Jump to content

User talk:TheDragonFire300/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Administrators' newsletter – March 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The 2023 appointees for the Ombuds commission are AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, JJMC89, MdsShakil, Minorax and Renvoy as regular members and Zabe as advisory members.
  • Following the 2023 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Mykola7, Superpes15, and Xaosflux.
  • The Terms of Use update cycle has started, which includes a [p]roposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing. Feedback is being accepted until 24 April 2023.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

May I ask your advice on this?

Hello, you have been a member here for a long time, and also involved in dispute resolutions and dealt with BLP issues, so I figured you were the perfect person to ask my questions to since you seem to issue helpful replies (if it was okay with you).

I was involved in editing an article with another user, and noticed that during the consensus building process, they and another user were tag teaming, and the user I complained about had been stonewalling so that the version they liked of the page would stay. I tried to address it on ANI, and promptly notified the user when it was posted. After a few days, the discussion went inactive without the other user ever addressing it. Within two hours of it being archived, they removed my notice on their user page as being 'spurious', and still have yet to post on the actual ANI discussion.

My question is - do I continue to post on the ANI discussion even when it's archived, and an admin will eventually read it? Do I address the other times the same user has seemed to takeover a page and revert continuously until the page was left their way with linked examples, or leave it as it stands with just comments on the user conduct from the page I was involved in? I figure showing a history of bad behavior would help show a pattern of misconduct, but it also seems like bringing up a lengthy past history could come off as petty.

Your user page has a badge for being interested in PHP. Have you looked at Python at all? I went from Perl to trying to learn php, and php seems a million times easier than perl, but it seems now that the "hot language" is Python. I still think php is a wonderful language, and have picked up several O'Reilly books to learn it.

Thank you for your help and your much needed advice! Awshort (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Awshort: I suppose your expectations of me are a little high; I've mostly washed my hands of getting into editing disputes and don't contribute that much to BLP. I do close a lot of ANI reports on such issues, though. Nevertheless, I'll try my best to assist here.
Remember that administrative action on Wikipedia is not punitive, but preventative; we cannot sanction a user who is no longer committing any violation of Wikipedia policy, even if they have in the past. Any new posting would likely be closed without action if the editor is no longer actually stonewalling. In order to be able to open a new report, therefore, you would need new, non-stale evidence of any further user misconduct, and you would need to prove that the only remedy for such action is administrative action. To that end, it would be best that you start a new ANI filing, rather than attempting to unarchive the old post.
I have continued my interest in PHP, and I have looked at Python scripts. Suffice it to say, however, I didn't click with the language. Most of my admittedly amateur PHP experience comes from maintaining MediaWiki intranet wikis that I plan to make public one day. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 09:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

ANI

I wanted to reach out about this change to my closing summary. I absolutely made a mistake there (I do know the difference) and I appreciate you making the correction. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

In hindsight, I should have made it clear I didn't doubt you know the difference; the amendment was also partially an excuse to try out another joke status, as I do, but I realise that it might have also carried the implication that you didn't know. I assure you it was only meant in jest. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 01:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

"Not notifying" at ANI

Hey, TheDragonFire300. I don't think it's really necessary to point it out every time someone forgets to notify the person they report at ANI. It's important step, like tagging an article that you've nominated for AFD, but people forget things. If you're concerned that someone is being talked about behind their back, you can leave the notification yourself, and maybe leave a neutral "User notified" link at ANI just to let people know that the reported user was unaware, until now.

But people at ANI are often flustered or confused, or maybe don't speak English as their first language, so unless they make a habit out of this sort of thing, you're not really adding anything to the conversation with edits like Special:Diff/1153567148 and Special:Diff/1153722871, and possibly making a good-faith editor feel unwelcome. And if the OP is doing something truly BOOMERANG-worthy, then it's basically Arson, Murder and Jaywalking. Either way, it's a distraction from the point at hand. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

There are about two classes of those: sincere ones where I do believe it is a mistake, and will do so on their behalf; and those where either the OP or the reported user was already blocked, so a notification wouldn't be helpful. The one I just left noticed on belongs to the latter; it's part of a running series of observations on obviously bad faith users reporting to ANI if only for the slim chance of blocking someone who's wronged them, and I wonder what the motive for them not notifying is.
That said, the exact wording "failed to notify" is probably something that needs work per WP:AGF, and I don't know where I got it from. But I've tried to adjust it recently, even if it's a slow process since I'm not on WP as much anymore, though. In any case, I believe notifications are important and, even if the OP forgets, it should be done, and hopefully the next time a user needs to take their grievances to the noticeboard, that they remember next time. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 01:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
There really isn't a 100% nice way to say "hey, you made this mistake". For example, you didn't enjoy reading my message here, did you? But at least I didn't point out your actions in front of 1000 people. If you're looking for the right wording, try just saying "User notified." and leave it at that. That saves others the bother of checking, and hints to the OP that maybe they should have that, but doesn't "call them out". I really don't think most people are doing this in bad faith. They're just in a heated and emotional situation, and not reading all the rules. And the best outcome is that there is no "next time". AN/I is a last resort. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
  • As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.

Technical news

  • Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023).

Administrator changes

added Novem Linguae
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed MBisanz

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Two arbitration cases are currently open. Proposed decisions are expected 5 July 2023 for the Scottywong case and 9 July 2023 for the AlisonW case.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheDragonFire300/Archive_12&oldid=1184085767"