Thirdright (talk | contribs) →Request for DS enforcement: clarification and apology |
|||
Line 177: | Line 177: | ||
Hello again! About nine days ago, at your suggestion, I submitted a request for enforcement of Discretionary Sanctions at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Theobald_Tiger]]. Unfortunately, there has been exactly zero administrative input or action on that request. I've had to resurrect it from the archive once, and I'd prefer not to do so again. The behaviour hasn't stopped, and it has escalated into on and off-wiki harassment. Is there anything you can suggest? I hate going to ANI, as that environment hasn't exactly been friendly in the past and there is no immediate incident to resolve. Thank you for any suggestions. --[[User:Tgeairn|Tgeairn]] ([[User talk:Tgeairn|talk]]) 17:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC) |
Hello again! About nine days ago, at your suggestion, I submitted a request for enforcement of Discretionary Sanctions at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Theobald_Tiger]]. Unfortunately, there has been exactly zero administrative input or action on that request. I've had to resurrect it from the archive once, and I'd prefer not to do so again. The behaviour hasn't stopped, and it has escalated into on and off-wiki harassment. Is there anything you can suggest? I hate going to ANI, as that environment hasn't exactly been friendly in the past and there is no immediate incident to resolve. Thank you for any suggestions. --[[User:Tgeairn|Tgeairn]] ([[User talk:Tgeairn|talk]]) 17:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC) |
||
:Tgeairn is telling a malicious lie. I have raised objections to the actions and the conduct of Tgeairn with respect to the Landmark (and related) stuff, but I have done it ''on-wiki'' only. I will continue to do so as long as Tgeairn's conduct does not change. You might call that 'escalation' or 'harrassment', if you so wish (of course, I do not agree), but I have certainly never caused harrassment ''off-wiki''. Not only have I never done such thing, but I will never do it either. [[User:Theobald Tiger|Theobald Tiger]] ([[User talk:Theobald Tiger|talk]]) 23:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC) |
:Tgeairn is telling a malicious lie. I have raised objections to the actions and the conduct of Tgeairn with respect to the Landmark (and related) stuff, but I have done it ''on-wiki'' only. I will continue to do so as long as Tgeairn's conduct does not change. You might call that 'escalation' or 'harrassment', if you so wish (of course, I do not agree), but I have certainly never caused harrassment ''off-wiki''. Not only have I never done such thing, but I will never do it either. [[User:Theobald Tiger|Theobald Tiger]] ([[User talk:Theobald Tiger|talk]]) 23:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC) |
||
::'''I am not aware of any evidence that the off-wiki activity is being performed by {{U|Theobald Tiger}}''', and I did not intend to say that TT was the source of the activity. There is an active off-wiki campaign to discredit my on-wiki activity, including inaccurate statements being made about me and public posting of various combinations of accurate and inaccurate personal information in conjunction with my Wikipedia identity. That off-wiki activity specifically refers to the enforcement request, among other things, and I am treating it as a legitimate threat. I apologize to TT for any repercussions that my unclear statement above had; and I request any suggestions that you, Callanecc, have for how to proceed with enforcing the existing sanctions on the Landmark related articles and hopefully bringing this to some conclusion. --[[User:Tgeairn|Tgeairn]] ([[User talk:Tgeairn|talk]]) 00:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Please comment on [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#rfc_A2A01F0|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers]] == |
== Please comment on [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#rfc_A2A01F0|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers]] == |
Revision as of 00:12, 8 February 2015
Sanction review
As the closing admin, I'd like you to review the topic ban placed on me with this being the appeal of ending it. As per the close, [1], I was not entirely wrong. The word "major" was added due to one of the sources I reviewed (and is also only being kept out due to lack of consensus, I think I had a right to share my deductions in forming that consensus) but most of issues were due to my opposing of blanking the term "victory" in which I was not wrong. As far as the other things such as casting aspirations go, it was recognized in the AE that all of them were not wrong rather I had recently faced enough to get to the conclusions of following based on the diffs I gave then... with that said and leaving the objections aside, my main point is that I have long ended engaging OZ and have not violated my ban. As such this is topic is closed and also [2] reviewed which most probably is going in the closer's way.. I don't mind what sources are used as far as consensus is followed. Furthermore, I've also been banned for a around a month, it can be reduced for being stale as all that contention is stale and the sanction is no more preventive - plus my behaviour in other topics hasn't shown any disruption. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's not about whether you were 'right' or not but about who you went about it. However given that the use of sources was involved I can see how you made that connection. Having said that, I'm willing to accept in good faith that you realise what you did wrong and have learnt from it. However I'm not convinced that you will make good, constructive, collaborative edits to Battle of Chawinda, so I'd be willing to replace your current topic ban with a topic ban from Battle of Chawinda until the expiry date of the current TBAN (12:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)). How does that sound? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- To be honest, I see the consensus finalizing that infobox anyway and I can live with that (the article was really not on my top priority, I just went after some old sock master who was reverting to completely opposite statements and fell into this mess). So your offer is fine by me. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- It was not just Battle of Chawinda, but many other articles. On Operation Dwarka he continued to edit war over results and never discussed them. On Inter-Services Intelligence activities in India he edit warred over making a conspiracy theory look clean. On Operation Chengiz Khan he restored the statements that were removed a year ago because they were unsourced since 2012, and his edit summary reads "Restored consensus version.. no intermediate useful edits"[3], misleading indeed because he had never discussed them. And a few others. Even if the topic ban is limited to Battle of Chawinda, I am certain that we will still have a number of unnecessary edit conflicts. Since the topic ban, TopGun has not made even 75 edits to main article space, I doubt that how he proved that he can edit without conflicting. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- WP:VOLUNTEER is all I have to say to you, I don't have the time to edit that much neither should I be expected to have to satisfy your arbitrary criteria of edit count. About the sanction, I'm not going to debate my reverts to proven socks and other disruptive editors with you. I've said all I had to.. it's for Callanecc to decide. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- OccultZone your conduct on those articles is not great either. In fact having seen the reverts from both of you I'm of the opinion that it might be useful to impose 1RR on both of you for any edit which relates to the India-Pakistan conflict (with the clarification that you may only revert accounts and IPs you believe to be socks without reference to 1RR if you have reported them). Opinions? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't mind 1-RR for the length of my original TBAN (or a voluntary 1RR if not sanctioned)... but it will only make sense if it is symmetric to OZ or I might be effectively be blocked from making edits by simply being reverted out if OZ chooses to revert me twice every time. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- It was not just Battle of Chawinda, but many other articles. On Operation Dwarka he continued to edit war over results and never discussed them. On Inter-Services Intelligence activities in India he edit warred over making a conspiracy theory look clean. On Operation Chengiz Khan he restored the statements that were removed a year ago because they were unsourced since 2012, and his edit summary reads "Restored consensus version.. no intermediate useful edits"[3], misleading indeed because he had never discussed them. And a few others. Even if the topic ban is limited to Battle of Chawinda, I am certain that we will still have a number of unnecessary edit conflicts. Since the topic ban, TopGun has not made even 75 edits to main article space, I doubt that how he proved that he can edit without conflicting. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- To be honest, I see the consensus finalizing that infobox anyway and I can live with that (the article was really not on my top priority, I just went after some old sock master who was reverting to completely opposite statements and fell into this mess). So your offer is fine by me. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- I have never reverted more than 2 times unless it was a sock(usually Nangparbat). While
TopGun usually reverts on the sight without even looking at the sources or the information.There are no instances where he would open a new thread on ATP and explain his edits or he would reply to any older thread that concerns the content. He usually sees what is actually favoring his opinion and that he would create unnecessary edit conflict. It is very hard to return to a stale version because TopGun normally never agrees with others. Not to forget that TopGun had violated his TBAN once[4] and even if he was not aware of it, still that edit misrepresented the source. These articles had no edit conflicts for more than a month between users, which is a good sign. Although there are some instances where some of the editors have socked,[5][6] its not that serious issue. I have never seen anyone actually alleging me of edit warring for ages. Considering that I have made over 170,000 edits, I have not been blocked even once. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- I have never reverted more than 2 times unless it was a sock(usually Nangparbat). While
"TopGun usually reverts on the sight without even looking at the sources or the information" is casting aspersions and will likely get you blocked. There are three on Operation Dwarka and that's without looking at anything other than the links you gave me. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- Refactored. Thank you for informing. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- I haven't been reverting people even close to 3RR else where since my ban, so why would I editwar in the long term. Priors were related to well known hounding / baiting by a sock. 1RR as such will only slow down collaborative editing. I recently had a DYK approved from the military topics. I don't think I can develop articles that fast under 1RR. It can always be thrown in if an intentional editwar is seen in future though. Don't know why OZ is continuing to focus on me and mention my self reverted possible violation after clarification. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm just talking about since you're ban I'm talking long term (can be seen in OZ's links and in your final warning from last time). You shouldn't be reverting people when you write articles, if you are it means you need to stop and discuss with them. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- I've already agreed to an article specific topic ban, and don't mind a 1RR for the same time. I do contend that there's been nothing new that warrants an extended 1RR as the "last time" was proven to be a deliberate socking, following and what not and all those issues are stale. I don't see how this stops an admin from putting me under 1RR when the issue arises as far as "long term" is concerned about the Indo-Pak conflicts. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ok this is what I'll do:
- I'll replace TopGun's TBAN with a TBAN from just Battle of Chawinda for the same period of time.
- I'll log a reminder (not a warning so it doesn't need to be taken as seriously in future AEs) that any edit warring on India/Pakistan related article can be dealt with by 1RR (I'll include my wording above).
- How does that sound to both of you (without repeating what you've said above)? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- Fine by me, as before. I would have asked for an IBAN, but from my prior experience, even many of the most experienced admins are not good at enforcing that properly and it wastes the community's time with meta-bickering. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- That's better, considering that we have no consensus for rejecting this appeal, neither there is consensus for increasing the scope of article ban. Good luck TopGun! OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- I was thinking IBAN as well, but given the crossover of your editing interests, it would likely need with a TBAN for one or both of you as well. Ok I'll action my two dot points in a sec. OccultZone regarding "we" as the enforcing admin I don't need consensus to change the sanction I placed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Gamergate editnotice
Hey, I get the point of this edit, but I was deliberately going for clarity and concision over dotting-Is-and-crossing-Ts procedural correctness. I'd be a lousy arb clerk, because I'm not at all big on procedure! Anyway, would you be open to self-reverting? In the event that I block somebody (an example that comes to mind would be an account created to disrupt the talk page or post grossly inappropriate material) as a normal admins action, I don't want the block to open to claims of "but you didn't alert me first". The point of the editnotice is to spell out that certain things aren't acceptable and that there won't be any tolerance for serious disruption, which I think it did reasonably well, and adding caveats will only dilute the message in my opinion. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- What about just removing the bit about page and topic bans and the bit I added (especially since the alert suggests that bans are a possibility)? The reason I did it is more about a user seeing that, reporting the user then being told you need to have alerted first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I expect most people who would be doing the reporting already know that alerting is a prerequisite to discretionary sanctions, but I envisaged that AE admins would do the alerting if it hadn't been done already. Once upon a time, only admins could issues notifications (the alerts' predecessor, which contained different wording for each topic area!), and that was almost always done after misconduct was brought up at AE—how things have changed, and mostly for the better! Anyway, how does [7] this grab you? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- Btw, I'm just starting to put together the arb report for next week's Signpost; are you still looking for more clerks? If so, I'll mention it again. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Ryulong's talkpage privillages
Howdy Callanecc. Just curious - Why was Ryulong's talkpage privillages revoked upon his siteban? That isn't what happpened when I was sitebanned (in 2013). Has Arbcom changed its position on this, since 2013? GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
PC protection expiring on or before February 7
Voyager 1, Pothohari dialect, and Glenn Quagmire? --Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Quagmire indef, other two can expire. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello! Looks like User:ProfessorJane is back to very actively editing again. Can you protect this article? HkCaGu (talk) 01:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- And if you can revert also. I'm not sure whether I'm already at third in 24 hours. HkCaGu (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the earlier protection. Can you also help protect Chinese Civil War and Forbidden City? HkCaGu (talk) 05:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- And also National Palace Museum which you just edited earlier this evening? HkCaGu (talk) 05:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Another editor alerted me these two new ones: Two Chinas and Chinese Cultural Renaissance. Can you protect these? HkCaGu (talk) 01:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- Done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks! For the personal attack going on at User talk:103.27.220.144 and User talk:69.80.99.98, what can be done? HkCaGu (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- Dealt with. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for all the ongoing work you're doing. There's this one that needs protection: History of science and technology in China. HkCaGu (talk) 06:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- And Ministry of Science and Technology (Republic of China). Can we protect a user talk page? His IP socks are reverting the removal of personal attacks. HkCaGu (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- And Presidential Office Building, Taipei needs protection. HkCaGu (talk) 06:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- Blocked some and protected those. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- It's continuing here: User talk:103.27.220.144. Is it time to get other admins on this battle? I wouldn't know how to do it. HkCaGu (talk) 07:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- Blocked some and protected those. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- Dealt with. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks! For the personal attack going on at User talk:103.27.220.144 and User talk:69.80.99.98, what can be done? HkCaGu (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- Done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- Another editor alerted me these two new ones: Two Chinas and Chinese Cultural Renaissance. Can you protect these? HkCaGu (talk) 01:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- And also National Palace Museum which you just edited earlier this evening? HkCaGu (talk) 05:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Partylinks
Hi Callan:
Thanks for progressing the partylinks template. I don't know if you recall but Jackmcbarn has offered to make a fix to MediaWiki for automatic admin detection. They've now done so and it's just waiting for approval and implementation. Roger Davies talk 05:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- I do, that's why I haven't coded it yet, but thanks for the reminder. I just want to know which links the arbs and clerks want. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- The way you've set them up looks good and well though through to me (particularly alerts). I'll try to get more eyes on it via the list, Roger Davies talk 05:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Noticeboard closure
Can you see if something was actually wrong with this closure?[8] That is overturned by another user.[9] See discussion at User talk:Sunrise. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Not that I can see, however generally when something is closed by an admin discussions to overturn should be assessed by an admin as they will be inherently controversial. I'll wait and see what Sunrise says before I do or say anything more. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- True. In this case the result did seem pretty clear, and I was already following the discussion so a lot of the work had been done. But I do think I err on the side of being too willing to close potentially controversial discussions. In any case, I've replied at my talk page.
- @Bladesmulti: the closure has not actually been overturned. The one at WP:AN is the one that matters in this case. Sunrise (talk) 08:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- It is formal to complete the whole process, that's what you had done by striking the closure of FTN after AN closure for preference, and I have linked it in my above post because other user considered it as 'overturn'. I think Callannecc didn't saw anything wrong with your change to FTN either. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
There is no policy which says that consensus at WP:AN trumps the consensus at WP:FTN. If you want AN to be a court of appeals for noticeboards, you should propose that this become the case at WP:VPP, for example. Until then, it's fine to come to a consensus over issues at WP:AN, but strikethrough of good faith contributions of other editors at other places on the basis of such consensus is simply not in line with policy or guidelines of Wikipedia. See WP:CON and WP:FORUMSHOP for more on why this is important. jps (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- AN is the "court of appeals" for RfC closes, there's one there now for example (deletion review is the only one, I can think of quickly, which is elsewhere). See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Archive_12#Review for example and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive for a list of previous closure reviews at AN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- Sure, but this is not an RfC we're talking about here. jps (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- Good point, but it's the same concept as far as I'm concerned, appeals of all closes can go to AN, whether it be FTN, BLPN, PERM, etc. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- This is the first I'm hearing of this idea. I think we should have a discussion as to whether this is a good idea or not. I think that the noticeboards should be subject to consensus rather than administrator fiat. This is unlike conduct questions or questions that are formally raised to measure community consensus. Noticeboards are meant to provide content input by people who are interested in following particular content policies of Wikipedia. They aren't binding rulings (unlike the other examples where administrator oversight is requested) and so setting up an appellate hierarchy for noticeboard questions strikes me as being both creepy and and invitation to forumshop. jps (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- Good point, but it's the same concept as far as I'm concerned, appeals of all closes can go to AN, whether it be FTN, BLPN, PERM, etc. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- Sure, but this is not an RfC we're talking about here. jps (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Short query
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.
~ P-123 (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
ACC #134559
Hi, I hope you are doing fine. It is about #134559 that we have received a response from requester. Please take a look when you have time (the request is presently in on-hold queue). Regards, -Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm well thank you. Could you please forward it me, I can't find it in my inbox. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- Sent. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Another sock...
Hi there, Callanecc. JDPlus2 (talk · contribs) seems to be another sock of User:Jajadelera.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Obvious sock is obvious. Blocked and tagged. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- @HJ Mitchell: The next contact regarding the matter will be with you...--Jetstreamer Talk 14:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
concerns
See Joe Klein edit history and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Joe_Klein as I have concerns about editors who are absolutely insistent on labeling and categorizing a person as a "Jew" or "Jewish" in defiance of WP:BLPCAT. Joe Klein might be Jewish, but has not apparently self-identified as such,nor am I sure it is relevant to the topic of "Neoconservatism" other than to inject "Dual loyalty" into that arena [10] especially considering that "dual loyalty" is an issue often raised in "the arena of Arab-Israeli issues. ("The 1991 Gulf War[5] and the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq lead to such accusations against Jewish neoconservatives, vocal proponents of war against Iraq who allegedly sought to undermine Arab nations hostile to Israel (i.e., the term "Israel-firster").[8][9][10]") Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- It looks like it's been resolved, but I'll keep an eye on it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions log
Question: DS states that "Whenever a sanction or page restriction is appealed or modified, the administrator amending it must append a note recording the amendment to the original log entry." In GamerGate, the general sanctions became discretionary sanctions. Were I to modify one of those sanctions, originally imposed by myself as a general sanction, where would I log this? The general sanctions do not appear on the DS logs. There is no urgency because I haven't modified anything at this time, I just wanted to be sure on the correct procedure if I did. Gamaliel (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- I've copied them to the discretionary sanctions logs (which I forgot to do when I closed the case), so there. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Violation of Pban
On Module:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map user:pototo1 has made further edits, in apparent violation of their pban. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Wrong links in WP:EEML from August, 2012
Hi Callanecc. I was just looking up something in WP:EEML and noticed that an edit to the case by User:AlexandrDmitri on August 18, 2012 might need to be fixed. The case was amended by motion in August 2012 and the provided links point to:
In my opinion those links should be going to:
The links that are in place now mention WP:ARBR&I rather than the amendment to WP:EEML that was intended. The actual change to the text of the case looks to be correct.
Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- Fixed, thank you. Are you interested in applying to be an arbitration clerk? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Clerk
Hello Callanecc, I just now saw that Arbitration Clerks Seeking New Volunteers. I'm a bit late. Is requests are still being accepted? I'm interested in volunteering. Best, Jim Carter 14:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
February 2015 GOCE newsletter
Guild of Copy Editors February 2015 Newsletter
Drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in January's Backlog Elimination Drive. Of the 38 people who signed up for this drive, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: We were able to remove August 2013 from the general copyediting backlog and November 2014 from the request-page backlog. Many thanks, everyone! Blitz: The February Blitz will run from February 15–21 and again focuses on the requests page. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one request article. Sign up here! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Request for DS enforcement
Hello again! About nine days ago, at your suggestion, I submitted a request for enforcement of Discretionary Sanctions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Theobald_Tiger. Unfortunately, there has been exactly zero administrative input or action on that request. I've had to resurrect it from the archive once, and I'd prefer not to do so again. The behaviour hasn't stopped, and it has escalated into on and off-wiki harassment. Is there anything you can suggest? I hate going to ANI, as that environment hasn't exactly been friendly in the past and there is no immediate incident to resolve. Thank you for any suggestions. --Tgeairn (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- Tgeairn is telling a malicious lie. I have raised objections to the actions and the conduct of Tgeairn with respect to the Landmark (and related) stuff, but I have done it on-wiki only. I will continue to do so as long as Tgeairn's conduct does not change. You might call that 'escalation' or 'harrassment', if you so wish (of course, I do not agree), but I have certainly never caused harrassment off-wiki. Not only have I never done such thing, but I will never do it either. Theobald Tiger (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- I am not aware of any evidence that the off-wiki activity is being performed by Theobald Tiger, and I did not intend to say that TT was the source of the activity. There is an active off-wiki campaign to discredit my on-wiki activity, including inaccurate statements being made about me and public posting of various combinations of accurate and inaccurate personal information in conjunction with my Wikipedia identity. That off-wiki activity specifically refers to the enforcement request, among other things, and I am treating it as a legitimate threat. I apologize to TT for any repercussions that my unclear statement above had; and I request any suggestions that you, Callanecc, have for how to proceed with enforcing the existing sanctions on the Landmark related articles and hopefully bringing this to some conclusion. --Tgeairn (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.
For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)