Undid revision 901612791 by Hawkeye7 (talk) rv blatant trolling, you should know better than this Tag: Undo |
Undid revision 901614977 by Fastily (talk) I am as entitled to have my admin status restored as anyone else Tag: Undo |
||
Line 161: | Line 161: | ||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | For standing up for the community in the face of personal cost, thank you, WJBscribe. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|talk]])''' 01:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC) |
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | For standing up for the community in the face of personal cost, thank you, WJBscribe. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|talk]])''' 01:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC) |
||
|} |
|} |
||
== Request for restoration of admin rights == |
|||
Since you're restoring admin rights under [[WP:IAR]], could I have mine restored too? I have an unblemished record over the last seven years. [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 03:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:44, 13 June 2019
03:13, Wednesday 5 June 2024
Typo from over ten years ago?
This is incredibly pointless, but your close of Wikipedia:Requests for BAG membership/Coren noted 23 supports, but AFAICT there are 25? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yep, good spot - looks like I didn't update the tally [1] when I closed it - no automatic tallies back in those days! WJBscribe (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello -
I put in a request to have this title unprotected at WP:RPP, and the admin there asked me to ask you about unprotection first, since you were the protecting admin in 2008. I have drafted an article at User:Chubbles/Daniel Brandt; Brandt meets WP:MUSIC and the article I have written is robustly sourced. Would you mind having a look? Our discussion is at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Daniel Brandt. Chubbles (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- Talk page watcher dropping in to make a quick comment. @Chubbles:, I'd urge you to search for and include more independent references for that article, so that it is obvious the subject not just meets, but really exceeds, minimal notability standards for musicians. There is an excellent reason why that article title is "salted" (the original subject was *not* the musician you are writing about), and it is on the watchlist of a few hundred longtime editors, so any new article creation should be rock-solid. I'm pretty hardline on notability, so I'd suggest you get the opinion of several other editors before proceeding to move this to mainspace.
WJBscribe, apologies for jumping in early. I'd suggest that if you do decide to un-salt, you leave the deleted revisions deleted. I can provide more details as to why if you need them, but I suspect you can figure it out by yourself. Risker (talk) 04:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Chubbles: and thanks @Risker:. As Risker says, there are good reasons why the article is currently protected against recreation, but the old article was not about the musician. The deleted revisions would stay deleted, but the page could be unprotected to allow recreation. I actually think it is an excellent idea to have an article about someone else with that name. Notability of musicians is not a topic about which I claim any expertise, but Risker is probably correct that some extra eyes would be a good idea on this special case. Aside from anything else, I am reluctant to risk the page being edited to change it from being about the musician to being about the subject of the deleted article after it is unprotected.
Perhaps it is worth posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music if that WikiProject is active? If a consensus is in favour of your article being created, I would be happy to unprotect the page. WJBscribe (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- I occasionally weigh in at WikiProject Music, and can take it there if you think it decreases the chances of an ugly AfD from people uninterested in the scope of our coverage in music. I've also left comments at RPP - ultimately, I want the solution that results in this article going live (somewhere) with the least amount of drama for myself and any involved admins. Chubbles (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hi WJBScribe - just to let you know that I completed the page moves very early today (well, technically, late last night my time), and that Chubbles' draft article is now moved to mainspace at the most appropriate article title, Daniel Brandt. Took me a bit longer than I expected - finding archived talk pages was a bit bizarre, and all of the pages were really big. I am probably responsible for the death of a server kitty or two. But it's done. Another weird chapter in Wikipedia history. Risker (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Risker: Thanks for sorting. I've semi protected and move protected the page to deter casual mischief and will keep an eye on the page. WJBscribe (talk) 13:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- I believe we discussed this and consensus was not to protect this new page pre-emptively. Samsara 00:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- If you link me to the discussion I’ll take a look and reconsider. The discussion I participated in, which you closed, doesn’t appear to have included consideration of longer term semi protection and I can’t see a more recent discussion at RfPP. Given the particular sensitivities in this individual case, it would take lot to convince me that preemptive protection was unwarranted. WJBscribe (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- That's the one. To remind you: "change Daniel Brandt into a dab - probably not too big a deal. Time would tell if Daniel Brandt (musician) would also need some form of protection." Nobody dissented with that proposal, only the name of the page changed from Daniel Brandt (musician) to Daniel Brandt. So we have discussed it, and you were part of that discussion. Pre-emptive protection is not covered by policy - policy explicitly states that semi, PC and ECP should not be applied pre-emptively, and that doing so is "contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia". I strongly believe that normal users should be given the opportunity to edit this page until (and unless!) this proves infeasible. And perhaps we may discover along the way that some of our fears will evaporate. Samsara 07:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'm confused. Protection was suggested in the discussion as a potential outcome for a different title and no one objected? I don't see how this can be described as "consensus was not to protect" this title. There was either no consensus or a tacit consensus that protection may prove needed (on the basis of a proposal that met with no resistance).
I'm familiar with the general policy against pre-emptive protection, but I don't agree that this is pre-emptive. An article of this name has been the subject of sustained problematic editing and the protection is justified on that basis. The move protection is in effect just a continuation of my salting of the page post deletion, designed to prevent recreation of the article about the former subject. The semi protection is intended to reduce the chance casual reinsertion of material about the former subject, or a wholesale rewriting of the article. The protection is not speculative, it reflects my assessment of the particular risks posed by this article in the context of its wider history. In response to your point, leaving the page unprotected has already proved infeasible. The fact that the page history of problematic editing has been deleted, moved and oversighted does not mean that it should be disregarded when considering appropriate steps to protect the subjects of BLPs (and/or, for that matter, Wikipedians). WJBscribe (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'm confused. Protection was suggested in the discussion as a potential outcome for a different title and no one objected? I don't see how this can be described as "consensus was not to protect" this title. There was either no consensus or a tacit consensus that protection may prove needed (on the basis of a proposal that met with no resistance).
- I see DB still has the power to cause discord, gnashing of teeth, and disruption. Just like old times, I guess. Glad I missed it. Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Your RevDel of your own mistake
Looking at this RevDel action of yours, I don't see any reason this needs to be redacted. Please note, that according to WP:REVDEL#Log redaction, it should not be used merely to cover your won mistakes; and the accusation you made (vandalism to our web site), especially given its immediate redaction, doesn't justify redaction. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed, this should be undone. I believe your intent was not to hide your action but to spare the user an otherwise spotless block log, but that is not justification for hiding the entry. An apologetic unblock entry, an apology to the user, and a self-trout are sufficient. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hi both. Old Mishenu, I think the accusation that I used the tool to “cover your won mistakes” (sic) was an unnecessary accusation of bad faith on your part. Both my message to the user concerned and my entry in the log plainly demonstrated that isn’t the case. Amory is closer to the money but the reason for my use of the tool is recorded in the log, “potentially libellous/defamatory”. The rev deleted entry amounted to an accusation that the user concerned had vandalised Wikipedia in a manner that called for a block. That is untrue, and therefore defamatory of the user concerned. I stand by the rev deletion, but do not feel sufficiently strongly about it to want to get into a long argument. If either of you feel strongly enough about the issue that you wish to reverse my action, I will not object. WJBscribe (talk) 11:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Without speculating on the motivation, this seems to fall easily in the 'ordinary manner' condition of when not to RevDel logs described in the policy. The rapid retraction in the next log alleviates the first action sufficiently. — xaosflux Talk 16:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
G'day,fellow admin Avi
- In order for it to be removable as “potentially libellous/defamatory”, it must be an accusation which a reasonable viewer may believe to be true. A block of an account for on-site activity, followed by an immediate unblock for a reason which clearly indicates the block in question was applied to the wrong user, is clearly not an accusation to be believed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
This will either make, or ruin, your day
Wow,that was a tremendous relief: I succeeding in making my personally-conventional two-Non-breaking-space, single vanilla-blank indent at the beginning of a 'graph, --- Note: By request from Jerzy, I am interrupting this conversation. I am his wife. (My full name is Gini Kramer. My contact information is as follows: <redacted> )For the moment, I am typing his dictation. The following paragraphs are Jerzy's dictation.
So, Jerzy is my Wikipedia ID. I am an administrator. I've been an administrator since 2003, 2004 or 2005. At the instigation of user:angela and now I'm 72 and a half and getting pretty daffy. But still understand what my responsibilities as an administrator are. I doubt that I am going to abuse my permissions but I also doubt that it's worth my leaving that possibility open. So probably the first thing worth discussing is downgrading my status at least one level. I'd like to continue editing; it wouldn't hurt to have someone at least occasionally reviewing my edits to see that I haven't done anything unusually stupid, taking into account how routine it is for editors to do something stupid and our ability to bounce back from such occasions. The reason I thought a bureaucrat might be a useful status from the person I appealed for help from is that I'm pretty sure a bureaucrat could do the downgrading of my permissions, and also facilitate the recovery or changing of my password which briefly I thought I had rediscovered but to no avail. I've been logged in with my administrator privilege for longer than I remember; I have the feeling that it used to be necessary to "refresh" it annually, but I suspect it's been over a year and maybe several since I did so. So I conjecture that rule changed. But I'm kind of stuck with an iPad2 that's been dropped, logged in with my admin status in effect. My hard drive on my real computer having probably been recycled though our internet provider is still providing service to our wifi and the wikipedia server understands that my account is in fact the Jerzy account. I went to a library a month or so ago and did some work, and chatted with some kind of live wikipedia helper who instructed me on upgrading my security level on my account. I printed out the procedure at the library and have those instructions somewhere close at hand (though I've forgotten where) and did not act on that recommendation. I've got plenty of projects I'd like to continue on, at least as an editor, even though I don't think I would trust myself as an admin too much longer. The iPad2 is a F'g PITA, and I'm going to need a password reset which perhaps should be executed by you, if that conforms to policy.
The last thing I want to do is stop editing. But the admin powers are probably pointless as a needless risk -- though I'd love to be designated as as "administrator emeritus." I'm not sure what medium I'm going to use from now on but there's no great rush to settle that. Libraries are one possibility; at the moment buying a computer that I can edit comfortably on sounds to me like the sort of ridiculous extravagance my wife would lavish on me if I would let her. But not a socially and ethically and politically acceptable choice in my mind. (We'll have to argue that out for ourselves.)
Maybe the crucial question is: is your lowering my privileges at least to vanilla-registered editor and notifying my wife, Gini Kramer, of my new password an appropriate course of action at this point?
Thanks for reading this tome. I look forward to your response.
--2601:199:C202:287E:7C7F:519E:95D9:67A6 (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- No worries. Sorry to hear about your password difficulties. Unfortunately, I can’t help with password recovery/reset. You need to contact trustandsafety@wikimedia.org by email and they should be able to help you. I can remove your administrator rights if that is still what you would like, but let’s get your account issues sorted first and see how you feel after that. Best, WJBscribe (talk) 13:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I've opened a bureaucrat chat for a current RfA. Your input would be most appreciated at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RexxS/Bureaucrat chat. Best regards, Maxim(talk) 22:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
... with thanks from QAI |
Thank you for expressing what I think, better than I could! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi
I don't know if you think I'm avoiding the question, but I'm all for transparency. If I'd have opined in the chat, I would have said that I would have closed the RfA as no consensus. That said, I have no problem with Maxim opening a Crat chat. My opinion was contrary to the clear consensus of the Crats, which is also fine. I've been on the minority side in Crat chats before. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying. I think my point is just that I would have valued more you expressing that view (and understanding your reasoning for it) than I did the "close" of the discussion. You never know, your views may have swayed the outcome... WJBscribe (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- I didn't read enough to have an opinion until it was really time to close the discussion. RL is quite tricky at the moment, which is why my FAC work on my gap-toothed hero is now even slower than he was. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 19:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 special circular
Administrators must secure their accounts
The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.
|
This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Template:Z152
Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Template:Z83
Thank you
Your action on Floq was the right thing to do, and I very strongly thank you for it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- My thanks as well. Much appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 23:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- +1 ~Awilley (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- I won't leave a semi-flippant Spartacus-themed note here, like I did for Bish, because I don't think you did this for Spartacus-type reasons. I think you did it because you simply believe it was the right thing to do. An honourable thing to do, and putting much more than I did on the line. A pleasure to share the website with you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- And it is my honor to be here as well--with you, Floq, and with you, WJBScribe. And Bish, and a bunch of others including NihonJoe. I love all of you old-timers. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- What was the point of wrestling Jimbo for self-governance only to lose it to "WMF Trust and Safety", whoever they are... Btw, who came up with such an Orwellian name? WJBscribe (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- I wondered the same thing myself. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- What was the point of wrestling Jimbo for self-governance only to lose it to "WMF Trust and Safety", whoever they are... Btw, who came up with such an Orwellian name? WJBscribe (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- And it is my honor to be here as well--with you, Floq, and with you, WJBScribe. And Bish, and a bunch of others including NihonJoe. I love all of you old-timers. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- +1 Excellent move. -FASTILY 00:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
WJBscribe, for you courage and integrity, I salute you! El_C 02:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
For services rendered
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
You are a brave person, and I respect that. I hope something good comes out of all of this. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
The Admin's Barnstar | |
Thank you for giving the sysop back to Floq. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 00:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC) |
Another barnstar for you!
The | |
For standing up for the community in the face of personal cost, thank you, WJBscribe. starship.paint (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC) |
Request for restoration of admin rights
Since you're restoring admin rights under WP:IAR, could I have mine restored too? I have an unblemished record over the last seven years. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)