| Revision as of 01:51, 5 May 2021 editTrottieTrue (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users22,016 edits →User:FDW777: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:43, 5 May 2021 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,381 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:ToBeFree/A/3) (botNext edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| {{TOC limit|2}} | {{TOC limit|2}} | ||
| == Jamesmiko/PennaRican81 is editing userboxes again == | |||
| I thought to Jamesmiko/PennaRican81 that he could not edit any userboxes. His most recent contributions seem to have breached the topic ban and userboxes were edited (creation, changes, etc). Did I miss something or he thought that he could get away with it? – ] (]) 06:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Okay, I forgot about the appeal part. I request an appeal to the indefinite ban. Furthermore, Sabbatino should receive some kind of ban for this kind of harassment. S/he is not an admin and shouldn't be following me around on Wp. ] (]) 14:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am not following you around. I was cleaning up my "Watchlist" and your sockpuppet investigation was in it so I decided to see if you were a good boy, but apparently you are not. The better question is how did you see my message here if I did not ping you? Looks like you are the one following me around. – ] (]) 14:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Update:''' I was not aware that he was blocked again so now I understand how this message was located. Sorry for any inconvenience caused on your talk page ToBeFree. – ] (]) 14:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hm. I'd find accepting an appeal much easier if the ban hadn't been circumvented a few days ago... :/ Can you re-ask in 3 months or so? And then ideally at ], mentioning that I personally don't object to an unban but prefer a short community discussion to unilateral unbanning. ] (]) 17:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| <section begin="tech-newsletter-content"/><div class="plainlinks"> | |||
| Latest ''']''' from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. ] are available. | |||
| '''Recent changes''' | |||
| * ] is a gadget on English Misplaced Pages. It can help with maintenance and patrolling. It can ]. You can get Twinkle on your wiki using the GitHub repository. | |||
| '''Problems''' | |||
| * The ] did not work for many articles for a little while. This was because of a bug. | |||
| * Some things will not work for about a minute on 5 May. This will happen . This will affect the content translation tool and notifications among other things. This is because of an upgrade to avoid crashes. | |||
| '''Changes later this week''' | |||
| * ] will become a default feature on a number of wikis on 5 May. This is later than planned because of some changes. You can use it without using ] if you want to. The earlier plan was to have the preference to use both or none. | |||
| * ] The ] of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from {{#time:j xg|2021-05-04|en}}. It will be on non-Misplaced Pages wikis and some Wikipedias from {{#time:j xg|2021-05-05|en}}. It will be on all wikis from {{#time:j xg|2021-05-06|en}} (]). | |||
| '''Future changes''' | |||
| * ] The ] classes <code dir=ltr>.error</code>, <code dir=ltr>.warning</code> and <code dir=ltr>.success</code> do not work for mobile readers if they have not been specifically defined on your wiki. From June they will not work for desktop readers. This can affect gadgets and templates. The classes can be defined in ] or template styles instead. | |||
| ''''']''' prepared by ] and posted by ] • ] • ] • ] • ] • ].'' | |||
| </div><section end="tech-newsletter-content"/> | |||
| 15:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Johan (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=21418010 --> | |||
| == Film LTA == | == Film LTA == | ||
Revision as of 05:43, 5 May 2021
Please click here to add a new message!
Please note that you are currently not logged in.
This is not a general problem – you can leave a message anyway, but your IP address might change during the discussion, and I might end up talking to a wall. Creating an account does not require an e-mail address; all you need is a password and a name. You are not required to do this, but please consider creating an account before starting long-term interactions with other users. Thank you very much in advance. 
 Archives |
|
|
Film LTA
Hello, and thank you for dealing with 107.77.237.71. 107.77.236.9 may be connected, and I see similarities to this LTA. Certes (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hey Certes, thank you very much for the notification, and for tracking that case. Re-blocked. I'm not linking to the LTA page in my block reasons just in case they're doing it for this kind of attention. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
User:FDW777
User:ToBeFree has replied to this private email and requested that I repost it on his talk page.
Hi,
Could you please re-open my ANI about FDW777. The user is acting like a bully, and I don't appreciate the way you've closed it. The fact that someone asked if I had appealed suggested it wouldn't be unreasonable. I've contributed a lot to Misplaced Pages over the years, and I don't like the way that FDW777 is steamrollering over the work of myself and others. I don't appreciate being told that I have a 'Failure or refusal to "get the point"'. What is being ignored is that the behaviour of FDW777 *is* uncivil, and they've had a new article completely altered with their bullying enforcement of BLP policy. And it isn't "forum shopping" - I haven't raised their behaviour elsewhere repeatedly. I don't think FDW777 is helping to reach consensus. It seems that any efforts to question them are being shut down, though.
Regards, TT.--TrottieTrue (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi,
- Thanks for the feedback. FDW777's behavior may not be ideal, but the situation at hand is unsuitable for discussing the described behavior. This is because the core of the dispute is content-related and you have a strong content disagreement that is mixed into your ANI report. If you look at this in a week, you'll probably notice the issue that led to the closure.
- The BLP policy is one of the very few policies that can be strictly enforced against pretty much all other concerns, including against administrative action: It's one of the very few "exceptional circumstances" named at WP:WHEEL, for example. Thus, any attempt to re-negotiate that policy after having been warned about misconduct in the area will inevitably look like IDHT behavior. If that discussion had continued with you throwing further accusations into the noticeboard, a less patient administrator would probably have blocked you, or a less patient community member would have proposed sanctions against you beyond the original warning (e.g. a topic ban). Such sanction discussions then quickly run out of hand as WP:BLP is deeply supported throughout the entire community, and as the community is relatively unwilling to invest time into repeatedly explaining the same BLP policy concerns to the same user again and again. The closure may have prevented a much less desirable situation.
- For the same reason, I recommend against appealing the warning; I'm not sure if a warning can even be properly appealed. You have been warned, and that's it – the warning can practically not be taken back, as the information has reached its target. Trying to appeal it anyway just goes further into the IDHT area.
- Again, FDW777's behavior may not be ideal, but for the next weeks or months, you have practically exhausted your means of drawing community attention to it. There's not much I can do about that except pointing it out and explaining it. The situation may well be unfair, but I can't make it fairer; I can only prevent it from escalating further to your disadvantage.
- PS: I prefer public transparency/accountability to email discussion.
If you agree with this principle, please write your original email message as a new message on my talk page, I'll publicly reply with this message 1:1 and you can continue to answer there then. I'd prefer not to (and will probably not) answer per e-mail if there are further questions.I'll happily answer any questions on my talk page, though. - Best regards
~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)- Hi, thank you for posting your message here. I'm glad you agree that "FDW777's behavior may not be ideal". I wasn't attempting to renegotiate the BLP policy; it simply struck me that after a great deal of effort had been spent in creating a new, highly detailed article, User:FDW777 popped up to complain about it. It was actually created by another editor, though I had some slight involvement in getting it going. My point was that FDW777 is going about this in the wrong way: issuing ultimatums and threats in a terse manner is not appropriate for WP, IMO. There was nothing like "could you please use the birth years only until you have referenced sources for the full list", but simply ill-mannered demands. It's also noteworthy that they did not remove the unsourced DOBs from the articles they highlighted on that Talk page, so the user is clearly rather selective in how they enforce policy.
- The BLP policy I violated is actually not the same as the problem in the table identified by FDW777. I used public records to add DOBs in BLP articles. In this instance, I was querying whether the table needed references for every usage of a DOB, since other list tables on WP do not have fully referenced DOBs. As you can see, I have already appealed against the warning, to no avail, but if I don't violate that policy again, I don't think it should do me any harm. I probably wouldn't have appealed it if another editor hadn't asked if I disputed the result. "The situation may well be unfair" hits the nail on the head in this situation. FDW777 does not assume good faith, and is violating policies around civility. They have yet again insulted me in the talk page for this article, here. They are certainly casting aspersions on me there.
- Andrew Gray commented on my ANI: "I had reasonably assumed the data in the list was all uncontroversial and did not need each point individually cited, which has been our general practice for list articles like this for many years." This is essentially my issue with FDW777 leaping on the article to demand it conform to BLP or be deleted. The tone and general manner is unhelpful. This isn't the only complaint about FDW777's incivility in recent months - see . CeltBrowne is correct, FDW uses baseless claims re WP rules to bully other editors. This user also has a history of tendentious editing in the Troubles area, the PIRA page was denied GAN by Peacemaker67 bc, referring to FDW, "it is clear that my concerns about the article meeting criteria #4 Neutrality (regarding sectarianism), will not be addressed by the nominator. In over 350 Good Article nomination reviews, I have never struck such a level of intransigence from a nominator when a serious concern has been raised about an article." I notice that you've previously awarded FDW777 a barnstar, so you may not be entirely neutral when discussing this user. I hope that isn't the case though. The point is, I will accept I am wrong if I the discussion is kept civil and polite. This wasn't, and FDW777's way of handling it has made the situation more heated.--TrottieTrue (talk) 01:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)