User talk:Just Step Sideways/Archive 46

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40 ← Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49

Heh

I actually found a comment of yours about usernames that I agree with: This is pretty on point. Still think we should just blank the policy and replace it with Administrators may block usernames that are disruptive at their discretion. but I know that is a losing fight. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

That got super ugly, glad it's resolved. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
  • Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
  • The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.

Miscellaneous

  • Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
  • The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

User name

I saw your edit at Biteme73 and was wondering if you could consider acting this report. Thanx. Have a great day, - FlightTime (open channel) 17:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I already replied there. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA 2021 review update

Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.

The following had consensus support of participating editors:

  1. Corrosive RfA atmosphere
    The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.
  2. Level of scrutiny
    Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.
  3. Standards needed to pass keep rising
    It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.
  4. Too few candidates
    There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.
  5. "No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins

The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:

  1. Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere)
    Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.
  2. Admin permissions and unbundling
    There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.
  3. RfA should not be the only road to adminship
    Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.

Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.

There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Talkeetna

You said I removed content from Talkeetna, Alaska without adequately explaining why. I explained why I removed mention of Vern Halter in a new section at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Talkeetna,_Alaska#Government. I said in the edit summary referring to Stubbs that I combined sentences. In fact only one and a half sentences were involved and only the year of his of his death disappeared from the article's text in the process. The years he "held office" appear under his photo. If important "ended by death" could be added there but full details appear in his article. Mcljlm (talk) 06:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

You might want to look at that edit again. You removed almost the entire article. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't know how that happened. Since there's a whole article devoted to Stubbs I'm now wondering why more than half of the Government section should be devoted to him. Most of it should be merged into Stubbs. What about the points I mentioned on the article's Talk page? I notice now that in at least some articles relating to other CDPs representation isn't mentioned at all. Mcljlm (talk) 07:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
I think it's appropriate to list who the elected representatives are, but the trick, as you've seen, is keeping it updated. Somehow I missed that Stubbs has his own article, that being the case one sentence and a link is more than enough content about him in the main article. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

`

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery?

Our typhoon naming friend likes to pretend to be you. —Kusma (talk) 06:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

it’s a penalty for blocking on an assumption that I’m someone else — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kusme (talk • contribs) 08:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Seems I also found a fan :) —Kusma (talk) 08:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Funnt behavior from someone who was just asking everyone to please assume they were here in good faith...Beeblebrox (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
@Kusma: It may be splitting hairs, but the sockmaster appears to be Kingshowman, unless the different attribution of socks is deliberate. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
@TornadoLGS. I believe in WP:DENY and WP:RBI, so I don't care about what name the paperwork is filed under. But thank you for pointing out that the user is interested in more than just typhoons and admins. —Kusma (talk) 09:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA Reform 2021 Phase 2 has begun

Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.

There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

RevDel request

Hello, Just Step Sideways. Please check your email; you've got mail!
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.

―Jochem van Hees (talk) 14:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jochem van Hees: Thanks for bringing that to my attention, dealt with. If you see something that bad in the future, WP:RFO is a better route for getting it quickly and quietly zapped out of existence. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. I'll do that next time – I wasn't sure how urgent this was so I simply followed WP:REVDELREQUEST in this case. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

ACE

I very much hope you will be seeking re-election. If not, I will certainly understand that you have had enough. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I know you haven't exactly loved every decision we've made. Neither have I, for that matter. I honestly have not decided yet if I'll run again, I'll probably wait until the last minute like everybody else. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

IP block exemption

Hello,

Sorry to disturb you on your talk page, but I’ve been trying to contact the CheckUser team at checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org, but I haven’t received an answer for days. I am currently using iCloud’s Private Relay for privacy reasons. I have already been granted an IP block exemption for my meta account and I can edit without problems in the French and Spanish Wikipedias, but I still can’t do it in the English one. Could I get also an exemption for the English Wikipedia? Thank you in advance! Aude9331 (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm fairly liberal about granting this, so I should warn you that other admins/checkusers might not feel it is warranted in a case where a user just wants to use a proxy, rather than needing it to get around government censorship or something like that. That being said I'll grant it for three months. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your trust, I’ll make a good use of it! :) Aude9331 (talk) 09:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

ACE questions

Hello! I think there is a typo in your answer to Q1. You wrote the community is at this time able to remove administrative status – surely you meant that the community is not able to remove admin status? –FlyingAce✈hello 06:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I even previewed that edit, twice, and that still got by me. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my question, but you didn't say if in the future, you'd consider the pleading of a woman with great insight into the making of Wikipedia (such as SlimVirgin). Feel free to expand, - or not. I - much less respected, at some time restricted by arbcom and recently subject of an AN thread - have less insight but predicted that the case would not improve kindness, nor a single article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

A pint of beer for you!

In the interest of putting this behind us. My apologies. I can get a bit carried away sometimes with my edits, but all I was trying to do was help build better "Notable people" lists. You are totally right though, the template was obnoxious now that I look at it. I will not use it any more. Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 19:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

In theory

Howdy. I often found that editors with (deliberately) distorted signatures, tend to be problem editors. Strange, how the two you're having trouble with, just happen to have distorted signatures. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I've never seen the point of having anything other than the plain old sig. I do use the highlighting script so my name appears to me in bright orange, I find that quite helpful. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
AlexEng(TALK) 21:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't begrudge anyone else using them so long as it's legible and isn't a thousand lines of code. You do you. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Nice meeting you today Beeblebrox. You have a good sense of right and wrong. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I do try to do so, so I really appreciate this. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I have always thought Beeblebrox had a good sense about them from day one. I quietly watchlisted, not stalk (lol), them after we had a discussion about the article on the list of lakes in Alaska. We share some common interests and I thought their comments and thoughts about it made sense even if we ultimately disagreed about the direction of the list. I can honestly say Beeblebrox is one of my favorite editors here. I don't have the plain ol' signature but I did at one time so hopefully that counts for something (lol). Anyway, just popped by to throw out some wiki-love. --ARoseWolf 15:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
You guys are making me blush. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 Wikipedia 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 2021 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) 00:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Massive ANI thread - request closure

Hi, I'm sorry to dampen your morning with this, but I wonder if you could close Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#7&6=thirteen’s behavior hasn’t improved? I cited your close here as a good example of how to do it. I think the general consensus is everyone is fed up of the discussion after a fortnight and it's now going round in circles. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the nod, but somehow I think closing anything remotely related to the ARS, no matter how carefully I did it, would cause more problems than it solved. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
I suppose there's always hope now that since no substantial conversation has happened for two days, that it will just die a natural death and be archived. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2021).

Administrator changes

removed A Train • Berean Hunter • Epbr123 • GermanJoe • Sanchom • Mysid

Technical news

  • Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
  • The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)

Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

ACE 2021

Hi Beeb. Thank you for your courage to rerun in this year's ACE. This kind of scrutiny can sometimes be as challenging as an RfA - if not worse. Some candidates ran on a platform for changes in Arbcom. Now comes the cliff-hanger of waiting for the results. I'm sure the hate sites will have a field day when they are published. 52% of the votes were cast on day 1 of the ballot. You might find this analysis of the campaign to be of interest. You are welcome to leave your thoughts on its talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I've got to go dig out my dad's place, he's got a nine-foot snowdrift right in front of the henhouse and is worried about the chickens, and the driveway is also impassible, so that's most of my day gone dealing with that, but I'll take a look at that analysis later. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Congrats at scraping through - thank heaven for small mercies (well, perhaps not so small!) Really pleased about this 👍 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
  • It's a funny system, the way you run more against yourself than against the other candidates. I have fewer neutral votes than anyone except Worm. I feel oddly proud of that. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for blocking the vandal on 'Argyle High School' ♥Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk)♥ 20:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
thanks! Beeblebrox (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)That cookie looks yummy, btw. I can't wait until I can bake cookies again in the Spring. Maybe I'll bake some cupcakes or pies too. I used to make blueberry pies for all of my neighbors when I lived in a town. Well deserved. Thank you for protecting the encyclopedia, Beeble. --ARoseWolf 20:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Good Humor
THE PURGE! I found the way you closed the discussion of someone suggesting there be 1 day each year where vandalism is alright rather hilarious. WHen you put it that way, it certainly does seem like they were suggesting that lol ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I think I gave the idea the very serious consideration it merited. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
After reading through the proposal again I realized the user basically contradicted themself. They said, "One day a year, users are allowed to make changes to any Wikipedia page without moderation" but then they say "Obviously, obscene or violent or otherwise harmful changes would not be allowed" (emphasis added). What's the point of letting users vandalize wikipedia one day each year if they aren't allowed to anyways since vandalism would be an "otherwise harmful change". ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Too much sense being made here. Trolls hate common sense. Trolls get hungry. Feed the trolls(obvious sarcasm). --ARoseWolf 20:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Ring-a-ding, baby!

Hello, Beeblebrox. Please check your email; you've got mail!
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.— ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:22, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

And if you don't celebrate Christmas, then feel free to take this as a Happy Saturday! But then again, that's a day that was named in celebration of Surtur. Personally, I'm a Jungian, so I find great archetypes in all of the mythologies. What fascinates me, although we call it a Christian holiday, here in America and Great Britain, we still celebrate it as a Viking holiday full of Viking traditions, such as decorating trees, drinking nog and singing carols around the fire, trading gifts, and letting the kids wake up to gifts left by "elves". Funny thing, when people change their religion everything stays the same, and all that really changes are the names.

So Happy What-ever-you-want-to-call-it! Maybe it's just a day to give thanks to the people who have touched our lives. So to you, Beeblebrox, I thank you for all your help on and all you do for Alaska and Alaska-related articles. Zaereth (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Happening now at casa de Beeblebrox, there's a calf out there too but he was camera shy.
I had a great time with some friends on the Solstice. We do Christmas as well, but usually not actually on Christmas, as my wife usually has to work. We don't have kids and it's double pay for the entire day, with almost no actual work to do so its like a backdoor year-end bonus for her. We don't even exchange gifts anymore, just have a feast with family, usually involving lots of seafood. Funny, it's been the snowiest winter in years, but now that it's almost Christmas we're getting that Pineapple Express weather. It's windy as hell and almost 40 degrees in Homer this morning. All the snow fell off the trees, although there's still plenty on the ground. One of my on-wiki goals for the coming year is to finally have blue links for every entry at List of Alaska state parks. ArbCom takes up a lot of my time but I'm hoping I can squeeze that in somewhere, I've been working on it slowly for (checks notes) almost five years, and have managed to get AK state parks material on the front page via DYK four different times. Anyhoo, thanks for your kind words, and back at you. Don't think I haven't noticed all the work you've put in on the moose article. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
(And I totally don't mind the usual holiday messages, for some reason I received an overtly religious one with bible verses in it, not something I'd ever seen on WP before, and probably not a very good idea. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC))
Understood, and I agree. I tend to give a lot of Christmas messages to people that don't celebrate it, or who I just don't know about. On Wikipedia, people can be from anywhere and have any belief system. You just don't know, so I try to take that into consideration. The Solstice is as good a reason to celebrate as any for me. It means we're getting more and more daylight from here on out.
I've seen some of your work on the parks, and it's impressive. I love the parks, but you'll usually have to get off the beaten path to find me. It's nice living in a place where you can just pull off on the side of the road just about anywhere, and go hiking through the woods. I should probably work on more Alaskan articles, but I tend to lean more toward the scientific and technical ones, so I'm thankful for people like yourself. Sounds like a good holiday. Just be careful if you get your seafood from Carrs. I bought some king crab there day before yesterday, and when I went to cook it, it was bad. Smells like ammonia when it goes. I had to toss it all out.
We got a decent amount of snow here, enough for snowmachining, but managed to avoid most of the storms that hit the Kenai and Mat-Su. It's mostly been cold, but I can deal with cold. Better than the slush-fest it was last year. Anyhow, I hope you have a great holiday! Zaereth (talk) 22:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Summit School (Nyack)

A lot of the edits to this page seem to be by people connected to the school or paid editing rings - one user who added content to the article, Abdullah Digiliate, was apparently found as a sock of a paid editing ring. I'm thinking semi-protection is much needed on this article. wizzito | say hello! 06:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps ArbCom sanctions are needed on the troubled-teen industry topic? wizzito | say hello! 06:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
I was thinking maybe pending changes protection myself, but as I'm editorially involved I'd need to ask at WP:RFPP for another admin to look into it. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Jneiderman edited again

I reverted their edit and told them to respond to your comments on their talk page. wizzito | say hello! 19:11, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Seems like they are finally getting that they should not edit the article directly, but not quite getting what a WP:RS is. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Tagging non-admin comments

Regarding this revert – another account tagged Power's comment here (despite there being more comments from non-admins) and was later CU-blocked. I'm guessing it's someone trolling Power due to their recent RFA. –FlyingAce✈hello 01:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Looks like they've now been blocked as well. I don't understand trolls. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

RFA 2021 Completed

The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular Primefac, Lee Vilenski, and Ymblanter for closing the most difficult conversations and for TonyBallioni for closing the review of one of the closes.

The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:

  1. Revision of standard question 1 to Why are you interested in becoming an administrator? Special thanks to xaosflux for help with implementation.
  2. A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
  3. Removal of autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to Wugapodes and Seddon for their help with implementation.

The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:

  1. An option for people to run for temporary adminship (proposal, discussion, & close)
  2. An optional election process (proposal & discussion and close review & re-close)

Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.

A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months.

This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned.

01:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Merchandise giveaway nomination

A t-shirt!
A token of thanks
Hi Just Step Sideways! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk ~~~~~
A snowflake!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The functionaries email list (functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Your concerns

I have addressed your concerns by resigning. Please consider supporting the recent comments of Wugapodes and Barkeep49. Their reasoning is good. Jehochman Talk 01:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

You get the short straw I am afraid.

RE Warsaw arbcom case request, I have been pinged to it today. I dont have any evidence to offer or comments that would make it into less of a clusterfuck than it already is, however my response is below: I will leave it up to you if you think it should be added to the case page. Otherwise feel free to nuke this.

"I am not sure why I have been summoned to this shitshow, as I have zero interest in enabling Icewhiz and his meatpuppet proxy harrassment. I have zero evidence to offer beyond that already submitted and my comments at the original coin discussion (re this is just dancing to Icewhiz's tune). Given the section in the middle of Jehochman's statement (which I had not read until the notification) I am assuming its some form of provocation/deflection as everyone else has ignored it, but for the record yes, anyone who comes to my talkpage and attempts to passive-aggressively insinuate I am responsible in any way for their purported medical conditions will receive the same response in much the same language." Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Worm is on it [1]. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

RfA

I've been trying to figure out how to manage this without outing you. Someone using your WP username opened an off wiki discussion about a recent RfA you were opposing. This looks like it could be interpreted as canvassing by a sitting arb. valereee (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

If you are referring to this there's no need to be concerned with outing, my participation there has been the subject of significant discussion in the past two WP:ACE proceedings, and I have my own personal troll who stops by here at about once a week to harass me over it (if we're talking about anything else, anywhere on the web, it wasn't me). I'm not aware of any rule that says any discussion at all on an off-wiki forum constitutes canvassing. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Aight. I'm not going to push. Might not qualify as an exhibit of judgement or maturity tho. Just sayin'. ;) valereee (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I respect you and think you are a generally great Wikipedian and administrator, but we clearly have a difference of opinion as to who's judgement was flawed here. I know what it feels like to nominate someone for RFA and then see it fail badly, but I don't think for a second that the WPO thread is the reason it went the way it did. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I doubt it, too, and I also respect you very much. As far as I can recall my every interaction with you has been positive. If I didn't think well of you I'd likely just roll my eyes and move on, as I don't think it's worth arguing with idiots or jerks. :) But IMO opening a discussion on WPO for an RfA, especially one in which you're opposing, is not a good look for someone in a position of relative power, and I thought that might be something you'd want to consider. I'd want to know, if someone I respected thought that about something I'd done. YMMV, but that's how it appears to me. valereee (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) In this specific instance, the candidate has accepted the opposition, withdrawn gracefully and gone back to working on the encyclopedia, so I think any further discussion is moot. While I'm here, I noticed that somebody said that no candidate in the last five years has run an unsuccessful RfA followed by a successful one, which is not correct. Valereee Maybe we should go through the list of "near misses" from 2017-2020 and see if any of them are worth another go. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I'd be up for that. valereee (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I notice you're interested in tightening up the activity restrictions. I'm very much in the "use it or lose it" camp; I recently noticed my global renamer permissions were yanked because I hadn't used them in a year, and all I can say to that is "it's a fair cop". It should make RfA a bit easier if people know there are not people who think they can stay around forever with grandfather rights. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I know that this is a popular theory, but I think the evidence for "inactivity desysops have made RfA easier" is about as good as the evidence for "inactivity desysops have made RfA harder". —Kusma (talk) 10:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
@Ritchie333, you'd think that hat was the only thing getting him laid. valereee (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't think there's any hard evidence that it makes RFA easier and that's not why I favor tighter standards. My half-done proposal is at User:Beeblebrox/5years but yesterday, as I was putting this together, it became clear there was also an arbcom case on basically this exact subject heading my way, and that just made the timing seem bad, as if it was in direct response to that, (when I actually began drafting this in my sandbox in May of last year, and it was this month's inactive admins that made me think of it again) so I decided to hold off for now. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Your proposal seems to be missing the standard counterexample :) —Kusma (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
It wouldn't be a counterexample if El C had been asked to please spend some time editing again before being resysopped. Do any of us really think El C would have walked away in disgust if we'd asked for that? I really don't understand why we don't ask these sometimes incredibly out of touch admins to just edit regularly for a while before asking to be resysopped. Master Jay has 6K edits and their most recent 100 edits go back ten years, and that's only because they made a "push" (49 edits) in 2020 after getting seriously called out at length on their user talk. A discussion in which, btw, they demonstrated that they apparently don't understand the difference between editing logged out and socking. This person actively should not be working in any admin area that could harm the encyclopedia. We need to create a usergroup for 'admin emeriti' or something so these people can retain their bragging rights without potentially harming the project. Give 'em a big golden crown and a plaque in exchange for that stinky ol' mop they aren't using, having no intention of using, and shouldn't be using. valereee (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
As you might expect, I'd support Beeblebrox's proposed RfC, and also further suggest that any views in it by admins be given less weight as they have a conflict of interests. But I suspect such views may not be that popular. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Last RfC on the general question of tightening requirements, I went through and counted who was supporting and who was opposing, and there was a very stark difference between admins and non-admins. valereee (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I really enjoy being an ordinary editor. If I need some admin service, I go to the relevant place, explain why, and it gets done. Not only that, I don't have to answer any questions about the action. What a luxury. Unlike many admins, I was an ordinary editor for 2.5 years before RFA, and feel quite comfortable in this role. Adminship ought to be a fixed term, such as 7 years plus or minus. If anybody wants to renew, they can request renewal. I think this would be healthy. If RFA is too strict, we should fix it. Jehochman Talk 17:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Arroyo Football

Since you blocked this account, I assume this one needs to be blocked too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

It does, and I did, about a minute after I blocked the first one. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
D'oh. Not sure how I missed that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
  • The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Newport Academy

FYI this user's only edits so far are whitewashing at Newport Academy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/KH2022 wizzito | say hello! 03:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Ran across another POV-pusher threatening to sue

The anonymous editor is already blocked for a week but I thought I'd give you a heads-up. –19:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

[2]. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Likely block evasion

So I've just indef blocked User:PaToGnOmOn for persistent altering of redirects against WP:NOTBROKEN. I've just had a hunch and looked at User:Gexajutyr who was blocked by yourself, and then myself, for the exact same thing. Do you think they're the same editor? I have reasons for asking, but don't want to lead you. Canterbury Tail talk 19:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Short answer: yes, they absolutely look like the same user. Long answer: in your inbox. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Need an uninvolved admin

Need an uninvolved admin at Old Bushmills Distillery to take a look and take any actions they deem necessary if you're willing to swing by. I'm most definitely involved, I know what I'd like to do, but I shall not do so. Canterbury Tail talk 21:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I semi protected it since the IP has changed at least once. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. Will still need to do something about the non-encyclopaedic and promotional unsourced additions, some of which seems like a copyvio though I can't locate it, but I'm going to leave it for now and see what other editors do with it. Canterbury Tail talk 21:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

IP block Private Relay

Hello,

Some months ago you granted me an IP block exemption as I am using Apple's Private Relay. I just noticed that I'm again unable to edit on the English Wikipedia, I guess the exemption has been waived. Could you grant me an extension?

Thank you very much in advance. Aude9331 (talk) 10:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I granted it for three months and it has simply expired. I'm not entirely comfortable doing it again as this really is not my area of expertise. It would probably be better if you used the normal process detailed at WP:IPEC. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Objection for deletion of " infectious diseases" section from Moral panic page.

Addition of this section to the Moral panic page was suggested in the talk page without any objection. We can continue discussion in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Moral_panic A. --192.114.3.241 (talk) 11:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

UCoC etal

I have to say, I really am feeling like a very small Wikipedian in the face of this.

As I continue to read all of this (and there's a lot of pages to read and keep up on), this all seems so Orwellian. The U4C as a Star Chamber. Affirming fealty to the crown/the state/the church. Because No one expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Paraphrasing a famous quote - They always said it couldn't happen here. And yet, here we are.

In the past, local Wikis could opt out of WMF dictums. But I don't see that here. That said, maybe we should have an RfC here anyway, demanding that we wish to opt out. Even if, in the end, they say we cannot, someone should respond to this nonsense.

I dunno. I tilt at windmills, but this.

This is the WMF wresting Wikipedia away from its volunteers who contribute for free and forcing this upon them

Wikipedia has always had kerfuffles, and has had warts that one really should not look too close at. But this is in your face to everyone.

I dunno what to do. But I do feel quite small right now. - jc37 22:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

There's still hope, it may get voted down, and if enough admins across the spectrum declare in advance they won't sign, the board may back down and not ratify it. Even if it is passed and ratified, the foundation has backed down before when it became clear they'd done something that was wildly unpopular with the volunteer community. WP:SUPERPROTECT and to a lesser extent WP:FRAM are examples that come to mind. They can't afford to fire all the admins, functionaries, stewards, etc. It would break the entire movement. So, maybe imagine Lisa Simpson instead [3]. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  • A few things. First, she's clearly playing a ukulele, but it sounds like a guitar, and has six tuning pegs even though it has only four strings. Second, I can't in any way support a statement that says I can't discriminate against people for being stupid. Stupid people should feel bad. We should discriminate against them more. GMGtalk 22:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


(ec) - Nice clip. Reminded me a bit of Protest_songs_in_the_United_States#1960s:_The_civil_rights_movement,_Vietnam_war,_and_peace_and_revolution.
But the difference here is that most editors are completely unaware of this situation. And further, even if every editor left, the WMF still has the current product. And when they weigh the loss of the community, I wonder - do they really care? Top google search result, etc.
Plus there seem to be plenty of newbies who would be happy to take up the tasks. Current policy can be tossed if the current community is gone.
Anyway, as I said, I dunno. But I don't think the project will go forward unscathed. - jc37 22:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
(lurker appears suddenly) I am one admin who's openly !voting against the latest attempt from the foundation to fiat civility. There's something of the golden goose here, but the foundation appears to value the capital resource more than the willing volunteer base. I was watching the Oscar nominated documentary Attica today and saw lots about which to relate. What would happen if sysops together chose not to edit for several hours? If the board were paying sysops even a pittance they'd have more leverage. As long as I can walk away at anytime I want, I'll continue to edit. If I'm treated like a supervisor, I need a contractual relationship in which I have choices. These days I recommend donating to the archive instead of the foundation anyway. BusterD (talk) 00:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
I recommend resigning. It feels great not to be obligated anymore. If WMF wants to have a contractual relationship with administrators and functionaries, WMF should pay them and provide benefits, security, and legal defense. Jehochman Talk 11:03, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
I gotta say, you are far from the first former admin I've seen posting comments about feeling liberated without the tools. Sadly, a lot of admins have invested too much ego in being an admin and just quit when they either get desysopped or it becomes clear they probably will be. And I can't say I completely don't understand that, when I was like 21 years old I was demoted as a shift manager at a Buffalo Wild Wings. It was a nice summer day so I took of my manager uniform shirt and walked out the door. On the other hand, a few months later they re-hired me as a delivery driver and I liked that job a lot better. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

User:The Great Mediator

They're still at it. Obvious troll is obvious. I don't have any reason to think they're a sock, but definitely WP:NOTHERE. I can't revert the user page because of some edit filter false positive. 2601:18C:8B82:9E0:0:0:0:3BDB (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I suppose this is all supposed to be funny or something.... but it's just boring. I blocked them. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, and again.

Same editor added it again today and left it in. I have deleted, but RevDel is again required. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

It is clear that the video is not the same as the one posted yesterday, and this editor has an axe to grind. Not sure how to report the editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
  • When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Just_Step_Sideways/Archive_46&oldid=1187291217"