Line 189: | Line 189: | ||
I thought it was logical, but open to other thoughts[[User:Casprings|Casprings]] ([[User talk:Casprings|talk]]) 00:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC) |
I thought it was logical, but open to other thoughts[[User:Casprings|Casprings]] ([[User talk:Casprings|talk]]) 00:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC) |
||
:@{{u|Casprings}}, {{re|JFG}} As long as the RFC clearly informs editors that the results of the RFC will apply to both articles, I think this RFC is well within process. Transclusions don't necessarily happen like that, but it's certainly not going to effect the outcome of consensus to keep them. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">— [[User:Coffee|<big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee</big>]] // [[user talk:Coffee|<font color="#009900">have a cup</font>]] // [[Special:Contributions/Coffee|<font color="#4682b4">beans</font>]] // </small> 01:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:04, 8 March 2017
![This user is more awesome than you.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/BRC_Logo.png/600px-BRC_Logo.png)
If I've made an(other) error.
Hi Coffee If you feel I've made an error in an Admin action feel free to amend/revert/trout as required. one of these days I'll get everything right but until then I'm not fussed if someone disagrees with me as long as they're happy to explain/discuss it. Amortias (T)(C) 17:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Amortias: No worries mate. Before long you'll be just as jaded... I mean, experienced... as the rest of us. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- Or you'll end up wishing you never bothered! Pesky editors are allowed/enabled to bitch at admins, worse than whinging schoolchildren and there's nothing that can be done. Take seven or eight years of that and then wonder why you went through the whole thing in the first place. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man: Indeed... I usually end up feeling that way every few months. I hate that you're no longer an admin... cause now I have to make sure everything you normally handle doesn't fall apart. - Stay strong! The cabal is still with you.
— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man: Indeed... I usually end up feeling that way every few months. I hate that you're no longer an admin... cause now I have to make sure everything you normally handle doesn't fall apart. - Stay strong! The cabal is still with you.
- Or you'll end up wishing you never bothered! Pesky editors are allowed/enabled to bitch at admins, worse than whinging schoolchildren and there's nothing that can be done. Take seven or eight years of that and then wonder why you went through the whole thing in the first place. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
ANI warning
Thanks for this close, Coffee. You don't seem to have put the warning on the user's page (yet). They've said they're taking a break, so might in the future claim with some credibility to not have noticed it on ANI. Bishonen | talk 21:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC).
- @Bishonen:
Done ([1]) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Erythranthe cuprea
This is in prep 2 but the DYK nom hasn't been substituted. HalfGig talk 21:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – March 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).
Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13
Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi
- A recent RfC has redefined how articles on schools are evaluated at AfD. Specifically, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
- AfDs that receive little participation should now be closed like an expired proposed deletion, following a deletion process RfC.
- Defender, HakanIST, Matiia and Sjoerddebruin are our newest stewards, following the 2017 steward elections.
- The 2017 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Góngora, Krd, Lankiveil, Richwales and Vogone. They will serve for approximately 1 year.
- A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
- Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
- A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.
AE Sanction
Hello! I noticed that you have imposed this sanction on me without providing closing comments on what led you to that decision. The last time I checked the thread, User:Sandstein had asked User:Volunteer Marek to amend the complaint and provide diffs since the previous diffs he provided had been contested by me. I wanted to make sure you considered that before imposing the sanction. Also, the fact that these edits of mine that were "challenged" were legit and well-sourced - does that matter at all? I want to get an understanding of what I could have done differently to have avoided this sanction, so I can reflect upon it appropriately. I believe you hold an impression that I "..hold the discretionary sanctions system in very little regard" - I deny that but I have no way to prove otherwise. Since I hold the DS system in regard, I had infact stopped editing since the day the AE complaint was raised. I'd appreciate your response so I can contemplate my next steps. CatapultTalks (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- @CatapultTalks: Your next steps are to follow the sanctions that have been imposed on you, as you have already been advised. I'm not even for a second going to entertain the concept of rehashing this with you here. You were given plenty of warnings prior to your continued violations of the Arbitration Committee's page restrictions on that article, and you decided that instead of abiding by them you would just go full speed ahead no matter what... until an AE thread was opened on you. ... We simply don't have the time to continuously process AE threads on you to make you follow the highly critical rules you were already told to follow. That's not how the system is supposed to work; if that isn't glaringly obvious to you, perhaps you should stay away from any and all of the 34 topic areas currently covered under DS. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Coffee: Wow, I didn't expect such an acrimonious reply from you for my questions (which you still haven't clarified). I didn't even intend to open another AE thread about this so I don't know why you would assume you would continuously process more such threads about me. I would definitely honor the sanctions and stay away from those topic areas. Maybe I was wrong in assuming that I could have a fair conversation about this with you (as the sanctioning admin) CatapultTalks (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- @CatapultTalks: If I thought (or had any indications from your editing history) that the sanction was not necessary, I wouldn't have imposed it. Repeated attempts at argumentum ad misericordiam will have no impact on this decision; if you wanted or expected a more forgiving environment then you should have chosen a different area to edit. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Coffee: Wow, I didn't expect such an acrimonious reply from you for my questions (which you still haven't clarified). I didn't even intend to open another AE thread about this so I don't know why you would assume you would continuously process more such threads about me. I would definitely honor the sanctions and stay away from those topic areas. Maybe I was wrong in assuming that I could have a fair conversation about this with you (as the sanctioning admin) CatapultTalks (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Topcipher
Following a request on my talk page, I have granted new page reviewer rights to Topcipher. I have no idea what normal etiquette is in a case like this. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Removal of Rights
You recently revoked my new page patroller rights, citing some patrolling errors. Could you provide diffs for those so I know where I went wrong? Thanks. R. A. Simmons Talk 08:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Rasimmons: The first error (which would be glaringly obvious to anyone with the correct amount of experience) was at Effects of sex in the media, the second was a copyright violation (which, due to United States law, I cannot provide to you) and has since been deleted. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Protection of United States presidential election, 2016
When full protection ends, may you restore prior semi-protection please? --George Ho (talk) 07:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- @George Ho: I'll make sure to set a reminder in my calendar. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Redacted content about me?
Greetings Coffee! This morning I received a notice that I had been mentioned in a conversation on Talk:United States presidential election, 2016, then I saw that you had revdel'ed the thread as "redacting personal attack". May I know what, if anything, was alleged about me? Thanks, — JFG talk 09:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- @JFG: Apparently you're being paid by the Russians now.
— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Blocked?
So it says I was blocked from editing by a Coffee-named user, but there wasn't a link to the page/reason and your name was first to come up. Wondering why this is? Thank you and have a good day. TropicAces (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)tropicAces
Ongoing RfC templated and transcluded in two pages
Could you take a look at what happened with WP:AN#Question on Wikipedia:RFC on Russian Interference Opening - Conclusion versus accused? I think this method is improper process (RfC open on one page, then declared to apply to another page) and technically damaging to the integrity of the conversation (notes of editors referring to which page, confusion on intent), however I don't want to comment directly on process because I'm heavily involved in both articles. Thanks, — JFG talk 23:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Coffee, here is a link to the ongoing RfC #1 ongoing RfC #2 --- See Casprings Note: at the top --- I personally don't see there being a problem with the RfC's validity. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- I started a thread on this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Question_on_Wikipedia:RFC_on_Russian_Interference_Opening_-_Conclusion_versus_accused
I thought it was logical, but open to other thoughtsCasprings (talk) 00:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Casprings, @JFG: As long as the RFC clearly informs editors that the results of the RFC will apply to both articles, I think this RFC is well within process. Transclusions don't necessarily happen like that, but it's certainly not going to effect the outcome of consensus to keep them. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)