| Revision as of 17:52, 17 August 2024 editSilverLocust (talk | contribs)Administrators24,824 edits →Proposed motion in Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b): new sectionTag: New topic← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:55, 17 August 2024 edit undoRed-tailed hawk (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators32,466 edits →Arbitration notice: new sectionTag: New topicNext edit → | ||
| Line 106: | Line 106: | ||
| Hello Barkeep49. There is proposed motion in the amendment request where you were listed as involved. ] would remove the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" in the ] in which ARBPIA sanctions apply. ] ] 17:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC) | Hello Barkeep49. There is proposed motion in the amendment request where you were listed as involved. ] would remove the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" in the ] in which ARBPIA sanctions apply. ] ] 17:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ==Arbitration notice== | |||
| You are involved in a recently filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at ] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the ] may be of use. | |||
| Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbitration CA notice --> | |||
| — ] <sub>]</sub> 17:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:55, 17 August 2024
 Archives (Index) |
Administrators' newsletter – August 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2024).
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Technical news
- Global blocks may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may locally unblock when appropriate.
- Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.
Arbitration
- The Arbitration Committee appointed the following administrators to the conflict of interest volunteer response team: Bilby, Extraordinary Writ
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
minor suggestion
Regarding this edit: perhaps you could modify it to say a "general copyediting pass"? At first glance I thought you were suggesting that someone pass some changes to the arbitration procedures, and couldn't off the top of my head remember what GOCE stood for. isaacl (talk) 06:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
August music
 | |
| story · music · places |
|---|
Today I have two "musicians" on the Main page, one is also the topic of my story, watch and listen, - I like today's especially because you see him at work, hear him talk about his work and the result of his work - rare! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
... and a third, like 22 July but with interview and the music to be played today --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
On 13 August, Bach's cantata was 300 years old, and the image one. The cantata is an extrordinary piece, using the chorale's text and famous melody more than others in the cycle. It's nice to have not only a recent death, but also this "birthday" on the Main page. And a rainbow in my places. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Zionism
I would appreciate your guidance on one issue. For the past two months, there has been an ongoing dispute concerning the lead paragraph of Zionism. A group of editors is seeking to redefine Zionism as a movement "aimed at the establishment of a Jewish state through the colonization of a land outside of Europe."
Without getting into the specifics of the content dispute itself, those advocating for this revision claim that there is a consensus supporting their change. However, a significant number of editors have voiced opposition on the talk page across multiple threads, and extensive evidence from other encyclopedias supporting the original phrasing has been presented. Despite this, proponents of the new version continue to re-introduce the disputed wording through edit warring. They argue that the burden of starting a formal RFC falls on those wishing to restore the original text. Given that I am currently under 0RR, what additional steps can we take to resolve this matter? ABHammad (talk) 09:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- @ABHammad you can continue discussion to see if you can find consensus, to see why they insist consensus is that way, or you could work with them to formulate an RfC - including what the status quo is should it fail - to decide the issue. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Jersey Surf Drum and Bugle Corps
A while ago, you soft deleted this page. Someone recently brought it back, but it's clearly been re-done from the beginning. Is it possible to send me a copy of the source code from the revision before it was deleted for the show summaries and such? (Those are a hassle to input manually.) If it has been recreated, I want to get it at least back to how good it was!
Thank you! Why? I Ask (talk) 05:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Why? I Ask I have restored the article history, so you'll be able to see the old content. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks a bunch! Why? I Ask (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi
I was clear, in my opening paragraph or two, that I wasn't expecting any action or even discussion -- that I was merely posting the facts for the record, and giving fair notice to Beland. Your close made it sound like I was some neophyte posting a giant wall of text in the expectation that the community will spend its collective time reading it. My response to you makes it clear that's not the case, and for it to perform that function it needs to be adjacent to your comments. Otherwise people might think I'm off my wikirocker.
BTW, I do expect the community to read my post -- just not now, but rather the next time some drive-bys call for my head based on my block log. Thanks for understanding.
EEng 03:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC) P.S. I thought I'd posted this earlier today but the stupid "new thread" interface sometimes demands you hit ctrl-ENTER for some reason, and I didn't notice.
- @EEng I certainly understood your need to reply to my close. And so it's there in the place post close comments go at the end, after the closed discussion where it will be preserved, along with the rest of your comments, for anyone to read before the thread is archived and in the future. Barkeep49 (talk) 06:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- The problem is that most people read only the close, and yours gives the incorrect impression that I'd made a foolishly overlong post on which I was expecting action -- which I explicitly said I was not. I also believe that your heat/light comment was inappropriate, in light of Brandolini's law. I therefore ask that you revise your comments to be consistent with the facts. I believe something along the lines of "Closing promptly since EEng has stated his post is not a request for action but rather for the record" would be appropriate. EEng 16:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- I stand by my close. ANI is a place for
urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems
with an expectation that people who file an issue are brief and include diffs. You made a choice to provide a complete documentation of the issues you saw with the other editor and to do so without asking the community to act on it. I described what you did and why based on those choices it made sense to procedurally close. If you feel that it makes you seem foolish that's your interpretation but not mine. I did not call you foolish or any other name or intend to do anything but describe why I was closing and options you had. It is not an accepted practice for reporters to have an in-line reply right to closers hence why I moved it to the place that post-close replies go. If you feel that you needed something else from the community that this didn't provide it remains open to you to find a way of reporting something more briefly for the community to act on - I think you have several options to meet the challenges Brandolini's law without going as comprehensive as you did. Happy to name what I'm thinking of but you might think of others if thats the route you decide to go down. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC) - In thinking about this a tad further, I added to the procedural close note the fact that you weren't requesting any action. That point of yours was in keeping with my general intent/approach of describing what happened and since you seem to feel that is an important thing to have in the close. If you don't find that part helpful I'm happy to revert it. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- What you did isn't perfect -- but then, what on WP is? -- but I'm OK with it. BTW, is a tad more or less than a bit? More or less than a scrunch? EEng 20:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- A tad is 5 ponderings, with a bit being 4 tads. At least that's what I was taught. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- What you did isn't perfect -- but then, what on WP is? -- but I'm OK with it. BTW, is a tad more or less than a bit? More or less than a scrunch? EEng 20:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- I stand by my close. ANI is a place for
- The problem is that most people read only the close, and yours gives the incorrect impression that I'd made a foolishly overlong post on which I was expecting action -- which I explicitly said I was not. I also believe that your heat/light comment was inappropriate, in light of Brandolini's law. I therefore ask that you revise your comments to be consistent with the facts. I believe something along the lines of "Closing promptly since EEng has stated his post is not a request for action but rather for the record" would be appropriate. EEng 16:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 14 August 2024
- In the media: Portland pol profile paid for from public purse
- In focus: Twitter marks the spot
- News and notes: Another Wikimania has concluded.
- Special report: Nano or just nothing: Will nano go nuclear?
- Opinion: HouseBlaster's RfA debriefing
- Traffic report: Ball games, movies, elections, but nothing really weird
- Humour: I'm proud to be a template
Proposed motion in Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)
Hello Barkeep49. There is proposed motion in the amendment request where you were listed as involved. The motion would remove the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" in the definition of the "area of conflict" in which ARBPIA sanctions apply. SilverLocust 💬 17:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Arbitration notice
You are involved in a recently filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Referral from the Artibration Enforcement noticeboard regarding behavior in Palestine-Israel articles and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide may be of use.
Thanks,