Notification: listing of Template:User Featured articles at templates for discussion. Tag: Twinkle |
Struthious Bandersnatch (talk | contribs) →ANI questions: new section |
||
Line 96: | Line 96: | ||
== Nomination for merging of [[Template:User FA]] == |
== Nomination for merging of [[Template:User FA]] == |
||
[[File:Information.svg|30px|alt=|link=]][[Template:User FA]] has been [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion|nominated for merging]] with [[Template:User Featured articles]]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 November 9#Template:User FA|'''the template's entry''' on the Templates for discussion page]]. Thank you.<!--Template:Tfmnotice--> [[User:Tom (LT)|Tom (LT)]] ([[User talk:Tom (LT)|talk]]) 23:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC) |
[[File:Information.svg|30px|alt=|link=]][[Template:User FA]] has been [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion|nominated for merging]] with [[Template:User Featured articles]]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 November 9#Template:User FA|'''the template's entry''' on the Templates for discussion page]]. Thank you.<!--Template:Tfmnotice--> [[User:Tom (LT)|Tom (LT)]] ([[User talk:Tom (LT)|talk]]) 23:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC) |
||
== ANI questions == |
|||
Hi SV; I hope you don't mind if I ask some clarifying questions about the [[Administrators%27 noticeboard/Incidents#Deceptive edit comments and disruptive editing by Stonkaments|ANI issue]] you closed yesterday, particularly because everything already seems to be happening all over again at the same article with a different user now.{{pb}}In your final comment at ANI, you said, {{tqqi|Struthious Bandersnatch, please don't accuse other editors of "lying", [[Special:Diff/988631675|🔗]]}}; this was in reference to, while an unanswered comment from me was on the article's talk page in which I said that Stonkaments had deleted sourced content yet claimed it was unsourced, they reverted the same content restored by a different editor while claiming “consensus on the talk page”, which is what I'd described as [[WP:SHAMCONSENSUS]].{{pb}}I am rather confused by this outcome, above all because in my initial ANI report I'd already proposed that Stonkaments was {{tqqi|lying about a lack of consensus}}; and so I am wondering whether your comment represents a finding that this was not a sham consensus? Or is it that even if it was, you're saying I must not call that “lying”? Or not use the word “lying” outside of ANI?{{pb}}I am also just wondering what to do if, in the future, I'm faced with another user who deletes sourced material while claiming it's unsourced, or who claims they're simply carrying out talk page consensus in reverting multiple editors when they plainly are not; because bringing it to ANI doesn't appear to have been the right thing to do. And this is all on an article with AE page restrictions and an alerted editor doing it. (Sorry I didn't notice the alert until yesterday.){{pb}}Stonkaments did not even acknowledge at any point that they'd claimed a sourced statement was unsourced, or that the talk page consensus they'd stopped participating in did not support their deletions, and you apparently don't see a need for them to even do that; so I kind of feel like my hands are tied.{{pb}}Your atop-closing comment was {{tqqi|It seems that the issue is being worked out on article talk}} but, whichever issue you were referring to, nothing further had occurred in the related article talk thread since I'd posted at ANI; And in fact since you closed, a comment has appeared from a user dealing with Lmomjian (who commented at ANI) using the same tactic, repeatedly deleting the exact same content and more while claiming talk page consensus supports their deletion and changes. And Stonkaments, rather than participating at the article talk page where everyone would see, has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grayfell&diff=prev&oldid=988749514 gone to that user's personal talk page] to presume to speak for everyone involved in the thread—deceptively, I would say, and intentionally so. --<span class="unicode" style="color:black;text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #777777">[[User:Struthious Bandersnatch|‿Ꞅ<span style="font-variant:small-caps">truthious</span> 𝔹<span style="font-variant:small-caps">andersnatch</span> ͡]]</span> [[User talk:Struthious Bandersnatch||℡|]] 12:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:08, 15 November 2020
Archives
|
---|
2013: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec |
25 April 2024 |
Action | Count |
---|---|
Edits | 166395 |
Edits+Deleted | 177980 |
Pages deleted | 3279 |
Revisions deleted | 146 |
Logs/Events deleted | 1 |
Pages restored | 479 |
Pages protected | 2386 |
Pages unprotected | 483 |
Protections modified | 376 |
Users blocked | 1417 |
Users reblocked | 20 |
Users unblocked | 251 |
User rights modified | 21 |
Users created | 5 |
Administrators' newsletter – November 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
- Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection
any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet
, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.
- Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection
- Sysops will once again be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to interface administrators when that group was introduced.
- Twinkle's block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a discretionary sanctions block and/or template.
- Sysops will be able to use Special:CreateLocalAccount to create a local account for a global user that is prevented from auto-creation locally (such as by a filter or range block). Administrators that are not sure if such a creation is appropriate should contact a checkuser.
- The 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections process has begun. Eligible editors will be able to nominate themselves as candidates from November 8 through November 17. The voting period will run from November 23 through December 6.
- The Anti-harassment RfC has concluded with a summary of the feedback provided.
- A reminder that
standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.
(American Politics 2 Arbitration case).
- A reminder that
Happy First Edit Day!
Please consider semi-protection of 'Marjorie Taylor Greene' rather than full protection
I do not see any justification for full protection of Marjorie Taylor Greene. Could you please consider changing it to semi-protection. If you decide to stay with full protection, could you please explain why (and citing policy would be useful, of course). Thanks. Nurg (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you
Apologies for the random message, but I wanted to thank you for all of the time and work you have put into the female genital mutilation article. My brother recently read through after reading about the topic in a book and he really enjoyed and learned a lot from the Wikipedia. This is a difficult and sensitive subject matter so I have a lot of respect for how you have presented the information and its related research. I hope you are doing well and staying safe during this rather interesting year. Aoba47 (talk) 03:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Aoba47, that's very nice of you to say so. It's good to know that someone has read it (to have at least one reader is excellent news!), so thank you, I appreciate the feedback very much. SarahSV (talk) 03:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Nomination for merging of Template:User FAw
Template:User FAw has been nominated for merging with Template:User Featured articles. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Tom (LT) (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Nomination for merging of Template:User FA
Template:User FA has been nominated for merging with Template:User Featured articles. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Tom (LT) (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
ANI questions
Hi SV; I hope you don't mind if I ask some clarifying questions about the ANI issue you closed yesterday, particularly because everything already seems to be happening all over again at the same article with a different user now.
In your final comment at ANI, you said, Struthious Bandersnatch, please don't accuse other editors of "lying", 🔗
; this was in reference to, while an unanswered comment from me was on the article's talk page in which I said that Stonkaments had deleted sourced content yet claimed it was unsourced, they reverted the same content restored by a different editor while claiming “consensus on the talk page”, which is what I'd described as WP:SHAMCONSENSUS.
I am rather confused by this outcome, above all because in my initial ANI report I'd already proposed that Stonkaments was lying about a lack of consensus
; and so I am wondering whether your comment represents a finding that this was not a sham consensus? Or is it that even if it was, you're saying I must not call that “lying”? Or not use the word “lying” outside of ANI?
I am also just wondering what to do if, in the future, I'm faced with another user who deletes sourced material while claiming it's unsourced, or who claims they're simply carrying out talk page consensus in reverting multiple editors when they plainly are not; because bringing it to ANI doesn't appear to have been the right thing to do. And this is all on an article with AE page restrictions and an alerted editor doing it. (Sorry I didn't notice the alert until yesterday.)
Stonkaments did not even acknowledge at any point that they'd claimed a sourced statement was unsourced, or that the talk page consensus they'd stopped participating in did not support their deletions, and you apparently don't see a need for them to even do that; so I kind of feel like my hands are tied.
Your atop-closing comment was It seems that the issue is being worked out on article talk
but, whichever issue you were referring to, nothing further had occurred in the related article talk thread since I'd posted at ANI; And in fact since you closed, a comment has appeared from a user dealing with Lmomjian (who commented at ANI) using the same tactic, repeatedly deleting the exact same content and more while claiming talk page consensus supports their deletion and changes. And Stonkaments, rather than participating at the article talk page where everyone would see, has gone to that user's personal talk page to presume to speak for everyone involved in the thread—deceptively, I would say, and intentionally so. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 12:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)