15:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).

Administrator changes

Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
• An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
• An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

• The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
• Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous

• The previously discussed unblocking of IP addresses indefinitely-blocked before 2009 was approved and has taken place.
• The 2019 talk pages consultation produced a report for Phase 1 and has entered Phase 2.

17:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. If you ever grave dance like this again, I will block you. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for discussing it with me on IRC. Legoktm (talk) 02:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you for being responsive :) TonyBallioni (talk) 02:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Legoktm, as someone who've been a Wikipedian for much longer, you ought to know that editing a post, that has been replied to is forbidden and I have reverted you. If you wish to edit it, strike out and then, re-write. ∯WBG^converse 02:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

...sigh. I know the guideline, Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_own_comments says "should be avoided". Nowhere does it say it is "forbidden". On top of that, it's a behavioral guideline, not a policy. As suggested, I left a note that my original comment was changed. I took your comment as just a clarifying comment since I didn't explicitly indicate my affiliation, not anything related to the substance of my comment.

In any case, I don't think restoring a problematic comment that Tony gave me the above warning for was a great move either. Legoktm (talk) 03:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

That you are employed by WMF (cut the semantics out) and chose to defend your employer, (who has a glowing track record of being consistently incompetent), by throwing random aspersions on one of our most prominent ex-sysops (who don't have any opportunity to defend himself) and choosing to grave-dance, tells volume about your character and your employer.

I merely took the opportunity to highlight that.

Also, that guideline is as good as a policy and refactoring a comment, which has been replied to, is as good as forbidden. ∯WBG^converse 07:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I really don't want to get into this, but Legoktm does have a responsibility as someone paid by the Foundation to be better than and above this sort of fray, and such a comment was inappropriate. That being said, it wasn't much of a dance​: I think it's nicer than what you just said WBG, both are nicer than any of our worst, and none of it (including Fram's) is block worthy. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Ack, I realize my first comment was inappropriate/problematic, regardless of whether it's considered dancing or not. As I told Tony on IRC last night, I'm definitely not going to be doing that again. Legoktm (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

WBG, for better or worse, the WMF is a large organization, and the T&S team is a pretty small part. Labeling the whole organization as "incompetent" just makes me realize you don't know how the WMF actually operates. I don't mean this as a slight, as I'm always happy to explain my take on how the WMF operates and where decision making power comes from, if people are interested.

If you've read what I've written before, you'd see I'm not a fan of the current structure of the foundation, and would like to work on changing it. So I don't think I'm defending the organization that pays me (most of the time I really don't). I was speaking up for people that I considered to be my friends who aren't here anymore. That said, the way I originally did so wasn't great, and I'm going to keep that in mind going forwards.

Anyways, I'm not sure how to respond to the rest of what you said. You can't just twist a guideline into a policy (they're different for a reason) and then change what it literally says. And, my employment status is not semantics, being an employee is a legal distinction that's explicitly spelled out in my contract (that I'm not one of the WMF). Legoktm (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

20:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

17:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)