Ivanvector (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 198: | Line 198: | ||
:Just looked at your cat's blog and I'm melting. You should have a cuteness warning. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 02:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC) |
:Just looked at your cat's blog and I'm melting. You should have a cuteness warning. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 02:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC) |
||
:I respect Ivanvector because he is one to follow through and as he said, it's a protest, yes - but he will be back, so it's all good! {{smiley}} --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">[[User:QEDK|qedk]] ([[User talk:QEDK|t]] <span style="color:#fac">桜</span> [[Special:Contributions/QEDK|c]])</span> 09:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC) |
:I respect Ivanvector because he is one to follow through and as he said, it's a protest, yes - but he will be back, so it's all good! {{smiley}} --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">[[User:QEDK|qedk]] ([[User talk:QEDK|t]] <span style="color:#fac">桜</span> [[Special:Contributions/QEDK|c]])</span> 09:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC) |
||
::It's become clear that some arbitrators believe their authority is unlimited, by the Committee's actions and declarations since the last election. The fact the recent "do this or else" message was discussed by the Committee and allowed to be published shows there's someone there who believes it was acceptable. The discussions were held in private so it's impossible to know who said what, thus the only valid response is to demand that the entire Committee resign. I'm well aware that they won't: if any member of the Committee had any personal principles they would have objected to the notice before its publication, but only defenses have been written up to this point, counting the insufficient "we're sorry you don't like that we're doing this" apology. Hence my protest. |
|||
::I'm one functionary of dozens and one administrator of hundreds, so my absence is unlikely to have any significant impact other than symbolically. But I believe strongly that members of a community have a ''duty'' to use their status and privilege to stand up to oppression. And so yes, I am aware that this is going to be long-term, and am prepared for the consequences. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 11:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:08, 5 May 2019
BLPSOURCES
Hi Ivanvector. I noticed this revert. Can you please be very careful in the future not to restore material sourced to tabloid journalism as you did there? --John (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- Banned means banned, John. If we're not even going to bother trying to enforce a highly disruptive editor's indefinite block, stop pretending it means shit and unblock them. It'll save me a lot of button pushing. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- I see. So you value following your interpretation of Wikipedia rules over preventing damage to real life subjects? That seems... counter-intuitive, don't you think? --John (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- Perhaps if this editor ever took your advice, or anyone's, or in the case of this edit they made any effort at all to explain why the article subject's own words ought to be considered damaging to that subject to a degree requiring immediate removal under the BLP policy, and not just part of an ongoing bull-headed crusade to expunge one particular source from Wikipedia, they might not have earned a community 1RR restriction to stop their disruptive behaviour, repeated ignorance of which leaves them indefinitely blocked by a progression of administrators acting in good faith. Frankly, your ongoing encouragement of this misconduct is unbecoming an administrator, is insulting to the community which placed the restriction, and does no service to the policy you (and I) hold in such high regard. Your time and energy would be much better spent admonishing this behaviour and encouraging other potential crusaders to not get started in the first place. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- That's all good stuff, but you didn't answer the question. Never mind, I'll answer it for you. BLP trumps all other Wikipedia policies. If you want to go to AN/I to complain about this or rely in the future on using it in an unblock notice that the contrary applies, that'll be your own choice, but don't say you weren't politely warned. --John (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- Perhaps if this editor ever took your advice, or anyone's, or in the case of this edit they made any effort at all to explain why the article subject's own words ought to be considered damaging to that subject to a degree requiring immediate removal under the BLP policy, and not just part of an ongoing bull-headed crusade to expunge one particular source from Wikipedia, they might not have earned a community 1RR restriction to stop their disruptive behaviour, repeated ignorance of which leaves them indefinitely blocked by a progression of administrators acting in good faith. Frankly, your ongoing encouragement of this misconduct is unbecoming an administrator, is insulting to the community which placed the restriction, and does no service to the policy you (and I) hold in such high regard. Your time and energy would be much better spent admonishing this behaviour and encouraging other potential crusaders to not get started in the first place. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- I see. So you value following your interpretation of Wikipedia rules over preventing damage to real life subjects? That seems... counter-intuitive, don't you think? --John (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions advice
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Template:Z33--John (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- You're being a bit of a jerk, aren't you, John? (A notice of DS is not "mandatory".)--Bbb23 (talk) 20:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- I edit conflicted with Bbb23 as I was leaving a similar comment. You can be "right" without coming off as an officious bully, or at least you can if you're doing it right. Nobody on this project is going to respond well to this type of aggressive rebuking. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
2019 PEI general election
You may do as you wish with the 27 PEI ridings, concerning the 2019 election. The boxes will be created by someone, after Tuesday. No worries. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Questions
I have a few questions regarding the community block which I hope you can answer so I can ensure that I do not make any edits which could be viewed as being out of compliance:
A) Does WP:BLP in this case refer only to living people connected with politics or tagged as politicians, or does it refer (given the "broadly construed" proviso) to ALL currently living people/individuals with articles on Wikipedia, regardless of politics? The latter would be a rather extreme interpretation.
B) Are deceased individuals (thus, NOT BLP) related to or tagged as connected to politics OK for me to edit? Or am I blocked from editing the articles of even deceased individuals tagged or connected to politics in any way?
C) Also, am I blocked from submitting for AFD any and all articles related to or tagged as connected to politics in any way? Does submitting for AFD count as editing? (I suspect it does but I just want to make sure.)
D) Is it possible and/or is there a statutory period of time I must wait to appeal (or request an amelioration or less broad construal) of the community blocks on BLP & POLITICS, as referenced above? Rms125a@hotmail.com 03:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for your questions. Arbcom got involved with this after the community discussion so things may have changed, but with respect to the original discussion:
- A) the restriction is from all biographies of living persons. Regardless of politics, as you put it. You are also banned from editing political topics. If it helps, consider it two separate bans: one from BLPs and one from politics; they overlap quite a bit but both are broadly construed. You may find it extreme, but the participants in the discussion found your behaviour extreme, so I suppose it's proportional.
- B) I would say that biographies of deceased individuals connected to politics are also off-limits, per the second part of the ban.
- C) Clearly yes. Submitting an article for deletion is an edit. Commenting on a discussion (AfD, etc.) related to a topic covered by your ban is also a violation.
- D) In my own opinion, you can appeal any time if you think you can convince the community that the ban is no longer necessary. Practically speaking, most appeals are rejected if the appellant has not waited six months. That's not a formal restriction but it's common practice. As far as procedure, you're not blocked, so you do not need to seek clearance from me before making an appeal, just to be clear.
- If Arbcom has modified any of this (courtesy ping Bbb23 and Joe Roe) they have not said how or why, as far as I can tell. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm a bit horrified that this indefinite block was lifted. That said, it seems the numerous edits made yesterday to living (or very recently deceased--as in the same day) individuals are already a violation of the ban. Immediately after returning, he edited Caren Marsh Doll and Rosemary De Angelis. Even if you assume the very best of faith (that he somehow didn't realize he should stay away from all living or recently deceased people until after getting clarification here and from Drmies), edits like this, made even after getting clarification from Drmies and with a damningly self-aware edit summary, seem to run afoul of it. It's not editing the direct biography, but it's editing so closely around a living person that it feels like it might as well be. Grandpallama (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- He continues to violate his topic ban with edits to Shantha Mayadunne and Louisa Moritz. I would block him because the violations are obvious but I need to ask for clarification from ArbCom on whether his successful appeal of my indefinite block somehow restricts me from taking administrative action. @Joe Roe and BU Rob13:?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Holy moly, Grandpallama. User:Rms125a@hotmail.com, what were you thinking? Drmies (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@Drmies @Grandpallama @Ivanvector's squirrel Bbb23 Joe Roe) I realized after making the Rosemary De Angelis edits that I had goofed and I probably should have deleted them and explained in the edit summary. I didn't even think of that. I apologize. I was so used to editing all such pages that I did it without thinking. I am consciously trying to remember these restrictions. Same with Caren Marsh Doll; I just checked the edit history as I didn't even remember making the edit.
I do not believe I edited Caren Marsh Doll but did seek to add her name to the List of living centenarians.
I did not mean to violate the community block but being allowed to edit 20% of what one used to edit previously is a hard thing to get used to. I just came back. Give me a break. The goalposts have changed and we all make mistakes. I did not come back to get blocked immediately. I have to stop and consciously say to myself -- "Can I edit this?" That is a very new thing. Do you know how hard it is?? The fact that I asked the questions I did to @Drmies and others shows I am trying to be in compliance. Shantha Mayadunne and Louisa Moritz are both deceased, by the way. Rms125a@hotmail.com 17:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)- They're both recently deceased, Rms125a@hotmail.com. January 2019 and (for god's sake) 21 April 2019 are recent dates no matter how you slice it. WP:BLP applies to living and recently deceased people, just as Drmies told you earlier today. (Why are you making responding more difficult by using <blockquote>?) Bishonen | talk 17:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC).
- I do not know what recently deceased means, once you're dead, you're dead. I was never told that BLP includes "recent deaths". How long does one wait until a death is not recent? Moritz died in January, three months ago and the other was a victim of a terrorist attack, which is why it caught my attention. Are terrorist attacks also considered political? This is nonsensical and absurd. This entire situation derives from a handful of objectionable edits I made while logged in to Fourth-wave feminism. I did so intentionally because I was guilty of editing while pissed off. I expected some heat but not a fucking inferno. Bbb23 commenced to make the situation worse by banning me for having edited [for years!!!!] while logged out -- sometimes on my cell phone which doesn't allow me to log in as the screen is too small, we don't all have IPADS and sometimes because I didn't feel like logging in and dealing with all the bull**** on my talk page. Less stressful. This is something perfectly permitted as long as the reason for logged-off editing is not to evade a block, a ban, or scrutiny -- none of which was the case. There were no untoward edits among these and Bbb23 presented not a single diff of a single edit (out of many thousands of edits) that was "abusive", vandalistic or anything else. If you are going to accused someone of editing "abusively", then show some evidence. Editing while logged out (as described above) was always perfectly fine. As for editing in the brief gap between the community block and the indefinite ban by Bbb23 -- any such edits (there couldn't have been more than a few) were because I was not immediately aware of the community block as I had been admittedly cowardly avoiding my talk page, as I explained in my appeal of the indefinite ban, and I did anticipate such a harsh penalty. I did not participate on my own behalf in the community hearing because I was afraid I would wind up offending somebody or displaying some lack of knowledge of protocols. Thus, I am speaking my peace here even if it is the last thing I do on Wikipedia. The block itself is amazingly outrageous and disproportionate, but I thought I could deal with it. But avoiding editing all living people's articles -- a mindless and sadistic penalty and those who voted for it or supported it should be ashamed of themselves -- is harder than I realized. So I inadvertently edited the Caren Marsh Doll and Rosemary De Angelis pages. (I am going to check now and revert them if they have not already been reverted but I know that will not satisfy those who want to see me banned. I was unable to revert the Doll page due to intervening edits but I rv my edits to the De Angelis page (see [1])). I wonder if I had made the same kind and number [handful] of edits I made to Fourth-wave feminism to a page about, say, Donald Trump or his presidency, if the exact same penalties would have been levied and people "horrified" that the ban was lifted -- yes I am considering the possibility of political viewpoints insidiously inserting themselves into people's thinking, unconsciously or otherwise -- and Bbb23 so anxious to yet again impose an indefinite ban. Rms125a@hotmail.com 20:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC) 63.117.227.2 (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC) See I typed all this on a library computer without even remembering I had forgotten to log in (although I was a little scared to lest I receive a new indefinite ban notice -- but by the time I logged out I had completely forgotten and signed in to sign off, similar situations explain some of my logged out edits but not all, by the way). Rms125a@hotmail.com 20:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)I am glad to see that my edits are inadvertently serving an empirical scientific conundrum ("It's not editing the direct biography, but it's editing so closely around a living person that it feels like it might as well be." Grandpallama)"WP:BLP applies to living and recently deceased people, just as Drmies told you earlier today." -- If@Drmies told me that then I am afraid in all the excitement and stress that I didn't remember. In any event, I still do not know what constitutes a "recent death". I do not buy three months (Louisa Moritz), and the other obviously recent death (Shantha Mayadunne) was in conjunction with a terrorist event so knowing myself as I do, I am pretty sure I would have erroneously overlooked the recentness based on the terrorism aspect. We are all human and all have our idiosyncracies and failings. As I have said, learning to edit under such outrageously broadly construed restrictions (WP:BLP????????????????) is more difficult than you may realize. If I am allowed and choose to continue, I will try to remain within the guidelines and always be compliant so that in a year or so I can petition that the community block on WP:BLP be lifted. That is all I can promise. Rms125a@hotmail.com 20:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- I do not know what recently deceased means, once you're dead, you're dead. I was never told that BLP includes "recent deaths". How long does one wait until a death is not recent? Moritz died in January, three months ago and the other was a victim of a terrorist attack, which is why it caught my attention. Are terrorist attacks also considered political? This is nonsensical and absurd. This entire situation derives from a handful of objectionable edits I made while logged in to Fourth-wave feminism. I did so intentionally because I was guilty of editing while pissed off. I expected some heat but not a fucking inferno. Bbb23 commenced to make the situation worse by banning me for having edited [for years!!!!] while logged out -- sometimes on my cell phone which doesn't allow me to log in as the screen is too small, we don't all have IPADS and sometimes because I didn't feel like logging in and dealing with all the bull**** on my talk page. Less stressful. This is something perfectly permitted as long as the reason for logged-off editing is not to evade a block, a ban, or scrutiny -- none of which was the case. There were no untoward edits among these and Bbb23 presented not a single diff of a single edit (out of many thousands of edits) that was "abusive", vandalistic or anything else. If you are going to accused someone of editing "abusively", then show some evidence. Editing while logged out (as described above) was always perfectly fine. As for editing in the brief gap between the community block and the indefinite ban by Bbb23 -- any such edits (there couldn't have been more than a few) were because I was not immediately aware of the community block as I had been admittedly cowardly avoiding my talk page, as I explained in my appeal of the indefinite ban, and I did anticipate such a harsh penalty. I did not participate on my own behalf in the community hearing because I was afraid I would wind up offending somebody or displaying some lack of knowledge of protocols. Thus, I am speaking my peace here even if it is the last thing I do on Wikipedia. The block itself is amazingly outrageous and disproportionate, but I thought I could deal with it. But avoiding editing all living people's articles -- a mindless and sadistic penalty and those who voted for it or supported it should be ashamed of themselves -- is harder than I realized. So I inadvertently edited the Caren Marsh Doll and Rosemary De Angelis pages. (I am going to check now and revert them if they have not already been reverted but I know that will not satisfy those who want to see me banned. I was unable to revert the Doll page due to intervening edits but I rv my edits to the De Angelis page (see [1])). I wonder if I had made the same kind and number [handful] of edits I made to Fourth-wave feminism to a page about, say, Donald Trump or his presidency, if the exact same penalties would have been levied and people "horrified" that the ban was lifted -- yes I am considering the possibility of political viewpoints insidiously inserting themselves into people's thinking, unconsciously or otherwise -- and Bbb23 so anxious to yet again impose an indefinite ban. Rms125a@hotmail.com 20:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC) 63.117.227.2 (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- They're both recently deceased, Rms125a@hotmail.com. January 2019 and (for god's sake) 21 April 2019 are recent dates no matter how you slice it. WP:BLP applies to living and recently deceased people, just as Drmies told you earlier today. (Why are you making responding more difficult by using <blockquote>?) Bishonen | talk 17:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC).
- I'm a bit horrified that this indefinite block was lifted. That said, it seems the numerous edits made yesterday to living (or very recently deceased--as in the same day) individuals are already a violation of the ban. Immediately after returning, he edited Caren Marsh Doll and Rosemary De Angelis. Even if you assume the very best of faith (that he somehow didn't realize he should stay away from all living or recently deceased people until after getting clarification here and from Drmies), edits like this, made even after getting clarification from Drmies and with a damningly self-aware edit summary, seem to run afoul of it. It's not editing the direct biography, but it's editing so closely around a living person that it feels like it might as well be. Grandpallama (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Responding to pings: I would not say it was a "successful" appeal. ArbCom shortened the length of Rms125a's CheckUser block in consideration of the severity of the sockpuppetry (not very severe) and because unblocks are cheap, but on the whole upheld it as a valid block. We've done nothing to usurp or modify the community topic ban. – Joe (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- I did not represent myself at the community hearing. The above is not an appeal. It is an explanation of why I failed compliance. You try only being allowed to edit 10-20% of what you normally would as a punishment for a handful of admittedly obnoxious comments about fourth-wave feminists. The issue of editing while logged out is bogus, a canard, as I did nothing wrong and was not evading anything. And I thought I could deal with such a harsh and unfair and ludicrous ([{WP:BLP|BLP]]) block but I am simply reporting the understandable results (occasional inadvertent violations) of such an enormous restriction, especially since I have only been back two (2) days. Rms125a@hotmail.com 20:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Rms, I am not sure what you are trying to achieve here. Saying things like your topic ban was "a mindless and sadistic penalty and those who voted for it or supported it should be ashamed of themselves" will not ingratiate any of those editors to you should it come to a request for a reconsideration of your ban. I don't even know what "obnoxious" comments you made about "fourth-wave feminists", but I do think it's probably a good idea to use less loaded language. The AN thread that I started was about your ridiculous "false flag" claim, so ridiculous, even revolting, that it was revdeleted.
Again, if you are as experienced as you suggest you are, it boggles the mind that you do not understand that "recently deceased" people fall under the BLP. It has done so ever since I have been here. Saying that the restrictions are "outrageously broad" doesn't bode well, and you wouldn't be the first one who, after a pattern of infractions has been shown, gets limited to 80% of what they've edited before; in fact, 80% is a lot. Editors have been punished more severely if you go by percentages. I hope you will remain within the guidelines, and I hope you will stop being so ... well, you're exaggerating here. Drmies (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Pretty troubled that it wasn't just recently deceased individuals, but also living individuals (on both their own pages, and on a list page of living individuals), which is a clear, brightline violation of the TBAN. And if I correctly discern the defense amongst all the invective, it's that the TBAN is too difficult to observe/follow, which is no defense at all. Grandpallama (talk) 10:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
A wee note
The checkuser tool is available on UTRS (to checkusers only of course). You need to click the "reveal CU data" box on the bottom left of the appeal and input a reason for making the request. This will create a log note that you have checked the account. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- I see that now, thanks. It wouldn't have occurred to me to check anyway, like I said I was hanging on to a bad assumption about linking accounts between here and UTRS. Guess I know better now, at Legacypac's expense unfortunately. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- We are all human and make mistakes, it's how we react when we realize we have made said mistake that demonstrates the measure of a man. I've found that a heartfelt "mea culpa" garners much respect.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Green Party of Prince Edward Island
I dispute your changes to Green Party of Prince Edward Island. Let's discuss on the article's talk page. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:17, 29 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 02:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Template:Z152
- I guess the committee just invents policy as it sees fit now. That's not alarming at all. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:09, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- Ivanvector, I do have a lot of respect for you, so I would very much like to hear how you believe we're inventing any policy. What do you believe we're changing, because I see this notice to be a faithful restatement of WP:ADMIN#Security, which was written by the community. In fact, I would argue that the previous practice of routinely resysopping without considering whether admins followed account security requirements was creating policy by fiat, in the sense of invalidating the community policy at that section. ~ Rob13Talk 15:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) BU Rob, where are you getting this from? WP:ADMIN#Security says the opposite of what you claim it says; it's unambiguously explicit that resysopping decisions in these circumstances are purely a matter of crat discretion and Arbcom has no authority. (
Discretion on resysopping temporarily desysopped administrators is left to bureaucrats, who will consider whether the rightful owner has been correctly identified, and their view on the incident and the management and security (including likely future security) of the account.
if you want chapter and verse.) ‑ Iridescent 15:19, 4 May 2019 (UTC)- I've responded on my talk page as well, but to answer here: The bureaucrats have the authority to resysop when the account is secure again, and I'm not denying that. ArbCom has the authority to determine if the admin violated community policy egregiously based on how they failed to secure their account initially, which would be an example of misconduct. Theoretically, if an admin entirely failed to meet the requirements at WP:ADMIN#Security, ArbCom could desysop for cause, just like we can in any case of admin misconduct. If we couldn't, the section would be rendered unenforceable, since the bureaucrats have clearly communicated time and time again that they are not tasked with exercising discretion in choosing whether to resysop, in favor of deferring to ArbCom on such questions. ~ Rob13Talk 18:10, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not interested in trying to explain the overstep in policy again with the Committee which seems so comfortable repeatedly creating powers for itself. I will lay out my issues with the Committee's actions in the statement I'm working on. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) BU Rob, where are you getting this from? WP:ADMIN#Security says the opposite of what you claim it says; it's unambiguously explicit that resysopping decisions in these circumstances are purely a matter of crat discretion and Arbcom has no authority. (
- Ivanvector, I do have a lot of respect for you, so I would very much like to hear how you believe we're inventing any policy. What do you believe we're changing, because I see this notice to be a faithful restatement of WP:ADMIN#Security, which was written by the community. In fact, I would argue that the previous practice of routinely resysopping without considering whether admins followed account security requirements was creating policy by fiat, in the sense of invalidating the community policy at that section. ~ Rob13Talk 15:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- I guess the committee just invents policy as it sees fit now. That's not alarming at all. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:09, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- Hello Ivanvector. Since the ACN thread is so convoluted, I just wanted to make sure that you understand that we're not attempting to make 2FA mandatory, or saying that we will desysop people for not having it. That was purely our poor wording of the message. I realise that you also have strong feelings about the issue of whether this is ArbCom's or crats' bailiwick—which, as I've said at ACN, I don't really understand, but that's your prerogative—but I wanted to check that we weren't losing a CheckUser over a simple misunderstanding. Thanks. – Joe (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- Your actions don't match your words. Whatever you're trying to backpedal here, the Committee has clearly decided for itself that while you say "2FA won't be mandatory", you're not going to allow someone to get their rights back unless they accept your "recommendation" to enable it, as it seems you did with Necrothesp recently. Which makes it a de facto requirement. Whether you say "enable 2FA to get your rights back" or "enable 2FA or else face a reconfirmation", the effect is the same. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- I see, you think we intended to make it mandatory but are backpedalling because of the reaction? That is honestly not what happened. Right after the first draft of the message, here I tried to clarify that 2FA was an optional extra and here Mkdw made that even clearer. Unfortunately that wording didn't make it into the final version.
- With Necrothesp, asking him to enable 2FA was in response to the specific circumstances of the attack that worked on him (obviously confidential). It came about as a compromise between those arbs who didn't want to resysop at all and those who felt we should do it as a matter of course. If I remember correctly, the idea of making requiring 2FA for every compromise was briefly floated in our discussions and very quickly rejected for the same reasons others are saying now: there's no community mandate for it, it would be unenforceable, 2FA is less important than a strong password, MediaWiki's 2FA implementation isn't very good, etc.
- I am not sure if that allays your concerns but I will hope you will at least take a moment to consider whether your initial reaction was to what the committee actually intended with this message, or just how we ham-fistedly expressed it. – Joe (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- My reaction is based on my view that this is merely the latest in a pattern of incidents of the current Committee attempting to address community issues by fiat, imposing undesirable (or blatantly against policy or consensus) solutions without seeking community input, and then attempting to create a policy justification for those actions once objections arise. In short, see my reply to Rob above. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- Although we have rarely crossed paths, I have always thought of you as a highly capable contributor, administrator, and functionary. Most of we arbitrators have just spent much of our Saturdays discussing the costs and benefits of amending, clarifying, retracting, or leaving the message. We have now had posted a clarification. By having discussions with a number of users, I think we have covered many angles of the debate about ability and authority to act. Would any of this convince you that every involved user – whether or not they are currently volunteering as an arbitrator – is trying to act in the project's best interests? I hope you will reconsider your resignation, which I can genuinely say made me a little less willing to sign on to Wikipedia this weekend. The healthiest communities talk this stuff out. Be well. AGK ■ 22:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- I appreciate the time that you and the committee as a whole must spend on the thankless task of arbitration, I always have. I don't think for even a second that you are not acting in what you believe to be the best interest of the project. But I do think you are acting with presumed dictatorial authority. I'm not privy to the conversations, but in all the time you've spent on this pronouncement, did none of you ever consider that this is something that should be proposed to the community for approval, instead of issued as a proclamation? That's the behaviour and attitude that I find unsatisfactory, and I'm going to continue to speak out against it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- Although we have rarely crossed paths, I have always thought of you as a highly capable contributor, administrator, and functionary. Most of we arbitrators have just spent much of our Saturdays discussing the costs and benefits of amending, clarifying, retracting, or leaving the message. We have now had posted a clarification. By having discussions with a number of users, I think we have covered many angles of the debate about ability and authority to act. Would any of this convince you that every involved user – whether or not they are currently volunteering as an arbitrator – is trying to act in the project's best interests? I hope you will reconsider your resignation, which I can genuinely say made me a little less willing to sign on to Wikipedia this weekend. The healthiest communities talk this stuff out. Be well. AGK ■ 22:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- My reaction is based on my view that this is merely the latest in a pattern of incidents of the current Committee attempting to address community issues by fiat, imposing undesirable (or blatantly against policy or consensus) solutions without seeking community input, and then attempting to create a policy justification for those actions once objections arise. In short, see my reply to Rob above. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- Your actions don't match your words. Whatever you're trying to backpedal here, the Committee has clearly decided for itself that while you say "2FA won't be mandatory", you're not going to allow someone to get their rights back unless they accept your "recommendation" to enable it, as it seems you did with Necrothesp recently. Which makes it a de facto requirement. Whether you say "enable 2FA to get your rights back" or "enable 2FA or else face a reconfirmation", the effect is the same. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Please reconsider
I applaud the stand you're taking and stand behind you. But please consider another way of making that stand, without resigning rights. The last thing we need right now is to lose a good functionary. Aside from being able to perform the checkuser tasks (which, in and of itself, is a great help to the wiki), you're also able to see things and be part of lists, so that you can monitor what's going on from high up and inside, and vocalize any concerns. It would be a huge loss to us rank and file to lose a trusted editor in such positions. I want you on that wall, I need you on that wall. A much better way for you to make a stand would be by standing for election for Arbcom the next chance you get. Thank you. Leviv ich 17:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- (+1) Ditto the above statement. ∯WBGconverse 19:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- I appreciate the votes of confidence. To be clear, I am not formally resigning the checkuser permission. See my statement of protest (which is very much a draft at this point). Related to my protest, I will not be accessing the checkuser function, and as directed by the functionaries inactivity policy and as a matter of good security I have requested to have the permission temporarily removed. I'm not leaving, I'll be back, you have my word. I'm just going to do something else for a bit. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
- A request for comment concluded that creating pages in the portal namespace should be restricted to autoconfirmed users.
- Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.
- XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.
- In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases,
the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions
; administrators found failing to have adequately done sowill not be resysopped automatically
. All current administrators have been notified of this change. - Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.
- In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases,
- A request for comment is currently open to amend the community sanctions procedure to exclude non XfD or CSD deletions.
- A proposal to remove pre-2009 indefinite IP blocks is currently open for discussion.
Your statement about ArbCom
I just read User:Ivanvector/2019 Arbitration Committee protest and it is quite a statement, hard to disagree with. But I think giving the ultimatum that the members of the committee must resign is very unlikely to happen, and might have penned you into a corner. So I hope you are okay with following through on your words. If not, I think that's okay. We say things in the heat of the moment that we might reconsider the following day. But if you are standing by your words, kudos! Either way, I appreciate you taking a stand. This was definitely an unexpected message. Liz Read! Talk! 01:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
- Just looked at your cat's blog and I'm melting. You should have a cuteness warning. Liz Read! Talk! 02:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
- I respect Ivanvector because he is one to follow through and as he said, it's a protest, yes - but he will be back, so it's all good! --qedk (t 桜 c) 09:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
- It's become clear that some arbitrators believe their authority is unlimited, by the Committee's actions and declarations since the last election. The fact the recent "do this or else" message was discussed by the Committee and allowed to be published shows there's someone there who believes it was acceptable. The discussions were held in private so it's impossible to know who said what, thus the only valid response is to demand that the entire Committee resign. I'm well aware that they won't: if any member of the Committee had any personal principles they would have objected to the notice before its publication, but only defenses have been written up to this point, counting the insufficient "we're sorry you don't like that we're doing this" apology. Hence my protest.
- I'm one functionary of dozens and one administrator of hundreds, so my absence is unlikely to have any significant impact other than symbolically. But I believe strongly that members of a community have a duty to use their status and privilege to stand up to oppression. And so yes, I am aware that this is going to be long-term, and am prepared for the consequences. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)