Misplaced Pages

User talk:Lord Roem: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:05, 14 June 2012 editLord Roem (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators10,811 edits →Hatting: reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:46, 5 January 2025 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,138,457 edits →Administrators' newsletter – January 2025: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{User:X!/RfX Report}}
{{ArbComOpenTasks}} {{ArbComOpenTasks}}
{{User:X!/RfX Report}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(120d)
| archive = User talk:Lord Roem/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s
| archiveheader = {{MonthlyArchive|root={{NAMESPACE}}:{{ROOTPAGENAME}}/Archives}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 1
}}
{{archive box| {{archive box|
*] *]
*] *]
*] *]
*]}} *]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]}}


{{adminstats|Lord Roem}}
== Data set ==


== Precious anniversary ==
Do you have the original dataset you used to create ]? I want to relabel the axises and take the mean number of cases per month during the the time period. You can email it to me if you want. thanks --] | ] 03:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
{{User QAIbox/auto|years=Seven}}
--] (]) 14:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)


== Administrators' newsletter – October 2024 ==
:I'm afraid not. I made that on Excel with an old computer that I've replaced. :-/ ] (]) 03:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


] from the past month (September 2024).
::I will need to extract it myself. Thanks. --] | ] 03:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


]


] '''Administrator changes'''
== Thanks for !voting ==
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}


] '''CheckUser changes'''
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
|]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''at my successful RFA'''
|]
|-
}}
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you, {{BASEPAGENAME}}, for !voting at my successful RFA; I am humbled that you put your trust in me, and also impressed by your work with the ''Signpost''. I grant you this flower, which, if tended to properly, will grow to be the fruit of ]. — ] (]) 11:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|}
|]
|]
}}


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
:Thank you Crisco. I appreciate the kind words. Best of luck in your new admin duties! {{smiley}} -- ] (]) 14:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
*] 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 Signpost'': 04 June 2012 ==
* 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'''
<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
* If you are interested in stopping spammers, please put ] and ] on your watchlist, and help out when you can.
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2012-06-04}}
</div><!--Volume 8, Issue 23-->
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
* ''']'''
* ]
* ]
* ] (]) 09:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
</div>
<!-- EdwardsBot 0281 -->


----
== Question ==
{{center|{{flatlist|
*Why did you remove what I wrote about Mohamed Morsi's opinion about the 9/11 attacks? I properly quoted it from a Foreign Policy article? 8 June 2012
* ]
I didn't think there was anything unsubstantiated. The only thing that came close was my claim that the ED page is harassment (which seems pretty obvious). As I supplied a link that agreed it was ridicule (and the same link is on the evidence page) is fixing that enough? I put (way too much) effort into that and I think it adds value. Just let me know what to fix. Thanks! ] (]) 19:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
* ]
*Or, if the issue is the claims with Fae, can I just cite the links made by others (also on the evidence page)? Just trying to figure out to what you are referring. ] (]) 19:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
* ]
**You are free to post on the evidence section links regarding the central issues in the case. You need to ensure though that every single accusation is linked with a diff illustrating the behavior or issue you're criticizing. You can use your post, sure, but it needs to be 1) condensed into a more factual (less exposition) form, 2) needs to have diffs, originally had a single link, 3) needs to avoid speculation, only containing incidences of specific events, not broad and vague, possibly 'casting aspersion' type of language. This not only ensures your evidence complies with the rules, but also increases the chances that what you have to say will be thoroughly considered by the Committee. If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to leave another note here or contact me by email. Best, ] (]) 19:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
}}}}
***I didn't feel I was making accusations that weren't documented by links on the evidence page. Would it be enough just to include those same links in my comments? Can I just link directly to the evidence page rather than copying those links?
<!--
**** The ED page I _can't_ link to, so I'm not sure what to do with that. Is it casting aspirations to claim that I think the page is an attack page? I mean, I've no idea how to prove that (diffs or otherwise) but it would be deleted in a second as an attack page on Misplaced Pages, I don't think anyone would debate that. ] (]) 20:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 16:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)</small>}}
**** And commenting on the evidence, on the evidence talk page, is traditionally what the talk page is used for. I'm not sure how to go about doing that. Any guidance?
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1248355798 -->
:::If I have time to update that, I'll e-mail it to you first. ] (]) 20:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
::::If you are uncertain about posting the evidence, feel free to email it directly to the Committee. Just let me or NW (the lead clerk on the case) know so we can alert the Committee to be on the lookout for your evidence. As to your other question, you do need to link directly to the edit by the user you're critiquing. This ensures an easy to see thought process from your statement and the incident cited. ] (]) 20:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::Hummm, I guess the root problem is that I'm not trying to post evidence, I'm trying to comment on the evidence. Is there any place I can do that? ] (]) 21:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
::::::You're certainly free to do that on the page you were trying to edit on. I think it was very clear though that both the nature and form of your post was like a long evidentiary statement. If your purpose is commentary, be sure to keep it ''commentary'', not arguments. ] (]) 21:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Ok, I'll give that a shot. The boundary here is a bit fuzzy. ] (]) 21:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
*OK, I'm finding your clerking here fairly far out of the norm. I responded on that page to you, but perhaps your talk page is a better place for the discussion. I feel people are claiming the ED page isn't an "attack page" and I'm trying to establish that DC and Michaeldsuarez (both of whom have indicated it is not an attack page) would agree that by the standard we use for Misplaced Pages pages they agree it would be an attack page. I think I've done that in a civil tone. If instead you could ask them the question and get a "yes" or "no" out of them without caveats that would be fine too. I don't need to be the one writing the words, but I do think it quite reasonable to understand what they mean by "attack page". ] (]) 20:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
**I do not see what good will come from getting into an argument with another editor on the case talk page. You both have the opportunity to state your positions in either a workshop discussion or through evidence linking to Misplaced Pages behavior on the evidence section. Whether or not ''they'' think its an attack page is immaterial to how the Committee will make its decisions. There's simply no use in getting something out of another editor here - it's just not the point of the process. ] (]) 20:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
***They are using a term that is used as a ] on Misplaced Pages. I'm trying to establish what exactly they mean by that (the term of art per G10 or a more generic term). Again, if you feel I'm getting too hot on this topic (as you indicated on the talk page) I'd be pleased to have you or someone else pose the question. As far as being on a different page, I'd assumed discussing the terms used in the evidence page and the talk page would belong ''on'' the talk page. That seems the traditional and expected place for such a discussion. ] (]) 20:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
****It appears SirFozzie has confirmed my suspicions about the unhelpful nature of this discussion in hatting the section off. -- ] (]) 20:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
***Eh, looks like SirFozzie agrees with you. Given that (I've learned to respect his opinion and that gives me two independent people with the same opinion) I guess I was out of line. Still don't see it, but that's they joy of taking things too personally, you often don't see it. Thanks. ] (]) 20:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


== Invitation to participate in a research ==
== Notes ==


Hello,
Just wondering what was the reason for edit. The article seems to have been using the "references" subheading since the beginning so is there some guideline to use to notes subheading I'm not aware of? Regards, ] <sup>(])</sup> 22:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


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 ''''''.
:Hi SunCreator! As per a guideline, I'm not entirely sure. The reason I made the change was because those first two appeared to be specific citations while the latter (bulleted) points seemed to be books or scholarly work that was generally being used for the article.


You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
:I'll try to find the guideline. One minute. -- ] (]) 22:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ] .
::I found the reference ]. It's just something I've seen used on some Supreme Court/law articles. I feel it tends to sort the references better. ] (]) 22:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
:::Okay, thanks for the link and explanation. Regards, ] <sup>(])</sup> 22:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


Kind Regards,
== Quick chat? ==


]
Would you be available on IRC or Google chat (if you use that) for a quick chat about my evidence? ] (]) 18:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
:I think its generally fine. I just think you need to rephrase your statement. Rather than "XYZ has an attack page", make it "XYZ follows the page closely" or "XYZ did nothing about categorization into a bad/negative category". Its an important distinction, one that I want you to make if possible. ] (]) 18:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
<!-- 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 ==
::, thank you. {{smiley}} -- ] (]) 18:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


] from the past month (October 2024).
:::Actually I wanted to discuss evidence I haven't yet posted, so the question stands. :-) ] (]) 18:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


]
::::Okay. Feel free to email me. '''But''', please note that if I am unsure of a reply, I may forward your email to the Clerks list. Would you be fine with that? ] (]) 18:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


] '''Administrator changes'''
:::::OK, fair enough. It's something I contacted NuclearWarfare about earlier but he's not replied and he doesn't seem to have edited today, so there may be a bit of overlap. But if it's something you can advise me on in the meantime, that will help, given that the cutoff date for further evidence is not far off now. ] (]) 18:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}


] '''CheckUser changes'''
{{od}} Alright. Sounds good. Send away! ] (]) 18:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
:] ]


] '''Oversighter changes'''
:Done. Thanks. :-) ] (]) 18:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
:] ]


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
== Ta ==
* 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'''
I can understand why he's getting cross - and I'm trying to get through to him about copyvio and advertising. Thanks for reverting, but I was actually amused. No-one's ever called me fat before - I'm one of those infuriating people who eats full fat, non-diet full sugar (and chocolate) things and doesn't put on weight. ] (]) 21:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
* 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}}
:Ha. I need to steal your genes. {{smiley}} ] (]) 21:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


] '''Arbitration'''
== Re: Mailing list ==
* {{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. ]


----
Hey Roem, way back in you asked me some questions for the Signpost. I must have missed the initial posting--is it still relevant or have you already dispensed with that story? :) Apologies again, <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup><small>(<font color="#ff6600">]</font>)</small></sup> 23:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
{{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 ==
:Since the beginning of clerking, ] has taken over the Arbitration Report at the ''Signpost''. I'd ask him if he wants your answers as I think he'd still be interested.
:Best, ] (]) 23:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


Hello,
== Fæ's answers ==


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 ].
I've been patiently waiting for Fæ or someone else to remove the two long quotations in his "answers" which serve no purpose other than to attack me. I've asked about them on the talk page twice now. What do I have to do to get the stated rules of evidence to be applied? My patience is wearing thin, but I thought I would approach you directly before taking more drastic measures. ] (]) 12:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


Take the survey ''''''.
:Let me take a look. ] (]) 14:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
:Could you clarify as to what specifically is distressing you? ] (]) 14:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
::DC may well mean ] and following, which look like they are as yet unattended by a clerk. '''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font><font color="#0000FF">]</font>''' 01:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
:::I think you're right. I'll check it out. ] (]) 01:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
:::Just checked, seems he has a series of cites that follow that claim. ] (]) 01:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
::::Really? Did you bother to look at the links he provided? Only a single one is to Misplaced Pages and the is absolutely no connection made between the comment in that statement and WR. Do you have any comments on the other six very specific issues I detailed on the talk page for you? ] (]) 10:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::As NYB said on the talk page, some of these issues are just irrelevant. However, from your line below it appears you want quotations of you removed? Things he claims you said? Is that more accurate? Sorry, but you need to be explicit. You raised a long series of issues on the evidence talk page, and I'm just not sure which specific one you're bringing here. Thanks for clarifying, ] (]) 15:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
::::::I'm sorry, but I don't think I understand the relevance of NYB's statement. I have made specific requests about 7 parts of Fæ's "answers" - as clerk, please address them (on the talk page at the very least). ] (]) 15:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
::More specific than asking for the long quotations to be removed? How much more specific can I be? ] (]) 10:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
::*This quotation of Russavia is an attack on me personally: "This request is simply an extension of harrassment by some other vile characters on Wikipediareview. Fae has undergone some unadulterated harrasment by various users on WR, and a lot of it is of the homophobic variety. DC, IMO, is very close to going over this line of harrassment, if they haven't already. Editors should know that DC posted Fae's home address and phone number on WR, on a thread which was discussing Fae in a manner which can only be construed by any reasonable person as harrassment, so their claim here that they are only interested in Fae's Misplaced Pages activities is absolute and clear BS... It is obvious it is, because they made a point of including a photo which Fae had taken at this beach in their statement; obviously hoping to play in homophobic feelings which some editors may hold. It is absolutely atrocious and disgusting behaviour to be engaging in...". Please remove it. ] (]) 15:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
::*This quotation of 28bytes is an attack on me personally: "The WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and clear WP:OUTING violations by Delicious carbuncle are simply appalling, as many of the participants in this discussion have noted. DC seems to have participated in an "ends justify the means" campaign to bring the alleged wrongdoing of another editor to light. Well, the ends don't justify the means here, and it is simply unconscionable to publicly post private information taken from an e-mail sent in presumed confidence, and further use that information to play detective in an attempt to "bring down" that editor." Please remove it. ] (]) 15:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
:::*I do think the first quote is probably over the line. Which numbered cite is that? -- ] (]) 15:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
::::*It isn't a numbered cite, oddly enough. Let me know if you have any trouble locating it - perhaps I can draw you a diagram. On what basis is the second quotation acceptable? It makes untrue claims of a violation of WP:OUTING, and speculates as to my motivation and actions with no attempt to support those claims. ] (]) 18:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::*I mean, this isn't an exact science. I just feel the tone of the first one seems ''much'' more personal compared to the second which could be explained as just making a argument (albeit in a form I wouldn't prefer). But yes, if you could tell me where the cite is, that would be helpful. There are over 100 diffs on the page. Thanks, ] (]) 18:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
::::::*I think it might help to review what the question being answered was and ask if that second quote is actually relevant or necessary to present some particular fact. I think you will find that Fæ is not answering the question at all, but instead making a case against me based on an erroneous supposition which I have already asked to have corrected. See the history of the evidence page for your diagram. Thanks. ] (]) 19:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::::I think Fae is entitled to quote one of the more popular opinions from the RfC/U. Collect's "46-versus 34" vote also excludes the 29 who favored this draft, some of whom did not sign on with Hobit's 34. It is important to represent the RfC/U fairly. ] (]) 20:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Lord Roem, the quote from 28bytes is highly relevant, as it reflects the opinion of many editors and administrators in closing a thread that I started on AN/I back in January that's of central importance to this case. Further evidence is in preparation that will demonstrate the significance to the disputed RFC/U of the comment from 28bytes - an admin who is, as far as I know, not currently involved in issues concerning Fae and, again as far as I know, had no previous involvement at the time of the thread. The quote is ''not'' a personal attack - see ]: "discussion of a user's conduct or history is not in itself a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion (e.g. the user's talk page, WP:WQA, ], WP:RFC/U)." Please keep the quote in place. ] (]) 20:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
{{od}} DC, if you wish to get a second opinion on the second quote, you are free to message either SirFozzie or send an email to the clerks mailing list. -- ] (]) 23:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


Kind Regards,
== Your RFA ==


]
Hi, Lord Roem! I think that you will make a great admin and therefore have supported you. Congratulations on your (current) 97% support, I have no doubts that this one will go down as successful. Regards! ] (]) 17:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


:Thank you, Electriccatfish2. I wish you the best in your own content work. Regards, ] (]) 01:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC) <bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 00:18, 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 -->


== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message ==
::FWIW, you have done a lot of good work in your time, and you have not lost all potential. Bearing that in mind, my advice is that you should avoid making the foolish mistake of sticking to one area - you may be tempted (even indirectly) to follow examples which will eventually not help you too. The negative feedback provided by users in your RFA is a lot more useful than what some other RFA candidates or even Arb candidates receive; it is up to you to make sure it does not go to waste. Best, ] (]) 16:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
== Quick question about your username ==
<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.
Hi, I didn't want to raise this at your RfA since it's largely irrelevant and just for my personal peace of mind – but how does one pronounce the second word of your username? Like "]"? Like "]", but with an "m"? Thanks. ''']''' <sup>'''] / ]</sup>''' 20:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
:Ha! First time someone's asked me that!
:You would say "Row-em" like Row as in rowing a boat and then the letter 'M'. {{smiley}} -- ] (]) 20:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


</div>
== Question re:Commons ==
</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/03&oldid=1258243506 -->


== Administrators' newsletter – December 2024 ==
Would it be acceptable in my evidence to link a comment of Fae's made at Commons that I referred to in my initial submission to Arbcom? Would it be acceptable to reference the existence of an email sent to me and characterize how I interpreted it? Thanks. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 03:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
:I feel that both are ok, but let me confirm via the clerks list so I can give you a definite answer. -- ] (]) 03:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
:I don't have a response on the list yet, but you have safe harbor to include the evidence you want to include above. The Commons link didn't raise concerns when first posted, and I see no reason it should now. The discussion of the email needs to be careful to not disclose anything private, but if it's about how you "interpreted it", that sounds fine as well. Thank you for asking before posting. Regards, ] (]) 04:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
::Done, thanks. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 05:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
:::I intend to post some links to Commons as well. Based on other links already present, I am going to assume that this is allowable, but if not, feel free to remove them and let me know. I asked about scope on the evidence talk page, but no one has answered as yet. ] (]) 05:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
::::You're fine in posting such links, as I told MBisanz above. ] (]) 05:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


] from the past month (November 2024).
== Your Rfa and my removal from opposition ==


]
I look for any evidence of maliciousness or incompetance in admin candidates and in your case I see no prior history of either. Therefore, since my only reasons for opposing were due to a low edit count and the 8.5 month hiatus and resumed good work, I have retracted my oppose. Good luck.--] 01:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


] '''Administrator changes'''
:Thank you MONGO, I appreciate your courtesy message. Best, ] (]) 01:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}


] '''Interface administrator changes'''
== Mail ==
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}
:] ]


] '''CheckUser changes'''
{{ygm}} <font face="Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></font> 05:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
:] {{hlist|class=inline
:Apologies Steven. I'm a little backlogged at the moment but will get to your email later today. -- ] (]) 16:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
|]
::OK. Gchat is fine today as well - but this is a bit time sensitive so as soon as possible :-) <font face="Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></font> 22:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
|]
}}


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
== Could you .... ==
* 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'''
... comment ] if you have the time. Thanks. --] <small>(])</small> 13:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
* Technical volunteers can now register for the ], which will take place in Istanbul, Turkey. is open from November 12 to December 10, 2024.
:Whoops. Noticed that you're up at RfA - Good luck with that! --] <small>(])</small> 13:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


] '''Arbitration'''
:I've responded there. -- ] (]) 16:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
* The arbitration case '']'' (formerly titled '']'') has been closed.
* An arbitration case titled '']'' has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 14 December.


----
== Evidence length ==
{{center|{{flatlist|
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 16:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1259680487 -->


== Administrators' newsletter – January 2025 ==
Thanks for the notification. I've reduced it to 548, still slightly over but only by 48 words. I've asked SirFozzie if this is good enough for him to accept (see ]). ] (]) 19:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
:Ok, I think 548 is within a margin of reasonableness. Thanks for trimming! ] (]) 19:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


] from the past month (December 2024).
==Please comment on ]==
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the ] on ''']'''. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see ]. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from ].'' <!-- Template:FRS message -->— ] (]) 21:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
== ''The Signpost'': 11 June 2012 ==
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">


] '''Administrator changes'''
<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
:] ]
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2012-06-11}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
</div><!--Volume 8, Issue 24-->
|]
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
* ''']''' |]
}}
* ]
:] {{hlist|class=inline
* ]
|]
* ] (]) 22:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
|]
</div>
|]
<!-- EdwardsBot 0284 -->
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}


] '''CheckUser changes'''
== Request to clarify RFA evidence ==
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] ]
:] ]


</div>
Very late last night, just before the evidence phase closed, another editor noted a potential error in the evidence I posted. I did not notice the problem until this morning. The problem results from imprecise language condensed in order to meet the 500-word length limit. I can resolve the problem without violating that limit, and the language would not have been quite so drastically condensed if I had known of the leeway subsequantly recognized by your response to Prioryman on your talk page (but not by the boilerplate bot language). I therefore request permission to add brief clarifying language to ]. ] (]) 17:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
:I think that's reasonable. Go ahead. {{smiley}} ] (]) 17:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
]
::Thank you. ] (]) 17:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


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


</div>
Could I ask you to take a look at ] before it devolves into yet another futile argument? ] (]) 20:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
</div>
:FYI, I've compromised by removing the section that seems to be prompting the most comment, but I won't be removing the other one ("Fae has been subjected to sustained hostile off-wiki attention") since it's an important point and one would think an uncontroversial statement of fact. ] (]) 21:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

==RfA==
I see that you have withdrawn from your RfA, which was probably good timing as you have received as much good information as you were likely going to. While I don't think you are quite ready, I can see possibly supporting you in the future once you have had time to address the issues brought up. Without rehashing any individual items, I thought you handled the overall process better than most candidates. It is a trial by fire, to be sure, a painful but necessary ordeal. I don't see anything here that would prevent a successful RfA in the future when you are a bit more experienced. ] - ] ] 16:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
:Thank you Dennis. I too appreciate your thoughtful remarks. Opposes can sometimes be incivil or argumentative, but yours was thoughtful and offered good advice. I will take it to heart. Best, ] (]) 16:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
::Hi Lord Roem,
::I want to repeat that I have a favorable impression of you, and would just like you to get more experience. Good luck! <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 18:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

== drat ==

I am sorry to see you withdraw - I had the page on my list to edit as a "support" when it happened :). Please ''do'' try again -- I suppose once you hit 5K edits some of the "opposes" will evaporate! Cheers. ] (]) 16:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

== Sorry ==

I'm sorry you received so many opposed for my question. Your answer was satisfactory to me. I was more concerned that you have a vague idea of the forces at work in the scenario rather than that you knew a textbook answer. Apparently others felt differently. Had I known the question would tank your RFA, I would've just left it be and stayed in the neutral section. Sorry again.--v/r - ]] 17:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

== Argh ==

Apologies, just saw the bit about not editing the page. :/ My edit was just to change "above" to refer to what "above" meant after the move to the case page. ] 17:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

== Your withdrawal statement ==

Impressive. Please make sure you let me know if/when you run again. --] (]) 18:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

== Just a note ==

I meant what I said at your RfA—both the (hopefully constructive) criticism and the praise, and I think you have the potential to a bloody good admin in the not-too-distant future. I hope you won't feel too down that that day isn't today, and if you're going to Wikimania in DC, make a point of bumping into me and I'll buy you a drink. Best, ] &#124; ] 18:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

== Autopatrolled ==


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
I didn't like seeing the Perth pages marked as needing to be patrolled, so I added autopatrolled to your rights. --] 18:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
* 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'''
== Next time ==
* 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}}.
Well...next time they will surely support in droves. I was saddened to see several editors use your Rfa to take potshots at each other. However, it was great seeing your calm and reserved reactions. Best wishes.] 18:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


] '''Miscellaneous'''
== Hatting ==
* A ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ]


----
I strongly object to your hatting of that section at the evidence talk page. I asked a legitimate question, and it relates directly to what is unclear in the evidence. You made a serious mistake there, and you need to correct it. --] (]) 20:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
{{center|{{flatlist|
:The hatting is not due to it not being a ''legitimate'' question, it very well may be. But the ''responses'' will be based on pure speculation. You asked "What, then, does it come from" in reference to potentially vitriolic remarks about Fae. There are may possibilities; I won't speculate myself now. But, others would, and that's strictly against the rules.
* ]
:If you are unsatisfied by this, then please keep in mind one thing: the proposed decision will include a long timeline leading up to any remedies the Committee feels is appropriate. It may even provide an answer to your question. But right now at least, it isn't appropriate. ] (]) 20:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
* ]
* ]
}}}}
<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 15:46, 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 15:46, 5 January 2025

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 17:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC).—Talk to my owner:Online

Archiving icon
Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.


Admin statistics
Action Count
Edits 10901
Edits+Deleted 11076
Pages deleted 645
Revisions deleted 15
Pages restored 2
Pages protected 178
Protections modified 27
Users blocked 167
Users reblocked 7
Users unblocked 3
User rights modified 78
Users created 1

Precious anniversary

Precious
Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2024

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

Administrator changes

added
removed

CheckUser changes

readded
removed

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

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) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2024

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

Administrator changes

readded
removed

CheckUser changes

removed Maxim

Oversighter changes

removed Maxim

Guideline and policy news

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

Miscellaneous

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) 00:18, 13 November 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) 00:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2024

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

Administrator changes

added
readded
removed

Interface administrator changes

added
readded Pppery

CheckUser changes

readded

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

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

Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

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

Administrator changes

added Sennecaster
readded
removed

CheckUser changes

added
readded Worm That Turned
removed Ferret

Oversight changes

added
readded Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

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

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)