Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is WP:Administrator's noticeboard/IncidentsI#User:Eaterjolly. Kirbanzo (talk) 22:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2018).

Administrator changes

Justlettersandnumbers • L235

Bgwhite • HorsePunchKid • J Greb • KillerChihuahua • Rami R • Winhunter

Interface administrator changes

Cyberpower678 • Deryck Chan • Oshwah • Pharos • Ragesoss • Ritchie333

Oversight changes

Guerillero • NativeForeigner • Snowolf • Xeno

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the process for appointing interface administrators has been established. Currently only existing admins can request these rights, while a new RfC has begun on whether it should be available to non-admins.
• There is an open request for comment on Meta regarding the creation a new user group for global edit filter management.

Technical news

• Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
• The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
• Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, amended the procedure on functionary inactivity.
• The community consultation for 2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments has concluded. Appointments will be made by October 11.
• Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
• Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.

Hi. I created a new account (Eumaeus-org) in order to make my potential conflict clear. No advertising was intended. If I stick to this account (IFRS17) is this OK? Should I declare the conflict on user page? Thanks IFRS17 (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issue witht that username is that names must represent individuals and never groups, so as long as the name you already had doesn’t represent a group it should be fine. And yes, you should declare the conflict, which you can do by placing {{paid}} on your user page. I appreciate that you are trying to do this the right way, but there have been big problems over the years with folks who want to use Wikipedia to promote various thigs so these rules were developed in response. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Btw I am not being paid for my work! IFRS17 (talk) 17:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Just Step Sideways. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 14:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

DBaK (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for causing confusion! My wording "official" in the UAA request was suboptimal. Thank you for taking the time to deal with this. Seems to be a happy ending. Have a nice morning and a good start into the day. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have been intending to say 'not a blatant violation,' but you reverted it. funplussmart (talk) 00:51, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because I’m getting really, really tired of people reporting accounts with no edits. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Posting here rather than confronting the user directly since I'm a bit worried doing the latter might violate a still-in-place IBAN with a different user (which you initially put in place and of which you have been the primary enforcer), but an editor about whom I recently had some unkind words has shown up twice to ANI in the last day or so, in one instance taking the opposite side to me in a larger dispute, and in the other making a comment that essentially amounted to a call for an editor who was essentially blocked for harassing me be brought back into the community in some fashion.

I've half a mind to immediately open an AN/ANI thread to request the IBAN be altered to a one-way (so that I can freely reply when things like this happen, without worrying about the block being undone because "it was just enforcement of a ban that is no longer in place"), but I'm torn between asking for a one-way IBAN and asking for it to be replaced with a TBAN or a simple community SBAN; the problem, though, is that with the only recent incident being instigated by someone else entirely, it might just look like petty grave-dancing, while simply asking for the ban to be removed would leave the way open for an unblock on the grounds that the ban is not in place anymore.

Pinging User:David Tornheim (sorry, David, if this is all a misunderstanding / unfortunate coincidence, and you were completely unaware of the IBAN in question, but I hope you appreciate why I was unable to message you directly) and User:MjolnirPants, who is intimately familiar with all of this (he's the subject of the ANI thread David followed me to, and by coincidence knows both my history with David and the background of the IBAN in question) and is able to speak a bit more freely on several of the matters than I am.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if the above was unclear. I'm not just messaging you (Beeblebrox) as a proxy because I don't feel comfortable about talking directly to David about this matter; I'd like your advice on how to move ahead with dealing with the IBAN, which hasn't served its original preventative function for the better part of a year. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:24, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the IBan in still in place at Hijiri's end, I strongly recommend dropping it. The best it could hope to accomplish now is preventing Hijiri from gravedancing, and I highly doubt Hijiri would do that. He can be short tempered and a little prone to overreactions at times (Sorry man, I still consider you a wikifriend, I'm just being as honest as I can be), but that's only when he's being pushed and annoyed by other editors. Without Carter here to push him, I have do doubt he will be perfectly civil about it.

I don't know much about the interactions of David and Hijiri, but if needed, I can dig up some diffs to show that David has been low-level harassing me as well (popping up in threads he sees me in to disagree with me or accuse me of shit, using logic even worse than he usually uses), since I gave him a healthy dose of attitude a few weeks back. This looks like the same thing. It doesn't really bother me, as he's not very effective at it.

That being said, Hijiri, don't sweat this. Every time I've had an extended interaction with David, I've been emailed by a half dozen editors warning me not to bother engaging him. And not the same ones every time, either. I'm fairly certain that David has convinced a large proportion of the most visible editors and admins on this site that he's never worth listening to, and at least one of the editors who's emailed me that same thing is involved in that discussion, already. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Beeblebrox: I have no idea what Hijiri is talking about. I don't weigh in on threads at AN/I because he is there--I actually try to avoid him and what he says about me. He seems to be obsessed with me and constantly believes if I weigh in on anything where we disagree, it is because of him--I could probably dig up 10 diffs of that nature, at least one is above. It's really quite irritating, and I wish he would find better things to do with his time on Wikipedia than fantasize that my edits have anything to do with him.

The reality is that he is the #7 editor at WP:AN/I--I have 1/10th as many edits there, so if I speak to any issue, the odds are high he will have too. He is eager to get new editors who disagree with him banned; I am not. So if I weigh in, I will likely disagree. He seems to have drama with almost everyone he works with--I work collaboratively whenever possible.

I found it a bit ironic he wanted me topic banned from AN/I when he is so dominant there--I believe the real reason he wants me banned from AN/I is to eliminate the voice of an experienced editor who disagrees with him. If you look at our interaction, I'm hardly at any of the articles he is at.

As for Mpants, I have not followed him around either. I would appreciate if he stopped accusing me of that. We did work cooperatively at Argument from authority and with user Endercase. I miss those days. Recent interactions can all be traced to just two articles: List of common misconceptions and Murder of Seth Rich. We disagreed over content, and I disagreed with him on how he treated other editors at those articles: Fountains of Bryn Mawr, FrogCast, StreetSign and Obsidi. IMHO opinion he was uncivil to every one of those four editors, and I could provide diffs to prove it. That's why I weighed in at the recent AN/I post about Mpant's civility, and I agree that he needed to be warned. Hopefully, that will solve the problem. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I see serious problems with WP:AN/I (and other noticeboards), because we have too few neutral editors and admins there. Snow Rise described the problem perfectly here. That is a topic that I will continue to discuss. I believe that problem has much to do with the accusations against me above. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging in editors with their own bad histories with me, including suggesting that rather than an IBAN being put in place to protect me that I be dragged before ArbCom, based on the claim that there aren't enough "neutral" editors, seems counterproductive, no? I have long since forgiven SR for all that shit in the past, but I think they'd be the first to agree that they're hardly a model example of a neutral editor that ANI needs more of.

As for my level of activity at ANI: that's my business, and honestly most of it was back in 2015 (when I was repeatedly dragged to ANI by a small clique of editors who wanted me site-banned but wound up getting site-banned or equivalent themselves) and 2016 (when I was highly active in contributing to threads in which I was not directly involved), and few editors have actually questioned my involvement in those threads recently, while yours is ... well, let's just say ArbCom doesn't appear to have disagreed with my assessment of the situation, but rather agreed with me that it didn't rise to the level of their needing to get involved at that time. Anyway, if you don't want to be TBANned from commenting on ANI threads in which you are not directly involved, I suggest you stop making comments that are likely to be seen as disruptive, and I suggest you stay on-topic here: this is about an IBAN which is currently hindering my activity despite having been originally put in place for the opposite reason (to allow me to contribute where I like without worrying about hounding).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:55, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly well convinced that the only serious problem with the boards like ANI is that editors like David participate in them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I feel like I’m missing something here. The only part of this that seems relevant to the IBAN in question is the thread about John Carter. Since you have wisely not commented there all you need to do in that situation is to ignore it. It literally is not your problem. The rest of it seems an unrelated issue with a user that I don’t feel particualrly compelled to involve myself with. If I’m completely misunderstood let me know, otherwise go ahead and take it to a noticeboard as appropriate. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]