolve what seems to be a complete failure to communicate. I was not in any way, ever, "talking down" to you nor "playing games". You want to stay utterly wrong and clueless about what TS and I were talking ab out; your choice. I tried. Let me know if you prefer not to remain ignorant by choice and will try to explain again. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 00:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
	:I calls them as I see them. I see someone quite stubborn and someone not really interested in discussion, just lecturing. Maybe that's not you, but it's the perception I get. I look back at the witch hunt thing a few months back... same thing. You hector but you don't listen. Maybe that's not you, but it's the perception I get. ++]: ]/] 02:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
	::I think you are misinterpreting my passionate desire to be clear, which leads to verbosity and sometimes very detailed explanations, as being lecturing or condescending.
	::And now I *am* confused: what are you talking about, "witch hunts"? ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 06:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::Here you go: ] You were wrong then, and no amount of explanation would get you (or Durova) to stop hectoring me. So why bother? ++]: ]/] 14:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
	You must be joking. I cannot believe you are actually linking to the one place where Durova and I agreed in the last three years; namely, where your extreme ignorance and belligerent and bellicose arguing against every historian ever, that somehow you didn't say what you said. That's something I'd think you'd be embarrassed to link to, Lar, not use as some kind of "proof" of anything. Although now that you've reminded me of it, I now do recall that you get so bullheaded that no one can talk to you, and claearly this is one of those times. I am now done with this. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 20:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
	:You were wrong then, and no amount of explanation would get you (or Durova) to stop hectoring me. Sorry if you're too bullheaded to see it. As for being "too embarrassed" to link to it. I'm not. But you should be. Not your finest hour. ++]: ]/] 23:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
			] from the past month (March 2023).
	====KC's questions====
	* Lar, do you agree that Admins can block? (]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 16:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC) )
	** Yes. ++]: ]/] 18:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
	* Do you agree that Admins can block without discussion (although they should probably discuss if a block is likely to be controversial)?
			{{Col-begin}}
	==== Lar's questions====
			{{Col-2}}
	*KC, do you agree that the page, as it is now, and as it has been for at least the last three months, is "mostly" talk first and block later? ++]: ]/] 18:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
	**Comment from Bozmo: as for me I agree but think this is unquestionable a bad thing. Another comment from BozMo: you have said (fairly reasonably) that you will block WMC if he say septic again. So you do accept a certain level of appropriateness in admins making blocks relative to climate change without talking it to death. So what is TS complaining about I missed the first diff? --] ] 07:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
	*** Please repeat that at the talk page because it's an important perspective. As for the septic thing, I'm trying it on for size, to see how it would be not to do things the way we have been. So far it's going rather poorly, I think. But perhaps my mistake was in even announcing intentions. ++]: ]/] 18:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
			] '''Administrator changes'''
	== What is WMC afraid of? ==
			:] ]
			:] ]
			{{Col-2}}
	See, for example removal. Charming. ++]: ]/] 00:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
	:Why should he be "afraid" - as opposed to simply not wanting your input? Methinks you are getting a bit too personal on this issue. --] (]) 01:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
	::Those who sweep away some, but not all, discussion on a topic usually are afraid of something. It's much more convenient when everyone's singing from the same songsheet. Methinks you are getting a bit too personal on this issue. Have been for a while, actually. ++]: ]/] 02:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::The keyword in your sentence is "usually", the contradiction is your inference is certainty. Or in more plain words: Jumping to conclusions. --] (]) 04:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::The small fraction remaining is usually (there's that word again) explained by ''bad manners''. As for the fraction of the fraction, dunno. Obstinacy? ++]: ]/] 14:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
			]
	It seems you've reflected poorly on yourself. Or at least that's what I heard he said she said. lol. ] (]) 05:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
			] '''CheckUser changes'''
	:That's pretty typical of his behavior (I've experienced the same thing and watched it occur to others). Luckily for us all wikipedia welcomes <s>everyone</s> people to work in this lovely collaborative environment. FYI Lar I'm thinking of filing a request for enforcement against you but I'm not sure if it would violate my probation sanctions. ] (]) 09:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
			:] ]
	::Eh? Typical of the behavior of which person? As for opening an enforcement request, if you feel you should, you should. ++]: ]/] 14:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::Typical of WMC's behavior. I was sort of joking about filing a RfE against you though (I expect one will be filed against you soon though by others). In reality I've been playing with the thought of challenging 2over0's topic ban since he didn't go through the proper channels and his evidence was rather weak and/or misrepresented (e.g. the first sentence of this response would've been used as evidence for a topic ban if I'd made it at the time), but I'm not sure if I should waste my time with the effort (I'm not getting paid for this crap!). ] (]) 19:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
			{{Col-end}}
			] '''Guideline and policy news'''
	We were having a quiet chat on my talk page. You weren't welcome to butt in. Meanwhile, there are unanswered questions for you on the sanctions talk page: you still haven't backed up your undue weight assertions ] (]) 13:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
			* A ] is open to discuss whether reports primarily involving ] should be referred to the ].
	:1) Noted. On the other hand all are welcome here and I have nothing to hide. I never remove comments individually, I have better manners than that. You, on the other hand?... actions speak louder than words. But your words speak pretty loudly.
	:2)Sure I have. Perhaps not to your satisfaction, but that's OK. Apparently nothing is ever to your satisfaction if it goes against what you yourself think, but if it agrees, almost anything is. That may be a false impression but that's the impression I get in looking over your interactions. ++]: ]/] 14:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
	:: Diffs are needed not vagueness ] (]) 14:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
	::: In your view. I feel I've supplied enough information in this particular case, although I do agree that in many cases, diffs are what is needed. ++]: ]/] 15:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::I too share your high ideals. I have never removed a comment on my own talkpage. Somtimes others have done so and I have not undone their revisions. However, I am getting increasingly alarmed by your highly personal commentary. I respect you but every time I see your edits in this area I get more worried that you are way too involved on a personal level. This is so very unhealthy that I am getting more and more inclined to take this further. I saw your crazy oppose on a recent RfA and I defended you from the backlash by immediately voting for you on the meta. However almost every comment I have seen from you in the climate change area of wikipedia has led me to reconsider my initial assessment of you as an editor. In my opinion your neutrality is completely blown. I do not wish to waste my time proving this and request you withdraw from the area. I am fairly sure you will ignore this request but that does not affect the fact that your credibility in the climate change area of wikipedia in my opinion is zero. ] (]) 09:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
			] '''Technical news'''
	== Mentorship? ==
			* 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'''
	Do you want to adopt mbz1? That might be one way of moving forwards, but be prepared to have people running to you fairly often. ] (]) 04:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
			* The '']'' case has been closed.
	:Mbz1 is already sort of a mentoree as Mbz1 comes to me from time to time with questions and concerns and requests for advice. So yes, I could. If that's a way forward. My track record with mentors is poor though. ++]: ]/] 04:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
			* A case about ] has been opened, with the first evidence phase closing 6 April 2023.
			----
	:::Thank you, Lar. The 48 hours block for for that edit that was made at AE appeal request simply to clarify some Misplaced Pages policy. There was not a single word said about conflict no matter how broadly constructed my ban was. I discussed Misplaced Pages policy only. If 48 hours block for that edit was justified, then I am really not sure what my ban is about, but I know I am getting very desperate, and thank you for your help. I assure you, if you are my mentor, and my ban is lifted you will not hear any complain about me.--] (]) 05:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
			{{center|{{flatlist|
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			}}}}
			<!--
			-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 17:11, 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 -->
			==Concern regarding ]==
	::It was just a thought, personally I think it is best if mbz1 simply stays away from I/P for awhile, I don't think anyone is worse off from it. The 48h block was for jumping unsolicited into an ARBPIA AE request right after being banned from I/P broadly construed, I think the block was justified and entirely avoidable if she had simply modified her watchlist or exercised some self-restraint. Sandstein has been getting a lot of flack from both sides so I think it is a good idea if more admins get involved in policing, as it were. ] (]) 04:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
			] Hello, Lar. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that ], a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months ], so if you wish to retain the page, please ] again&#32;or ] that it be moved to your userspace.
	::: That does seem to be how it is likely to come out, yes. My offer stands if things turn out differently. Thanks for suggesting it, regardless of what transpires. ++]: ]/] 02:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
			If the page has already been deleted, you can ] so you can continue working on it.
	== You may want to log... ==
			Thank you for your submission to Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 07:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
	.... at ]. And not that i'm contesting it (in fact i am for a general 1RR policy), but what exactly made you pick that particular article? It doesn't seem to have been in any serious problems for a bit - since most reverts have been vandal/anon reverts. --] (]) 18:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
	::I think I did log it, although maybe not quite right? (perhaps after you posted this?) It's hard to decide what order to do things in, do you log first or the sanction first? As to why that one, I thought that was the article that was in question, it seemed to be the one that sparked the discussion, and the one that I thought other admins were saying needed 1RR. I may have erred, though, I will review. 18:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
	:{{ec}}This seems to have been a mistake by you - Peterlewis hasn't edited GWC ? Do you think you meant ]? --] (]) 18:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
	:: I've been reading that page over and over and going blue in the face from doing it, it's gotten so stale. Take a look at Ratel's first numbered point of the request. I've looked at that point's diff a few times now, and... it's not the article he names in the point. I 1RRed the article he named, not the article he gave diffs to. Clearly an error. Thanks for spotting it. ++]: ]/] 18:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::No problem - i just noticed the same discrepancy :) --] (]) 18:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::: Sorted now, I think. Thanks again. ++]: ]/] 18:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Also see ]. I think the only useful order is log, then tag. This avoids unresolved references. The sanction goes into force only after both actions. --] (]) 18:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
			== Administrators' newsletter – May 2023 ==
	I think you may be right Stephan, log first, then tag. Also, we should stash the edit notice verbage somewhere I think? Here's a link (to the one you added, thanks for that!) so I can find an example later ++]: ]/] 20:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
	:Stuck onto the probation page, also with a link to ]. See . --] (]) 20:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
			] from the past month (April 2023).
	:: Thanks for that! Should help in future. ++]: ]/] 11:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
			{{Col-begin}}
	== Thank you ==
			{{Col-2}}
			] '''Administrator changes'''
	{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
			:] ]
	|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
			:] {{hlist|class=inline
	|rowspan="2" |
			|]
	|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar'''
			|]
	|-
			|] (])
	|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" |Dear Lar, Thank you very much for your time and kind understanding of my situation. I'll never forget you have agreed to be my mentor. I could not have wished for a better one! --] (]) 02:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
			|]
	|}
			}}
	:Thanks. ++]: ]/] 11:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
			{{Col-2}}
	== Clarification Request ==
			]
	Lar, I appreciate your insight on the CC request involving me, but I would like a little clarification here. Two years ago, I reverted an edit by a user, calling it bad faith in the revert description. The user went to my talk page, complaining about my choice of terms. I explained my reasoning (again on my own page) but used the word "vandalism" in connection with the incident. Within 15 minutes, and no other action on my part, I had received a 24-hour block from any and all edits, courtesy of admin BozMo. I didn't question his decision then, nor do I now. I went away, and I think came back a better editor for the emotional detachment it forced upon me.
			] '''CheckUser changes'''
	However, I do question what appears to be a very real flaw in the level of the playing field here. What this user did today to me was so far beyond what I did that words can't express it. A groundless charge that wasted the majority of my day, accusations of bad faith, intentional disruption, insults, snide remarks, which continued even after multiple requests to adhere to AGF and civility. Worse, he vented not only upon me, but upon other editors for doing no more than defending my actions, going so far to accuse one of sock puppetry, and make blanket accusations against admins. He further said he was "unable to detach his anger" from his editing, and that he felt "we both should be banned", which certainly appears a tacit admission he felt his actions deserved it.
			:] ]
			] '''Oversighter changes'''
	Yet no action whatsoever is being taken, not even a request for him to apologize to me (which I would certainly be satisfied with). Now, I'd like to think that perhaps Misplaced Pages is just a warmer and cuddlier place today than it was then. But realistically, I realize had I myself engaged in even half this behavior against an established editor on the other side of the fence, I'd now be looking at a lengthy topic ban, if not worse. So I'm going to repeat my earlier request. I feel that, at the very least this user should either formally apologize, or at least be prohibited from making any similar charges against me for a period of time.
			:] ]
			{{Col-end}}
	Thank you again for your attention to this. ] (]) 04:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
	::FG: I see your point. But I'm not sure support would be there for more than what I've proposed. The playing field ''isn't level''. It isn't likely to get level all at once, either. It isn't fair. But Misplaced Pages isn't guaranteed to be fair. ++]: ]/] 11:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
	*I agree it was a waste of time but I don't buy into the CC sanctions and so will not comment there. This is after dealing with sanctions in the Balkans area of wikipedia, which are far more heated than this CC nonsense which should never have been initiated. What you should have done is grovelled to Hipocrite that you had made a mistake and what Hipocrite should have done was complain on talkpages and not bring this to CC sanctions. However, you do have a tendency as a newish user to edit first and explain later but this doesn't need to be an issue. ] (]) 10:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
	*:That was a bit of an ironic joke about grovelling but I hope you get my meaning. Best to appease other editors when you make a mistake. This doesn't absolve Hipocrite from making an over-zealous sanctions report. ] (]) 11:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
	::: Polargeo: I'm afraid I am still not sure exactly what point you are making. Would you be so kind as to try again? ++]: ]/] 11:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::No I think I will not be so kind as it appears that you do not yourself extend this courtesy to other editors :) ] (]) 11:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Do you have an example of that? I think I always try to listen, always try to explain when asked. You came by here, have left rather a bit of a rant, and my response is to try to understand what you're driving at. Do you think FG should have groveled more? Do you think H was out of line? Or what? your meaning is not clear. You do a rather unsatisfactory job of making your meaning plain in that regard, but you are quick to charge me with bias. OK, thanks for your input. I will give it the consideration it merits. ++]: ]/] 12:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::::My input is simply based on every comment of yours that I have come across in dealing with these articles. I am quite simply disgusted with your edits. <s>I will withdraw from this talkpage and not comment further or even follow this in any way but the next time I come across your clear personal bias I will respond to it.</s> ] (]) 12:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::::: So in other words you don't ''have'' any actual useful input, then, just a rant? Noted. You may want to look to the beam in your own eye before commenting on the mote in others. Hope that helps. ++]: ]/] 12:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::Just commenting on your very personal and unnecessary provocation of WMC. Your shockingly biased and heavy wading in to the extremely minor situation on Stephan Schulz's comment in possibly the wrong section of a discussion added together with several other provocational comments of yours I have seen on talkpages and your comment on the recent RfA I can only surmise that you should take a break. ] (]) 12:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::: Which RFA is that? Other than that ... boy are you confused. Hard to know where to even start. ++]: ]/] 16:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
	* I find that bringing in new editors helps resolve unreasonable people issues (and shows me when I am the unreasonable one!). Then it isn't just a case of you versus them, so you can also be more detached and enjoy the Misplaced Pages experience more. ] (]) 11:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
	::Stephen: I agree that more eyes often help. The CC enforcement area could use more eyes, for sure. ++]: ]/] 11:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::The CC enforcement area could use a lot less bias from Lar. New editors who don't know wikipedia rules should not be taken to CC enforcement as in this case but they also should not be appeased to the extent that Lar appeases them when established editors report them for what is often the tip of the iceberg. I personally was struggling with this particular user's edits on a completely unrelated article and could easily have taken the case to enforcement myself. however, I am boycotting this ridiculous Lar policed enforcement and will continue to use usual wikipedia methods of negotiation with blocks as a "last resort" to deal with problems. Unlike this silly ] admin policed attitude to wikipedia enforced by these sanctions. ] (]) 12:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::: When I have more time, I may get more involved directly. I'm sure this topic will be contentious for a while more. But I have noticed that inflammatory language may only entrench positions. You might consider alternative wording for the above paragraph such as:
	::::: <i>I've noticed that Lar is often surprisingly sympathetic to new editors, even when established editors report issues. As it happens, I have found this editor particularly difficult to work with on a completely unrelated article, and was tempted to take the case to enforcement myself. Until this is resolved, I prefer the traditional tried and tested solutions of warning followed by blocks.</i>
	::::: Anyway, pleasantness is often more productive than conflict. ] (]) 13:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::::You are correct. I was being overly harsh. ] (]) 13:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::: FG is not a "new" editor. His first edit was in January 2008. He's been blocked twice - again, in 2008. He's got over 1,000 edits. ] (]) 13:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Of course. ] (]) 13:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
			] '''Guideline and policy news'''
	1. My edit in this case not only broke no rules, but '''improved''' the article, a point neither of you have managed to dispute. Nor have you addressed that my "ban", that Hipocrite so gleefully alludes to, was for behavior far less disruptive than you've shown here....without sanction. My "ban" derived from annoying someone who lost his own Misplaced Pages admin status due to such abusive behavior.
			* A ] about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.
			] '''Technical news'''
	2. Polargo, your own edits are problematic in a number of ways, but this is not the forum to discuss it.
			* 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'''
	3. Lar, I thank you for the honesty. The playing field isn't level; and Misplaced Pages is not fair. I'm here to improve the articles, and at the end of the day I can sleep with a clear conscience. Those that believe they're on a god-given mission to slant and censor ... I wish they could say the same. ] (]) 14:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
			* The proposed decision in the ] case is expected 11 May 2023.
			] '''Miscellaneous'''
	== Yes i did notice ==
			* ] through May 19. The final plan will be published in July 2023.
			----
	And i have taken note :), thanks ] (]) 13:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
			{{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 ==
	== GSCC ==
			] from the past month (May 2023).
	I've updated my report to include another instance of source misrepresentation today. ] (]) 14:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
	:Thanks for letting me know. I thought you said you weren't going to be doing that. ++]: ]/] 15:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
	:: I said I wasn't going to dig through his history. I'll certainly be following his future contributions. ] (]) 23:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
	::: Ah. So this is new then. Thanks. My misread. ++]: ]/] 01:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
			{{Col-begin}}
	== Request ==
			{{Col-2}}
	Hello Lar, sorry to trouble you, but could you let me know the process for filing an arbitration request against another administrator, and whether or not I'm required to take any dispute resolution requests beforehand? Thanks. ]<sup>(])</sup> 04:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
	:You might find this useful reading ] ... normally you should try other means of resolving the dispute first... talk directly to the admin, consider a request for mediation, consider raising the matter at ] (if it's an etiquette matter) or starting a ] or if the admin is recallable, consider a recall. These are in rough order of escalation of seriousness. Hope that helps. ++]: ]/] 11:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
			] '''Administrator changes'''
	==Protection request==
			:] ]
			:] {{hlist|class=inline
			|]
			|]
			|]
			}}
			{{Col-2}}
	Hi there, could you please consider protecting ]. This is a BLP on a controversial politician that has been vandalised quite recently. More important than the vandalism has been attacks on the article's subject. Because the subject is quite obscure (I'm probably the only editor with him on watchlist), much of the dangerous material isn't picked up: it took over seven hours for this attack to be reverted: . Thanks --] (]) 07:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
	:Semiprotected for a month as this is the first time the article has been protected. If things do not damp down after that we can go longer. ++]: ]/] 10:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
	::Thanks very much. --] (]) 11:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
			]
			] '''CheckUser changes'''
	== Closed ==
			:] ]
	I closed this but I think that making general negative comments about someones behaviour (whether addressed to them or not) in a context where there is no immediate prospect of modifying their behaviour and where they are bound to see it does come under the widest definition of baiting. But realistically sometimes it may be hard to avoid ;) --] ] 15:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
	:OK. A suggestion, you may want to say 12 May instead of 12/05... to my US trained eye that sometimes reads like 05 December as that's how we write dates. ++]: ]/] 17:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
	::Thanks, done. --] ] 17:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::I am still on watch ] (]) 16:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
			{{Col-end}}
	== Thanks ==
	Seemed to be going nowhere and if anything was blocking people starting an RFC or similar. --] ] 14:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
	:Basically it wasn't going anywhere because admins hadn't taken the time to answer the question regarding the scope of FG's previous warning. (ie. was it limited to topic-area - or did it have (as the text said) a general scope. If admins had replied to that question - then progress could have been made, either with discussion of the evidence - or with a close and possible reopen. This question is ''still'' unanswered. --] (]) 15:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
	:: My previous warning for calling a leaked email "leaked"? Kim, if you spent half the time on writing articles as you did on raising complaints against other people, we could shut down the Misplaced Pages project as complete, as all the articles would already be perfect in every respect. In any case, never fear, as my sabbatical is nearly over, and I shall no longer have time to address the blatant BLP and POV issues being raised on CC articles. ]<sup>(])</sup> 16:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::Hooray. No more crappy references. To be honest I will actually miss you becuase I think you are an editor who I can "work with" in the loosest sense :) ] (]) 16:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::: And though we disagree on underlying issues, I think you're one of the very few here with a sense of integrity and intellectual honesty about your edits. In 15 years, however, you are going to owe me a very large beer, when Dick Lindzen turns out to be correct, that anticipated warming turns out to be much smaller in magnitude, demonstrably without positive feedback forcings, and almost entirely benign. :) ]<sup>(])</sup> 16:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::Sorry, bait not taken. --] (]) 18:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
			] '''Guideline and policy news'''
	== Ian Plimer ==
			* 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'''
	{{la|Ian Plimer}}
			* 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'''
	There is basically an out in out in edit war going on this BLP, please taske a look. ] (]) 16:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
			* 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'''
	I have also asked WMC to stop editing the articles of living people that he has a declared citable conflict of interest with . He is refusing to do so, where would be the correct location to raise this issue? ] (]) 17:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
			* Following ], the ] has been modified to remove the ability for users to appeal remedies to {{noping|Jimbo Wales}}.
			----
	:FWIW I think it has been discussed to death and agreed that his position as a scientist does not preclude these edits. His conduct might at some point but not at present. Meanwhile I will have a look at the Plimer dispute. --] ] 17:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
			{{center|{{flatlist|
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			}}}}
			<!--
			-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 15:33, 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 -->
			== Administrators' newsletter – July 2023 ==
	== Baiting? ==
			] from the past month (June 2023).
	I'm "baiting" Davenbelle? How so? I won't comment on either Davenbelle's or Eudemis' page again after two stern admin warnings (thanks for not templating me, BTW ;>)- but I'm "baiting"? Let's get serious, here, please. Neither editor has addressed my questions, whatsoever. Only admins deserve responses? Are the diffs I've uncovered not only useless, but totally unworthy of comment? I'm trying to eliminate the impression of malfeasance by asking about it first, and I'm getting "stonewalled" instead... ] (]) 07:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
	:He doesn't have to answer you if he doesn't want to. Your continually repeating questions, phrased in argumentative (and even mocking, in some cases) ways, is baiting. Take your dispute to proper channels. Open an SPI if you are sure he's socking again. Open a WQA or an ANI report, take a case to mediation, open a request for user comment, whatever. But stay off his page. Or else. Oh, and another thing. We extend editors the courtesy of addressing them by their current ID, not past ones. Use "Davenbelle" again and that'll get you a short block. Your approach here is ocmpletely unsatisfactory and it's time someone dealt with it. ++]: ]/] 10:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
	:: I ''really'' don't care if Jack Merridew comments on my page or not; I'm erasing nothing. Thanks for pointing out the odd double-standard, however, especially as I didn't comment further on his page after being warned (and won't, as I'll apparently get blocked). Sorry that my tone was as harsh as it was, and I know it was provocative; I'll keep it more civil in the future. Cheers :> ] (]) 00:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
	::: Thanks. It's not easy (I should know) but it's worth the effort, most of the time. ++]: ]/] 00:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
			]
	== April 2010 USRD newsletter ==
			] '''Administrator changes'''
	The ] issue of ]'s newsletter is now available. &ndash;''']'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 19:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
			:] ]
			:] {{hlist|class=inline
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			}}
			] '''Bureaucrat changes'''
	== Spin control? ==
			:] ]
			] '''Guideline and policy news'''
	As Nuclear Warfare had already remarked by the time you commented on Cla68's enforcement request, there were severe problems with the text removed by Dr Connolley. I think you're seeing "spin control", not for the first time, when there are legitimate concerns about content, including both sourcing and balance. This isn't a banning matter. I think you have the good of the encyclopedia at heart but you've lost perspective in this particular enforcement request. ] (=] ) 04:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
			* 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 ].
	:I do not agree with you. There IS spin control there. I think it's well past time that WMC was stopped from controlling things. But I'm willing to compromise if a year doesn't have consensus. ++]: ]/] 04:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
			] '''Technical news'''
	From my perspective it looks as if you have bought into the notion that those who are known to espouse mainstream views aren't supposed to try to moderate poorly sourced, slanted content that happens to push fringe views. Describing such edits as "spin control" ignores the problematic nature of the fringe editing.
			* ] regarding a proposed ]. Third-party resources are computer resources that reside outside of Wikimedia production websites.
			] '''Arbitration'''
	Look, as you now find your comments on the enforcement page being taken to task by both of the other uninvolved admins who have commented, it's hardly as if you need to take my word for it. You've kicked over the traces on this occasion. Not a big deal, you'll move on from this. But for now, there is a problem with your analysis, or at least, with your presentation. ] (=] ) 04:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
			* Two arbitration cases are currently open. Proposed decisions are expected 5 July 2023 for the ] case and 9 July 2023 for the ] case.
	::Has nothing to do with blogs, really. (I agree about not using blogs as sources, and have. Not a new position on my part) The well sourced stuff was removed too. THAT's the spin control. It's happened before, too. ++]: ]/] 11:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
	::: Just so I understand best practices - if someone inserts '''obviously defamatory''' information cited to a blog comment on a no-login unmoderated highly partisan blog, but also inserts content in the exact same edit that is purportedly attributable to the New York Times what exactly is best practice? My understanding was to revert first and track down sources later. Was that understanding incorrect? ] (]) 12:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::: No, that is not an incorrect understanding. As far as it goes. Your understanding is incorrect in other areas, though. ++]: ]/] 13:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::: Oh, you mean in the areas where WMC's motive was less than pure? I'm totally in agreement with you. Two caveats - firstly, when people with bad motives take right actions, the appropriate action is to ignore those actions and wait for wrong actions before acting, and if we're prepared to ban on less-than-pure motives alone, I'd ask that try to balance things by suggesting a wide swath of people whose only substantive edits are climate change related. I'll even co-file a request with you. ] (]) 13:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
	: In an effort to remove some of the local circumstances that I think are clouding the issue (specifically, the presence of edits by Dr Connolley) I have opened a new discussion of the problematic use of blogs for sourcing within the probation area. See the talk page of the probation enforcement page. ] (=] ) 05:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
	===Avoidance of rhetoric ===
	@Lar. It's probably best to avoid that kind of rhetoric on these pages. Doesn't seem to help, though I agree with you 100%. It's honestly sad.--] (]) 08:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
	:Perhaps WMC is indeed unsanctionable. I do feel like a lone voice in the wilderness pointing out these issues. If all my fellow admins are blind to it, perhaps I should turn a blind eye as well, deliberately, and go back to pottering about with less important matters. ++]: ]/] 13:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::I don't mean that you shouldn't make the same judgment call in the future, nor that you shouldn't make it on the same basis. I'm just pointing out that it might be more effective to phrase it differently (e.g., more "this is straight WP policy I'm talking about"). If you're bored, you might read this article for inspiration on that front: , .--] (]) 19:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
	:: Given that I *have* been sanctioned, and indeed am under 1RR parole, this is obvious... Bollocks, as LHVU might say ] (]) 15:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
	::: How about "unsanctionable in any meaningful way" ? ++]: ]/] 20:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
	:: A lone voice is better than no voice. I suggest you continue doing what you're doing, voicing your analysis (which I think is spot on), but respect the consensus of all participating admins. ] (]) 16:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
			----
	===Is Lar's judgment impaired?===
			{{center|{{flatlist|
	I don't think it can be Dr Connolley on this occasion, though I don't follow his edits and cannot vouch for them all. On this occasion at least three uninvolved admins have examined the edits presented by Cla68 in the enforcement request and praised Connolley's actions. These are the very same actions that have led you to say that his conduct was "spin control" and "should not stand."
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			}}}}
			<!--
			-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 12:58, 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 -->
			==Orphaned non-free image File:AlticorLogo.jpg==
			] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]).
			Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> ] <sub>(] / ])</sub> 17:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
	This suggests to me that your own judgement may be impaired in this instance. Not a big deal, but you should probably take it as a warning sign. If I were you I'd probably reevaluate the evidence in the light of the external comments. What may appear to you as "spin control" (whatever that term may mean to you) may have a quite innocent explanation, as seems to be the case here. Perhaps you find that the external comments themselves look like spin control, in which case perhaps it may be that your understanding of meaning of the term, and its applicability to our policies, is the point of failure. ] (=] ) 14:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
	: And perhaps the other admins are wrong. That's always a dangerous view to hold for down that road lies ]... so I am aware of the precipice... ++]: ]/] 14:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
			== Administrators' newsletter – August 2023 ==
	:: Yes, of course you could be right and all the others could be wrong. is how I propose you should resolve this. I think the matters you raise are so obviously beyond the competence of the probation that you have to take your evidence to the Arbitration Committee and ask them to open a case concerning Dr Connolley's editing. --] 15:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
	:: (ec) Perhaps we are wrong, I cannot deny the logical possiblity. But at 7-1 against you I think declaring everyone else to be a clique of WMC defenders is in danger of making you look like there is some issue of your judgement not just about WMC but about the wider world, aside from it being not assuming good faith about seven uninvolved admins. You may be seeing patterns we cannot see because we have not seen enough of the past. But at least please don't blame everyone else for that. --] ] 15:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
	::: They laughed at Galileo. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown (no relation) ] (]) 15:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::: Usually attributed to Sagan, ''Broca's Brain (1980)''. --] 16:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::BozMo, another possibility is that admins don't want to oppose WMC, because when they do they get bombarded by accusations of bias and involvement, as Lar has here. I have personally witnessed admins who tried to sanction WMC, but were rebuked so strongly that they withdrew entirely. And if we're talking about pure numbers here, why not count how many enforcement requests WMC has received (about a dozen now), and from how many different respected editors (probably half a dozen)? ] (]) 16:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::: ATren, I note that you yourself bombarded ] with repeated requests that he cease taking action in the probation area, in part because he ''did not'' support proposals for strong sanctions against the very same vested user, William M. Connolley. . That alone seems to be good evidence that an admin is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. Since 2over0 clearly wasn't unduly discouraged by your repeated application of pressure, why should a whole heap of other admins be afraid of pressure in the other direction? --] 16:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Lar hasn't been nearly as active as 2/0, especially in terms of actual ''enforcement'', yet he has received ''much'' more grief for participating in a way that is critical of WMC. So your argument doesn't hold water simply because the magnitude of backlash is so much stronger against Lar (and LHvU, for that matter). And FWIW, I have personally witnessed cases where other admins were hounded off enforcement against WMC (two in particular stand out, off the top of my head). Even Lar, an experienced admin who would never be accused shying away from tough topics, has expressed reservations about his continued activity here after the barrage of criticism he's received. If someone as established as Lar can be hounded so much for criticizing WMC, what hope does a lesser known admin have? (and again, I'll stress, I have seen it personally) ] (]) 19:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::Per sae, criticising WMC is fine. I am not sure people get hounded for it, although I have come to expect strong disagreement from WMC himself and I am sure WMC often deserves some criticism (as do I and most other people to varying degrees). But I am also concerned that Lar drifts into personal language and a battleground characterisation of participants in a way which tends to entrench rather than break down barriers at times. This is clearly counterproductive and self perpetuating. So lets all cool it a bit. --] ] 19:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::: Per Stamped Addressed Envelope? @AT: Lar gets crit for being badly biased because he is. And for all his wilting-violet oh-its-all-too-much it hasn't actually stopped him commenting, and is about as convincing as your "I'm not a skeptic". And your unnamed admins are about as convincing as the legions of unnamed excellent editors who have been driven away from GW articles whose names just happen to have slipped your mind, too ] (]) 19:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::: WMC, always a pleasure. Was there anything you wanted to acknowledge you could have done better in any way in this latest kerfluffle? Or ever? Just curious, since you are so quick to criticize others. ++]: ]/] 20:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::: Come on Lar, you can do better than this. This latest kerfuffle is entirely pointless. As already said on the probation page, the incident was already *over* when Cla decided to indulge himself, and you made your truely absurd attack on me by asking for a 1 year ban. And now you're complaining about me criticising people? Look in a mirror old fruit ] (]) 20:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::::: WMC: You know my name. You do not, by all appearances, consider me your friend. Therefore: do not call me "old fruit" again. My question stands, though. What exactly do you acknowledge you do wrong? If anything? ++]: ]/] 20:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::::: I do many things wrong. Asking so open ended a question invotes a long list. For example, I assumed for far too long that you would be reasonable ni these matters - that was clearly an error on my part. So now your turn for a question: you "admit your biases" so you say. OK: what exactly are these biases that you own up to? ] (]) 09:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::::::: I do not believe that either of you think that anything positive can come out of this exchange and so I invite you both to stop without worrying about who has the last word. --] ] 09:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
			] from the past month (July 2023).
	=== On biases ===
	I don't think Lar would deny his biases. He is open about his perception that there is an imbalance of some sort, and he has repeatedly referred to a wish to "level the playing field". He has opined on the shape the content should take, in particular arguing that global warming is not primarily a scientific subject and that the main article ] should nt deal primarily with the science. At other times he alleges abusive conduct in pursuit of the ownership of articles by a clique. That few other uninvolved admins have expressed agreement with this perception suggests that it is off the mainstream for Misplaced Pages, though of course it could still be valid.
			]
	There's nothing wrong with having those opinions and sharing them. It's all about how they are expressed. A battleground mentality of the kind Lar seems to suggest exists cannot be dismantled by further saber-rattling. --] 19:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
			] '''Administrator changes'''
	:Or, it may be the case that other uninvolved admins (such as myself) recognize that global warming coverage on Misplaced Pages is a total mess, and we want to stay as far away from it as possible. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 20:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
			:] ]
			:] {{hlist|class=inline
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			}}
			] '''Interface administrator changes'''
	:::(to WS I think? ++L) Actually, that's the most intelligible thing I've read on Misplaced Pages all day. ] (]) 20:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
			:] ]
	:::: Intelligible but not particularly well researched. Misplaced Pages's global warming coverage is of exceptionally high quality and has attracted praise from experts in the field. --] 20:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Sorry for the belated reply, this discussion seems to have gotten lost in later threads. The articles themselves are of generally high quality, but a quick peek behind the scenes of any of the main ones is horrific. The Talk: and Misplaced Pages: namespace pages related t climate change are completely absurd, and I shudder when I think about getting involved in discussions there. So do many other prominent editors. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 01:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
	::Wordsmith: You seem to have a good head on your shoulders and you are amenable to changing your views when circumstances warrant, I've seen that several times now, and I clearly misjudged you at first. I'd encourage you to try a turn in the barrel. It is quite enlightening. Although that may not be a good thing if you're idealistic about the project. ++]: ]/] 20:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::Thank you Lar, coming from you that means quite a lot to me. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 01:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
	:: (to WS I think? ++L) If you have anything constructive to say, feel free to say it (though here isn't the place). If all you want to do is snipe from the sidelines, then please don't ] (]) 20:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
			] '''Technical news'''
	:::: WMC: You are welcome here, as are all who wish to discourse with me. However you are not welcome to admonish my other guests. Please don't do it again. ++]: ]/] 20:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
			* The tag filter on ] and revision history pages can now be inverted. This allows hiding edits made by automated tools. ({{phab|T334338}})
	: ''I don't think Lar would deny his biases'' - I don't believe this. Lar persists in his implausible assertion that he is "uninvolved". No-one believes this, apart from the skeptics, who benefit from him. ''He has opined on the shape the content should take'' - yes indeed; and yet still clings to the I-haven't-edited-so-I'm-uninvolved. That is dishonest ] (]) 20:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
			* ] 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}})
	:: I do not deny my biases. We all have biases. And yet, I nevertheless am uninvolved. That's not dishonest. Your tactics are, though. ++]: ]/] 20:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::Lar, do yourself a favour, quit the cc articles. Your wasting your time mate. ] (]) 21:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
			] '''Arbitration'''
	== Responding to Guettarda's spamming ==
			* The arbitration cases named ] and ] closed 10 July and 16 July respectively.
	Do you think you could stop making repetitive and unresponsive comments like the series that goes "How many times are you going to toss this one at the wall before you realize it doesn't stick?" here? This makes the atmosphere much worse. --] 16:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
			* The ] arbitration case is in the workshop phase.
	:Perhaps I should have responded to Guettarda's repetitive and unresponsive comments a different way, yes. But the point stands. He and Hip took something I quickly acknowledged as incorrect, and bludgeoned me with it, over and over. Tiresome. And a standard tactic, it seems. ++]: ]/] 17:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
	::Dude, the comment is ''still there''. You haven't withdrawn it. It's still the basis of your argument for a topic ban. As is your false claim that there's some sort of a conspiracy. You repeatedly make these false claims. You backtrack a little when people push you, but you never withdraw the claims. You're trying to have it both ways. And that's the root of the problem. ] (]) 17:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
	::: Do you want it explicitly struck instead of responded to a mere two lines below? Yeesh. ++]: ]/] 18:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::: PS, please provide a cite for where I assert there's a "conspiracy". ++]: ]/] 18:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
			----
	::::: You've made allegations concerning a group of enablers who have worked together in some way to defend an abusive editor and prevent him being sanctioned appropriately. That is a conspiracy, at least in the usual understanding of the word, --] 19:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
			{{center|{{flatlist|
	:::::: You and I "work together in some way" to make the encyclopedia better. We achieve this by hanging out on the same pages and by happening to have similar views, and similar approaches (in certain matters). Yet we are not co-conspirators by any stretch of the imagination. ++]: ]/] 20:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			}}}}
			<!--
			-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 08:54, 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 -->
			== Administrators' newsletter – September 2023 ==
	::::::: Quite so. An agreement to work towards a legitimate goal with legitimate means is not a conspiracy. But here you allege that unnamed "enablers" are working together to further an illegitimate goal, the abuse of Misplaced Pages, by illegitimate methods, blindly opposing sanctions against abusive editors among their number. That's why the word conspiracy is used. --] 20:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::: I never said they were working together by illegitimate means or methods, or toward an illegitimate goal. I have every confidence that the members of the cadre have nothing other than the loftiest of intentions. In fact, perhaps they are right, and the ends justify the means. AGW is a huge threat to mankind as a whole and perhaps my standing in this cadre's way, of trying to stop spin control, of insisting on adherence to the principles I thought this project was founded on as I see them, is actually doing humanity some small (miniscule to be frank, I don't delude myself on that score) disservice. Certainly our politicians don't seem to be taking the problem seriously enough. Deniers who may be lurking here... please realize I mean that very sincerely, without a trace of sarcasm. ++]: ]/] 20:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::: That sounds like an unnecessarily contorted parsing of the meaning of the word "illegitimate", though I don't doubt the sincerity of your feelings. I think we've both made our opinions on the meaning of the term known well enough now so I'll leave it there. --] 20:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::: It's not supposed to be contorted. I'm just trying to clarify that I don't consider that cadre to be working toward what they feel is an "illegitimate" goal. And sometimes I wonder a bit if suppression of dissenting views might actually be for the best in this matter. In which case I should get out of the way. ++]: ]/] 20:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
			] from the past month (August 2023).
	:: I think their point was that this error undermined your reasoning, but if they also spammed I can understand your frustration. It's a fact that I'm sure you yourself would acknowledge, though, that the standards of conduct expected of you are higher. --] 17:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
	::: Than Guettarda? Why? Be specific. Warning: it's a trap! ++]: ]/] 18:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::: Firstly you're engaged as an uninvolved administrator, working solely to improve the situation in the probation area. Making edits that make relations worse, and being seen to do so, has cascade effects. Secondly you're an exceptionally highly trusted editor, holding checkuser rights which are suspended during your term as ombudsman. What you do and say matters more and has greater effect, so the effect of any bad behavior is magnified. As far as I'm aware neither of these conditions applies to Guettarda or Hipocrite. Oh what they do does matter, of course, and for abusive actions they can be sanctioned. But how you conduct yourself does make more difference. --] 19:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::: OK. ++]: ]/] 20:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
			{{Col-begin}}
	== Cheers ==
			{{Col-2}}
			] '''Administrator changes'''
	The Barnstar of Integrity
			:] {{hlist|class=inline
			|]
	{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
			|]
	|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
			}}
	|rowspan="2" |
			:] {{hlist|class=inline
	|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Barnstar of Integrity'''
			|]
	|-
			|]
	|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | I couldn't find the brass balls barnstar. ] (]) 21:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
			|]
	|}
			|]
			}}
			{{Col-2}}
	: I can only agree that the giver represents a fair assessment of the integrity of your work here ] (]) 22:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
			]
	::Typical. ] (]) 22:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
	::: Don't let him rattle you. ++]: ]/] 00:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
			] '''CheckUser changes'''
	::::Thanks; I'm not rattled. In fact, I was delighted that WMC has once again demonstrated not only the caliber of his character, but also that of his supporters. Every such demonstration may not promote self-enlightenment, but hopefully it'll illuminate others. ] (]) 00:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
			:] ]
			] '''Oversighter changes'''
	WMC, how thoughtful of you to share your views. It's always a pleasure interacting with you. ++]: ]/] 00:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
			:] ]
			{{Col-end}}
	== What would you think about something like this? ==
			] '''Guideline and policy news'''
	I'm sure you can't imagine which articles I think it might apply to. ] tag. ] (]) 12:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
			* 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'''
	: It violates ], as it is not temporary. ] (]) 12:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
			* ] now shows the user's local edit count and the account's creation date. ({{phab|T324166}})
			] '''Arbitration'''
	:: I don't think it does, because it does not "duplicate the information at one of the five standard disclaimer pages". ] (]) 12:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
			* 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'''
	:"Misplaced Pages makes no guarantee of validity" seems to cover what this is saying, albeit in far far less detail. However I think you could make a case that it's temporary (that is, until the problem with editing is fixed) or ought to be. I like the idea here but don't know if it's workable. ++]: ]/] 14:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
			* '''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.
			----
	The situation described in the current version of the template is an irretrievable breakdown of Misplaced Pages's processes. In such a case, where all appropriate paths of dispute resolution have been tried and failed, the next step is not to place a template (which cannot possibly remedy the problem) but to go to arbitration.
			{{center|{{flatlist|
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			}}}}
			<!--
			-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 09:22, 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 -->
			== Administrators' newsletter – November 2023 ==
	If there are severe enough content problems once the Committee has accepted the case, they can pass an injunction, for instance, to have the article stubbed down and protected pending resolution of the case.
			] from the past month (October 2023).
	If the content is severely compromised, in other words, there is never likely to be a genuine need to put up a hand-wringing template of that kind. ] (=] ) 16:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
			]
	: I'm sure you're right for the most part, but you have a lot more faith in the arbitration process than I do. ] (]) 16:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
			] '''Administrator changes'''
	:: I think I agree with Tony's analysis. Thparkth: your point is well taken, but if the arbitration process is malfunctioning to the point that we can't use it at all, the project ''itself'' is probably irretrievably broken. In which case, forking to rescue the content may be the only alternative. While I think improvement in the arbitration process is possible, I don't think it's come to that by any means. Rather, I think recent ArbComs have been getting better. ++]: ]/] 18:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
			:] ]
	::: Both your comments and Tony's are well-taken. I'm afraid that with regard to some articles, the project itself ''is'' irretrievably broken. Does anyone really doubt that there is a systemic problem with reliability in highly contentious topic areas? I find myself concluding that the Misplaced Pages model simply cannot produce good quality, balanced articles in these cases. I'm not seriously proposing that my disclaimer should be used, but to my mind it's an interesting possibility. ] (]) 19:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
			:] ]
	:::: " the Misplaced Pages model simply cannot produce good quality, balanced articles in these cases" Perhaps it cannot. Case in point, the many BLP horrors we still have... ++]: ]/] 20:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
			:] ]
	:::::I dunno. I think that the ] article is an example of exactly the opposite - a case where the Wikipedian model ''has'' produced quality content on a highly contentious topic. The article has been repeatedly assessed by reputable external reviewers as being of excellent quality. I do agree that a lot of the sub-articles, and BLPs in particular, suffer from serious problems, but I guess I see the glass as half-full. I'm usually impressed at Misplaced Pages's actual content on high-profile, controversial topics, particularly considering that it was generated by near-anarchic pseudonymous online interaction. For example, our articles on both ] and ] were in remarkably good shape around election time in 2008, considering the amount of political investment in the subjects. Anyhow... ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 20:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
			] '''Interface administrator changes'''
	::::::"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." -Daniel J. Boorstin ] (]) 22:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
			:] ]
	:::::::Oh, I quite agree. That's sort of what I've been trying to get at: there's this persistent illusion that the climate-change articles reflect terribly on Misplaced Pages. But that's demonstrably not the case. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 05:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
			:] {{hlist|class=inline
	::::::::I think most of the critics of the AGW area of Misplaced Pages agree that the problem is the way that BLPs of AGW-related people get treated and the way editors, including newbies, are treated on the talk pages of the AGW articles when they try to advocate any changes to article content. ] (]) 05:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
			|]
	:::::::::I agree with you that the BLPs are a substantial problem. I'm very uncomfortable whenever controversies are prosecuted through the BLPs of involved parties. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 19:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
			|]
	:::::: MastCell: The ends don't justify the means. Even if the entire AGW topic area were perfect in every way, the process by which it got that way (as Cla highlights) would be totally unacceptable. ++]: ]/] 10:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
			}}
	:::::::"The ends don't justify the means" is useful as a starting point for a nuanced discussion, rather than as a ]. Most thinking people recognize qualified instances where the ends ''do'' justify the means; I know that . In any case, I don't think the environment at present is conducive to nuanced discussion, and I wasn't making any sort of comment about the means. There's a general unwillingness to concede that the end result has been favorably reviewed by reputable external sources, despite ample and oft-cited documentation. If we can't even get that far, then I doubt we'll be able to tackle the means in any substantial way. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 19:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
			] '''Guideline and policy news'''
	== Told you ==
			] '''Technical news'''
	Remember this
			* 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.
	:''You are more than likely right stephan, and i suppose this is what i will have to do as it is now obvious that WMC can say and do what he wants and if i complain about it i am the one who is punished, it`s just a waste of my time mark nutley (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
			* There is ] for re-enabling the Graph Extension. Feedback on this proposal ].
	::''I don't think that's how it is supposed to work. ++Lar: t/c 22:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::''Perhaps not lar, but that is the way it is working, the majority of editors who have made complaints against wmc have been sanctioned, not him. I give up on it, i`m just ignoring him from now on mark nutley (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)''
	And what happens, wmc gets taken to enforcement, and it is to be me who is punished. , Fuck this probation. There was no BLP violation, it is a smokescreen to hide the fact the wmc broke his restrictions '''again''' The source might not have been the right one, i had it sourced to the as well. I must have left the blog link in by mistake when i moved the article to mainspace. So again he walks off scot free, and i`m the fucking whipping boy? Great place this ] (]) 19:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
			] '''Arbitration'''
	:(Pardon me for reformatting for readability) I can see why you are frustrated. I am frustrated as well for different but related reasons. But you have to give them no openings whatever, your conduct and your sourcing must be perfect. That's the way it is. Or else, you may have to take your own advice...
			* Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 12 November 2023 until 21 November 2023 to stand ].
	:: ''do yourself a favour, quit the cc articles. Your wasting your time mate. mark nutley (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)''
			* {{noping|Xaosflux}}, {{noping|RoySmith}} and {{noping|Cyberpower678}} have been appointed to the ] for the ]. {{noping|BusterD}} is the reserve commissioner.
	:I hope it has not come to that. ++]: ]/] 20:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
			* 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'''
	::Take a look at this and guess were i currently stand ] (]) 20:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
			* 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 ] (]) 17:23, 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 -->
			== Nomination for deletion of ] ==
	:::Mark, I've told you this before and I'll tell you again: when WMC does it, he's defended, but when you do it, it's sanctioned. ''That's just the way it is right now.'' We are trying to change this, "level the playing field" as Lar has put it, but until that point, ''you have to perfect.'' Righteous indignation will only get you banned. Honestly, I'd much rather see you stop editing entirely if you can't accept this fact, because if you continue to respond angrily you '''will''' get banned, fair or not. At least if you quit now, you have the option of returning in a few months if things get better. ] (]) 21:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
			]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> – ] ] 11:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
	::::What he said. Also, this is an article about a blog. Is that blog really notable enough to even warrant an article? If it is, should most of the sources be other blogs? I find myself more in agreement with those removing sources than I do with those adding more blogs. Regardless of what I might think of the methods (wholesale may not be the best approach in every case... but here it may well be). Pick your battles. This is a ''blog''. Is it worth leaving in a huff over? ++]: ]/] 21:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
	:How about someone actually advised Mark when he is crossing the lines? Why is it people that Mark doesn't trust that have to tell him that his sourcing is substandard? Or have to inform him when he is breaking his 1RR restriction? (no - i am ''not'' calling for sanctions - i believe Mark was excited and made a blunder)
	:The basis here is that Mark is making all sorts of bad decisions and apparently no one he trusts is telling him - instead they are projecting the faults onto WMC or what ever un-level playing field that is perceived... Thats not good - and Mark is (quite unfairly) suffering for it.
	:It is my (unfortunate) opinion that if no one is taking Mark under their wings, and help him gain his feet on Misplaced Pages, then it will end bad for Mark. He is simply making too many problems for himself. He is a newbie - help him for gods sake. And that doesn't mean stroking his perceptions of unfairness, but instead telling him the rules and guides. --] (]) 21:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
	::And if i may point out a place to start: Please explain to him why this was a rather clearcut 1RR violation, since quite apparently he doesn't understand what a revert is - and doesn't trust me to tell him, i even made it rather clear what the partial revert ''was''. --] (]) 21:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::Two responses: (1) I have counseled Mark, particularly when he is responding badly to baiting, but I do have a life outside of Misplaced Pages you know. Sometimes I won't check in for a few hours and when I come online it's already a full blown conflict. (2) Why don't you do the same for WMC? ] (]) 04:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::Kim, I have to ask, many of the sources you removed and are good sources. Why didn't you remove the bad sources and make the wording more NPOV instead of blanking the whole thing? Remember you did the at ] and got by an uninvolved editor from the BLP Noticeboard. Why are you still engaged, not only in the same behavior, but trying to justify it for others also? ] (]) 04:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Cla68, since this is not the forum for content discussion - let me just say (although it should be unneccessary): i disagree with your assessment. And i find your comment to be non constructive, and notice that you did exactly what i was worried about (projection unto others), instead of the right thing (advicing about what was the problem (1RR)). --] (]) 05:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::::You're shooting the messenger, at best. If not "projecting" yourself. Why not address the issues raised about your own behavior before hectoring others? ++]: ]/] 10:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::::: Excellent advice. Why don't you take it? ] (]) 10:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::WMC, how thoughtful of you to share your views. It's always a pleasure interacting with you. Was that your for the day or is there more coming? As for the advice, you are '''far''' more in need of taking it than I. As you'd well know if you had even a shred of introspective ability. Tend to the beam in your eye before commenting on the mote in others. ++]: ]/] 10:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::: See? It just bounces off. You won't listen, even to your own advice. And you can't resist being snarky ] (]) 11:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::: WMC, how thoughtful of you to share your views. It's always a pleasure interacting with you.... I see that wasn't ''all'' of your obligatory snark for the day after all, was it? Did you have any substantive contribution, then? I won't tell you what you told me the other day ("butt out") because that would be rude. But it would be nice if Kim answered the questions directed at Kim. ++]: ]/] 11:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::::: Lar, how thoughtful of you to share your views. It's always a pleasure interacting with you.... I see that wasn't ''all'' of your obligatory snark for the day after all, was it? Did you have any substantive contribution, then? (I see you're fond of pointless repetition so I thought you might like some near-repetition). Butt out? No, I don't recall that - doesn't sound like me, sounds more like you - are you projecting? ] (]) 11:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::::: My mistake, it was rather than "butt out". Not much substantive difference really.
	::::::::::::: Seems different to me. Your lack of interest in accuracy is noted. Please don't put things-that-aren't-quotes in quotes ] (]) 13:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::::::: Close enough to the same thing for me. But that's not evidence of any lack of interest in accuracy, so you may want to revise your notes. ++]: ]/] 16:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::No, Lar - i'm not shooting the messenger - nor am i unwilling to discuss my "own behaviour", when and if it becomes necessary or pertinent; but i don't really think that this is the forum for such. I will make one short comment though: It is not the URL that determines whether a reference is a reliable source, or determines whether the content matches the text or whether text is presented with due weight. Don't you agree?
	:::::::The sad thing here though, is that Mark still hasn't been informed that he was in breach of 1RR by someone he trusts. He is still getting the basic message "Oh, you are doing allright - nothing to worry about - its all the others that are a problem - not you."; If no one is going to inform Mark about what constitutes a revert and what doesn't - how is he going to learn? Who exactly is it that is shooting the messenger? --] (]) 12:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::: Mark needing mentoring is a valid point but you're still not answering Cla's concerns. ++]: ]/] 13:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::Cla's "concerns" have been and are being addressed at the talk page of that particular article, which is the appropriate venue. They have been so for quite a long time. Did you miss that? Ponder a bit about my comment regarding judgement, based upon just looking on the URL of a reference, as to being a poor guideline for the merit, veracity and weight of a particular piece of information. I've raised this before - admins in this particular topic area are looking too much at the surface of things (URL) as opposed to the context (what is the article about, is it due weight, does it present things neutrally, is it puffing up information to a level that the references can't support .... etc etc.). --] (]) 13:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
			== ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message ==
	:::::So.... Cla and ATren. Are you going to take the block for Mark? He just broke his sanction ''again'' - since no one has taken the time to explain to him what a revert is (as i asked). He is now at 3RR, which is rather alot considering that he is under a 1RR sanction. Don't you care? Is it more important to snipe at WMC (or me)? --] (]) 19:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::::I left him a note urging that he step away for a while, and ask about reversion. ++]: ]/] 19:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::I was just about to come here and thank you for that :) --] (]) 20:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
			<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
	===Disengagement?===
			<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px">]</div>
	*This discussion is not going to be productive...disengage please? '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 11:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
			<div class="ivmbox-text">
	**I have no intention of disengaging with KDP now that KDP has returned. As for WMC? Go admonish WMC to stop baiting people, that should sort that. ++]: ]/] 13:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
			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.
	:::See below. I believe you have baited and victimised WMC and so this line of debate should be solved by those who are truely uninvolved. ] (]) 13:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::''I've'' baited WMC? That's rather a novel interpretation. Go admonish WMC to stop baiting people and perhaps things will inprove. You are shooting the messenger. ++]: ]/] 13:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::::This is not about tit for tat. ] (]) 13:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::::: Correct, it's about WMC baiting all and sundry, and then you coming up with the idea that ''I'm'' the one doing the baiting. I just don't think that's a view that is widely held. Many folk know about WMC's long term problematic behavior, which he has been admonished about many times. ++]: ]/] 13:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::I think you will find that I came up with the idea that you were doing the baiting based on my own observations of your conduct. WMC is not currently trying to act as an "uninvolved" admin against you. Be certain that if he did I would come down on him like a proverbial tonne of bricks. ] (]) 13:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::: So you have no issue whatever with his behavior and see no need to act to constrain it? Or is it just that you somehow think that I'm a bigger problem than he is? I just want to be clear here. ++]: ]/] 13:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::I think you're are a bigger problem. ] (]) 13:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Thanks for clearing that up. I think you won't find that view generally held. ++]: ]/] 14:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::::Certainly an admin who wants to police climate change with a heavy hand and a heavy POV is a much bigger problem than an editor who wishes to improve wikipedia. ] (]) 13:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Occasional minor incivilites and 2 reverts.!!!! You know as well as I do that is not the issue but I am not the one trying to pretend it is. ] (]) 13:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::::: That's certainly an interesting interpretation but I'm not sure it fits the facts on the ground. What exactly is my "heavy POV" ??? That AGW is happening and something needs to be done? I cop to that one. That the editing environment around the AGW articles is less than optimal? I cop to that one too. ++]: ]/] 14:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::Well I don't cop to it. I am a scientist and I want wikipedia to follow the best sources in all articles. If that means humans have nothing to do with warming then great, I follow that. I mearly see your POV as represented by your extreme bias against certain editors. As I said previously I don't care if you run over baby pandas in an SUV but I do care if you try to exert a POV in an odd way by targetting some edtiors whom you clearly disagree with based on some percieved POV pushing you think they are up to. ] (]) 14:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::: Your first sentence about following sources doesn't seem to address my point about the editing environment. The rest has been addressed elsewhere, you continue to assume animus on my part where none exists. My response to consistent baiting has been as moderate as I can manage, and I bear no ill will to anyone. ++]: ]/] 13:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
			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.
	== Just to inform you ==
			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>] (]) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)</small>
	I have started ] ] (]) 13:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
	:Thanks for letting me know. Unfortunate that you didn't want to talk about things as I offered. I still don't understand where your animus originates. ++]: ]/] 13:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
	::I am truly sorry that I felt that I couldn't continue in a discussion with you. This is based on my summary of your past responses and actions. Maybe I am wrong but I feel that we are not going to get anywhere because I truly believe that you should not act as an uninvolved admin in this situation and you have repeatedly shown by your edits that you continue to do this despite my concerns ] (]) 13:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::If we factor out the "cadre", and the "deniers", who probably will line up along highly predictable lines, I don't think your view has much traction. I understand and appreciate your concern but I don't think I am any more "involved" in this area than any other admin currently active in the enforcement area, and certainly less than most. If consensus comes out that way, would that sort the issue?... or do you think there is more that needs resolving? Really, you're focusing on the wrong problem (at best) in my view. ++]: ]/] 13:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::My view is deal with one problem at a time and the biggest problem in my view is the fact that sanctions have been set up without a proper community consensus and they are being policed by certain self appointed sherrifs who follow their own rules. ] (]) 13:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
			</div>
	== Riderless horse ==
			</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 -->
			== Administrators' newsletter – December 2023 ==
	You should not have acted on an issue your wife brought up at ANI. Just a very very gentle warning. ] (]) 15:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
	:COI was fully disclosed. ++]: ]/] 15:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
	::Yep. Warning still stands. Disclosing a COI is not a carte blanche to use your admin tools to resolve it. ] (]) 15:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
			] from the past month (November 2023).
	People turn up on my page asking me to do things all the time. Some of them are friends. No COI if I act on the request, regardless of the relationship. (I think you are confused about COI) Further, I don't edit horse articles much, and have never touched that one to the best of my recollection. I made no content determination, and am uninvolved. Further, my wife and I do not see eye to eye on a lot of things, she recently got an edit war warning from me.
			<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
	As for your "warning"... find an uninvolved admin (by your definition) to give it, you are (by your definition) too involved. Raise it at AN/I then if you think it matters enough. I think you'll find that most admins would support the action I took in this circumstance. Are you sure you're not being a bit harassing here? ++]: ]/] 16:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
			<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
	:My warning to you was as a fellow editor not as an admin. I take this distinction very seriously. I would never presume to act as an admin in cases in which I had a major potential COI. I saw the case and felt that I should give you a "gentle warning" I was not going to take it any further and still will not. ] (]) 16:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
	::I presume I can give you a gentle warning even if I am not an admin. This seems to be normal practice for wikipedia. ] (]) 16:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
	::: Certainly. It's just that right now, your warning, however couched, doesn't come off as all that gentle, or at least, it does not when viewed through the filter of involvement/uninvolvement that you apparently want to apply. All that said, I do appreciate you sharing your concern. I did consider whether to just let it go but it was rather a blatant copyvio by an apparent SPA. ++]: ]/] 18:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
	:We should not disadvantage people for being open about their identity and relationships. I have my problems with Lar, but this time I find no fault with his actions. A COI is only a problem if the action is inappropriate. Now if his wife has friended him in Facebook, we might have the making of a conspiracy here ;-). What I do find interesting is that Lar now seems to have a new definition of involvement, though... --] (]) 16:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::I strive to be consistent. I do not always succeed. Can you elaborate on that last part? ...because if I'm being inconsistent about the definition of involvement, I want to know about it! Thanks. ++]: ]/] 18:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::: I believe that the facebook friends thing is poking fun at a previous assertion by someone (I forget who?) that the cabal of Misplaced Pages scientifically focused editors coordinated via being eachothers facebook friends and sending out facebook call to arms or something. I don't know, because as much as my wife wants me to join facebook to ] there's simply no way. ] (]) 19:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::::I was asking Stephan Schulz about the "new definition of involvement" thing. I'm clear on the Facebook aspect. I am about to delete Facebook off my Blackberry because you can't suppress those silly Farmville et al notifications the way you can on the web version. ++]: ]/] 19:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::Over at the CC probation you claim to be "uninvolved" because you do not edit in the subject area, and despite the fact that several editors see that you display a clear (and one-sided, but that's neither here nor there) animosity towards WMC. Now you claim that Polargeo apparently is "involved", despite the fact that he never edited the subject area of the action in question, just because he has displayed some animosity towards you. Which way do you want it? --] (]) 20:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::Ah. Thanks for clarifying. I think I see the source of the confusion... In fact, ''I'' do not claim that Polargeo is involved, under the definition that is used at the enforcement page. I don't think he is, under that definition. Rather, I claim that ''Polargeo'' should be considering ''himself'' as involved, if he consistently applies the definition ''he'' has been putting forth elsewhere. Since he apparently doesn't (or hasn't yet, anyway) that's the inconsistency here... with Polargeo. I think I'm being consistent myself. Does that clarify matters? Or worsen them? Small point, but a useful one, I think. ++]: ]/] 21:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::: Stephan, did you have a further response or do you concede the point? ++]: ]/] 16:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
			] '''Administrator changes'''
	::::: Mousehunt? Seriously? I had heard of Farmville, which made no sense to me, but mousehunt? I'd say more, but ... I'm sure your wife has very many fine qualities, Hip. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 19:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
			:] {{Hlist|class=inline
	:::::: It's a variety of ], apparently. However, at this point I must cop to prior addiction to World of Warcraft. Also, my wife saves the world one 5th grade class at a time in the Bronx, so I give her a pass on Facebook. ] (]) 19:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
			|]
	::::::: A fifth grade teacher is a saint. She deserves every mouse she gets. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 19:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
			|]
	::I was simply giving Lar a gentle unofficial warning. Where is the big deal. He did something that I would not have done. I don't think it can be classified as abuse of the tools but I feel it was a very silly thing to do. ] (]) 16:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
			}}
	:::On the matter of harassement. I am sorry if it seems that way. I am not calling for your head to roll for every single perceived misdemeanor, unlike your actions against WMC for example. ] (]) 16:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
			:] {{Hlist|class=inline
	:::: There are not enough hours in the day to deal with every single misdemeanor of WMC, at the rate of completion that we observe at the sanctions page. So I let most of them go. ++]: ]/] 18:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
			|]
	:::::If taking every single opportunity to call for a major ban when even the most minor issues are brought to sanctions enforcement is your version of letting things go. I wouldn't like to see what it is like when you don't. ] (]) 19:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
			|]
	::::::What I mean is that there are many more transgressions than are brought to the enforcement page. Admins have been encouraged by some to not work for consensus first, and instead just start blocking and handing out bans unilaterally. I've completely eschewed that approach up till now (and in fact have done no blocking at all, IIRC). And I never initiate enforcement requests, just comment when they come up. But WMC's behavior pattern is a long term serious problem here. One that hasn't been handled. So yes, I've been proposing more serious sanctions each time he comes up. That is fairly frequently, since the 1RR restriction and others haven't really been much more than a slap on the wrist, really. Certainly they haven't reduced the corrosiveness of his general approach to interacting with those not in the cadre. ++]: ]/] 19:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			}}
			:] {{noping|Beeblebrox}} → {{noping|Just Step Sideways}}
			</div>
	===dave souza's concerns ===
			<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
	Lar, you've not accepted that your comments on these lines should have been moved from the enforcement page to the talk page, and here you are again making accusations about "the cadre" and "the corrosiveness of his general approach", together with the novel idea that you are in a magisterial position to promote sanctions on the basis of evidence that hasn't been presented for community discussion, and only you seem to have seen. I do accept that you've not been doing the blocking yourself, and as far as I've seen you have bowed to the opinion of others, but your comments and dominating behaviour on the enforcement page have produced a corrosive environment. That has a chilling effect on those like myself who wish to see article content policy followed with care to ensure due weight to clear majority scientific views where applicable. Are you willing to stop characterising or pigeonholing others into groups such as "the cadre", which itself is a low level breach of ]? Will you accept that each enforcement request be dealt with in relation to the evidence presented rather than on the basis of your preconceived views about individuals? In particular, can you accept that WMC should be held to the same standards of politeness as other editors? Changing the goalposts for one editor you have obvious bad feelings about merely gives an impression that you are arguing in a prejudiced manner. Your talk has appeared to be worse than your actions, but that obviously sets an atmosphere for the sanctions page. Your serious consideration of these points will be appreciated, ], ] 20:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
			]
	:::Marker. Not ignoring for lack of desire to engage, deferring for time reasons. ++]: ]/] 18:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::Out of curiousity do you think that responding to you is more important than responding to the RfC? The "long argument" you denigrate in your outside view at the RfC is important to refuting the charge made by you (via endorsement) and your allies that I'm "delusional" about the existence of groups of editors of similar interest (and that some of them act to support each other in inappropriate ways). So while I'm certainly interested in your thoughts and will respond when I have time to do so in depth, I do have to prioritize. Unlike some, I don't have significant blocks of time to devote to nothing else than WP. ++]: ]/] 16:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
	:::::You do of course have to set your own priorities, and I appreciate that it's been a busy time for you. From the fact that you answered another comment further up the same thread an hour and a half after I'd posted the above, it appeared reasonable to assume that you'd at least skimmed this addition to your talk page. Your argument set out on the RfC talk page effectively rejects my suggestions, but I will of course be glad to discuss these ideas with you and will review my contributions to the RfC in the light of such discussions. Do please let me know when you're ready for a chat, ], ] 14:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
			] '''CheckUser changes'''
	::From a chat with LHvU, a clarification may be appropriate – it would be reasonable and correct for you to take past findings into account when dealing with a new case, my concerns would be about the "no smoke without fire" impression created by repeated unsuccessful attempts to remove WMC from the topic area, inspired by false reports in the media, and the suggestion that evidence never presented for examination could or should influence the decision. Perhaps a grey area, but in view of the circumstances care is needed to make the proceedings open and transparent. . . ], ] 08:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
			:] {{Hlist|class=inline
			|]
			|]
			}}
			] '''Oversight changes'''
	:This pile-on . Are you all trying to bully Lar into leaving the AGW enfocement page? It sure looks like it to me. ] (]) 23:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
			:] {{Hlist|class=inline
	::Followed the link, Cla, are you referring to your suggestion on WR about editors being close to "having their real names in the press in a story about a group of POV-pushers on Misplaced Pages?" Seems offtopic to me, but if you're discussing this current case on WR a pointer would be welcome. Lar's much earlier discussion with me did give me the impression that he was trying to bully me off CC related discussions, but it's easy to get a wrong impression of that sort and I was probably just reading more into Lar's way of expressing himself than he meant. . . ], ] 08:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
			|]
			|]
			}}
			</div>
	== Can you imagine... ==
			</div>
			] '''Guideline and policy news'''
	... how tough it would be for a newbie editor or admin to take on WMC, if someone as experienced as you are taking this much heat without even handing out a single block or ban? Therein lies the problem. It's not just WMC, it's the cadre of defenders who attack anyone who stands up to him. ] (]) 18:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
			* Following a ], the ] has been updated to note that while it is considered best practice for administrators to have ] (pings) enabled, this is not mandatory. Administrators who do not use notifications are now strongly encouraged to indicate this on their user page.
	:That view is apparently not widely held, you realize. At least not among those who frequent the enforcement pages. And further, pointing it out makes you no friends, and not an inconsiderable number of enemies. As I found out yet again. ++]: ]/] 18:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
	::Not so widely held no. And for my part of the favour, it is more to do with how you point it out and not about friendship (I would hope that both of you would consider me some sort of friend albeit who disagrees often; I would always try to make time to listen to either of you). The biggest problem with newbies historically is not him being argumentative but him being patronising. ATren though, you also need to think about the likely outcome of your behaviour to WMC which is a bit harrassing. There are plenty of other people (I could think easily of six) whose only interaction is to drop by to try to provoke him. Is your serious intention to wear him out so he leaves WP, to aggravate a ban or to try to reform him? Or do you think a state of being continually got at will improve him? If you want to try to reform him (which I might suggest is the best outcome) being critical all the time may be counterproductive. And certainly taking the last 500 edits which I just did for ] I would have to say all of the nasty comments do seem to be directed at people who are basically as nasty back, viz MN, you & Lar. --] ] 19:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::BozMo, I freely admit that I do not focus on anything right now except for this topic, and in my view it is pointless to try to engage in article work when it's so contentious, and right now, the contentious atmosphere can be largely traced to a small group of individuals (where recently, small ~= 1, IMO). So until this problem is resolved, I have no intention of moving onto something else. That's just the way I operate; when there is a problem, I tend to bury myself into that problem at the expense of all else.
			] '''Arbitration'''
	:::Now, I completely reject your insinuation that this is harassment. If WMC doesn't antagonize others, then I don't bother with him; it is only when he gets aggressive (as with MN recently) that I feel compelled to step in. And when I do step in, it is completely within the boundaries of civility. In particular, when I observe patterns of behavior, I see nothing wrong in pointing out those patterns, as long as I don't cross into ad-hominems, which I don't believe I do. For the most part, I think that's also what Lar has done here (though I do hope he resists the urge to respond to WMC any further, because I learned long ago that trying to engage WMC in debate about his behavior is fruitless).
			* Following ], the ] has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
			* The Arbitration Committee has ] a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
			* ] are invited to ''']''' for the ] until ''23:59 December 11, 2023 (UTC)''. Candidate statements can be seen ].
			----
	:::And BozMo, if you think WMC's nastiness against someone like MN is because MN is "as nasty back", then I think you maybe missed some of this conflict. WMC has been relentlessly condescending and mocking towards Mark, for example implying that he doesn't know a scientific paper from wrapping paper. He's been similarly condescending to other editors too, i.e. Alex Harvey, an editor who ''repeatedly'' reached out to WMC in an attempt to find common ground, and all he got in return was constant condescension and baiting. This is not a new problem, and WMC is ''frequently'' the aggressor.
			{{Center|{{Flatlist|
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			}}}}
			<!--
			-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 15:54, 8 December 2023 (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=1188126170 -->
			== Precious anniversary ==
	:::As for my goal in all of this: I would like to see this topic area less contentious and more collaborative. In that sense, I don't care if that means no WMC or a reformed WMC. But personally, I would prefer the latter, and I ''have'' reached out to WMC in an attempt to achieve that. It was over a year ago, and I believe I sent you links of it already (a while back). It was a link to a long discussion on my talk where I tried to coax him into more collaboration and he basically blew me off. So, perhaps you may believe "being critical all the time may be counterproductive", but in my own personal experience, the alternative is just as counterproductive. It is my opinion, after years of watching this debate, that the only way WMC will change his behavior is for admins to step up and apply a ''significant sanction'', i.e. a topic ban of 1-2 months, to demonstrate to him that these tactics will no longer be acceptable. And then let him decide if he wants to work with others. I would even support cutting short ban if he commits to reform, just as long as he knows that the tactics will no longer be accepted here. But as it stands now, he ''knows'' he's untouchable, and therefore he has no reason to change. ] (]) 20:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
			{{User QAIbox/auto|years=Five}}
	::::Sorry, I have a soft spot for MN, and I've occasionally tried to point him in the right direction. But he indeed does not know the difference between a wrapping paper and a scientific paper, or a right-wing conspiracy blog and ]. It's extremely hard and frustrating to try to explain anything to him. --] (]) 20:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
			--] (]) 08:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
	:::::Oh please. The editors you are defending have been adding blog-sourced content for years. So either they "don't know scientific paper from wrapping paper" or they're outright POV pushers. Which is it? At least MN has inexperience as an excuse. ] (]) 01:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
			:Thanks!!! ++]: ]/] 05:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::::Oh please! ] has been to ] time and time again and accepted as an exception per ] (written by experts published in other reliable sources on the topic). --] (]) 05:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
			== Administrators' newsletter – January 2024 ==
	:::::::And random blog post which WMC inserted ? You are honestly defending WMC inserting a blog that referenced his own blog? The first two words of which were his name? This is just one example Stephan. ] (]) 06:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::TGL, your comment is misleading: that blog was referenced in the which wasn't created by WMC. Your link shows an IP deleting the blog, not any action of WMC's. However, I'd question the edit summary in – while doubtless the info is correct and significant, a better reference should be found or the info should be added in a different way. . . ], ] 07:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::Not misleading, just c+ped the wrong diff (now corrected). He and his friends have often inserted or reinserted blog references where they should not - and considering that many would consider that LaRouche association a BLP violation it should be removed (instead of being unsourced as it currently stands). The double standard becomes apparent when people have sourced content to the New York Times (and I'm not even talking about the recent spat) only to have WMC et all remove the content when they arbitrarily decide (and are later shown to be wrong) what the truth is - violating '''core''' wikipedia policy of verifiability, not truth, time and time again. ] (]) 16:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
			] from the past month (December 2023).
	:::::Stephan, you really believe RealClimate is OK but other blogs are not, and not only that you mock the intelligence of those who don't understand the distinction? What IS the distinction, Stephan, that RealClimate is friendly to your views but other blogs are not? That's the problem here, I think. You've been arguing this convoluted logic for so long that you can't even see the inconsistency. ] (]) 16:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::No. I believe some blogs are good sources for some topics and others are good sources for no topic. RealClimate is a good source for factual information about the current state of climate science. WUWT is a good primary source for that W believes, which in many articles is irrelevant. --] (]) 18:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::::(and by the way Stephan, the SPS exception does not apply to BLPs. But you don't seem to know that, so maybe you don't know scientific paper from wrapping paper either, right?) ] (]) 16:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::...so you have a long list of me adding blogs to BLPs? Or are you just generating random text snippets? --] (]) 18:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::::: I'd also like examples of me adding blogs to BLPs after, say, the creation of WP:BLP, just to set a point of refrence. ] (]) 18:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::::: For me I think in Climate Change I have only ever taken things out of BLPs and never added them (challenge you to find a counter example). But perhaps I am, in the view of tgl not a friend of WMC? (why does he have friends?). As a Kiping fan I guess I hope "all men count with me, but none too much" at least as far as men (or ladies) who can count go. --] ] 19:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::I'm not sure how I feel about you Bozmo. I don't like that you've set up carbon permit trading (seems like a major COI), and I recall you bringing me and WMC to the probation, overstating my reverts by 1 and understating WMC's by 1, but that could've simply been an error on your part. I am rather curious if you've met WMC in real life though due to your geographical similarity? In any case, although your bias is clear, you don't seem too bad. ] (]) 19:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::Never met WMC, though tried to get to Cambridge Misplaced Pages meetings. As for the other stuff...I pointed it out to illustrate how silly the COI example was. As it happens I have been a CEO of six different oil sector companies (in three countries), two with a $1bn turnover and my mentioned responsibility for carbon permit trading was also simulatnaeously for trading and marketing gas and electricity. I was authorising signatory on a $908m contract to build a power station in Amborieta in Spain and at one point in my career was responsible for sales of marine fuel which between them generated 3% of the world's Acid rain. So, delighted though I may be with the idea I am biased by an interest in the Green business my interests in the black sticky stuff was several orders of magnitude more. But sadly for you I am still a trained scientist and therefore more inclined to the scientific methodology and consensus, which is an area where WMC excels. --] ] 22:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::::Well, I'm glad you haven't met him (otherwise you probably should recuse yourself), but it seemed like a possibility given your educational/professional backgrounds and proximity. And I don't really need or want to know the contents of your investment portfolio, but you have to admit it is an odd for someone to have set up carbon permit trading and simultaneously be involved in policing wikipedia in a way which could be perceived as protecting such interests. And why is it "sad for me" that you are a trained scientist? I adore science, but I also understand that lies of omission are perhaps the most effective form of propaganda, and I also understand that some fields of science like to pretend that their methods are far more robust than they actually are. You know, I don't recall "consensus" ever being taught to me in high school or college - I was taught to look for problems in methodologies - not to overlook them. ] (]) 22:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::::::If you are seeking to imply consensus is not a scientific concept, you are correct, it is a Misplaced Pages one. Most of successful scientific research is in working out which bits of consensus to believe or disbelieve. But scientific consensus is a Misplaced Pages construct which has all sorts of reasons behind it and we enforce even though we know that in places it is bound to be wrong. On COI meeting other Wikipedians happens a lot and isn't considered a COI (otherwise Wikimania meetings would be a bit odd). Chronologically I left oil and moved to the charitable sector before I ever edited Misplaced Pages. Aside not having had the time I also had never heard of it. And almost everyone in proper employment in the UK has serious indirect ownership of energy shares (I think they are 8% of FTSE or something like that) so you could argue than everyone has a massive pro-sceptic bias. Almost no one wants global warming to be "real", and that conflicts us all in a way toward pretending it isn't. --] ] 06:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::Oh, on the contrary, humans are so predisposed to panic and crisis that the bias is very much towards believing such things (e.g. swine flu, bird flu, snowball earth, supervolcanos, Revelations, peak oil (and other Malthusian disasters), nuclear war, Y2K, 2012, DDT, etc, etc). The fact that some people's careers, their identities, depends on continued belief in it makes evidence they present suspect. As a pessimist I have absolutely no problem in believing things are shit; I just find the evidence to be flawed, circumstantial and better explained by other factors. As for your last point, I actually would like global warming to be real since it would open up a lot of mineral resources in the Arctic and improve agricultural output (a necessity with the growing population) - even though I personally prefer colder weather. Cheers. ] (]) 07:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::: Global warming is neither a panic nor a crisis, it is on a slow timescale. On your last point, bearing in mind my that we are on someone else's user page I think I will only say that I feel it is a little "under-researched". --] ] 07:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::: A few points. We seem to be a bit off the topic that Atren started. But that happens a lot around here, it's the nature of the place. :) (and that's A-OK, I like the way things get discussed here...) As for what AGW is, IMHO, it's ''both'' on a slow timescale AND a crisis. The slow timescale crises are the worst kind, in my view, because it's always easy to say "well we will deal with it in 5 years but first we have to ___" or whatever. We better take this seriously though, or sooner or later we will come a cropper. Because it's a real problem, not a manufactured one. That's not to say people don't benefit from bad news or misfortune, and aren't perversely incented by that. Don't get me started on the "welfare industry", for example. ++]: ]/] 16:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
	{{od}}
	=== AEB (3%) ===
	I suppose my main problem with the whole thing is that the fundamentals of the theory don't make any sort of logical sense. For example, all the catastrophic scenarios of runaway global warming, envisioned by computer models, only work by assuming that the 3-4% of CO2 that man produces (1.52 × 10-5 of the atmosphere) will cause positive feedback loops - this just doesn't make sense to me because CO2 has been so much higher in the past. It is a giant non sequitur - and add that other phenomena better explain events and it all seems rather silly. ] (]) 17:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
	:I don't know what you mean by "3-4%" - men is directly responsible for about 25-30% of the current CO2 content in the atmosphere. Yes, CO2 has been a lot higher in the past, but then the Earth was a lot warmer in the past, not to mention populated by giant man-eating dinosaurs. And, of course, if you go into the deep geological past, the Sun was a lot fainter then, too. But to stress the main point: Unless you are an expert in the domain (are you?), don't you think it takes a lot of hubris to assume you know better than the assembled experts of the world? Would you do that in other domains, like, e.g. medicine or baking or engine maintenance? --] (]) 17:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
			<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
	::We are not responsible for 25-30% of the CO2 in the air Stephan - only fuzzy math could possibly come up with such a number. CO2 is, in fact, at a low point , but hey, assuming you are correct, then without man that would put CO2 levels at 271 ppm - I mean, plants can technically survive as long as it is over 200, but you are definitely cutting it close. The problem with the catastrophic/runaway global warming scenarios is not only that CO2 has been much higher in the past, but temperature has as well - if these unstoppable feedback loops were a reality (on the assumption that water vapor doesn't form into light reflecting clouds...) then the Earth would've catapulted itself into oblivion long ago. As for hubris, I think it takes a lot more pride to assume we are capable of controlling the climate by driving hybrids and switching to fluorescents, but since you are so taken with arguments from authority/popularity (logical fallacies FYI), I'll leave you with a quote (while I watch my backside for "man-eating" dinosaurs), from our favorite atmospheric physicist from MIT:
			<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
			] '''Administrator changes'''
	::"Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age." -Professor Richard Lindzen. Cheers. ] (]) 18:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
			:] ]
			:] ]
			:] {{Hlist|class=inline
			|]
			|]
			|]
			}}
			</div>
	:::Pre-industrial levels are around 280 ppm, yes. We have, in fact, dumped about twice the amount needed to bring us to the current 387 ppm into the atmosphere. If you deny either of those, you are far far far outside reasonable opinion - ask Lindzen, if you like. I don't know what you think "catastrophic/runaway global warming is", but no-one is seriously suggesting we end up like Venus. Have you ever actually read any of the IPCC reports? --] (]) 19:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
			<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
			]
	::::Pre-Industrial levels = the levels they would be now? Are you seriously articulating, despite the fact that CO2 has historically varied immensely, that CO2 levels would be at pre-industrial levels if we had not been burning coal and oil? You really think this is a stagnant variable? The fact is that the biosystem crave CO2, which is why they are gobbling up so much of not only our emissions, but also Great Polluter herself the Earth. And yes, I have read through some of the IPCC reports (downloaded them when I downloaded the climategate files) and I was particularly interested in how the moderate reviewers' concerns were dismissed and culled from the report. And by catastrophic global warming I mean disasters as articulated by things like an Inconvenient Truth and the Copenhagen videos - the emotional appeals designed to frighten both support and money out of the public. ] (]) 20:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
	:::::CO2 has not "historically varied immensely" - it's been remarkably stable throughout history (as in the last 10000 years or so). It has varied "immensely" only over immense time periods. In fact, even the difference between ice age minima (around 190 ppm - I guess all the plants must have died) and maxima (about preindustrial levels) is about as big as what we now put out in ~150 years, but that change took place over 10s of thousands of years. So yes, I believe that without our emissions, CO2 levels would not significantly different from 280 ppm. And that opinion is again shared by the large majority of scientists, including Lindzen. --] (]) 21:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
			] '''CheckUser changes'''
	:::::::Looks like this conversation is over StS (or was I supposed to continue?) since it appears I will soon be a victim of "consensus." I guess we can both pretend that I can't knock holes in everything you said. Cheers. ] (]) 01:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
			:] {{Hlist|class=inline
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			}}
			:] ]
			:] {{Hlist|class=inline
			|]
			|]
			|]
			}}
			] '''Oversighter changes'''
	:::::::I don't want to wade too far into this conversation, but I am a geologist by education and I must take issue with the statement that CO2 has "been remarkably stable throughout history". In the context of the age of planet Earth, 10,000 years is not "history", it is "right now". CO2 levels today are indeed historically low compared to the last 600-million years or so. Compared to the "average" CO2 concentration during the time that complex life has existed on Earth, levels today are extremely low, to the point that according to some theories, plant growth is retarded and large herbivores and their large predators have all died off. Rising CO2 is not a problem for life on Earth in the abstract, but of course it may be a huge problem for human life on Earth in the specific. ] (]) 11:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
			:] {{Hlist|class=inline
	::::::::Did you read my comment? "History" is typically defined as the period for which we have some written sources - with 10000 years I was on the generous side (and just to make that clear I, well, made it clear by spelling it out. Sure, over longer periods of time, CO2 has varied more (as, again, I spelled out). --] (]) 11:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			}}
			:] ]
			:] {{Hlist|class=inline
			|]
			|]
			|]
			}}
			</div>
	:::::::::Yes, I read it, and I do actually agree with your main point, I'm just pointing out the difference between an anthropocentric view of time (much favored in climate change discussions) vs. a geological one, where frankly the entire long-term result of the whole of human civilization is likely to be nothing more than an interesting, if slightly more than usually dirty, layer of fossils. ] (]) 12:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
			</div>
	:::One thing I would say - and this is as someone with very basic scientific knowledge - but in Earth history when CO2 levels were as high as they are currently or projected, there was a considerable difference in the flora/fauna then abundant. They could tolerate that atmosphere, through the wonderful mechanisms of natural selection - the Earths current lifeforms are not so able to cope, certainly in changes that can be measured in centuries and decades. The headlines that state the risk to life are referring to those higher classes of animal - and some plants - that include us, our livestocks, our food crops, and the like; the planet and life will likely survive in some form whatever happens to the air and water and sea levels, but that may not include '''us'''. It isn't a point I see raised often enough in these debates - or at all. ] (]) 20:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
			] '''Arbitration'''
	::::Well, a lot of organisms evolved under much higher levels of CO2. Amusingly, corals evolved in such an environment and are being used as "proof" of global warming because some are doing poorly (due to farm runoff actually). As for adaption, humans can actually adapt to survive at much higher levels of CO2 (amazing what we can learn from submarines), higher than anything we could put into the atmosphere. The basic problem here is one of limited measurement - we see a tiny fragment of an enormous picture and think we know the whole thing. This is similar to how the news shows us disasters all over the world and how autism is diagnosed more - improved detection does not imply increased activity. ] (]) 20:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
			* Following the ], the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: {{Noping|Aoidh}}, {{Noping|Cabayi}}, {{Noping|Firefly}}, {{Noping|HJ Mitchell}}, {{Noping|Maxim}}, {{Noping|Sdrqaz}}, {{Noping|ToBeFree}}, {{Noping|Z1720}}.
	:::::I honestly don't know if the AGW concern is real or over-stated, but one thing I do know is I'm not generally willing to gamble on something where losing has such drastic consequences. Even if there's a 1% chance that the CO2 will destroy all life on earth, or even "just" obliterate the coasts, I want us to do what we can to prevent even that 1% eventuality. So I tend to be on the side of pragmatic moves away from our current addiction to fossil fuels, regardless of the validity of the hockey stick. And the current mess in the Gulf of Mexico reinforces that. Our addiction to oil is a Bad Thing that we should work to minimize.
			* Following a ], the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were ].
			* The arbitration case '']'' has been closed.
			] '''Miscellaneous'''
	:::::Where I differ from some editors here is, I believe the ''fight'' over tree rings and hockey sticks is a ''distraction'' from that larger goal. In their zeal to suppress criticism of the consensus, AGW-supporting scientists are winning the battle in scientific journals but losing the war of public opinion, which continues to lag far behind the scientific consensus. People see Climategate and the Misplaced Pages CC wars, both involving very high profile people in the AGW debate, and their distrust meter goes way into the red. They don't see scientists presenting data, they see environmentalists trying to take away their cars, or their gasoline, or their right to cut down a tree. Of course, certain elements on the "skeptic" side will amplify those fears (which are already overblown), but then, it's very easy to amplify when they're handed such rich material as Climategate and the Misplaced Pages CC battles.
			* The ] is happening in January 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles in the ]. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,000 unreviewed articles awaiting review. ]
			----
			{{center|{{flatlist|
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			}}}}
			<!--
			-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 11:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)</small>}}
			<!-- Message sent by User:EN-Jungwon@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1192518845 -->
	:::::But when editors here try to address the ''problems'' in this topic area, particularly that a very small group of editors has ] this topic for a long time, we are attacked as "septics" with an agenda. Apparently, nobody considers the possibility that someone like me can be sympathetic to their views and goals while disagreeing with their tactics, or that I could oppose an editor like WMC not because I have something against him, but because his identity as an environmentalist combined with his aggressiveness here does ''more harm than good'' to not only Misplaced Pages, but also to the goals we happen to share. In other words, I want him to stop not because I disagree with him, but ''because I agree with him.'' ] (]) 02:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
			== Administrative permissions and inactivity reminder ==
	::::::That's it '''precisely'''. I feel exactly the same way. I buy the science. I have for a long time. But the world isn't taking it seriously. And it's the folk doing the spin control (in the real world) that are wrecking things. The scientific method is supposed to allow for free and open examination of results... when that's interfered with, people start to wonder "what do these people have to hide?" ++]: ]/] 04:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::'' the folk doing the spin control (in the real world)'' - you mean people like ], ], ], ], and ]? Or are you confused about who is doing the spinning? --] (]) 11:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::There is spin control on both sides. Or do you deny that there is any on the other side? ++]: ]/] 13:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::::As far as I can tell, there is a whole lot of professional spinning going on on one side, involving everything from think tanks organising "conferences" to politicians and "journalists" issuing bland-faced lies on the state of the science. Of course people try to "control" that misrepresentation - see e.g. of "spin control". So sure, there is "some" on either side. But that does not remotely mean its a symmetrical situation. --] (]) 20:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::And when a scientist trys to engage with sceptics as I admire her for doing. Their engagement gets spun across the sceptic blogosphere as support for all of their deepest consiparcies per the recent BLP issues at ] ] (]) 11:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::Which is reprehensible. As is the suppression of what Curry said here at WP. ++]: ]/] 13:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::::Erm? Excuse me! Where the devil is the "suppression"? Removing badly sourced and incorrectly quoted content on a BLP is "suppression"? Nice!? Perhaps you may want to extend just a tiny bit of good faith, and ask whether people think that information on Curry's views should be included? I for one believe that it should - but it has to be quoted correctly, ''in context'' and be meticulously sourced. --] (]) 19:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
	::::::That also echo's my personal view of both the outside world (that is, of both Misplaced Pages and - differently - the scientific community) view and the issues with these articles. The science is sound, and is being tested, refined, and tested again, but the subject is not just the science. Both Lar and I ("...surprise, surprise...!" might be heard muttered) have separately suggested that the current AGW article might be retitled "Science of...", since that aspect dominates the article. I feel, however, that outside of our little world(s) it is the debate generated by the various interested parties that dominates the general public's attention. As a general purpose encyclopedia, rather than a scientific journal, it might be that the point of entry article Global Warming should address this wider consideration with reference to both the scientific consensus and the positions taken in relation to it by the different interested parties. Instead, I see that aspect of the issue marginalised away from the flagship article so that it appears that WP's stance is that AGW is an uncontrovertible fact (which is of course the consensus scientific view, but not so firmly the one recognised by the larger world) which is not in accordance to the WP ethos of scrupulous neutrality. ] (]) 13:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
	::::::: Yep. ++]: ]/] 13:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
			]This is a reminder that established ] provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. You are receiving this annual reminder since you have averaged less than 50 edits per year over the last 5 years.{{pb}}Inactive administrators are encouraged to reengage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at ]. If you do not intend to be engaged with the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the ].{{pb}}Thank you for your past contributions to the project. —&thinsp;] 00:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
	::::::: I am less concerned about article structure than the overall slant of the text. Some of these articles give the appearance of advocating a position rather than presenting the facts. It's subtle, and I truly believe that someone passionate about this issue would not recognize it, but to outsiders it is obvious. And it happens on both sides. Marknutley has produced some article stubs that exhibited obvious POV problems initially; but once he promoted to article space those issues were quickly corrected, because there are plenty of good editors on the "other side" (there I go again talking about sides ;-)) who immediately spot the POV and correct it. That's the way it's supposed to work, but the imbalance of editors in this topic area has prevented that from happening both ways.
			== Administrators' newsletter – February 2024 ==
	:::::::I think this exemplifies the fundamental conundrum of writing neutral articles in a contentious topic area: (1) the most active editors are those who are passionate about the issue, and (2) it is extremely difficult for editors passionate about an issue to write neutrally about that issue. Given these assumptions (which I believe hold true), it is absolutely essential for editors from all sides to work together in an atmosphere of mutual respect. That hasn't happened here, and indeed neutral/skeptical editors have been driven off by the contentious atmosphere and uneven enforcement of behavioral policies.
			] from the past month (January 2024).
	:::::::So with that goal in mind, I've tried to mentor some "skeptic" editors who can provide the balancing POV that these articles require. Examples include GoRight, Alex Harvey, Marknutley. In all cases, I had to tell them over and over again, "ignore WMC", but invariably WMC will escalate his aggressiveness beyond any editor's breaking point, because he's untouchable. So here we are: GoRight banned (probably injustly, given the level of hostility of those around him); Alex Harvey burned out; Marknutley close to burnout or ban; Cla68 and Lar (both neutrals by any reasonable standard) attacked as "biased"... and the result is the same few editors have free reign on these articles and the subtle but pervasive POV issues remain. ] (]) 16:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::Within that context, I really do not think WMC's attitude is the problem - because if he were the only editor who thought that the AGW articles were fundamentally neutral then the consensus would be something else; it is the reasonable - as in conducting themselves and their editing to preferred WP practices - editors who also believe that the viewpoint represented by the articles currently is the most encyclopedic. Given the tactics and advocacy of CC denial it isn't that surprising that there is something of a siege mentality as regards the viewpoint, but it is unhelpful in that "neutral to the other point of view" editors reasonable requests to allow more discourse upon the fact that there is established skepticism and denial of CC/AGW is disallowed on the premise that it gives these opinionaters more weight than the facts they rely upon; not wishing to allow the science to be usurped by political or mercantile considerations. Very worthy, but unrepresentative of the real debate outside of acedemia. Where WMC's, and others, actions are unhelpful is that it feeds this WP:BATTLE mentality and lessens the potential of substantive discussion over the question of npov editing. ] (]) 16:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::::But my point is that the battleground atmosphere combined with uneven behavioral enforcement actually ''sustains'' the existing consensus, because neutrals don't want to get involved in such a contentious fight and opposing partisans are removed from the debate. So it's not surprising that all that's left are those who agree with the status quo. If the battleground editors are removed on both sides, then a wider range of editors might get involved and help clean up the subtle POV problems that remain. The argument against this has always been "but if you remove WMC, the articles will go to crap", but that assumes that (a) the articles are already "correct" and therefore any movement away from the status quo will be detrimental, and (b) that the editors remaining will allow the pendulum to swing too far the other way. I disagree with both premises. ] (]) 20:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Hi TGL. I do agree with quite a bit of what you say: I think that humans could survive at higher CO2 and know that there were much higher CO2 levels in the past. On the flipside of the "past" bit, though, it is interesting to note that humans evolved in one of the lowest CO2 environments that the Earth has seen in its history. I think that the current concern about CO2 deals quite a bit with sea level rise and water supplies. Lots of people live on the coast, and lots of peoples' water is regulated by storage in and release from glaciers. There are positive feedback loops involved in global warming (ice-albedo being the most commonly talked-about) - without this, the ice age cycle wouldn't be able to be forced by orbital cycles. The runaway stuff is IMO environmentalist scare tactics. ] (]) 01:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
			<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
	Given our past interactions you would probably consider me an unlikely ally, but I do admire you for being ballsy enough to take on such an uphill battle. Who knows, maybe something will eventually come of it. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 19:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
			<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
	:Thanks. (as said in email) ++]: ]/] 16:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
	::I have replied to your email. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 18:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
			] '''Administrator changes'''
	== Welfare Industry ==
			:] {{Hlist|class=inline
	Yes please do start. --] ] 17:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
			|]
	:I think I'll pass for now. Perhaps after the RfC is resolved. ++]: ]/] 23:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
			|]
	::Ok, a pleasure for the future. I love ]
			}}
	:::I'm not sure I get the reference. I don't watch TV much at all and am uninterested in most of it, with very limited exceptions. ++]: ]/] 13:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
			:] {{Hlist|class=inline
	::::"Don't get me started on" is a sort of characterisation of Grumpy Old Men in the series. --] ] 18:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
			|]
	:::::You do realise that ] (or at least ]) is from ]? Don't get me started..... ], ] 14:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
			|]
			|] (])
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			}}
			] '''Bureaucrat changes'''
	== Cadre ==
			:] ]
	@Lar (so I would rather no one else replied until at least Lar has).
	The talk page on the RFC is a bit over-run so since I am trying to work out my opinion on the issue may I make a comment here:
	In my view a characteristic of a cadre, gang etc is clearly defined edges or membership. The existence of a core in a correlation does not establish a cadre unless there are also edges. Indeed as I am sure you know, cadre comes from the French for a box or frame and is used in French to specifically distinguish between blue and white collar workers, it is a "sharp edged" concept. On Global Warming, whatever correlations exist as far as I can see there are not clear edges. If we start with WMC or Kim and start widening the correlations to demonstrate a cadre you would need to show the list stops whilst the correlations spread. Last time (a couple of years ago) this was done on the Global Warming pages my (fallible) memory found some 35 editors involved in restroring the consensus view with a continuous variation in involvement from lots to just a few. At that time it was easy to draw a line around about 5 skeptics although there were later arrivals after blog campaigns to try to shift the article. Consequently, using words like gang and cadre of the editors in the centre around WMC is unjustified and promotes a battleground mentality. --] ] 07:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
	:I freely cop to not necessarily using the right word, something I've already said. I haven't found the right one yet and welcome suggestions. As you point out this grouping does have amorphous edges. But the defining characteristic, in my view, is not the position taken on the science, or even participation in article editing, although those are ways to find candidates, the defining characteristic is the pile on reflexive defense of editing practices that don't fit with our norms. There is occasional acknowledgment of issues but by and large it's, in my view, tactical. If I'm right about this phenomenon, it's not incivil to point it out. If I can be conclusively demonstrated to be wrong (denial of existence is not demonstration, mind) then I will apologize and retract my statements. As an aside: I've always felt that excusing jurors who seem to have a clue was a bad practice. While I have your ear, I must say I was surprised and dismayed to see you endorse SBHB's view since it's full of distortions of the record. Most of the other endorsers I wasn't surprised about, but you? I thought you knew better. ++]: ]/] 13:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
	::Ok, perhaps it is all words. A considerable part of my unhappiness about your comments derives from some of the words you use (inevitably). Clearly if we can find better words to use instead which match your view better and mean something different to me then my view would revise; but I need time to go through and see what it does if you replace "AGW cadre" with "core contributers" or whatever across the board. SBHB I have to say generally errs on the side of fairness in general so I will have another look. --] ] 18:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
	:::Can I please explain my own edits. I am probably not part of this cabal anyway but I am a scientist. I started editing over a year ago. I have not had significant offwiki contact with anyone. That is not to say I haven't had an email, but no more than one from any individual but I have never discussed any "tactics" with anyone and I have a mind of my own. As with any editing I quickly got familiar with those editors who were fighting against idiots (that is actually a soft word for the situation). Sometimes when I get bored with Balkans articles or Antarctic glaciology I have a look at the climate change articles. I see these guys reverting idiots so often that I sometimes join in with a revert and stick a comment on the talkpage. I only ever do this if I totally agree with the revert. I think if you spent five minutes really looking at the editors you would realise that KDP, WMC and SBHB to name just a few are some of the most intelligent people in this area of wikipedia, if not the most intelligent (far more clever than I am) do you really think they are jumping onto the revert button as some sort of "cabal" against some of the editors who are supporting Lar. No in my opinion they are actually defending wikipedia and Lar must in my opinion be a complete non-scientist to not realise this. ] (]) 18:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
	::::So to sum it up. If you see someone has reverted an idiot and the idiot has reverted their silly poorly sourced addition back in. Would it not be natural to try to repair the article? Now by Lar's comments this would be represented as me being part of a conspiracy!!! I cannot help it if sceptics on the whole are incapable of decent additions to wikipedia. I'm not here to nursemaid poor additons even if I agree with them, maybe from newbies but not from people who have been here for months. ] (]) 18:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
	:::::You haven't read what I've been saying nearly carefully enough, I don't think. ++]: ]/] 19:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
			</div>
	(after ec)Where to start? I think perhaps a review of some of your assumptions may be of benefit. There seem to be a few implicit ones about my views that are incorrect:
			<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
	* That I don't agree with KDP, WMC and SBHB, et al, about the science. As I've said, repeatedly, I do. While I am a layman in this area I've done enough reading in the topic to be completely convinced there is something serious going on and that in the main it fits what the global scientific consensus is.
	* That it's about the content of the articles. As I've said, repeatedly, I'm satisfied with the general weight given to the mainstream consensus about AGW versus the fringe theories and deniers. My disquiet rather is to do with the emphasis (social and political, vs. science) and about the tendency I see to try to suppress any sort of acknowlegement that there might be loose ends. Getting the names of articles to change to reflect common usage, to pick just one example, is a tooth and claw fight.
	* That I don't think KDP, WMC and SBHB, et al, are "intelligent". I've never said any such thing. I know they are. I just think they're going about "defending the wiki" the wrong way. Suppression and spin control get noticed. They perhaps have gotten so burnt out fighting with the deniers they no longer can tolerate differing opinions in any form, even from allies, about their approach.
	* That I think there is an offwiki coordinated effort here. There might be, but it's not the way to bet. The actions we are seeing are perfectly explainable merely by assuming certain folks watch each others contribs.
	* That I am a "complete non scientist"... this is the most inexplicable claim of all. I'm an engineer but I have considerable scientific training. My BS was going to be in Chem Eng until I switched majors in my senior year to Comp Sci, and I have a Masters as well.
	* That because I am a non scientist I don't realise that "defending wikipedia" at all costs via a scorched earth policy is the right approach. I'm not sure it is. I've expressed doubts, where I've wondered if this problem is in fact so important that we should use a scorched earth policy and overturn the WP principles because if we don't the world isn't going to listen and isn't going to do enough about AGW soon enough to prevent the impending disaster that coastal flooding, agriculture shifts, and other change will bring.
	My concern here is that the camps are so hardened that even a natural ally like myself has been put aside because I don't condone the means used to support the needful end. ++]: ]/] 19:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
			]
	:::As for me... I do not take issue with any decisions you have made acting as an uninvolved admin, your conversation seems reasonable to me and your opinion in the mix of responses adds value. Looking at the SBHB comments on RFC and elsewhere my concern is primarily that your choice of language is sometimes inappropriate (SBHB gives examples). I do not think that this problem is unique to you, plenty of other people involved in CC use battleground language etc. However, I don't see other people acting as uninvolved who are repeatedly making such personal or judgmental general characterisations outside the confines of specific requests for endorsement (I am sure like Gordon Brown I may have said bigot under my breath a few times too). Trading blow for blow with WMC is not really allowed whilst you are taking this role. I think you need to choose whether to judiciously ignore him and carry on as uninvolved or indulge in "I know your little game", "your gang", "I wondered when you would show up" etc replies. As a sysop on Misplaced Pages I reckon you just need to take the abuse and smile. Sometimes people even apologise later... --] ] 19:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Oh and that includes not refers to a cmt as "snarky mockery" even if the comment was of itself unhelpful. Basically that is escalating abuse rather than ignoring it. --] ] 19:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
	::::I'm willing to cop to not being perfect in my discourse. But that comment ''was'' snarky mockery and I think not calling people on stuff like that is part of why people get away with it. But ya. ++]: ]/] 03:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
			] '''CheckUser changes'''
	== Old Fruit? ==
			:] ]
			] '''Interface administrator changes'''
	Yes, I probably shouldn't point this out, especially now, but I've never been good at shutting up.
			:] {{Hlist|class=inline
			|]
			|]
			}}
			</div>
	I believe you've asked WMC not to refer to you as "old fruit?" If my memory is correct then I believe is a reference to you (might need to scroll down on the diff/check the edit summary).
			</div>
			] '''Guideline and policy news'''
	I also object to him classifying a little joke as an "ethnic slur" (slurring me as a racist for those who don't actually look at the diff), but I suppose that is par for the course. ] (]) 00:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
			* An ] about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.
	: I'm not totally clear who WMC is referring to. I'll have to ask him, I guess. Somehow. ++]: ]/] 03:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
			] '''Technical news'''
	::"obviously LHVU / Lar will now need to "narrow" the meaning of slur to exclude this use." It is either a reference to you or Less - I'm sure WMC will be happy to clarify though. ] (]) 03:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
			* Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. ({{phab|T326065}})
			] '''Arbitration'''
	:::Given that WMC (as most of England ) uses old fruit as rhyming slang for "chum" I would be surprised if he was addressing Lar or Less that way, aside the prohibition from American connotation. And the obvious reading from the diff was that it was addressed at himself (since his edit was to narrow down his previous comment). However finding out is clearly the priority now and doesn't look at all like harrasment. --] ] 07:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
			* Following a ], the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
	::::I've heard the phrase used either endearingly or pejoratively. ] (]) 07:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
			* Community feedback is ] for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at ].
			] '''Miscellaneous'''
	::::An interesting interpretation of the diff Bozmo and I respect your honest opinion. ] (]) 07:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
			* Voting in the ] will begin on 06 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 27 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC). The ] of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically to vote.
			* A vote to '''ratify the charter for the ]''' is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via ]. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found ].
			* Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the ]. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. ]
			* The ] is happening in February 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{tl|Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. ]
			----
	::::BozMo, perhaps you're not aware that Lar recently asked WMC specifically not to refer to him by that term . Seems to me that this is more baiting by WMC. But in his defense, WMC can't be expected to be sensitive to what other editors ] ] (]) 07:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
			{{center|{{flatlist|
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			}}}}
			<!--
			-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 18:02, 1 February 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=1201592826 -->
			== Administrators' newsletter – March 2024 ==
	:::::Hi ATren, Yes I know Lar requested not and I agree WMC should not address him that way (I don't know exactly what the offensive meaning is but I understand in the US even words like Fag and Fanny have strange meanings). As I have said where I was brought up "cock" and "cocker" were also terms of affection. But in this particular instance where it did not seem clearly addressed at Lar I think pursuing it is, well, am I allowed to say "pandering to attention seeking"... perhaps not. --] ] 07:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
	::::::BozMo: It's a reasonable interpretation that it was addressed to me, or to LHvU, or to both of us. It's a less reasonable, but still plausible interpretation that it was addressed to himself. So I asked, in a neutral way, with no prejudgment of response visible in the wording, and I'm prepared to take WMC at his word. Note how Guettarda responded. Including the insinuation that I'm a "skeptic". ''That'' is an example of the knee jerk defensiveness from members of this group that I've referred to as being problematic. Go chastise Guetterda. And while you're at it remind him yet again that I'm not a climate skeptic, I'm just skeptical of Guettarda's ''methods''. NOT the science. If you let Guettarda slide without a word, I will be disappointed in you and I will be (slightly) less inclined to take you seriously. YOU have standing to warn him without a charge that you might be baiting. I am perfectly entitled to warn him too, (or even, under the terms of the probation, block him) but I will let you have the opportunity to do it, first. ++]: ]/] 10:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::@Lar, I went to look with pistols drawn and found Guettarda didn't call you a climate sceptic. At worst he implied that you wrongly believed WMC was only rude to climate sceptics. And certainly WMC is fairly rude to me without having called me a sceptic (woolly yes, worse than useless, yes, "bending over backwards to make excuses for the poor dear skeptics".. <small>which I guess given the second reading of fruit is better than bending the other.. no I had better not say that.</small>.. yes, biased in favour of sceptics, yes having various forms of love fest with various people on his naughty list, yes but not myself a sceptic so far. Anyway as I said, WMC is far too sophisticated IMUO to go against the legit request, and every time he makes it an ambiguous second reading you shouldn't show it getting to you. --] ] 18:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::I'm afraid most of that analysis made no sense to me. ''I'm'' a Michigander. I think WMC ought to just answer the question. ++]: ]/] 19:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::::Oops, sorry, did not get the connection between you and a Michigander. Perhaps I should have known that. --] ] 19:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::::Sauce for the goose is sauce for the Michigander? I'm afraid your cultural allusion doesn't cross the pond terribly well, do please translate. . ], ] 19:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Me? Why ask me? Ask ''Guettarda'' what he meant by "he must be speaking to a "climate sceptic". Probably a Michigander" ... To me the referent seemed fairly obvious. Again, getting WMC to answer a polite question would seem to be a lot better use of everyone's time than all this second and third guessing and casting aspersions. ++]: ]/] 19:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Ah, didn't know that was where you got it, will do. As for WMC, he doesn't seem to have edited today so it might be more fruitful to show patience. Will sit on hands and wait. . . ], ] 19:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
			] from the past month (February 2024).
	:::::::Yes BozMo, I agree. Where is your warning to WMC or Guettarda? You have to start taking a tougher stand against those aligned with WMC. As far as I'm concerned, Lar's RFC has set the standard for "involvement" and "bias" in this probation, and I'm afraid you're not meeting it as long as you continue to defend these indefensible actions while opining so much more strongly against anyone who opposes WMC. And in particular, your (and KC's) support of SBHB's one-sided view in that RFC is (IMO) a strong indicator of not only your own biases, but you inability to work with other admins in this area. I think you should remove yourself entirely from this probation, as should 2/0, KC, and all others who have shown bias. This would not have been my preferred approach here, but after seeing the bogus criticism Lar is getting, it's time all admins were subjected to the same scrutiny. ] (]) 13:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::My prefered solution would be to get rid of sanctions altogether as I don't think they have helped to improve any articles. But that is unlikely to happen my old fruit (term applies to ATren and is meant in a friendly way as I find him an interesting character). ] (]) 13:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::: You may be right... I do think they (the sanctions) have helped but the cost in time and effort has been dear. Certainly the cost to me (in unwarranted attacks on my character, in time wasted defending against them so far, in time spent in general) has been high. I've focused my limited resources on en on almost nothing else of late. As a side note I think I have to point out that your use of "old fruit", here and now, in this conversation, was injudicious. Even with a disclaimer. ++]: ]/] 14:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::::Hmm, "injudicious", interesting word. "Judge not, lest ye be judged". . . . ], ] 14:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
	:Seriously, have all other problems on Misplaced Pages and in the world be solved? Does nobody here have anything better to do? --] (]) 14:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
	::You are right Stephan me old fruitcake. ] (]) 14:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
	::: Whereas fruit means "chum" fruitcake means "nutter/nutcase/nut" which may not be a personal attack in jest but certainly isn't the same thing. --] ] 20:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
			{{Col-begin}}
	== On a side note - am I totally off base? (Open to anyone really) ==
			{{Col-2}}
			] '''Administrator changes'''
	I feel quite strongly that Bozmo has changed his interpretation of the rules and I think the evidence I presented was clear, but I'm open to a reasonable alternative explanation. ] (]) 03:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
			:] {{Hlist|class=inline
	:I think I have to go with "yes", you're at least mostly off base. I erred in inviting you without getting clearance for it first. But more importantly you're generally not to discuss the topic area, and that's rather a broad prohibition. Cut BozMo some slack please. ++]: ]/] 03:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
			|]
			|]
			}}
			:] {{Hlist|class=inline
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			}}
			{{Col-2}}
	::Cut him some slack? He immediately proposed a 3 month extension of my ban after I commented on his talk page ''instead of filing an RfC.'' He flat out said that the probation area doesn't apply to user talk pages - when WMC's probation came up and was amended, but with me he seems to think a 3 month extension is reasonable over a single comment on his talk page I honestly considered a courtesy to him. ] (]) 03:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
			]
	:::I don't think that comment was the problematic area... rather it's the arguing about the topic itself. ++]: ]/] 03:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
			] '''Bureaucrat changes'''
	::::I don't understand what you are saying - I'm being punished for arguing that the probation isn't being applied consistently? I made the comment, he deleted it, and then immediately proposed a 3 month ban, while bringing up things that had nothing to do with the CC probation (e.g. comments on WMC's talk page for example). ] (]) 03:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
			:] ]
	::::: I thought the issue was that you've been arguing about the topic itself (arguing about whether AGW is real or not) I could be misreading it. I'm late for bed, I'll try to take a look in the AM. ++]: ]/] 04:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
			{{Col-end}}
	::::::@tgl. Here, by invitation you are welcome to talk. You are not, in my view, being punished. The prohibition is because you currently are clearly failing to recognise inappropriate behaviour and it appears a ban the only way of stopping you doing something which is bad for the project. This conversation is an example of behaviour which is unhelpful. It has been explicitly and clearly explained to you that there was no change in interpretation of the rules; user talk pages are not part of the CC probation in general but they were but of the area where you were banned from discussing Climate Change. But even though this has been patiently explained in a number of places you carry on raising it in other places and make bold accusatory comments about it. This page is the third (or more than third possibly) place where you are repeating this same point. If you put it in one place then someone will answer it and any concerned party is free to read your complaint, the reply and draw their own conclusions. If you put it all over Misplaced Pages then you leave editors the choice of looking like we ignore serious but false allegations or making them reply in each place. That is a nuisance and a form of forum shopping. --] ] 06:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
			] '''Guideline and policy news'''
	::::::::Well Bozmo, I brought it up to you and your response was to immediately delete it and then propose to extend my ban for 3 months - that sort of retaliation seemed quite draconian and I repeat that you need to consider your biases more carefully (and I'm not the only one who has said as much). With WMC, his prohibition was specifically stated to include user talk pages, even his user talk page, and 2over0 amended that '''after''' it came to his attention that he'd violated the letter of his sanction - which, of course, meant no punishment for violating his sanction, and certainly not a 3 month ban like you are proposing for me.
			* ] of the 2024 ] is now open for participation. Editors are invited to review, comment on, and propose improvements to the ].
			* Following ], the inactivity requirement for the removal of the ] right increased from 6 months to 12 months.
			] '''Technical news'''
	:::::::: I have yet to hear an rational explanation of why the climate change probationary boundaries are extended in my case, beyond their stated scope, to be as harsh as possible and yet amended to prevent punitive measures when WMC's name comes up. In fact, if there was any sense of decency in this place then you all would've warned WMC for bringing up a clearly retaliatory RfE that has done nothing more than to cause the drama it was so clearly intended to summon. My actions were clearly not disruptive prior to WMC's stirring of the pot yet again and '''sanctions are meant to be preventative not punitive''' - or is that only when convenient? ] (]) 06:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
			* The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. ({{phab|T353388}})
			] '''Miscellaneous'''
	::::::::::We haven't worked out how long to extend your ban for yet. AFAICT .yYou had already placed the same type of allegation in another location which you knew I frequented after you posted on my talkpage and had got an answer on my talkpage and before I deleted it from my talkpage and suggested extending the ban. The other stuff has already been answered elsewhere. --] ] 06:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
			* The 2024 appointees for the ] are ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and ] as members, with ] serving as steward-observer.
			* Following the ], the following editors have been appointed as stewards: ], ], ], ], ], ] and ].
			----
	:::::::::::I posted a '''link''' to the post that I made because I thought it was quite relevant that your definition of probationary scope appears to change depending on whose sanction it is. Also, while certainly not sanctionable, your recent creation and adding of the "old fruit" template, shows '''precisely''' where your sympathies lie and exactly why you are incapable of acting neutrally in this area. ] (]) 07:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
			{{center|{{flatlist|
	::::::::::::You posted more than one link and repeated the essential claim. As for the rest, I think you have already had the answer on the distinction between uninvolved and neutral. In fact I am not going to go back and find it but Lar expressed it rather neatly. And I am allowed to form a view on the value of editors and their contributions. --] ] 07:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			}}}}
			<!--
			-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 12:22, 1 March 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=1210490572 -->
			== Administrators' newsletter – April 2024 ==
	:::::::::::::You're right! I'm condemned! I pointed out to WMC, who was complaining that I might not get sanctioned, that he has had his own sanctions retroactively changed in order to avoid sanction. I find it incredible curious that nearly everytime I respond to WMC or to you, that you find that as evidence that I should be banned for a few more months. I'm still waiting on how you feel your actions are prevenative and not punitive. ] (]) 08:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
			] from the past month (March 2024).
			]
			] '''Administrator changes'''
			:] {{Hlist|class=inline
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			}}
			] '''Guideline and policy news'''
			* An ] is open to convert all current and future ] to (community designated) ].
			] '''Technical news'''
			* The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. ({{Phab|T313405}})
			] '''Arbitration'''
			*An ] to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".
			] '''Miscellaneous'''
			* Editors are invited to ''']''' for ], an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve ] and other core articles on Misplaced Pages.
			----
			{{center|{{flatlist|
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			}}}}
			<!--
			-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 16:48, 1 April 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=1216613162 -->
			== Administrators' newsletter – May 2024 ==
			] from the past month (April 2024).
			<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
			<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
			] '''Administrator changes'''
			:] ]
			:] {{Hlist|class=inline
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			}}
			] '''Bureaucrat changes'''
			:] ]
			</div>
			<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
			]
			] '''CheckUser changes'''
			:] ]
			] '''Oversight changes'''
			:] ]
			</div>
			</div>
			] '''Guideline and policy news'''
			* Phase I of the ] has concluded. Several proposals have passed outright and will proceed to implementation, including ] (3b) and ] (13) on a trial basis. Other successful proposals, such as ] (2), will undergo further refinement in Phase II. Proposals passed on a trial basis will be discussed in Phase II, after their trials conclude. Further details on specific proposals can be found in the ].
			] '''Technical news'''
			* Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Misplaced Pages. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. ]
			] '''Arbitration'''
			* The arbitration case '']'' has been closed.
			] '''Miscellaneous'''
			* This may be a good time to reach out to potential nominees to ask if they would consider an RfA.
			* A ] is happening in May 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles in the ]. Currently, there is a backlog of over 15,000 articles awaiting review. ]
			* Voting for the ] election is open until 9 May 2024. Read the ] and ''']'''
			----
			{{center|{{flatlist|
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			}}}}
			<!--
			-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 17:26, 2 May 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=1220239146 -->
			== Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C ==
			<section begin="announcement-content" />
			:''] ''
			Dear Wikimedian,
			You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
			This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the ] to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
			The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please ].
			Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
			On behalf of the UCoC project team,<section end="announcement-content" />
			] 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
			<!-- Message sent by User:RamzyM (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Election/2024/Previous_voters_list_2&oldid=26721207 -->
			== Administrators' newsletter – June 2024 ==
			] from the past month (May 2024).
			<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
			<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
			] '''Administrator changes'''
			:] ]
			:] {{Hlist|class=inline
			|]
			|]
			|]
			}}
			] '''Bureaucrat changes'''
			:] {{Hlist|class=inline
			|]
			|]
			}}
			</div>
			<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
			]
			] '''Oversight changes'''
			:] ]
			</div>
			</div>
			] '''Guideline and policy news'''
			* ] of the ] has commenced to improve and refine the proposals passed in ].
			] '''Technical news'''
			* The ] feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. ]
			] '''Arbitration'''
			* The arbitration case '']'' has been closed.
			* The Committee is ], including access to the ].
			] '''Miscellaneous'''
			* WikiProject Reliability's ] is happening in June 2024 to replace {{tl|citation needed}} tags with references! ''']'''
			----
			{{center|{{flatlist|
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			}}}}
			<!--
			-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 16:44, 5 June 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=1227360647 -->
			==Happy First Edit Day!==
			<!-- ##RW UNDERDATE## -->
			{{ombox
			| name = First Edit Day
			| image = ]
			| imageright = ]
			| style = border: 2px solid CornflowerBlue; background: linear-gradient(300deg, AliceBlue, LavenderBlush 30%, LavenderBlush 70%, AliceBlue);
			| textstyle = padding: 0.75em; text-align:center;
			| plainlinks = yes
			| text = <big>'''Happy First Edit Day!'''</big><br />Hi Lar! On behalf of the ], I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made and became a Wikipedian! ] (]) 02:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
			}}
			== Administrators' newsletter – July 2024 ==
			] from the past month (June 2024).
			]
			] '''Administrator changes'''
			:] {{Hlist|class=inline
			|]
			|]
			|]
			}}
			:] {{Hlist|class=inline
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|] (])
			|]
			|]
			}}
			] '''Technical news'''
			* Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. ] on MediaWiki. ({{phab|T6086}})
			] '''Miscellaneous'''
			* The ] is re-opening on 15 July 2024. ]
			----
			{{center|{{flatlist|
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			}}}}
			<!--
			-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 07:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)</small>}}
			<!-- Message sent by User:EN-Jungwon@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1231927808 -->
			== Administrators' newsletter – August 2024 ==
			] from the past month (July 2024).
			<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
			<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
			] '''Administrator changes'''
			:] ]
			:] {{Hlist|class=inline
			|]
			|]
			}}
			] '''Interface administrator changes'''
			:] ]
			</div>
			<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
			]
			] '''CheckUser changes'''
			:] ]
			</div>
			</div>
			] '''Technical news'''
			* ] may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may ] when appropriate.
			* Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via ]. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.
			] '''Arbitration'''
			* The Arbitration Committee ] the following administrators to the ]: {{noping|Bilby}}, {{noping|Extraordinary Writ}}
			----
			{{center|{{flatlist|
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			}}}}
			<!--
			-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 16:00, 6 August 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=1238586059 -->
			== Administrators' newsletter – September 2024 ==
			] from the past month (August 2024).
			<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
			<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
			] '''Administrator changes'''
			:] ]
			] '''Interface administrator changes'''
			:] ]
			</div>
			<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
			]
			] '''Oversighter changes'''
			:] ]
			] '''CheckUser changes'''
			:] {{hlist|class=inline
			|]
			|]
			}}
			</div>
			</div>
			] '''Guideline and policy news'''
			* Following an ], there is a new ]: ], which {{tq|applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past}}.
			* A ] is open to discuss whether ] should be adopted as a ].
			] '''Arbitration'''
			* Following a ], ] (the topic and interaction bans on ], respectively) were repealed.
			* ] of the ] ("{{noping|Cinderella157}} German history topic ban") was ] for a period of six months.
			* The arbitration case ] is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.
			] '''Miscellaneous'''
			* Editors can now enter into ], an alternative for informal '']'' arrangements, to have a ] reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
			* A ] is happening in September 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,900 articles and 26,200 redirects awaiting review. ]
			----
			{{center|{{flatlist|
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			}}}}
			<!--
			-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 18:45, 2 September 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=1242830842 -->
			== Cool gadget! ==
			{{Quote box
			| width = 20%
			| border = 1px
			| align = left
			| bgcolor = #F5FAFF
			| fontsize = 1em
			| title_bg = #CEE0F2
			| quote = {{If IP|You are not logged in, so you {{color|DarkRed|'''are not extended confirmed'''. }}|Your account {{If extended confirmed|{{color|DarkGreen|'''is extended confirmed'''.}}|{{color|DarkRed|'''does not have the extended confirmed flag'''}}{{If administrator|, but you {{color|DarkGreen|'''are an administrator'''}}, so your account is extended confirmed by default}}.}}}}
			| qalign = center
			}}
			It should show you, gentle user, whether you are an admin and whether you have the extended confirmed flag or not. ++]: ]/] 17:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
			== Administrators' newsletter – October 2024 ==
			] from the past month (September 2024).
			]
			] '''Administrator changes'''
			:] {{hlist|class=inline
			|]
			|]
			}}
			:] {{hlist|class=inline
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			}}
			] '''CheckUser changes'''
			:] {{hlist|class=inline
			|]
			|]
			}}
			:] {{hlist|class=inline
			|]
			|]
			}}
			] '''Guideline and policy news'''
			*] are a proposed new process for selecting administrators, offering an alternative to ] (RfA). The first trial election will take place in October 2024, with ] from October 8 to 14, a ] from October 22 to 24, and ] from October 25 to 31. For questions or to help out, please visit the talk page at ].
			* Following ], the speedy deletion reason "File pages without a corresponding file" has been moved from criterion ] to ]. This does not change what can be speedily deleted.
			* A ] is open to discuss whether there is a consensus to have an ] process.
			] '''Arbitration'''
			* The arbitration case '']'' has been closed.
			* An arbitration case regarding ] has been opened.
			* Editors are invited to ''']''' to serve on the 2024 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission until ''23:59 October 8, 2024 (UTC)''.
			] '''Miscellaneous'''
			* If you are interested in stopping spammers, please put ] and ] on your watchlist, and help out when you can.
			----
			{{center|{{flatlist|
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			}}}}
			<!--
			-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 16:00, 2 October 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=1248355798 -->
			== Invitation to participate in a research ==
			Hello,
			The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this ''''''.
			You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
			The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ] .
			Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
			Kind Regards,
			]
			<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
			<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Current_Admins&oldid=27650221 -->
			== Administrators' newsletter – November 2024 ==
			] from the past month (October 2024).
			]
			] '''Administrator changes'''
			:] {{hlist|class=inline
			|]
			}}
			:] {{hlist|class=inline
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			}}
			] '''CheckUser changes'''
			:] ]
			] '''Oversighter changes'''
			:] ]
			] '''Guideline and policy news'''
			* Following a ], the ] proposal that went for a trial to refine the ] (RfA) process has been discontinued.
			* Following a ], ] is adopted as a policy.
			] '''Technical news'''
			* Mass deletions done with the ] tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. {{phab|T366068}}
			] '''Arbitration'''
			* {{noping|RoySmith}}, {{noping|Barkeep49}} and {{noping|Cyberpower678}} have been appointed to the ] for the ]. {{noping|ThadeusOfNazereth}} and {{noping|Dr vulpes}} are reserve commissioners.
			* Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate from 3 November 2024 until 12 November 2024 to stand in the ].
			* The Arbitration Committee is ] for roles such as clerks, access to the COI queue, checkuser, and oversight.
			] '''Miscellaneous'''
			* An ] is happening in November 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{tl|Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. ]
			----
			{{center|{{flatlist|
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			}}}}
			<!--
			-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 10:21, 3 November 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=1254686817 -->
			== Reminder to participate in Misplaced Pages research ==
			Hello,
			I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Misplaced Pages. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ].
			Take the survey ''''''.
			Kind Regards,
			]
			<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 00:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
			<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Current_Admins_(reminders)&oldid=27744339 -->
			:I did. It was interesting. ++]: ]/] 22:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
			== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message ==
			<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
			<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.
			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>] (]) 00:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
			</div>
			</div>
			<!-- 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 -->
			==Orphaned non-free image File:The Week US Cover December 16 2005 small.jpg==
			] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]).
			Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> <span style="background:#202122;font-family:monospace;padding:4px 3px 3px">]<span style="color:#8DFF1A">❯❯❯</span>]</span> 00:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
			:This was a cover from 2005. I see the article ] has been updated to use a much more recent cover. I have no issue whatever with deletion of this image, it served its purpose and has been obsoleted. ++]: ]/] 22:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
			== Administrators' newsletter – December 2024 ==
			] from the past month (November 2024).
			]
			] '''Administrator changes'''
			:] {{hlist|class=inline
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			}}
			:] {{hlist|class=inline
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			}}
			:] {{hlist|class=inline
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			}}
			] '''Interface administrator changes'''
			:] {{hlist|class=inline
			|]
			|]
			}}
			:] ]
			] '''CheckUser changes'''
			:] {{hlist|class=inline
			|]
			|]
			}}
			] '''Guideline and policy news'''
			* 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.
			* Following a ], a new speedy deletion criterion, ], has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.
			] '''Technical news'''
			* Technical volunteers can now register for the ], which will take place in Istanbul, Turkey. is open from November 12 to December 10, 2024.
			] '''Arbitration'''
			* 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.
			----
			{{center|{{flatlist|
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			}}}}<!--
			-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 16:20, 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 -->
			== Precious anniversary ==
			{{User QAIbox/auto|years=Six}}
			--] (]) 07:59, 28 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>
			</div>
			] '''Guideline and policy news'''
			* 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'''
			* 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}}.
			] '''Miscellaneous'''
			* A ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ]
			----
			{{center|{{flatlist|
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			}}}}
			<!--
			-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 15:48, 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 15:48, 5 January 2025

About me

Essays

Trinkets

Trivia

Visited

Talk

I recognize that this user page belongs to the Misplaced Pages project and not to me personally. As such, I recognize that I am expected to respectfully abide by community standards as to the presentation and content of this page, and that if I do not like these guidelines, I am welcome either to engage in reasonable discussion about it, to publish my material elsewhere, or to leave the project. My real name is Larry Pieniazek and I like LEGO(r) Brand building elements. Feel free to mail me with comments or concerns if you don't want to post. As a note, I rarely get involved in anything any more, I confine my activity at WMF projects to a little light editing here and there, so your email is most likely to get a response on your talk page that I got it and I'm not going to do anything about it. Here about a BLP that's persistently getting vandalized and you want me to semi protect it? Leave a note below, (User:Lar/Liberal Semi is no longer in use) and I or one of my TPWs will get it. Here to leave me a message? Response time varies depending on where I'm active... Ping me if it's truly urgent, or find another admin. Here about accountability? see my accountability page. Note: The apparent listification of the category (it's back but may go away again) does not change my commitment to my recallability in any way Please read the two blue boxes :). A Note on how things are done here: Being a "grumpy old curmudgeon", I have certain principles governing this talk page which I expect you to adhere to if you post here. (This talk page is my "territory", (although I acknowledge it's not really mine, it's the community's) and I assume janitorial responsibility for it.) Please observe Misplaced Pages:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette here. I may, without notice, refactor comments to put like with like, correct indents, or retitle sections to reflect their contents more clearly. If I inadvertently change the meaning of anything, please let me know so I can fix it! While I reserve the right to delete comments I find egregiously poor form, I am normally opposed to doing so and use monthly random archives instead. If you post here, your words will remain here and eventually in the archives, so please do not delete them, use strikeouts. In other words, think carefully about what you say rather than posting hastily or heatedly. Edit warring here is particularly bad form. One of my WP:TPW's may well issue a short block, so don't do it. When all else fails, check the edit history. (cribbed from User:Fyslee's header... Thanks!) (From User:Lar/Eeyore Policy) A Note on threading: Interpersonal communication does not work when messages are left on individual users' talk pages rather than threaded, especially when a third party wishes to read or reply. Being a "bear of very little brain", I get easily confused when trying to follow conversations that bounce back and forth, so I've decided to try the convention that many others seem to use, aggregation of messages on either your talk page or my talk page. If the conversation is about an article I will try to aggregate on the article's talk page. If the conversation is on your talk page or an article talk page, I will watch it. If the conversation is on my talk page or an article talk page and I think that you may not be watching it, I will link to it in a note on your talk page, or in the edit summary of an empty edit. But if you start a thread here, please watch it. I may mess up, don't worry, I'll find it eventually. Ping me if you really need to. please note this is a personal preference rather than a matter of site policy (From User:Lar/Pooh Policy) Archives Talk Page Archives v t e My 2006 archived talk Archive 1 start through about 22 Jan 2006 Archive 2 22 Jan 2006 through 1 Mar 2006 Archive 3 1 Mar 2006 through 1 Apr 2006 Archive 4 1 Apr 2006 through 15 Apr 2006 Archive 5 15 Apr 2006 through 1 May 2006 Archive 6 1 May 2006 through 15 May 2006 Archive 7 15 May 2006 through 1 June 2006 Archive 8 1 June 2006 through 15 June 2006 Archive 9 15 June 2006 through 1 July 2006 Archive 10 1 July 2006 through 15 July 2006 Archive 11 15 July 2006 through 1 August 2006 Archive 12 1 August 2006 through 15 August 2006 Archive 13 15 August 2006 through 1 September 2006 Archive 14 1 September 2006 through 15 September 2006 Archive 15 15 September 2006 through 1 October 2006 Archive 16 1 October 2006 through 15 October 2006 Archive 17 15 October 2006 through 1 November 2006 Archive 18 1 November 2006 through 15 November 2006 Archive 19 15 November 2006 through 1 December 2006 Archive 20 1 December 2006 through 15 December 2006 Archive 21 15 December 2006 through 1 January 2007 My 2007 archived talk Archive 22 1 January 2007 through 15 January 2007 Archive 23 15 January 2007 through 1 February 2007 Archive 24 1 February 2007 through 15 February 2007 Archive 25 15 February 2007 through 1 March 2007 Archive 26 1 March 2007 through 15 March 2007 Archive 27 Trentino — South Tyrol topics Archive 28 15 March 2007 through 1 April 2007 Archive 29 1 April 2007 through 1 May 2007 Archive 30 1 May 2007 through 1 June 2007 Archive 31 1 June 2007 through 1 July 2007 Archive 32 1 July 2007 through 1 August 2007 Archive 33 1 August 2007 through 1 September 2007 Archive 34 1 September 2007 through 1 October 2007 Archive 35 1 October 2007 through 1 November 2007 Archive 36 1 November 2007 through 1 December 2007 Archive 37 1 December 2007 through 1 January 2008 My 2008 archived talk Archive 38 1 January 2008 through 1 February 2008 Archive 39 1 February 2008 through 1 March 2008 Archive 40 1 March 2008 through 1 April 2008 Archive 41 1 April 2008 through 1 May 2008 Archive 42 1 May 2008 through 1 June 2008 Archive 43 1 June 2008 through 1 July 2008 Archive 44 1 July 2008 through 1 August 2008 Archive 45 1 August 2008 through 1 September 2008 Archive 46 1 September 2008 through 1 October 2008 Archive 47 1 October 2008 through 1 November 2008 Archive 48 1 November 2008 through 1 December 2008 Archive 49 1 December 2008 through 1 January 2009 My 2009 archived talk Archive 50 1 January 2009 through 1 February 2009 Archive 51 1 February 2009 through 1 March 2009 Archive 52 1 March 2009 through 1 April 2009 Archive 53 1 April 2009 through 1 May 2009 Archive 54 1 May 2009 through 1 June 2009 Archive 55 1 June 2009 through 1 July 2009 Archive 56 1 July 2009 through 1 August 2009 Archive 57 1 August 2009 through 1 September 2009 Archive 58 1 September 2009 through 1 October 2009 Archive 59 1 October 2009 through 1 November 2009 Archive 60 1 November 2009 through 1 December 2009 Archive 61 1 December 2009 through 1 January 2010 My 2010 archived talk Archive 62 1 January 2010 through 1 February 2010 Archive 63 1 February 2010 through 1 March 2010 Archive 64 1 March 2010 through 1 April 2010 Archive 65 1 April 2010 through 1 May 2010 Archive 66 1 May 2010 through 1 June 2010 Archive 67 1 June 2010 through 1 July 2010 Archive 68 1 July 2010 through 1 August 2010 Archive 69 1 August 2010 through 1 September 2010 Archive 70 1 September 2010 through 1 October 2010 Archive 71 1 October 2010 through 1 November 2010 Archive 72 1 November 2010 through 1 December 2010 Archive 73 1 December 2010 through 1 January 2011 My 2011/2012 archived talk Archive 74 1 January 2011 through 1 February 2011 Archive 75 1 February 2011 through 1 March 2011 Archive 76 1 March 2011 through 1 April 2011 Archive 77 1 April 2011 through 1 May 2011 Archive 78 1 May 2011 through 1 December 2012 My post 2012 archived talk Archive 79 1 December 2012 through 1 December 2013 Archive 80 1 December 2013 through 1 December 2016 Archive 81 1 December 2016 through 1 December 2018 Archive 82 1 December 2018 through 1 January 2021 Archive 83 1 January 2021 through 1 January 2023 Archive 84 1 January 2023 through 1 January 2025 ?? RfA Thank Yous RFA Archive Howcheng (27 Dec 2005) through present All dates approximate, conversations organised by thread start date Note: I archive off RfA thank yous separately, I think they're neat! An index to all my talk page archives, automatically maintained by User:HBC Archive Indexerbot can be found at User:Lar/TalkArchiveIndex. This is Lar's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Administrators' newsletter – January 2023 News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2022). Administrator changes ComplexRational Extraordinary Writ Stephen Andrew Yong Dbenbenn DESiegel GlassCobra Joe Decker Nancy Pathoschild StuffOfInterest William Pietri Wwwwolf Xdamr Interface administrator changes Nihiltres CheckUser changes Moneytrees Ivanvector SilkTork Oversighter changes GeneralNotability Moneytrees Guerillero SilkTork Guideline and policy news Speedy deletion criterion A5 (transwikied articles) has been repealed following an unopposed proposal. Arbitration Following the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, CaptainEek, GeneralNotability, Guerillero, L235, Moneytrees, Primefac, SilkTork. The 2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review has concluded with many changes to the discretionary sanctions procedure including a change of the name to "contentious topics". The changes are being implemented over the coming month. The arbitration case Stephen has been closed. Miscellaneous Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023. Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards. Discuss this newsletter Subscribe Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC) Administrators' newsletter – February 2023 News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2023). Administrator changes Gimmetrow Bjelleklang Bob the Wikipedian Leithp WhisperToMe 100 inactive admins CheckUser changes BDD Bradv Donald Albury Maxim MusikAnimal Oversighter changes BDD Bradv Donald Albury Maxim Guideline and policy news Following an RfC, the administrator policy now requires that prior written consent be gained from the Arbitration Committee to mark a block as only appealable to the committee. Following a community discussion, consensus has been found to impose the extended-confirmed restriction over the topic areas of Armenia and Azerbaijan and Kurds and Kurdistan. Technical news The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Misplaced Pages. Arbitration The arbitration case Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 24 February 2023. In December, the contentious topics procedure was adopted which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period. There is a detailed summary of the changes and administrator instructions for the new procedure. The arbitration clerk team are taking suggestions, concerns, and unresolved questions about this new system at their noticeboard. Miscellaneous Voting in the 2023 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote. Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023. Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier. Discuss this newsletter Subscribe Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC) Administrators' newsletter – March 2023 News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2023). Administrator changes The Wordsmith Fuhghettaboutit Spinningspark (deceased) CheckUser changes Callanecc Oversighter changes Callanecc Guideline and policy news Following a request for comment, F10 (useless non-media files) has been deprecated. Following a request for comment, the Portal CSD criteria (P1 (portal subject to CSD as an article) and P2 (underpopulated portal)) have been deprecated. A request for comment is open to discuss making the closing instructions for the requested moves process a guideline. Technical news The results of the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey have been posted. Arbitration Remedy 11 ("Request for Comment") of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been rescinded. The proposed decision for the Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case is expected 7 March 2023. A case related to the Holocaust in Poland is expected to be opened soon. Miscellaneous The 2023 appointees for the Ombuds commission are AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, JJMC89, MdsShakil, Minorax and Renvoy as regular members and Zabe as advisory members. Following the 2023 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Mykola7, Superpes15, and Xaosflux. The Terms of Use update cycle has started, which includes a roposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing. Feedback is being accepted until 24 April 2023. Discuss this newsletter Subscribe Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC) Administrators' newsletter – April 2023 News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2023). Administrator changes Aoidh KillerChihuahua CheckUser changes Ferret Guideline and policy news A community RfC is open to discuss whether reports primarily involving gender-related disputes or controversies should be referred to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Technical news Some older web browsers will not be able to use JavaScript on Wikimedia wikis starting this week. This mainly affects users of Internet Explorer 11. (T178356) 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 link to the user's Special:CentralAuth page will now appear in the subtitle links shown on Special:Contributions. This was voted #17 in the Community Wishlist Survey 2023. Arbitration The Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case has been closed. A case about World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been opened, with the first evidence phase closing 6 April 2023. Discuss this newsletter Subscribe Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC) Concern regarding Draft:Electric van Hello, Lar. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Electric van, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace. If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it. Thank you for your submission to Misplaced Pages. FireflyBot (talk) 07:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC) Administrators' newsletter – May 2023 News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2023). Administrator changes Spicy Ale jrb Dbachmann DGG (deceased) Jimbo Wales CheckUser changes Jimbo Wales Oversighter changes Jimbo Wales Guideline and policy news 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. Arbitration The proposed decision in the World War II and the history of Jews in Poland case is expected 11 May 2023. Miscellaneous The Wikimedia Foundation annual plan 2023-2024 draft is open for comment and input through May 19. The final plan will be published in July 2023. Discuss this newsletter Subscribe Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC) Administrators' newsletter – June 2023 News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2023). Administrator changes Ingenuity Ddstretch Prodego Resolute CheckUser changes Courcelles Guideline and policy news 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. Miscellaneous Following a community referendum, the arbitration policy has been modified to remove the ability for users to appeal remedies to Jimbo Wales. Discuss this newsletter Subscribe Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC) Administrators' newsletter – July 2023 News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023). Administrator changes Novem Linguae Deckiller Electionworld MBisanz Penwhale Raul654 Roadrunner Viridae Yannismarou Bureaucrat changes MBisanz Guideline and policy news Contributions to the English Misplaced Pages are now released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0) license instead of CC BY-SA 3.0. Contributions are still also released under the GFDL license. Technical news Discussion is open regarding a proposed global policy regarding third-party resources. 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 Scottywong case and 9 July 2023 for the AlisonW case. Discuss this newsletter Subscribe Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC) Orphaned non-free image File:AlticorLogo.jpg Thanks for uploading File:AlticorLogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media). Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 17:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC) Administrators' newsletter – August 2023 News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2023). Administrator changes Firefangledfeathers AlisonW Amberrock Closedmouth Scottywong Interface administrator changes Novem Linguae Technical news The tag filter on Special:NewPages and revision history pages can now be inverted. This allows hiding edits made by automated tools. (T334338) Special:BlockedExternalDomains 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 MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. It does not support regex (for complex cases), URL path-matching, or the MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. (T337431) Arbitration The arbitration cases named Scottywong and AlisonW closed 10 July and 16 July respectively. The SmallCat dispute arbitration case is in the workshop phase. Discuss this newsletter Subscribe Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC) Administrators' newsletter – September 2023 News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2023). Administrator changes Pppery Theleekycauldron Dwheeler G.A.S Royalbroil Ssd CheckUser changes Bradv Oversighter changes Bradv Guideline and policy news 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. Technical news Special:Contributions now shows the user's local edit count and the account's creation date. (T324166) Arbitration 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. Discuss this newsletter Subscribe Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC) Administrators' newsletter – November 2023 News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2023). Administrator changes 0xDeadbeef Tamzin Dennis Brown Interface administrator changes Pppery Ragesoss TheresNoTime Guideline and policy news Technical news The WMF is working on making it possible for administrators to edit MediaWiki configuration directly. This is similar to previous work on Special:EditGrowthConfig. A technical RfC is running until November 08, where you can provide feedback. There is a proposed plan for re-enabling the Graph Extension. Feedback on this proposal is requested. Arbitration Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 12 November 2023 until 21 November 2023 to stand in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections. Xaosflux, RoySmith and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee Elections. BusterD is the reserve commissioner. 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! Discuss this newsletter Subscribe Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC) Nomination for deletion of Template:Merge-Class Template:Merge-Class has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Fayenatic London 11:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)  ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message 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. If you wish to participate in the 2023 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) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC) Administrators' newsletter – December 2023 News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2023). Administrator changes Ganesha811 JPxG Ajpolino Lourdes Mairi RockMFR Somno WilyD Beeblebrox → Just Step Sideways CheckUser changes Beeblebrox Opabinia regalis Oversight changes Beeblebrox Opabinia regalis Guideline and policy news Following a talk page discussion, the Administrators' accountability policy has been updated to note that while it is considered best practice for administrators to have notifications (pings) enabled, this is not mandatory. Administrators who do not use notifications are now strongly encouraged to indicate this on their user page. Arbitration Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive. The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year. Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 11, 2023 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here. Discuss this newsletter Subscribe Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC) Precious anniversary Precious Five years! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC) Thanks!!! ++Lar: t/c 05:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC) Administrators' newsletter – January 2024 News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023). Administrator changes Clovermoss Dennis Brown Julia W Marasmusine PBS CheckUser changes Aoidh HJ Mitchell Sdrqaz Spicy ToBeFree Vanamonde93 Z1720 Maxim Enterprisey Izno SilkTork Oversighter changes Aoidh Firefly Sdrqaz ToBeFree Z1720 Maxim Enterprisey Izno SilkTork Arbitration Following the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Aoidh, Cabayi, Firefly, HJ Mitchell, Maxim, Sdrqaz, ToBeFree, Z1720. Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were enacted in June 2009. The arbitration case Industrial agriculture has been closed. Miscellaneous The New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,000 unreviewed articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate! Discuss this newsletter Subscribe Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC) Administrative permissions and inactivity reminder This is a reminder that established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. You are receiving this annual reminder since you have averaged less than 50 edits per year over the last 5 years.Inactive administrators are encouraged to reengage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to be engaged with the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC) Administrators' newsletter – February 2024 News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024). Administrator changes Red-tailed hawk Robertsky Ameliorate! Ancheta Wis Anthony Bradbury (deceased) Cobi Ev Moondyne Worm That Turned Bureaucrat changes Worm That Turned CheckUser changes Wugapodes Interface administrator changes Enterprisey Izno Guideline and policy news An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback. Technical news Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065) Arbitration Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas. Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE. Miscellaneous Voting in the 2024 Steward elections will begin on 06 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 27 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote. A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here. Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in February 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate! Discuss this newsletter Subscribe Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC) Administrators' newsletter – March 2024 News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024). Administrator changes Sdkb The Night Watch East718 Isabelle Belato Mzajac Staecker Stan Shebs Sugarfish Tamzin Bureaucrat changes SilkTork Guideline and policy news Phase I of the 2024 RfA review is now open for participation. Editors are invited to review, comment on, and propose improvements to the requests for adminship process. Following an RfC, the inactivity requirement for the removal of the interface administrator right increased from 6 months to 12 months. Technical news The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388) Miscellaneous The 2024 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ＊ぜ, AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Doǵu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, MdsShakil, Minorax, Nehaoua, Renvoy and RoySmith as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer. Following the 2024 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Ajraddatz, Albertoleoncio, EPIC, JJMC89, Johannnes89, Melos and Yahya. Discuss this newsletter Subscribe Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC) Administrators' newsletter – April 2024 News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024). Administrator changes Kbdank71 Kosack NrDg TLSuda Guideline and policy news An RfC is open to convert all current and future community discretionary sanctions to (community designated) contentious topics procedure. Technical news The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405) Arbitration An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy". Miscellaneous Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Misplaced Pages. Discuss this newsletter Subscribe Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC) Administrators' newsletter – May 2024 News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024). Administrator changes Nyttend JohnOwens Killiondude MelanieN Nihonjoe Bureaucrat changes Nihonjoe CheckUser changes Joe Roe Oversight changes GeneralNotability Guideline and policy news Phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship review has concluded. Several proposals have passed outright and will proceed to implementation, including creating a discussion-only period (3b) and administrator elections (13) on a trial basis. Other successful proposals, such as creating a reminder of civility norms (2), will undergo further refinement in Phase II. Proposals passed on a trial basis will be discussed in Phase II, after their trials conclude. Further details on specific proposals can be found in the full report. Technical news Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Misplaced Pages. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531 Arbitration The arbitration case Conflict of interest management has been closed. Miscellaneous This may be a good time to reach out to potential nominees to ask if they would consider an RfA. A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in May 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 15,000 articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate! Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is open until 9 May 2024. Read the voting page on Meta-Wiki and cast your vote here! Discuss this newsletter Subscribe Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC) Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages. Dear Wikimedian, You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process. This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility. The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter. Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well. On behalf of the UCoC project team, RamzyM (WMF) 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC) Administrators' newsletter – June 2024 News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2024). Administrator changes Graham Beards Deskana Mets501 Staxringold Bureaucrat changes Deskana Warofdreams Oversight changes Dreamy Jazz Guideline and policy news Phase II of the 2024 RfA review has commenced to improve and refine the proposals passed in Phase I. Technical news The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351 Arbitration The arbitration case Venezuelan politics has been closed. The Committee is seeking volunteers for various roles, including access to the conflict of interest VRT queue. Miscellaneous WikiProject Reliability's unsourced statements drive is happening in June 2024 to replace {{citation needed}} tags with references! Sign up here to participate! Discuss this newsletter Subscribe Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC) Happy First Edit Day! Happy First Edit Day! Hi Lar! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC) Administrators' newsletter – July 2024 News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2024). Administrator changes Elli HouseBlaster Pickersgill-Cunliffe Brianga De728631 Georgewilliamherbert Hyacinth (deceased) ProveIt The Night Watch Technical news Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086) Miscellaneous The Community Wishlist is re-opening on 15 July 2024. Read more Discuss this newsletter Subscribe Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC) Administrators' newsletter – August 2024 News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2024). Administrator changes Isabelle Belato Ian.thomson Modussiccandi Interface administrator changes Izno CheckUser changes Barkeep49 Technical news Global blocks may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may locally unblock when appropriate. Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked. Arbitration The Arbitration Committee appointed the following administrators to the conflict of interest volunteer response team: Bilby, Extraordinary Writ Discuss this newsletter Subscribe Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC) Administrators' newsletter – September 2024 News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2024). Administrator changes Pppery Interface administrator changes Pppery Oversighter changes Wugapodes CheckUser changes Courcelles GeneralNotability Guideline and policy news Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past. A request for comment is open to discuss whether Notability (species) should be adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline. Arbitration Following a motion, remedies 5.1 and 5.2 of World War II and the history of Jews in Poland (the topic and interaction bans on My very best wishes, respectively) were repealed. Remedy 3C of the German war effort case ("Cinderella157 German history topic ban") was suspended for a period of six months. The arbitration case Historical Elections is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case. Miscellaneous Editors can now enter into good article review circles, an alternative for informal quid pro quo arrangements, to have a GAN reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination. A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in September 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,900 articles and 26,200 redirects awaiting review. Sign up here to participate! Discuss this newsletter Subscribe Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC) Cool gadget! You are not logged in, so you are not extended confirmed. Your account is extended confirmed.does not have the extended confirmed flag, but you are an administrator, so your account is extended confirmed by default. It should show you, gentle user, whether you are an admin and whether you have the extended confirmed flag or not. ++Lar: t/c 17:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC) Administrators' newsletter – October 2024 News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2024). Administrator changes Asilvering Significa liberdade Good Olfactory Hesperian I JethroBT TommyBoy Woody CheckUser changes Barkeep49 Izno Doug Weller Spicy Guideline and policy news Administrator elections are a proposed new process for selecting administrators, offering an alternative to requests for adminship (RfA). The first trial election will take place in October 2024, with candidate sign-up from October 8 to 14, a discussion phase from October 22 to 24, and SecurePoll voting from October 25 to 31. For questions or to help out, please visit the talk page at Misplaced Pages talk:Administrator elections. Following a discussion, the speedy deletion reason "File pages without a corresponding file" has been moved from criterion G8 to F2. This does not change what can be speedily deleted. A request for comment is open to discuss whether there is a consensus to have an administrator recall process. Arbitration The arbitration case Historical elections has been closed. An arbitration case regarding Backlash to diversity and inclusion has been opened. Editors are invited to nominate themselves to serve on the 2024 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission until 23:59 October 8, 2024 (UTC). Miscellaneous If you are interested in stopping spammers, please put MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist on your watchlist, and help out when you can. Discuss this newsletter Subscribe Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC) Invitation to participate in a research Hello, The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey. You do not have to be an Administrator to participate. The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement . Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns. Kind Regards, WMF Research Team BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) Administrators' newsletter – November 2024 News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2024). Administrator changes Crisco 1492 Babajobu Daniel Elf Jayron32 Thue Wugapodes CheckUser changes Maxim Oversighter changes Maxim Guideline and policy news Following a discussion, the discussion-only period proposal that went for a trial to refine the requests for adminship (RfA) process has been discontinued. Following a request for comment, Administrator recall is adopted as a policy. Technical news Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068 Arbitration RoySmith, Barkeep49 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2024 Arbitration Committee Elections. ThadeusOfNazereth and Dr vulpes are reserve commissioners. Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate from 3 November 2024 until 12 November 2024 to stand in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections. The Arbitration Committee is seeking volunteers for roles such as clerks, access to the COI queue, checkuser, and oversight. Miscellaneous An unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in November 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate! Discuss this newsletter Subscribe Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC) Reminder to participate in Misplaced Pages research Hello, I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Misplaced Pages. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement. Take the survey here. Kind Regards, WMF Research Team BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC) I did. It was interesting. ++Lar: t/c 22:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC) 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) 00:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC) Orphaned non-free image File:The Week US Cover December 16 2005 small.jpg Thanks for uploading File:The Week US Cover December 16 2005 small.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media). Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 00:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC) This was a cover from 2005. I see the article The Week has been updated to use a much more recent cover. I have no issue whatever with deletion of this image, it served its purpose and has been obsoleted. ++Lar: t/c 22:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC) Administrators' newsletter – December 2024 News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2024). Administrator changes Ahecht DoubleGrazing Dr vulpes FOARP Peaceray Queen of Hearts Rsjaffe SD0001 SilverLocust Sohom Datta ThadeusOfNazereth Voorts Ajpolino Fathoms Below Pppery Tamzin Worm That Turned Aervanath Christopher Sundita Dank Dennis Brown Dragons flight Fastily Graham87 JaGa Kbh3rd Marine 69-71 Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington Yamamoto Ichiro Interface administrator changes SD0001 Sohom Datta Pppery CheckUser changes Spicy TheresNoTime Guideline and policy news Following an RFC, the policy on restoration of adminship has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity. Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, T5, has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used. Technical news Technical volunteers can now register for the 2025 Wikimedia Hackathon, which will take place in Istanbul, Turkey. Application for travel and accommodation scholarships is open from November 12 to December 10, 2024. Arbitration The arbitration case Yasuke (formerly titled Backlash to diversity and inclusion) has been closed. An arbitration case titled Palestine-Israel articles 5 has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 14 December. Discuss this newsletter Subscribe Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC) Precious anniversary Precious Six years! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC) Administrators' newsletter – January 2025 News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024). Administrator changes Sennecaster Daniel Hog Farm BozMo Ferret John M Wolfson MaxSem Panyd Tide rolls Titoxd CheckUser changes Daniel Elli Liz ScottishFinnishRadish Theleekycauldron Worm That Turned Ferret Oversight changes Daniel Elli Liz ScottishFinnishRadish Theleekycauldron Worm That Turned Guideline and policy news Following an RFC, Misplaced Pages:Notability (species) was adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline. A request for comment 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 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 Following the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: CaptainEek, Daniel, Elli, KrakatoaKatie, Liz, Primefac, ScottishFinnishRadish, Theleekycauldron, Worm That Turned. Miscellaneous A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate! Discuss this newsletter Subscribe Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)