This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Same. Sad we are all at this stage. Wikipedia used to be a great big, happy (usually) dysfunctional family, until the stepparents showed up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm hoping you can find true happiness IRL 28. You're good people, and so many good people have taken hits on this hill. — Ched : ? — 15:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't think I've ever interacted with you directly, but I have always found your bureaucratic work quite sound and I will definitely miss having you around. Thank you! -- Dolotta (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
This day extracts a heavy toll. –xenotalk 17:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.
The scope of CSD criterion G8 has been tightened such that the only redirects that it now applies to are those which target non-existent pages.
The scope of CSD criterion G14 has been expanded slightly to include orphan "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).
The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.
Miscellaneous
In February 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) changed its office actions policy to include temporary and project-specific bans. The WMF exercised this new ability for the first time on the English Wikipedia on 10 June 2019 to temporarily ban and desysop Fram. This action has resulted in significant community discussion, a request for arbitration (permalink), and, either directly or indirectly, the resignations of numerous administrators and functionaries. The WMF Board of Trustees is aware of the situation, and discussions continue on a statement and a way forward. The Arbitration Committee has sent an open letter to the WMF Board.
Just in passing. [1]. As you suggest, something is wrong. JehochmanTalk 17:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. If the committee accepts a case about BLP-violating defamatory smears and the person who wrote those smears and provided them to the Signpost to publish is not only not named as a party but is allowed to participate in the case as an impartial bystander... well, let's just say I hope the committee has more sense than to do that. 28bytes (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.
Re this load of rambling nonsense. Firstly, have the decency to ping me rather than slag me off behind my back. Secondly, had I of not brought it to AN, I would predict that we would've still ended up at ARC as Eric, I'm sure, would've retaliated; I have been supported in this by Bishonen and SlimVirgin, as I'm sure I have by a few others. Thirdly, how do you know what I was thinking when I posted at AN? I did it because I saw someone who I respected and like being baited into making an "uncivil" comment. Sure, Eric attracts drama, everyone knows that, but why should that not allow him to be protected at AN from trolling comments like the ones we saw from Scottywong? Lastly the ARC was started by MJL, not on the back of the AN thread, but on the back of previous incidents. I started the AN case because it's not fucking right that people like Scottywong - AN ADMIN, god help us - can go around making inflammatory comments to people who they know through previous experience, may flare up and retaliate. Finally, have a great night. CassiantoTalk 21:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I am actually with you for most of that. Where we differ is in how MJL should be treated for doing essentially what you did: filing a report in good faith that nonetheless resulted in things escalating unpleasantly. I think MJL ought to be left alone. And if the case request is declined, as it looks like it's going to be, and neither of you get any sort of admonishment, that's fine by me. You have a great night too. 28bytes (talk) 22:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I was upset at your comment yesterday, so I apologise if I came across as a bit narked. This bloody case has gone from being about Eric, to EEng, to me, to now everybody who's ever commented there. It's a farce, and the Arbs haven't a clue how to deal with it. I attribute that to an array of things: an extremely poor application, the fact Eric hasn't done anything wrong, a biased committee, and creepy crawlies coming out of the woodwork to grind previously held axes. I don't get the call, 28bytes, to have me dealt with for essentially trying to protect Eric, and MJL not dealt with for "naively" creating a case with no evidence whatsoever. They are two very separate reports. Yes, "I've been round the block long enough to know anything to do with Eric is going to create drama", but that is not a reason to ignore the incivility, trolling and baiting by others towards him. MJL, it is evident, jumped on my bandwagon and turned what was a case about Scottywong's baiting towards Eric to Eric himself with Scottywong now being lost in the crowd. Oh, and on a side note, I respect you hugely for handing your tools in re the Framban. Best regards CassiantoTalk 06:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Cassianto, for the kind words. Apology not needed, but accepted nonetheless. I completely see where you are coming from, and after sleeping on it a bit I've struck that part of my comment from the case request page. It did not really fit with the main point I was trying to make regarding MJL. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 11:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Arbcom
Yes, Arbcom is a shitty job that I wouldn't wish upon my worst enemy. Yes, you need to run for it in 2019. I've had it to the gills with sycophants and ding-dongs. Please give it some thought. best, —tim /// Carrite (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I'd support you, "the best arbitraztor Wikipedia didn't have" (NYB) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Just the other day my wife was telling me how glad she was that I didn't spend 2014-2015 on the committee. If that's not a "sign from above" I don't know what is. :) But thank you both for the vote of confidence. It will certainly be interesting to see who puts their hats in the ring. 28bytes (talk) 11:05, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Pleased of course to hear about anyone listening to women ;) - how about abolishing arbcom, and instead fine-tuning other means of dispute settling and mediation, a little more visible and in reach to the community. See my talk, look fo "frustra", but don't miss the gorgeous music on the top right. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.
A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.
I think that ArbCom has greatly increased feelings of hostility, and that we are not about to see a sudden improvement in civility. With so many eyes on Fram all they needed to do was issue an admonishment and see if he improved. If not, he would be dragged back to arbitration soon and they could deal with it cleanly. JehochmanTalk 18:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I can't disagree with any of that. 28bytes (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.
Technical news
As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.
Hi, User:28bytes, I've also had problems with unintentional rollbacks, as you discussed here with Ymblanter; in my case, almost entirely through fat-finger errors while mobile. But I can't tell from your code whether this just blanks the fields while mobile (is that what the 'm' of 'mw' means there?) or in every mode. Would you mind adding a couple of lines of // comments at the top saying what it does (and doesn't) do, so that we code-stealers won't be at risk of doing the wrong thing when we grab the code?
Also, can you explain why the watchlist class is in there as well, if mitigating unintentional rollbacks was your goal? I think I just want the suppress-rollback line, but are they both needed for some reason? I actually do look at my watchlist while mobile, so would want to keep it. If it's too close to something, could the watchlist class generate extra margin or padding or something, or some ::before-generated white space, to give more separation for fat fingers? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I only tried it on laptop (desktop version), it removes the rollback button in the watchlist (where you have the highest chance to misclick) but leaves it everywhere else such as page histories or user contributions.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Mathglot. I took a peek through my contributions history and it looks this is where I got it. As for how it works, I'm afraid I haven't dug into it enough to usefully comment. I mostly use desktop view on my phone to edit, if that helps. 28bytes (talk) 23:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, I use desktop view almost exclusively, which is likely why I get the fat-finger errors in the first place. Mathglot (talk) 04:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!
The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.
Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.
The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.
Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Comment, not necessarily position
Some bureaucrats might comment in a strictly bureaucratic capacity, in which case they might remain impartial going into a bureaucrat chat. Your bold edit may require additional clarification. I agree that any S/O/N should trigger a recusal. (Feel free to shuffle to the WT: page) –xenotalk 13:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC) (Done in Special:Diff/926139710)
That's reasonable. Feel free to tweak it to suit. 28bytes (talk) 13:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
← Unrelated - have you considered joining the ranks of non-admin bureaucrats? –xenotalk 13:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Heh, that would be like wearing the same dress to the prom, no? Incidentally, if you end up 'cratting for another 5 years and then decide to get the admin bit back, I think at that point you'd have to rerun RfA... as a 'crat. That would be interesting. 28bytes (talk) 14:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
No, certainly not. In fact I think non-admin bureaucrats have a useful role to serve in implementing the 2015 request from the community for bureaucrats to take a more active clerking role at RfX.
I don't think it's possible through passage of time to make myself ineligible for reinstatement; the 5-year rule has a prequisite: and the removal was for inactivity. –xenotalk 14:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Interesting. So theoretically I could fix a typo every couple months and then request my bit back in 2037? 28bytes (talk) 14:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
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 2019 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) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true.
No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well 28. MarnetteD|Talk 19:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Best wishes to you too! Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the return good wishes :-) MarnetteD|Talk 19:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Be well at Christmas
Have a WikiChristmas and a PediaNewYear
I've long seen you as a voice of reason. When will you pick up the tools again? Be well. Keep well. Have a lovely Christmas. SilkTork (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you SilkTork for the kind words and Christmas wishes. I hope you have a lovely Christmas as well. 28bytes (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
TheSandDoctorTalk is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding ((subst:Xmas2)) to their talk page with a friendly message.
From my family to yours, wishing you a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year --TheSandDoctorTalk 08:11, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you too! 28bytes (talk) 15:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
A request for comment asks whether partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. If enabled, this functionality would allow administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces, rather than the entire site.
A proposal asks whether admins who don't use their tools for a significant period of time (e.g. five years) should have the toolset procedurally removed.
The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.
Technical news
Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: ((uw-pblock)).
When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [2]
Arbitration
Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.
Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.
Technical news
Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.
In 2018, you offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has now accepted that request for arbitration, and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.
All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.
The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org
For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas3 (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Request for review
Hi revi! I would like to request you for reviewing my draft page Epos 257 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Epos_257). I know that it was already reviewed and unfortunately declined, nevertheless I have rewritten it and I would like to ask you very much to check the article if at least a little possible...Thank you very much! Regards Jiří Jiří Gruber (talk) 11:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello Jiří. I am not Revi; are you looking for -revi? Anyway, I am not familiar with the subject matter and would not be much help in addressing the issues the reviewer brought up, I'm afraid. Sorry. 28bytes (talk) 14:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)