TonyBallioni (talk | contribs) →notice: re |
Shashank5988 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 204: | Line 204: | ||
While I understand that you closed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=963627688 this appeal] based on the apparent consensus. I would still like to know if you will have no problem if I made my argument to overturn this decision on ARCA? Thanks. [[User:Shashank5988|Shashank5988]] ([[User talk:Shashank5988|talk]]) 22:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC) |
While I understand that you closed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=963627688 this appeal] based on the apparent consensus. I would still like to know if you will have no problem if I made my argument to overturn this decision on ARCA? Thanks. [[User:Shashank5988|Shashank5988]] ([[User talk:Shashank5988|talk]]) 22:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC) |
||
:I don't think overturning an ''appeal'' is within ARCA's scope, and I don't think it's ever been done before. You're free to challenge my actions anywhere (I really don't mind), but my thought process would be that since there is no sanction to be clarified or amended, the arbs probably wouldn't go for it. I think the best thing would be to see if there is any future disruption, and if there is, put a new AE request in asking for a new topic ban. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni#top|talk]]) 22:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC) |
:I don't think overturning an ''appeal'' is within ARCA's scope, and I don't think it's ever been done before. You're free to challenge my actions anywhere (I really don't mind), but my thought process would be that since there is no sanction to be clarified or amended, the arbs probably wouldn't go for it. I think the best thing would be to see if there is any future disruption, and if there is, put a new AE request in asking for a new topic ban. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni#top|talk]]) 22:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC) |
||
::Since AE comes under the jurisdiction of Arbcom, they reserve the right to overturn any decision made on AE. I have mentioned you on my recent filing on ARCA.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_WP:ARBIPA] [[User:Shashank5988|Shashank5988]] ([[User talk:Shashank5988|talk]]) 16:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== All-Polish Youth == |
== All-Polish Youth == |
Revision as of 16:58, 22 June 2020
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Antisemitism in Poland: Motion (May 2020)
The following is added as a remedy to the Antisemitism in Poland arbitration case: 7) 500/30 restriction: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. This prohibition may be enforced preemptively by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP), or by other methods such as reverts, pending changes protection, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 rule are not considered edit warring.
- Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by the methods mentioned above.
- Standard discretionary sanctions as authorized by the Eastern Europe arbitration case remain in effect for this topic area.
Passed 6 to 0 by motion at 19:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
For the arbitration committee, Moneytrees🌴Talk🌲Help out at CCI! 20:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
- @François Robere and Piotrus: if the two of you want to list pages that are clearly within scope at User:TonyBallioni/Initial Poland 500/30 I can review and batch protect using Twinkle. Probably the easiest way to move forward. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
- Protection of David Engel looks like it should be on David Engel (historian), not the disambiguation page. Jan Grabowski (historian) is only a redirect; the article was recently moved to Jan Grabowski and remained semi-protected. Peter James (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- Peter James, thanks. Fixed. I did look through all of these, but if it were easily determinable via popups didn't click the page. Any other issues, let me know :) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- Tony, if you haven't done so, I recommend enabling in preferences the following: "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange" and meta:User:Piotrus/global.css this little code turns all redirects green. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Tony, I hope you agree with my position that some articles are too important to ECP preemptively. El_C 17:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah... I have no clue why someone would want Russia indefinitely semi-protected... I think they were doing it under EE rather than this remedy, but I think it’s an odd request, and one we stopped doing ~2 years ago for ARBPIA. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – June 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).
- CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth
- Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL
- A request for comment asks whether the Unblock Ticket Request System (UTRS) should allowed any unblock request or just private appeals.
- The Wikimedia Foundation announced that they will develop a universal code of conduct for all WMF projects. There is an open local discussion regarding the same.
- A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on
articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland
. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.
- A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on
I may be wrong...
...about who is who's sockpuppet, but I am quite certain that there is a substantial and sophisticated campaign of sockpuppet activity going on in relation to Trump and Biden articles. I am seeing many instances of new accounts popping up, making a handful of mundane edits, and then aggressively entering discussions on political topics, and occasional accounts (e.g., User:PurpleSwivel) coming into existence for the sole purpose of making a single proposal or argument on a controversial political topic, which accounts in the first group may then pile on. BD2412 T 22:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don’t doubt it. People are obsessed with politics and Wikipedia unhealthily and that’s usually what leads to socking of any sort. I’m about to head out, but I’ll look at that account when I get back online in a few hours. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Recent suspicious accounts
Can you take a look at [1], rather quackish SPA. Still waiting for a reply to my emails from a few days ago. Also [2], this SPA is a bit stale (December), but fits Ice's LGBT-interest angle. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- Seen. Will reply tonight. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, I will be waiting for it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
AN
Hi Tony, hope I'm not overstepping; would you take another look at your comments in this thread and consider striking or rephrasing some of the bits Sharab takes issue with? I think it's a good opportunity to try and de-escalate the situation, plus it will ModelDesiredBehavior for Sharab so that hopefully he can learn how to deescalate situations himself in the future. — Wug·a·po·des 01:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Not an overreach, but I wouldn’t strike or rephrase even if he hadn’t retired. They were accurate descriptions of his behaviour. I reached out on his talk page to attempt to calm him down and he just further escalated. I’ve expressed before that I think the biggest problem on our project is that we give disruptive users every opportunity to show that they aren’t compatible with a collaborative project. I don’t think that problem is solved by giving the benefit of the doubt when someone has shown themselves to be a negative on the exact same issue on three different Wikimedia projects. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for considering. I'm glad you had reached out on his talk page, and sorry I hadn't noticed that. You seem to have interacted with him far more than I have, so I respect that given your perspective I'd probably think differently. Hope you're keeping well! — Wug·a·po·des 03:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- I wanted to come back and say thanks for this comment. It was striking when I first read it, but as I've thought about it, I've really come to appreciate the point you're making. I appreciate your candor and how much you've given me to think on. — Wug·a·po·des 01:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- It’s an issue I’ve been thinking a lot about lately (obviously.) I’ve never really been one for civility blocks (in the Eric sense) so I don’t really want what I say to be read in that way. More so we have a lot of users who are here in good faith in the sense that they believe they’re doing the right thing, they aren’t really that incompetent even though they don’t follow our norms, and they honestly do want to build an encyclopedia, but despite all this the sum of all their actions is extreme frustration on the part of others. We need a way to describe this otherwise we’re going to be spending months and losing other editors in order to give one person as many chances as possible.I think we put a lot of effort into retaining brand new users because we want to maintain a stable editor base, but I think the research that’s been done suggests most editors that keep our active editor count stable are actually returning users. I call it the entry-level white collar job after undergrad effect, but it’s a thing that we don’t really pay that much attention to. I’d argue that the crowd that’s maintaining our editor base (returning users) are much more likely to give up if they’re greeted by one of the editors we were talking about before regaining their footing. It really is a question of how many editors do we lose by trying to save one editor from themselves. There obviously needs to be a balance, but post-FRAM I think we’ve probably over-corrected on the willingness to deal with this type of behaviour towards the ROPE/AGF side (Iridescent recently summarized the current state of the block button well on his talk so he might have something of value to add here.) Some people just aren’t a fit for Wikipedia, and at some point they need to be told that. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) If anything, Wikipedia operates on the quite lenient end of tolerating disruption from good faith editors. El_C 02:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- It does, and I see the reasoning for that to an extent. If disruption is contained to one area a topic ban works quite nicely. I think there was a guy at AE recently who only edits soccer and pseudoscience. Great soccer editor, not so good at alternative medicine. That’s an easy solution to fix without blocks. It’s also more lenient than most other Internet forums would be. The problem arises when you have someone who combines many forms of disruption that aren’t really enough for a block on their own. We are absolutely dreadful at dealing with that. It’s where our AGF bites us in the ass the hardest. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed, that is where the notion of WP:PACT fails rather spectacularly, resulting in often unimaginable timesinks. El_C 02:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed, and it’s gotten worse post-FRAM. Whatever your thoughts of him as a personality (courtesy ping), he was probably the best we had at dealing with this type of issue, particularly when it impacted content pages. He was also almost always right even if you didn’t agree with the way he went about it. Part of the falling out of both the WMF incident and the ArbCom case is that we’ve seen a bit of a culture shift where you’re very likely to get told how abusive you are if you act on this type of behaviour. There was always a bit of that, but it’s gotten much more of a vibe now.Anyway, I wrote the WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE essay as a way to try to document the problem and in part as something that can be used as a counter-argument to excessive invocations of ROPE and similar ideas. I think there is a lot of frustration building about this part of our culture now, and I’ve always been a be the change you want to see type. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Interesting take of this trend, Tony. I tend to agree with your conclusion. By the way, thanks for writing that essay. I think it's valuable and I read it with great interest. El_C 03:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed, and it’s gotten worse post-FRAM. Whatever your thoughts of him as a personality (courtesy ping), he was probably the best we had at dealing with this type of issue, particularly when it impacted content pages. He was also almost always right even if you didn’t agree with the way he went about it. Part of the falling out of both the WMF incident and the ArbCom case is that we’ve seen a bit of a culture shift where you’re very likely to get told how abusive you are if you act on this type of behaviour. There was always a bit of that, but it’s gotten much more of a vibe now.Anyway, I wrote the WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE essay as a way to try to document the problem and in part as something that can be used as a counter-argument to excessive invocations of ROPE and similar ideas. I think there is a lot of frustration building about this part of our culture now, and I’ve always been a be the change you want to see type. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed, that is where the notion of WP:PACT fails rather spectacularly, resulting in often unimaginable timesinks. El_C 02:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- It does, and I see the reasoning for that to an extent. If disruption is contained to one area a topic ban works quite nicely. I think there was a guy at AE recently who only edits soccer and pseudoscience. Great soccer editor, not so good at alternative medicine. That’s an easy solution to fix without blocks. It’s also more lenient than most other Internet forums would be. The problem arises when you have someone who combines many forms of disruption that aren’t really enough for a block on their own. We are absolutely dreadful at dealing with that. It’s where our AGF bites us in the ass the hardest. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) If anything, Wikipedia operates on the quite lenient end of tolerating disruption from good faith editors. El_C 02:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- It’s an issue I’ve been thinking a lot about lately (obviously.) I’ve never really been one for civility blocks (in the Eric sense) so I don’t really want what I say to be read in that way. More so we have a lot of users who are here in good faith in the sense that they believe they’re doing the right thing, they aren’t really that incompetent even though they don’t follow our norms, and they honestly do want to build an encyclopedia, but despite all this the sum of all their actions is extreme frustration on the part of others. We need a way to describe this otherwise we’re going to be spending months and losing other editors in order to give one person as many chances as possible.I think we put a lot of effort into retaining brand new users because we want to maintain a stable editor base, but I think the research that’s been done suggests most editors that keep our active editor count stable are actually returning users. I call it the entry-level white collar job after undergrad effect, but it’s a thing that we don’t really pay that much attention to. I’d argue that the crowd that’s maintaining our editor base (returning users) are much more likely to give up if they’re greeted by one of the editors we were talking about before regaining their footing. It really is a question of how many editors do we lose by trying to save one editor from themselves. There obviously needs to be a balance, but post-FRAM I think we’ve probably over-corrected on the willingness to deal with this type of behaviour towards the ROPE/AGF side (Iridescent recently summarized the current state of the block button well on his talk so he might have something of value to add here.) Some people just aren’t a fit for Wikipedia, and at some point they need to be told that. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Interface administrator
Per your request: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#IAdmin_request_(TonyBallioni), it's been 48 hours with no objections, so I've given you the interface administrator flag. SilkTork (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
DS request at Rula Jebreal
At Rula Jebreal, Daveout has repeatedly removed the word "Palestinian" from the first sentence (diffs: [3] [4] [5]). For a long time, the first sentence of the article has read,
Rula Jebreal (Arabic: رولا جبريل, Hebrew: רולא ג'בריל; born April 24, 1973) is a Palestinian[4][5] foreign policy analyst, journalist, novelist and screenwriter with dual Israeli and Italian citizenship.
This is sourced to Rula's own statements that she is a Palestinian: in an interview she did with Vogue and an Op-Ed she wrote in The New York Times. The long-standing text of Rula Jebreal explains both that she is a Palestinian (how she views herself, and how many Arabs with Israeli citizenship view themselves) and that she has Israeli citizenship.
I alerted Daveout to the existence of discretionary sanctions in the Israel-Palestine topic area, and then explained to them that Rula identifies herself as a Palestinian. Daveout then removed the word "Palestinian" for a third time, and responded, Oh! So if i decided to call myself Martian that's what should count?
I think Daveout has made it clear that they should not be editing articles that fall under WP:ARBPIA, and I am requesting that DS be applied to this user.
Thanks, -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- First of all, stop mischaracterizing my arguments, quoting only a small jocose irony as if I were some sort of vandal. I gave my reasoning why I think it’s better to describe her as an ‘’Israeli-Arab’’ rather than plainly ‘’Palestinian’’ (which may be misleading). It is basically this: 1) Most BoLP articles mention the person’s NATIONALITY on the lead. The ‘’Palestinian’’ identity, unless you were actually born in Palestine, is more of a cultural affinity than anything, it’s like being ‘’Jewish’’. But we won’’t see things like ‘’Aronofsky is a Jewish film-maker’’. We read ‘’Aronofsky is an American film-maker’’. On Anne Frank’s article we read: ‘’German-Dutch diarist of Jewish origin.’’ (and that’s only bc her Jewishness is relevant to the article). Cultural affinity or descendance is normally not as relevant as COUNTRY OF BIRTH. 2) Rula herself is quoted saying: ‘’He [the inteviewer] stopped when he got to Rula and introduced himself. “Are you Indian?” he asked. “No, I’m Israeli.” [Rula said]. 3) I’m not the only one who holds this opinion, another user wrote, on the talk-page: ‘’She is Arab and from Palestine, but she is also of Israeli nationality from her birth, so that the word "Palestinian" is not correct if uncommented. These datas (place of birth and nationality) can be found in declarations by Rula herself, for instance in this one on the French Channel Public Sénat. If the writer’s target of is to hide the fact that she is an Israeli (of the Arab part of the population), it is a stalinian-type conception of history, an offence against Rula Jebreal’s personality and against the reputation of Wikipedia.’’. 4) The article has for a long time treated her as Israeli-Arab, and that’s its status quo version. 5) Also, the user making accusations against me doesn’t want to discuss and reach consensus (even when i asked him to), he wants to enforce his opinion by brute-force. That’s it. Thank you. Daveout (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Well, obviously many Arabs with Israeli citizenship consider themselves "Palestinian," and consider "Palestinian" to be their true nationality. The lede previously handled this in a very even manner: it said she was Palestinian and that she has Israeli citizenship. You removed the word "Palestinian."
- As to your point #2: why did you cut off the quote there? If you read further, you'll see that she calls herself "Palestinian." If you read her NYT Op-Ed, you'll see that the entire thrust of the article is her experience as a Palestinian in Israel. She clearly considers herself a Palestinian.
- As to your last point,
Also, the user making accusations against me doesn’t want to discuss and reach consensus (even when i asked him to), he wants to enforce his opinion by brute-force. That’s it.
You've reverted three times. You're trying to change the long-standing text. I came to your talk page to alert you about DS, and I explained my position to you. You reverted anyways. Your edit messages have been extremely insulting:Facts dont care about your feelings.
I've tried to talk with you, but you've made it clear that you believe what you believe, and are going to revert to push it into the article. - You've continued to revert, despite knowing that this article is under DS. Your disregard for DS restrictions on edit warring and your insistence that a person born in Israel cannot be "Palestinian" make it clear that you're just going to cause more disruption in this topic area. The Palestinian-Israeli articles are a perennial battleground, and if you want to edit them, you have to be willing to show a bit of understanding for positions you might not personally agree with. You might not think that someone born in Israel should be described as a "Palestinian," yet many (most, I think) Arabs in Israel consider themselves exactly that, and consider "Palestinian" to be their nationality. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Just look at how this user thinks that someone can simply pick-and-choose their nationality. It’s like saying: ‘’I was born in Germany, but I identify as Italian because I like it better’’. I know that many Arabs do not recognize Israel, but Israel exists and Rula was born there (like it or not). Yes, I do think that we, as encyclopedians, should be more attached to facts than feelings or political opinions. I wouldn´t consider ‘’Israeli’’ a Jew who were born, today, in the west-bank either (because that´s Palestine, It´s a fact). As someone who is trying to change the status quo, the burden is on YOU to stop edit-warring and reach consensus. Daveout (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Thucydides411 I ECP’d the article indefinitely as a BLP discretionary sanction. That should address the immediate problem. Sorry for the delayed response here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Fix ping. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
There's more
...see my log for more of that "delete Kingshowman" bullshit. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- And here's another. Pretty sad. User talk:67 silicenrt. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- It's pretty sad that you guys have been acting like bully trolls and edit warring with us instead of talking about it. Although you're likely going to revert this comment you are more then welcome to email me wpcheckuser@gmail.com and we can talk there because I know I am not KSM and would definitely like to get this resolved and be able to edit without being targeted by the real trolls. 96.234.54.76 (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah. I’m out of the house now, but I’ll try to do a few cleanup sweeps later today. If you’re curious about the history this is 100% the “SPI troll”. Kingshowman has been protesting that they’re different and that he’s a smarter nicer LTA, but that’d take a lot of coincidences... the SPI troll appears in the logs exactly when Kingshowman disappears and then recently started doing a few of the Kingshowman tells. That the “not Kingshowman” accounts have suddenly started aggressively pushing the “Kingshowman is innocent” agenda after he’s been pushing it is a bit much on top of all the other stuff. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Not wanting to be left out of this exclusive club: Special:Undelete/User:Favneian. Favonian (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
WooPlus
Hi Tony. You have deleted the WooPlus page. Did you considered my remarks on the talk page? I think that it meets the WP:GNG, considering the sources I have used. Throwawiki (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- I did. It was substantially the same as the article previously deleted at AfD, so it meets WP:G4. You're free to contest this at WP:DRV. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, I've done that. Throwawiki (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
"Album - Blueprints ( Wage War )" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Album - Blueprints ( Wage War ). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 7#Album - Blueprints ( Wage War ) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Rollback
Hi Tony, hope you're well. Someone gave me rollback a few months ago (I didn't ask for it) and I'd like it taken away. It turns out there are some rules around its use, which someone has tried to pontificate to me about over on my talk page (since squashed). I'm unfamiliar with these rules and I frankly have better things to do with my time than to be bothered to read them. Can you get rid of these rights please? Thanks. CassiantoTalk 20:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- Done. Hope you’re safe and well. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Rethinking the revert tag
Back in March you misclicked the block button. After some discussion and a suggestion by Xeno, you added the revert tag. The software says there are two uses of that tag, but that's the only use of the tag. What do you think about it now? I don't think it's unwarranted, but it's obviously not the only such mistake so for now it's a special, unique note for just one user. The devs plan to add a "reverted" tag (phab:T254074), so I think this would likely cause confusion when that happens. I don't think it'd be a huge issue to remove altogether, but at the very least I think something like xeno's original suggestion "Mistaken block" or "Mistaken action" would be better, since it'd be clearer how it could be used. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- You know these things are beyond me :) I'm fine with whatever makes the most sense. I agree with you it could cause some confusion. I'd be fine changing it to whatever works best. If that's a new tag and its easy to do, go for it. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Dwaro
Hopefully asking this isn't against the policy, but if it is, please let me know. I am wondering if what happened in these suppression is of relevance to the sock investigation that is happening? I thought people couldn't have undisclosed alts anyways, or can they? I wanted to ask questions in the talk page, but it seems like that section was reserved for admins/CUs only. Thank you. Graywalls (talk) 07:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
lipservice
That's the word I was looking for. Trying to think of a polite way to tell them to try back in 6 months --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 01:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you
GizzyCatBella🍁 05:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- GizzyCatBella, the functionaries list is aware of the situation and a lot of us are monitoring it. Hopefully we can find a way to slow it down to the point they get bored soon. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- I hope so..thank you again for being so quick.GizzyCatBella🍁 05:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- [6] - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah. MyRoyalYoung has decided to play copycat. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- [6] - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- I hope so..thank you again for being so quick.GizzyCatBella🍁 05:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Pending changes
Isn't there something we can do to give it more bite for longterm editors who have the user right, or would it be better to eliminate it all together? I am aware of the growing backlogs in various areas where the mop is needed but this one seems easy enough to fix. Atsme Talk 📧 02:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- I’m not sure what much else there is to do: it doesn’t really do much. People love suggesting using it for BLPs, but it’s not great there because it sticks violations permanently in the history. I don’t really think we’ll ever get rid of it, but it’s worth pointing out when people are talking about it on a large scale that it’s not great. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Signed,The4lines |||| (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 14:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Ss112 02:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020
Hello TonyBallioni,
- Your help can make a difference
NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.
- Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate
In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.
- Discussions and Resources
- A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
- Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
- A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
- Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Help regarding fixing errors
Hi, TonyBallioni I have requested for a file-name extention correction at File:Dilip Ghosh Signature.png.jpg. I would kindly request if you can approve the change . Thank you. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- That appears to be a file on commons currently. Nick, could you do whatever magic is required on that side of the house? Thanks. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
AE close
While I understand that you closed this appeal based on the apparent consensus. I would still like to know if you will have no problem if I made my argument to overturn this decision on ARCA? Thanks. Shashank5988 (talk) 22:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think overturning an appeal is within ARCA's scope, and I don't think it's ever been done before. You're free to challenge my actions anywhere (I really don't mind), but my thought process would be that since there is no sanction to be clarified or amended, the arbs probably wouldn't go for it. I think the best thing would be to see if there is any future disruption, and if there is, put a new AE request in asking for a new topic ban. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
- Since AE comes under the jurisdiction of Arbcom, they reserve the right to overturn any decision made on AE. I have mentioned you on my recent filing on ARCA.[7] Shashank5988 (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
All-Polish Youth
Hello, given that you have an edit about protection of History of the Jews in Poland I thought you might be able to weigh in on Talk:All-Polish Youth#"based on fascist doctrines" as your input would probably be better explained than I have managed to do. I did the request to protect the article initially as there were multiple IP and single-purpose accounts removing sourced content from it every once in a while hence my stance now; however, I may be wrong here, so it's best someone else weighs in? Abcmaxx (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm not overly familiar with this sort of thing, and it looks to fall outside of the remit of the recent ArbCom motion, so wouldn't qualify immediately for protection. I alerted one of the new accounts to the DS for Eastern Europe, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
notice
Thank you, noted. I have small input, but only reason of my edits is strict following the sources, or remove editions misinterpreting them. Best regards Kojoto (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Not a problem. It's just a notice letting you know special rules are in place. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)