| Revision as of 01:00, 20 May 2022 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,298,789 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Ancheta Wis/Archive 12) (bot← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:16, 22 May 2022 edit undoKent Dominic (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,309 edits →Mathematics block: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
| == Nomination for deletion of ] == | == Nomination for deletion of ] == | ||
| ]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> – ] (]) 19:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC) | ]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> – ] (]) 19:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC) | ||
| == Mathematics block == | |||
| I’d prefer not to initiate a ] regarding the block you imposed for my 3RR infraction at ]. Bear in mind that I’m not denying the 3RR violation nor am I contesting the propriety of the block. Instead, my concerns relate to circumstantial behaviors you demonstrated as a sysop and the subsequent comments you made about the incident. Specifically – | |||
| # You seemed to ignore the 3RR implications regarding six reversions by ] (i.e., ; ; versus ; versus ; versus ; versus . To be clear, I have no complaint whatsoever re D.Lazard nor do I care that the six reversions violate the 3RR guidelines. Indeed, two of those reversions – one of which prompted my public thanks in keeping with ] – improved upon my own edits. My only concern is that you targeted me for a 3RR block without applying similar rationale to D.Lazard. That, to me, speaks of an untoward bias from whatever source and for whatever reason beyond my interest in speculating. To reiterate from my email, I neither expected nor desired administrative action against D.Lazard and am merely highlighting the capricious disparity of treatment. | |||
| # If your reason for the block, noted as “cooling off time” is construed as “intended solely to ‘cool down’ an angry user” as provided by ], such a block is prohibited under the blocking guidelines. Moreover, no anger was – nor is it now – part of anything that I felt or observed regarding the edits at issue. | |||
| # The block contravenes WP guidelines that state, “Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators.” In this instance, you initiated a content dispute and . Thus, you needlessly inserted yourself into a substantive controversy and immediately thereafter engaged in the corresponding administrative controversy. | |||
| Please be aware that I don’t intend to vilify you, and I’d rather not escalate my concerns by bringing them to further attention via WP:ANI. Meaning, we all make mistakes and I hope to avert the bureaucratic scrutiny of a WP:ANI. Instead, I’d like you to consider doing the following: | |||
| # Please delete . I’m not particularly offended by it, but (a) the post is superfluous in light of editors’ ability to readily see in the “View History” window, and (b) the “3RR is now in effect for K.D. for 31 hours” contravenes the purpose “]. | |||
| # Please revert . Why? The post- | |||
| ::* Presumes too much about the acceptable speed of change for the venue, as evidenced by D.Lazard’s response. | |||
| ::* Disparages mathematicians in a supposedly humorous way that nonetheless reeks of a unflattering stereotype. | |||
| ::* Patronizes mathematicians as unable to understand the type of rationale I provided in my edit summaries. | |||
| :::<small>(I’m not personally offended at the characterization that my edit summaries somehow “barrages words against them”. Also, I’m not asking you to reconsider whether (a) any mathematicians might disagree that an edit summary within the provided word limit constitutes a ''barrage'', and (b) words in an edit summary provided ''for'' {{tq|everyone's}} benefit can be rightfully recast as words ''against'' them, as if mathematicians are the only ones who read the edit summaries for the article. Instead, in lieu of an apology to mathematicians and others who might interpret your comments as condescension, please simply remove the post to avert prospective controversy.)</small> | |||
| : 3. Please do a re-revert of your reversion re the mathematics article. The edit {{endash}} three mentions of "of" in a six-word span {{endash}} relates solely to readability and not at all to substance. Alternatively, please offer an explanation why you prefer the current wording seeing that you neglected any explanation in the edit summary. | |||
| Cheers, --] 15:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:16, 22 May 2022
Welcome. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2022).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, a change has been made to the administrators inactivity policy. Under the new policy, if an administrator has not made at least 100 edits over a period of 5 years they may be desysopped for inactivity.
- Following a discussion on the bureaucrat's noticeboard, a change has been made to the bureaucrats inactivity policy.
Technical news
- The ability to undelete the associated talk page when undeleting a page has been added. This was the 11th wish of the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey.
- A public status system for WMF wikis has been created. It is located at https://www.wikimediastatus.net/ and is hosted separately to WMF wikis so in the case of an outage it will remain viewable.
Arbitration
- Remedy 2 of the St Christopher case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to place a ban on single-purpose accounts who were disruptively editing on the article St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages from those pages.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:HistOfScienceSummary
Template:HistOfScienceSummary has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Mathematics block
I’d prefer not to initiate a WP:ANI regarding the block you imposed for my 3RR infraction at Mathematics. Bear in mind that I’m not denying the 3RR violation nor am I contesting the propriety of the block. Instead, my concerns relate to circumstantial behaviors you demonstrated as a sysop and the subsequent comments you made about the incident. Specifically –
- You seemed to ignore the 3RR implications regarding six reversions by D.Lazard (i.e., reversion #1 by D.Lazard; reversion #2 by D.Lazard; reversion #3 by D.Lazard versus diff; reversion #4 by D.Lazard versus diff; reversion #5 by D.Lazard versus diff; reversion #6 by D.Lazard versus diff. To be clear, I have no complaint whatsoever re D.Lazard nor do I care that the six reversions violate the 3RR guidelines. Indeed, two of those reversions – one of which prompted my public thanks in keeping with WP:BRD – improved upon my own edits. My only concern is that you targeted me for a 3RR block without applying similar rationale to D.Lazard. That, to me, speaks of an untoward bias from whatever source and for whatever reason beyond my interest in speculating. To reiterate from my email, I neither expected nor desired administrative action against D.Lazard and am merely highlighting the capricious disparity of treatment.
- If your reason for the block, noted as “cooling off time” is construed as “intended solely to ‘cool down’ an angry user” as provided by WP:CDB, such a block is prohibited under the blocking guidelines. Moreover, no anger was – nor is it now – part of anything that I felt or observed regarding the edits at issue.
- The block contravenes WP guidelines that state, “Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators.” In this instance, you initiated a content dispute with this edit at 20:58, 20 May 2022 and subsequently blocked me at 21:00, 20 May 2022. Thus, you needlessly inserted yourself into a substantive controversy and immediately thereafter engaged in the corresponding administrative controversy.
Please be aware that I don’t intend to vilify you, and I’d rather not escalate my concerns by bringing them to further attention via WP:ANI. Meaning, we all make mistakes and I hope to avert the bureaucratic scrutiny of a WP:ANI. Instead, I’d like you to consider doing the following:
- Please delete this post from the Mathematics talk page. I’m not particularly offended by it, but (a) the post is superfluous in light of editors’ ability to readily see your corresponding reversion in the “View History” window, and (b) the “3RR is now in effect for K.D. for 31 hours” contravenes the purpose “to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article”.
- Please revert your recent post from my talk page. Why? The post-
- Presumes too much about the acceptable speed of change for the venue, as evidenced by D.Lazard’s response.
- Disparages mathematicians in a supposedly humorous way that nonetheless reeks of a unflattering stereotype.
- Patronizes mathematicians as unable to understand the type of rationale I provided in my edit summaries.
- (I’m not personally offended at the characterization that my edit summaries somehow “barrages words against them”. Also, I’m not asking you to reconsider whether (a) any mathematicians might disagree that an edit summary within the provided word limit constitutes a barrage, and (b) words in an edit summary provided for
everyone's
benefit can be rightfully recast as words against them, as if mathematicians are the only ones who read the edit summaries for the article. Instead, in lieu of an apology to mathematicians and others who might interpret your comments as condescension, please simply remove the post to avert prospective controversy.)
- 3. Please do a re-revert of your reversion re the mathematics article. The edit – three mentions of "of" in a six-word span – relates solely to readability and not at all to substance. Alternatively, please offer an explanation why you prefer the current wording seeing that you neglected any explanation in the edit summary.
Cheers, --Kent Dominic·(talk) 15:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)