| Revision as of 05:11, 3 March 2014 editMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,142,123 edits →DC Meetups in March: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 02:39, 30 October 2024 edit undoVanisaac (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users92,696 editsm →Invitation to participate in a research: fix mass message link per WP:AWBREQ, replaced: [[Special:MyLanguage/Research: → [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Research:Tag: AWB | ||
| (36 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown) | |||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| Also, if anyone is disturbed by my constant self depreciating reference to the Judgement of Solomon, please let me know.--] (]) | Also, if anyone is disturbed by my constant self depreciating reference to the Judgement of Solomon, please let me know.--] (]) | ||
| == Regarding appeal Cihsai == | |||
| Hi Tznkai, upon your advice I have informed the three editors on their talk pages. I was not aware that such notice was my responsibility, therefore thank you for your advice. I wish to inform the editor ] as well who had taken a lead role in discussion back in 2007-2008. Would he be allowed to contribute under the "uninvolved editors" section, if he prefers to interfere? | |||
| I wish to make some further statements in view of the comments of "uninvolved editors" as well as possibly "involved editors". Can you please advise where I can insert such new statements?] (]) 20:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Cihsai, you would add comments under "statement by Cihsai", other editors will add their comments where they will in their best judgement.--] (]) 04:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi,I have of course acknowledged your decision about the ban. I know that your decision is not subject to discussion. However I am eager to know the reasons for your decision. Therefore I kindly ask you to provide comments to the statements I have made. I have let some time to pass and reevaluated my statements. I beleive I have presented the facts in understandable English. My common sense as well as the Misplaced Pages guidelines as quoted in my statement, lead me to beleive that those facts would not render me to have deserved a ban. Actually I would expect the counterparts to be criticised.I wonder whether I have failed to present the facts or the “Rules” are very different from what I understand.Thanks in advance] (]) 20:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've been pretty busy this week, but I will try to review over the next day. Is that alright?--] (]) 21:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::OK. I'm not sure there are formal rules on this anywhere, but in my opinion, in order to modify the ban of another administrator I have to be convinced not that I would have done something different, but that the administrator who did it was obviously wrong. If it is reasonable that the other administrator did what they did, I should not over turn it. OR, if circumstances have changed significantly since the original action, then I might waive or lessen the sanction. Either way, you have to convince me that something is significantly different. | |||
| ::::The hang up seems to be over the nature of consensus and the revert/discuss cycle. Your appeal seemed to rest on three grounds. 1. That you had in fact been discussing, 2. that the other people involved in the discussion were reverting without discussion and 3. that you were actually defending the status quo ante. | |||
| ::::In order for discussion to be adequate, it needs to be sustained, currently active and almost always on the talk page. If an edit is controversial, that means get agreement before making the substantive change. The point is for people to work together and to come to compromise. So, you needed to be actively discussing. Your second and third points don't work out because of the old adage of two wrongs not making a right. Maybe your opponents should have been more polite, and maybe someone should have done a better job back in 2008, but right now, you're using the edit process to try to force what you think should be the correct. | |||
| ::::I understand that the flimsy way we use "consensus" is incredibly frustrating, but the bottom line is this: you have to convince people that you're right, or at least to compromise, instead of just editing the page to try to get your way.--] (]) 17:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Some food for thought == | == Some food for thought == | ||
| Line 31: | Line 17: | ||
| Amanda Hess' on being a woman subject to threats on the internet. The law-enforcement part isn't our problem per se, but the dynamic is.--] (]) | Amanda Hess' on being a woman subject to threats on the internet. The law-enforcement part isn't our problem per se, but the dynamic is.--] (]) | ||
| == |
== I miss you all == | ||
| Hey, so I am nudging you ]. There are competing ideas on how to handle the problem but I think the consensus is that this is indeed a problem which is progress never the less. | |||
| There are two main competing ideas at the moment one that suggests carefully checking the IPs before unblocking them and the other (mine) is to unblock 1000 IPs per day and let RC patrol/everybody monitor these. | |||
| The problem with running checks on these IPs is that it requires some expertise to operate and interpret tools to determine if an IP is an open proxy or not. Even if there were such people with disposable time it would take them months to years to process 20,000 IPs even if they dedicated their time to this task. I do not believe this is worth the trouble. | |||
| I think ] of unblocking 1000 indef blocked IPs per day (only IPs blocked before 2010 and with exceptions at the discretion of admins, arbitrators, checkusers etc. whom may choose to reinstate the block) and monitor them seems to be a practical solution to the problem. The discretion clause is there to avoid senseless wheel wars as the goal here is to pre-process indef blocks down to more manageable numbers where we can review remaining ones with greater scrutiny. It would still take about 1 month to process this many IPs. | |||
| Mind that a good chunk of the blocks were precautionary rather than to prevent disruption and the people enacting them while having good intentions weren't necessarily experts in handling open proxies. I am not trying to accuse anyone, just merely suggesting that particularly indeffed IP blocks prior to 1 January 2010 are perhaps outdated as we do not indef block known open proxies today. That cut-off date is entirely arbitrary by the way. Also 20,000 IPs may sound like a lot but we do not run such proposed checks to billions of IPs that edit[REDACTED] "unchecked". | |||
| --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 18:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :OK. I'm going to think about the best way to approach it. While I agree that manually checking IPs is an inefficient way to do it, there tends to be strong resistance to mass unblocking for reasons beyond my understanding. It will do no good to simply unblock a bunch if they are immediately reblocked by someone else. I think we're going to need to demonstrate some sort of groundwork, or automated system before approaching that. I will ask around.--] (]) 17:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::It would have been nice if ArbCom established some sort of arbitrary cut off date for this... allowing a bulk unblock prior to that arbitrary date... I am not opposed to the notion of automated checks (if IPs are dynamic ranges, globally blocked on meta, public open proxies, etc.) but say if a check returned positive for open proxy, the block should still be reduced to 1-2 years rather than indefinite as we do not do indefinite blocks for open proxies anymore as you probably know for years. Mind that I do not want to game the system by reducing the blocks down to 1-2 years and let them expire in bulk either. We need to have a way to keep long term blocks in check - particularly for open proxies. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 17:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Coming up in February! == | |||
| ⚫ | Hello |
||
| Our ''']''' is coming up on Sunday, February 23. Join us at our gathering of Misplaced Pages enthusiasts at the Kogod Courtyard of the National Portrait Gallery with an optional dinner after. As usual, all are welcome. Care to join us? | |||
| Also, if you are available, there is an ''']''' being held at the Smithsonian American Art Museum with Professor Andrew Lih's COMM-535 class at American University on Tuesday, February 11 from 2 to 5 PM. Please RSVP on the linked page if you are interested. | |||
| ⚫ | --] (]) 07:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC) | ||
| If you have any ideas or preferences for meetups, please let us know at ]. | |||
| :Heh, we miss you too. If you're bored or feeling utilitarian feel free to help out ''(institutional memory is a Good Thing...)'' :) ] (] '''·''' ]) 04:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Miss you too, but I won't pretend to think it's a good time to come back and get involved here. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 15:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::That is a valid point. ] (] '''·''' ]) 08:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == "]" listed at ] == | |||
| ] | |||
| The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 5#General election can be a drastic and unexpected change.}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> --] <sup>(])</sup> 00:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Invitation to participate in a research == | |||
| Thank you, and hope to see you at our upcoming events! ] (]) 18:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Harej@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Meetup/DC/Invite/List&oldid=593733441 --> | |||
| ⚫ | Hello, | ||
| ==Why...?== | |||
| I agree that the other user's edit was possible vandalism, but why did you put that Meryl Davis and Charlie White won bronze? Team USA won bronze, but in the actual ice dance, Davis and White got first. I edited it again, with a better explanation, to emphasize that, otherwise it'd be false information. ] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 00:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this ''''''. | |||
| == DC Meetups in March == | |||
| You do not have to be an Administrator to participate. | |||
| <div style="background: #EFFDF5; padding:3em; font-family:'Helvetica Neue',sans-serif; font-size:110%;"> | |||
| '''Happy March!''' | |||
| The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ] . | |||
| Though we have a massive snowstorm coming up, spring is just around the corner! Personally, I am looking forward to warmer weather. | |||
| Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns. | |||
| Wikimedia DC is looking forward to a spring full of cool and exciting activities. In March, we have coming up: | |||
| Kind Regards, | |||
| * ''']''' on Wednesday, March 12 from 7 PM – 9 PM. Meet up with Wikipedians for coffee at the Cove co-working space in Dupont Circle! If you cannot make it in the evening, join us at our... | |||
| * ''']''' on Sunday, March 23 from 3 PM – 6 PM. Our monthly weekend meetup, same place as last month. Meet really cool and interesting people! | |||
| * ''']''' meetup and edit-a-thon on Sunday, March 30 from 10 AM – 5 PM. Our second annual Women in the Arts edit-a-thon, held at the National Museum of Women in the Arts. Free lunch will be served! | |||
| ] | |||
| We hope to see you at our upcoming events! If you have any questions, feel free to ask on ]. | |||
| </div> | |||
| <bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 19:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC) </bdi> | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User: |
<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Potential_Admins&oldid=27650229 --> | ||
Latest revision as of 02:39, 30 October 2024
 Archives | |||||
|
|||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Question
If you're reading this, and you're waiting on me for a response to something, please remind me of it. I've had family in and out of the hospital recently on top of computer problems, so some balls got dropped.--Tznkai (talk)
Also, if anyone is disturbed by my constant self depreciating reference to the Judgement of Solomon, please let me know.--Tznkai (talk)
Some food for thought
Amanda Hess' article on being a woman subject to threats on the internet. The law-enforcement part isn't our problem per se, but the dynamic is.--Tznkai (talk)
I miss you all
--Tznkai (talk) 07:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- Heh, we miss you too. If you're bored or feeling utilitarian feel free to help out (institutional memory is a Good Thing...) :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Miss you too, but I won't pretend to think it's a good time to come back and get involved here. MastCell 15:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- That is a valid point. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Miss you too, but I won't pretend to think it's a good time to come back and get involved here. MastCell 15:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
"General election can be a drastic and unexpected change." listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect General election can be a drastic and unexpected change. has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 5 § General election can be a drastic and unexpected change. until a consensus is reached. -- Tavix 00:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in a research
Hello,
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Kind Regards,