This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Amaury (talk | contribs) at 19:09, 9 July 2023 (→Follow-up on User Block: One and only comment here). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:09, 9 July 2023 by Amaury (talk | contribs) (→Follow-up on User Block: One and only comment here)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
No RfXs since 17:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC).—Talk to my owner:Online |
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
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 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsCurrently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.
Arbitrator motions| Motion name | Date posted |
|---|---|
| Arbitrator workflow motions | 10 January 2025 |
−
Administrators' newsletter – May 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2023).
|
|
|
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.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Why The UTRS is so slow?
I live in Mainland China and I followed WP:IPBE accordingly after my previous IP block exemption expired. But emails to checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org can't be sent successfully, and then I tried UTRS in September 2022 with no immediate response, forcing me to quit Misplaced Pages, coming back now and see myself granted IPBE in January. Since each request only gives one year of the right, I found the 4-month delay intolerable, so I like to know how UTRS works: does it really have a 4-month backlog?.
On an unrelated issue I found so many wikipedians criticize the ArbCom, even if ArbCom is an elected body, and even after fresh ArbCom elections, can you offer insight on the situation? ibicdlcod (talk) 09:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – June 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2023).
|
|
|
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.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Legacy admin
I find the term degrading and insulting. As you say, it is used to lump together and disparage any and all admins from before (fill in date here). -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think it is ok to use in the abstract to describe the real issue of out-of-touch admins who got the bits when it was ridiculously easy to do so, but it is something else to use it to refer to individuals, or to all admins from a certain period. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Legacy admins
Regarding your comment on the term "legacy admins": at first I was going to say "without checking, I recall it being used in past discussions on Misplaced Pages", but hey, why not check. A few examples: it was used in the opening statement of Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)/Request for comment on administrator activity requirements, and thus subsequently by various commenters. I also see it used within Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Desysop Policy (2021), including by the editor who started the RfC. You used it (among others) in discussion at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2021 review/Issues. I don't think there's any problem with having one or more terms to refer to earlier cohorts of administrators. I do agree such terms shouldn't be used as a shorthand to assume all of the admins included within this group act the same way, or even that the majority act in a certain undesirable way. isaacl (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think it is completely unfair to use it in any context, as I said at the case request, it is a real thing. However, it probably shouldn't be used in ArbCom proceedings, for the reasons I mentioned there but also because it does not have a clear and specific meaning. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- I have the opposite view of what you expressed in another section: I don't think it should be used to refer to the issue of problematic admins. "Legacy" refers to something carried over or inherited from a previous time. It's not inherently good or bad; it just has its origins in an earlier period. It does have a straightforward literal meaning, and I'd as soon the community not develop an internal pejorative connotation for it. We have enough confusing jargon already. isaacl (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
"Legacy" vs. "lagacy"
In your latest comment in the AlisonW case request, you referred to "lagacy" admins (with an "a") in your first sentence, which I assume is a typo. Unless it was a deliberate reference, you might want to correct it before it gets picked up and used for "legacy" admins who "lag" behind current standards. (Because I don't read WPO, I actually don't know if it's already been used there and that is what you were referencing.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- It's almost kind of funny, but no, that was a typo, and I've fixed it, thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – July 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023).
Administrator changes
Bureaucrat changes
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.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Help me
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Hello, some time ago I was led to believe that asking other editors directly for their support in a consensus issue was frowned upon. PorkyPowerPeanut (talk) 12:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- It depends on why you're asking them and how you're asking them. If you know someone will vote a certain way, that can be considered canvassing. If, however, you are simply notifying someone because they are part of an associated WikiProject, or have edited the page/area before, and you ask them neutrally, it is not considered canvassing. If you want more help, change the {{help me-helped}} back into a {{help me}}, stop by the Teahouse, or Misplaced Pages's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Follow-up on User Block
Hi Beeblebrox,
I wanted to seek your assistance on a user's actions, noting that you have previously blocked this user and issued a final warring in the unblock request, hence why I am seeking you.
I recently posted a warning on a third editor's talk page requesting the editor to stop making personal attacks on various other editors. This user reverted the message twice , , falsely claiming the message was illegitimate, and minimizing the editors actions, while quoting WP:DTTR, when I didn't actually use a template. Given that I'd had to revert the user twice , and warned the user against disruptions of WP:DR attempts in the edit summaries, I posted a warning to the user page. Only then did the user stop reverting my warning. The editor being warned was later blocked after ignoring the warning, in part due to the personal attacks which I warned him for.
More recently, the user showed up at a WP:AN3 discussion relating to me. The user doubled-down on the previous accusations made relating to WP:DTTR . The user further casted aspersions , accusing me of having "a history of edit warring" and "dragging another user to ANEW over some supposed technical violation seems to me like it was just done out of spite, despite not having any interaction me beyond the above-mentioned incident. Additionally, the user criticized an admin, saying "I personally don't think the block was warranted to begin with, nor do I agree with the rationale given for the block, especially considering he wasn't given the chance to respond to the ANEW report", which seems to be WP:IDHT, when the user has been blocked for the violation.
As I pointed out at WP:AN3, WP:DTTR is a essay, not WP:PAG. A user's right to contact or warn another user is not diminished simply because the user has been on WP longer then the other. I find the users actions to be a clear disruption of WP:DR process. I believe that this attitude of simply reverting/blocking a less senior user's attempts at conflict resolution to be extremely disruptive. I further note that this both times I have interacted with this user, this user has inserted himself into good-faith attempts at WP:DR, and disrupted the attempts, without being initially involved.
Please let me know what you think and if further action is warranted. Thank you for your assistance. Carter00000 (talk) 14:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- I hate to seem dismissive of your concerns, but I blocked that user thirteen years ago and I really don't recall the whole affair with any specificty. This all sounds rather involved and I am also on the WP:ARBCOM, which has two cases coming to a resolution at basically the same time right now, so that's taking up most of my WP time. (although at a glance I do agree that "don't template the regulars" is just an opinion and not in any way a policy or even a best practice) I note the user has been blocked more recently by @331dot: and @NinjaRobotPirate:, perhaps they have some fresher insight to provide? Beeblebrox (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply. I appreciate your prompt response, especially as you are currently busy with two ARBCOM cases. I myself follow ARBCOM cases out of personal interest, and to get a better idea of WP policy, so I understand just how much work they are on a Arbiter.
- I also understand when you say that some time has passed since you made the block. I will follow-up with the two admins you have suggested to see if they have any comment. Carter00000 (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, Beeblerox. Please note that there is already a discussion about this at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Carter00000 reported by User:GWA88 (Result: ), where everything that the OP has said here was already said there in some form or another. And this, in my opinion, appears to be some form of canvassing. My block log, in this particular case, is irrelevant, so I have no idea why they're bringing it up. There is no pattern of whatever here. I only reverted the OP twice on IJBall's talk page, which IJBall himself later reverted the next attempt. The inappropriate warning left on my talk page that I reverted doesn't count, as per WP:BLANKING. Additionally, the reason given in IJBall's block log was edit warring and incivility, so I don't know why the user keeps claiming personal attacks, as incivility and personal attacks are not necessarily the same thing. Speaking generally here, neither should happen, but they are not strictly the same thing. Unlike the OP, though, I am not looking for any of kind action to be taken against them by coming here and posting this and am simply replying. I am also not interested in discussing this in three or four different places and will stick to making any further comments at ANEW, so this will be my one and only comment here on this particular subject. Amaury • 19:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)