Arbitration Case opened edit
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man.
Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Evidence.
Please add your evidence by September 17, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.
For non-parties who wish to opt out of further notifications for this case please remove yourself from the list held here
For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 06 September 2016 edit
- Special report: Olympics readership depended on language
- WikiProject report: Watching Wikipedia
- Featured content: Entertainment, sport, and something else in-between
- Traffic report: From Phelps to Bolt to Reddit
- Technology report: Wikimedia mobile sites now don't load images if the user doesn't see them
- Recent research: Ethics of machine-created articles and fighting vandalism
The Bugle: Issue CXXV, September 2016 edit
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors September 2016 News edit
Guild of Copy Editors September 2016 News
  Hello everyone, and welcome to the September 2016 GOCE newsletter. >>> Sign up for the September Drive, already in progress! <<< July Drive: The July drive was a roaring success. We set out to remove April, May, and June 2015 from our backlog (our 149 oldest articles), and by 23 July, we were done with those months. We added July 2015 (66 articles) and copy-edited 37 of those. We also handled all of the remaining Requests from June 2016. Well done! Overall, we recorded copy edits to 240 articles by 20 editors, reducing our total backlog to 13 months and 1,656 articles, the second-lowest month-end total ever. August Blitz: this one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 21 through 27 August; the theme was sports-related articles in honor of the 2016 Summer Olympics. Of the eight editors who signed up, five editors removed 11 articles from the backlog. A quiet blitz – everyone must be on vacation. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all editors who took part. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Corinne and Tdlsk. |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom edit
Please see the large instructions at the toon of the page"If you wish to submit evidence, please do so in a new section (or in your own section, if you have already have one). Do not edit anyone else's section.
" (emphasis present in the original) – Gavin (talk) 06:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I'm really not worried about wikilawyering bullet point two. I believe that Andrew will agree that it's a beneficial change, but if not, it'll take him about .5 seconds to remove. Apologies for editing your section, though. That was daft. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- It's nowt to do with wikilawyering: it has never been acceptable to add one's thoughts to other people's TP comments, and doubly so at ArbCom. As well as the quoted wording above, the instructions also reiterate that"
You must submit evidence in your own section. Editors who change other users' evidence may be sanctioned.
" If Andrew wants to subsequently add the comment, that is entirely up to him, but you cannot and must not change his statement. - Gavin (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- It's nowt to do with wikilawyering: it has never been acceptable to add one's thoughts to other people's TP comments, and doubly so at ArbCom. As well as the quoted wording above, the instructions also reiterate that"
This Month in GLAM: August 2016 edit
| ||||||
Engleham edit
Just a quick head's up, I have just blocked this user for a month. You placed a similar block a few months back, suggesting the next one should be indefinite. I have stopped short of that for now, as I am cautiously optimistic that a month off will allow everybody else to get back to work, but have emphasised future blocks may well be indefinite. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: That seems ... rather short, given my previous month-long block not even four months ago (where's the escalation?) and other blocks in the past (as I said at the time: "Engleham's block log has three blocks for personal attacks, one for violating BLP, two for both at the same time, and one for socking to boot (another was overturned). Then this one today. Have we given [Engleham] too much rope?"). There was also a developing consensus on ANI in favor of a community ban. Perhaps you closed the discussion a bit early? Best, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Here's my take on it. Engleham is a productive editor with a barbed sense of humour that gets him into trouble when other people don't share it. (cf: The Troggs Tapes). The ANI thread was trending in only one direction towards a full ban or indefinite block, and the conversation was approaching (but had not quite reached) a bloodbath - at which point I felt another admin would have placed such a sanction. Nipping it in the bud this way stops the immediate disruption and gets editors back to whatever they were doing, and it also provides Engleham with a route back into editing Wikipedia. The project doesn't have a good way of dealing with editors who make a lot of good mainspace edits but also cause disruption, so we just have to pick whatever is the least worst option at any time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- There's two problems with that approach. One, you're cutting the community out of the process. One could make a stronger argument here, but I don't want to unjustly ascribe motives to you; it suffices to say that we operate this site based on consensus, and you've deliberately circumvented that.
- Two, while you're very right to say that "The project doesn't have a good way of dealing with editors who make a lot of good mainspace edits but also cause disruption," you've unfortunately chosen to invoke the Malleus defense in response. In my personal opinion, that's an argument that should be immediately disqualified whenever it invariably pops up. No editor with an extensively invective and uncivil editing history should be allowed to continue using language that actively drives away other editors. It simply does not matter how positive their mainspace and content contributions are. Those are easy to count; the amount of edits lost from people who leave the site or decide to edit less aren't. That's one reason why there's no special provision for "but they've made so many other good edits" in WP:CIVIL. (Would you say that you wouldn't have blocked an editor making similar comments if they had only made a thousand edits?)
- And just in case it isn't clear, all comments here are said in good faith and cheer. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- I personally think things are more complicated than that. I can certainly imagine somebody kicking off if I closed the ANI thread as "no action". Cary Grant's article has been put through the wringer more than a few times, and a month's block helps get some stability on it. Beyond that, I think Engleham admitted himself he gets on better writing obscure topics and things only go pear-shaped when he works on things of interest to multiple editors. He also admits to liking Bill Hicks, which means I don't think he is deliberately and purposely setting out to offend. He might exhaust Collect's patience, but I can't see him quitting Wikipedia over it. Anyway, bottom line is Engleham is blocked, and if we're having a near identical discussion on ANI in late October, feel free to serve seafood. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Here's my take on it. Engleham is a productive editor with a barbed sense of humour that gets him into trouble when other people don't share it. (cf: The Troggs Tapes). The ANI thread was trending in only one direction towards a full ban or indefinite block, and the conversation was approaching (but had not quite reached) a bloodbath - at which point I felt another admin would have placed such a sanction. Nipping it in the bud this way stops the immediate disruption and gets editors back to whatever they were doing, and it also provides Engleham with a route back into editing Wikipedia. The project doesn't have a good way of dealing with editors who make a lot of good mainspace edits but also cause disruption, so we just have to pick whatever is the least worst option at any time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Military history WikiProject coordinator election edit
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Extended confirmed protection edit
Hello, The ed17. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
- Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
- A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 September 2016 edit
- News and notes: Wikipedia Education Program case study published; and a longtime Wikimedian has made his final edit
- In the media: Wikipedia in the news
- Featured content: Three weeks in the land of featured content
- Arbitration report: Arbcom looking for new checkusers and oversight appointees while another case opens
- Traffic report: From Gene Wilder to JonBenét
- Technology report: Category sorting and template parameters