This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page.
I've noticed that in many cases, new users do not add {{reflist-talk}} after their messages that include refs. If sinebot detects such a message, including refs, but with no {{reflist-talk}} below it in the section, it would be useful for sinebot to automatically add one after the message. Of course, the same exclusion rules would apply for experienced or opted-out users, who might be doing things such as refactoring talk pages. Thanks for considering!
Elliot321 (
talk |
contribs)
21:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Sinebot just did
this, signing an IP user's question at AfD; those usually don't have signatures, just the heading with username at the top. Might be enough of an edge case that it isn't worth fixing; not sure.
Gaelan💬✏️07:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Hey slackr! If it's possible, I would love if you either released SineBot's source code publicly, shared it with me, or operated SineBot on other wikis across the Wikimedia movement. Could you consider any of those? Specifically, operating SineBot at Wikibooks is my current goal. Thanks!
EpicPupper (
talk,
contribs)
03:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Seems that SineBot is down, unfortunately. An unsigned comment [1] has not been signed for over an hour. Bot sandbox doesn't seem to be monitored either. Any clue? —
kashmīrīTALK19:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Is there any way SineBot can be repaired soon? I've had to constantly sign unsigned comments on my own Talk page for the past few months now and it's starting to annoy me at this point that the bot hasn't been doing what it's been programmed to do.
Jalen Folf(talk)16:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
I Request An Unblock
Hello Slakr, I see your Bot called ProxyBot/ProcseeBot has blocked me and I wish for your bot to either be shut down or Unblock me. Since I'm not an Administrator I can't power the bot down myself. Thanks.
Sparklestern (
talk)
00:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
You've got mail
Hello, Slakr. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
The barbaric act of Confessing Sins to the priest only began during the 14th century at the Lateran Council. The concept was quite unknown to earlier generation of Christians. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2.25.24.139 (
talk)
07:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
@
Xaosflux: Oh my bad... the old server one half of it was running on, an ancient bare-metal instance, seems to have died in the last year when IBM/Softlayer killed off the entire datacenter it was in. Unfortunately it was the part of the bot that was used to verify the proxy as open/usable (i.e., it had an httpd on it that responded back via a special handshake to verify authenticity/outbound ip addresses), so it's been assuming all the proxies it's been scanning this whole time are closed. :P
Anyway, it's likely still needed at least in part; iirc another admin is running something similar, but clearly it can't hurt to have backup (having anything less than 1 seems to devolve into wiki chaos quickly). I'll get it back up when I get a few ticks; I've been massively busy this year. :(
Hope everything is going well with you, incidentally. LTNS :P
Thanks for the update, yes
User:ST47ProxyBot is running with a similar task. I took your bot off the to-be-desysoped list (normal inactivity of 1 year for admins), as it is your alt account and you are not inactive. Should you decide to put this off, please let us know at
WP:BN to deflag the bot (you can always ask for restoration again later, bot's don't need RfA's!) Thank you and best wishes. —
xaosfluxTalk10:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the
Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
A
recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove
Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with
Edit Filter Manager, choose to
self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the
Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Bots Newsletter, December 2021
Bots Newsletter, December 2021
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on
Phabricator and on
MediaWiki.org.
BRFA activity by month
Welcome to the eighth issue of the English Wikipedia's Bots Newsletter, your source for all things
bot. Maintainers disappeared to parts unknown... bots awakening from the slumber of æons... hundreds of thousands of short descriptions... these stories, and more, are brought to you by Wikipedia's most distinguished newsletter about bots.
Our
last issue was in August 2019, so there's quite a bit of catching up to do. Due to the vast quantity of things that have happened, the next few issues will only cover a few months at a time. This month, we'll go from September 2019 through the end of the year. I won't bore you with further introductions — instead, I'll bore you with a newsletter about bots.
Overall
Between September and December 2019, there were 33
BRFAs. Of these, Y 25 were approved, and 8 were unsuccessful (N2 3 denied, ? 3 withdrawn, and 2 expired).
TParis goes away, UTRSBot goes kaput:
Beeblebroxnoted that
the bot for maintaining on-wiki records of
UTRS appeals stopped working a while ago.
TParis, the semi-retired user who had previously run it, said they were "unlikely to return to actively editing Wikipedia", and the bot had been vanquished by trolls submitting bogus UTRS requests on behalf of real blocked users. While
OAuth was a potential fix, neither maintainer had time to implement it. TParis offered to access to the UTRS WMFLabs account to any admin identified with the WMF: "I miss you guys a whole lot [...] but I've also moved on with my life. Good luck, let me know how I can help". Ultimately,
SQL ended up in charge. Some progress was made, and the bot continued to work another couple months — but as of press time, UTRSBot has not edited since November 2019.
Curb Safe Charmer adopts reFill:
TAnthonypointed out that
reFill 2's bug reports were going unanswered; creator
Zhaofeng Li had retired from Wikipedia, and a maintainer was needed. As of June 2021,
Curb Safe Charmer had
taken up the mantle, saying: "Not that I have all the skills needed but better me than nobody! 'Maintainer' might be too strong a term though. Volunteers welcome!"
(You can subscribe or unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding or removing your name from
this list.)
User:Slakr/sectionlinks.js
Hi, just to let you know that I
fixed some
cross-site scripting vulnerabilities in
User:Slakr/sectionlinks.js. If an attacker created a page with certain JavaScript syntax in one of the headings or in the page title, then when a user with the script installed visited that page, they would run the attacker's code. As far as I can tell it is only you who has this script installed, so I guess that means you're a little bit safer now. :) Best — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪13:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
How we will see unregistered users
Hi!
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on
better tools to help.
We have
two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can
let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on
better tools to help.
We have
two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can
let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on
Phabricator and on
MediaWiki.org.
BRFA activity by month
Welcome to the ninth issue of the English Wikipedia's Bots Newsletter, your source for all things
bot. Vicious bot-on-bot edit warring... superseded tasks... policy proposals... these stories, and more, are brought to you by Wikipedia's most distinguished newsletter about bots.
After a long hiatus between August 2019 and December 2021, there's quite a bit of ground to cover. Due to the vastness, I decided in December to split the coverage up into a few installments that covered six months each. Some people thought this was a good idea, since covering an entire year in a single issue would make it unmanageably large. Others thought this was stupid, since they were getting talk page messages about crap from almost three years ago. Ultimately, the question of whether each issue covers six months or a year is only relevant for a couple more of them, and then the problem will be behind us forever.
Of course, you can also look on the bright side – we are making progress, and this issue will only be about crap from almost two years ago. Today we will pick up where we left off in December, and go through the first half of 2020.
Overall
In the first half of 2020, there were 71
BRFAs. Of these, Y 59 were approved, and 12 were unsuccessful (with N2 8 denied, ? 2 withdrawn, and 2 expired).
January 2020
Yeah, you're not gonna be able to get away with this anymore.
A new
Pywikibot release dropped support for
Python 3.4, and it was expected that support for
Python 2.7 would be removed in coming updates.
Toolforge itself planned to drop Python 2 support in 2022.
On February 1, some
concerns were raised about
ListeriaBot performing "nonsense" edits. Semi-active operator
Magnus Manske (who originally coded the
Phase II software|precursor of
MediaWiki) was pinged. Meanwhile, the bot was temporarily blocked for several hours until the issue was diagnosed and resolved.
In March, a long
discussion was started at
Wikipedia talk:Bot policy by
Skdb about the troubling trend of bots "expiring" without explanation after their owners became inactive. This can happen for a variety of reasons --
API changes break code, hosting providers' software updates break code, hosting accounts lapse, software changes make bots' edits unnecessary, and policy changes make bots' edits unwanted. The most promising solution seemed to be
Toolforge hosting (although it has some problems of its own, like the occasional necessity of refactoring code).
A
discussion on the bot noticeboard, "Re-examination of ListeriaBot", was started by
Barkeep49, who pointed out repeated operation outside the scope of its BRFA (i.e. editing pages in mainspace, and adding
non-free images to others). Some said it was doing good work, and others said it was operating beyond its remit. It was blocked on April 10; the next day it was unblocked, reblocked from article space, reblocked "for specified non-editing actions", unblocked, and indeffed. The next week, several
safeguards were implemented in its code by Magnus; the bot was allowed to roam free once more on April 18.
Issues and enquiries are typically expected to be handled on the English Wikipedia. Pages reachable via
unified login, like a talk page at
Commons or at
Italian Wikipedia could also be acceptable [...] External sites like
Phabricator or
GitHub (which require separate registration or do not allow for IP comments) and email (which can compromise
anonymity) can supplement on-wiki communication, but do not replace it.
MajavahBot 3, an impressively meta bot task, was approved this month for maintaining a list of bots running on the English Wikipedia. The page, located at
User:MajavahBot/Bot status report, is updated every 24 hours; it contains a list of all accounts with the bot flag, as well as their operator, edit count, last activity date, last edit date, last logged action date, user groups and block status.
In July 2017,
Headbomb made a
proposal that a section of the
Wikipedia:Dashboard be devoted to bots and technical issues. In November 2019,
Lua code was written superseding
Legobot's tasks on that page, and operator
Legoktm was asked to stop them so that the new code could be deployed. After no response to pings, a
partial-block of Legobot for the dashboard was proposed. Some months later, on June 16, Headbomb said: "A full block serves nothing. A partial block solves all current issues [...] Just fucking do it. It's been 3 years now." The next day, however, Legoktm disabled the task, and the dashboard was successfully refactored.
On June 7,
RexxS blocked
Citation bot for
disruptive editing, saying it was "still removing links after request to stop". A couple weeks later, a
discussion on the bots noticeboard was opened, saying "it is a widely-used and useful bot, but it has one of the longest block logs for any recently-operating bot on Wikipedia". While its last BRFA approval was in 2011, its code and functionality had changed dramatically since then, and
AntiCompositeNumber requested that BAG require a new BRFA. Maintainer
AManWithNoPlan responded that most blocks were from years ago (when it lacked a proper
test suite), and problems since then had mostly been one-off errors (like a
June 2019 incident in which a
LTA had "weaponized" the bot to harass editors).
David Tornheim opened a discussion about
whether bots based on closed-source code should be permitted, and proposed that they not. He cited a recent case in which a maintainer had said "I can only suppose that the code that is available on GitHub is not the actual code that was running on [the bot]". Some disagreed:
Naypta said that "I like free software as much as the next person, and I strongly believe that bot operators should make their bot code public, but I don't think it should be that they must do so".
Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:
Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period
Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.
22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Bot review
Heya, I know you've not been around much lately but I just wanted to let you know there is a discussion over at BOTN about ProcseeBot. If you get this message and are still interested in maintaining (or passing along, or restarting, or whatever) this bot, please join in
the discussion. Thanks,
Primefac (
talk)
07:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Would you mind reading the talk section for Calcifediol. I believe primary study is being misinterpreted and the main article for Calcifediol should be altered. Please see talk section "Conversion time of D3 to Calcifediol" for further information. Thanks.
Hi slakr. Please unlock the article so it can be edited for the ITN and DYK nominations currently underway. Mr. Plante's nom in ITN is likely to be directly impacted. As I say on the article Talk page, the content dispute can be moderated by editors with other methods, and in any case the participants are unlikely to resume disruptive edits with so much light now on the article. Thanks.
Jusdafax (
talk)
01:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
@
Amakuru:, we regularly get some mild edit warring when a subject has just died. I think it can be discussed simultaneously on his talk page whilst other users contribute to his page. We're all adults here after all. The lock seems a little too heavy handed, in my opinion. Can you please unlock? --
Jkaharper (
talk)
09:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi! Many years ago I created an insufficiently detailed article about Jits Bodunaxa, which you rightly nominated for deletion. Since that same person now has a
proper article about her, I think it would be appropriate to recreate the page as a redirect. I think a redirect under this spelling of her name is appropriate because it is the spelling used in the title of Modern Mohegan: The Dialect of Jits Bodunaxa. Since this book was the first I heard of her, I think it's quite likely that people finding it for the first time will search it in Wikipedia to find out more, and currently that search finds nothing. I would add this name to her page, but it is already there under a different orthographic system.
ave mathju at ase manoya (
talk)
14:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
I have "recreated" it, although I realized while doing so that I made an error in the original page, as the B should be capitalized. I think when I originally made the page I didn't realize Wikipedia had case sensitive page titles. So, I have actually created it under
Jits Bodunaxa using the "From an alternative language" template.
Hey! I noticed that
in this edit SineBot added a signature to something that was just an addition to a list in a comment. I don't think the bot should've done this since the comment is already signed. ―
Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654521:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
@
Blaze Wolf: Sorry for the crazy-late reply, but yes; you're right. Normally when a user is doing something "advanced," like adding to an existing bulleted list (and that not being something like adding to
WP:AIV / similar noticeboards / discussions, it's ignored because the presumption is the user knows what they're doing due to edit count. Because it was a "new entry" and a signature wasn't in-range of the diff, the bot assumed it was adding to a discussion. --
slakr\
talk /09:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the
Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Was speaking with SineBot but I needed to talk to you personally
@
Slakr Hi! Only wanted to check how to add content to a protected page, or request it to be added by someone else as I find it extremely important to be added in the protected page. I was looking to add in the See Also section, the actress Tunisha Sharma's suicide, but in Sushant Singh Rajput's high profile suicide case (Internationally recognized) I saw a protection button which I could not infiltrate. Please help. I did add Sushant Singh Rajput in Tunisha Sharma's page. These are extremely popular Indian celebrities affecting different age groups, Tunisha was very popular in teen crowd and male crowds. While Sushant was Internationally acclaimed actor. Personally, I am devastated by these stories and cannot not think of helping Indian celebrities more and more, whatever it takes. To honor their contribution in my life. (
talk)
12:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
@
Steue: Not currently; it was a possible planned feature in a "Cosinebot" that hasn't yet come to fruition. I kind of got blackholed into the real world for the past few years. :( You can of course use {{unsigned}} (and related) to manually do it yourself, but there's not yet a magic way to get the bot to do it.--
slakr\
talk /09:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for: the ping, your answer and the link {{unsigned}}.
From this link's page it looks as if one would still have to:
search in the history: when a specific post got posted,
then who posted it ( registered or IP address ), Only when one knows this fact can one decide which template to use.
remember how the appropriate template is called -- or fetch this information from somewhere else -- if one knows from where,
pick / copy the necessary data manually from the history and
insert them manually into the template.
What I was hoping for was/is a function which does all this, plus makes it un-necessary (for the human editor) to know whether a contributor was logged in or only had an IP address.
My guess is that most IP addresses are dynamic, which means: after more than 24 hours they are no longer valid, which would make a link to it's talk page useless as well.
So, in most cases, the only usefull service which was rendered by the template would be:
Because of all this "hassle", when I want to add a signature of someone else, I still just edit everything by hand, even if my wording might not be exactly standard.
Hi. Thanks for all your work on SineBot (and everything else). A question about the bot has come up at
User talk:Bbb23#Removal of post. If you have a moment could you take a look at that thread and see if you can diagnose why the bot failed to sign in that instance? Obviously, the specific instance is trivial, but wondering if there's a more systemic issue that might warrant a tweak to the code. Thanks and regards,
Newyorkbrad (
talk)
16:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
@
Newyorkbrad: Based on
the post (I'm assuming), my guess is the {{
cite}} template. With a few exceptions for specific venues (e.g., iplinks/userlinks/etc on AIV), the bot will skip over posts with non-{{
tl}} template use, making the assumption that either someone knows what they're doing, something more complex might be happening (e.g., collaborative editing), and/or that by signing the addition it might add a signature in an awkward way, given the unlimited variability of template output. It also flips from opt-out-of-signing to opt-into-signing when someone reaches 800 edits (though that's not the case here); I mention it because it might(?) also sometimes be a source of @
Bbb23:'s frustration over when it skips someone's post. --
slakr\
talk /00:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
3RR report update
Hello, I just wanted to let you know that
User:Kuia34 made another revert masked under an edit summary of "adding maintenance tags"
[2], after your decision. I was redirected away from making another report, so I figured out messaging your talk page would be the best option. Also another diff which I forgot to mention, where user creates a talk page "box" to promote his opinion on the exact, ongoing content issue
[3].
Kate the mochii (
talk)
17:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Your report was removed by
Bbb23 for a reason let it go
It's a duplicate report because most of the edits you reported me for was from yesterday. You refuse to remove things from the article because they go against your own personal opinion and ignore multiple sources and when your called out you try and report me???
Kuia34 (
talk)
17:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Here is a list of all your (section-blanking) reverts. There are in fact 4 in 24 hours.
I have brought up two additional diffs (one I missed which proves three revert rule violation, and another with a disingenuous edit summary and that is literally hours after the noticeboard post).
That's fine but don't forget to remove the stuff relating to the general DID community that isn't in reference to the multiplicty subculture since you have yet to get source to support your claims and you continue to be disingenuous and edit the article to fit your own opinion on some online discourse at that..........
Kuia34 (
talk)
18:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
It's not
Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process I just type alot and even though I keep explaining to you what the topic is you keep saying that my claim is something else so then I have to come back and correct you as to what my actual claim is and then the process repeats. As for
Wikipedia:Casting aspersions your right some of the comments I've made were a bit much and I could have brought them up better in a slightly more civil manner.
Kuia34 (
talk)
18:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Close
Excellent close
here. I wish all closers were so thorough and evenhanded (even if I think most parties would have preferred some kind of consensus being reached this time around). Thanks for not supervoting to manufacture one. I think an eventual RfC 3 will iron this out. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 21:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm inclined to concur with McCandlish; I think you very fairly summarized the positions. Unfortunately, two of the involved editors
are now edit warring to introduce substantially the same language into the MoS section despite the close. After being reverted twice, BilledMammal is now seeking to undertake further discussion on the talk (as they honestly should have from the start under the circumstances), but despite that discussion having already gotten underway, LokiTheLiar has chosen to force the language back in. I've tried to explain why I think this is problematic, very much out of process, and likely to frustrate a community already fatigued with issues around this language further, but Loki at least seems unconvinced.
I really have no inclination to take the matter to ANI (and lack the time even if I did), but I'm certain that's where this is headed if someone doesn't intercede quickly and get Loki to understand that this is not how consensus proceeds in such circumstances. Again, BilledMammal seems to have already slowed their roll and committed to discussing. I wasn't sure what the best option was if trying to avoid ANI, but I figured the admin who closed might be the most logical first top.
Jayron32, I'm not sure that Slakr is about just now, so I hope you will forgive me for notifying you as well, as the only other admin I know is aware of the previous discussion and the slow moving edit war. This feels like a potential tinderbox. I'm trying to decide right now whether to add a notice below the original discussion. On the one hand, I think the community perhaps should be informed about the result of the discussion being disregarded. One the other, I'd love to give the editor in question an opportunity to hear from someone else that they are beyond the EW line and stand down before really getting themselves stuck in a bad place. Unfortunately, their responses on the MoS talk page are not encouraging me to feel that is likely. Thoughts? If neither one of you wants wrangle this issue (which would be understandable), I'll simply leave a notice below the closed discussion about what is going on, and the community can sort the matter out. SnowRise let's rap22:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
I left the notice at
WP:VPP: I made pretty voluminous efforts (as have a number of other editors) to explain to BM and Loki why further discussion and consensus was necessary before adding this language to the MoS, especially in light of the scale of the previous discussions and the controversial nature of the proposed additions. And to explain why edit warring is not an acceptable way to enforce their preferred version regardless of the circumstances. But as of this moment, the response has been a bunch of IDHT. I'm not interested in getting into the dispute any deeper, but I felt the community ought to be made aware that the close is being disregarded.
That said, if either one of you feels, in your administrative capacity, that there is a better way to accomplish that oversight purpose, you have my full blessings and encouragement to remove the notice. Personally I don't have the inclination, nor especially the time, to push the behavioural issues to AE, ANI, or ANEW, but it feels like it is headed in that direction, unfortunately. And despite my attempts on the Mos talk page to encourage discussion over edit warring, I think at least Loki is only more entrenched as a result of my observations. BM is somewhat ambivalent to the feedback of myself and others, but is discussing rather than trying to force the changes at this juncture. Please ping me if I can clarify anything about the chain of events: otherwise I am washing my hands of the matter before it gets any more disruptive. SnowRise let's rap06:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I participated in an earlier discussion on the same topic, so consider myself involved from an administrative point of view, so I will refrain from acting in this regard on this discussion. Sorry! --
Jayron3211:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
No, not at all, Jayron: that's clearly the right call in the circumstances. I knew you hadn't contributed to the most recent RfC, but I didn't think to cntrl-f the first one. And admin with the ban hammer isn't necessarily the only option here in any event. It would be more useful to find somebody with credibility among those who !voted support in the RfC, who might be able to convince Loki (and to a lesser extent, BM) to slow their roll a little, rather than charging ahead. The most frustrating part about this is that the new language might be a viable compromise that enough of a consensus could get behind, in an open community discussion. But with this approach of trying to individually force the language into the page, by edit warring if needs be (a strategy that is never going to be tolerated longterm by the community, in this context) they are actually undermining that consensus that they will ultimately have to seek. Acting this way is just not going to do them any favours at the outset of that ultimate discussion, which is sure to be a close run thing. SnowRise let's rap11:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
@
Snow Rise: Although it's a bit late of a reply (and it might be stating the obvious), but you probably don't need to try to hunt down an in-the-loop admin / closer if people start edit warring on a policy page; it's usually evident to onlookers, someone else will probably discover it, and/or you can point it out at AN3/ANI/RFPP, as you already mentioned. I usually sort of naturally avoid taking any ancillary action on a subject after a close (unless something obvious needs doing specifically from me, like a page protection); I effectively go into them uninvolved and leave uninvolved... besides, large closes are exhausting in and of themselves and by the end I'm typically completely done with reading about the subject for a while. :P
That's a perfectly fair tact for an admin (or any closer for that matter) to want to take, and this may be the first time I've ever brought such a matter to closing admin's attention in this fashion, but I think consulting you as closer was a logical first step in resolving the issue in the circumstances: I was observing editing of a policy page starting the very day of your close of a centralized community RfC of massive scope rejecting substantially the same proposed language, and felt someone with advanced permissions ought to have eyes on that situation. At the same time, I felt an ANX filing would have been an impractical and arguably unfair escalation that would have accomplished little other than to ramp up the temperature of the affair further and become a time sink for the community.Thankfully, after a certain amount of discussion and additional community voices chiming in, the editors in question went back to the drawing board for a new proposal, which I think in time may ultimately create some resolution to this perennial issue--so all's well that ends well. :) SnowRise let's rap10:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi
Dear @
Slakr,
My name's Ayoub I'm an
Editor from
The ArabicWiki, Firstly Thank you for everthing you do. I just want to ask if there is a posibility to learn me how can i creat a bot just like
SineBot nd let it add unsinged template to unsingned comments in arwiki. Peace.--
أيوب (
talk)
16:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the
Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.