Jump to content

User talk:Zero0000/2021

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
  • Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem

[edit]

I tried to delete/merge the "Reunification" article and got nowhere. Maybe I need to come at this a different way altogether. The 67 annex (de facto at a minimum, de jure for all practical purposes according to most authoritative sources annexed "Jordanian East Jerusalem" (this part one could arguably describe as "reunification") and a chunk of the WB (this part is a straight up annex). Neither part is accepted internationally as legal (no change to Jerusalem and occupied WB (including East Jerusalem) resolutions.) Then, a la Jordan case, we have a missing article, Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem (Annexation of East Jerusalem is currently a redirect to Jerusalem Law which is wrong afaics but I have not sources to verify that as yet) where East Jerusalem has today's meaning of both annexed parts (compare Jordanian annexation of the West Bank and West Bank.) Such an article has foundational sourcing, is clearly notable and fixes up misapprehensions/lacunae in the existing Jerusalem articles (reunification, Jerusalem law and Jerusalem day as well as to a lesser extent East Jerusalem articles). Do you think an article like that has merit? An aside, what is your understanding of the term "Arab Jerusalem"? Selfstudier (talk) 12:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

B'Tselem

[edit]

Hi Zero - I hope things are OK. I am making an attempt to rationalise some of the piles of books in the back room and realise I have 60-70 B'Tselem reports. I am minded to list them on the B'Tselem page but I have a memory that there used to be something similar but it seems to have gone. Can you remember if this is ground that has already been trampled on? Will I just get told off if I have a go at it? All the best.Padres Hana (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Padres Hana: I don't think it would be accepted. It isn't usual to give such long lists of publications on the pages of organizations. Consider Amnesty International for example. A possibility would be a project subpage similar to WP:WikiProject Palestine/Books. Does B'Tselem publish a list of their reports? If so an external link would be appropriate. Zerotalk 07:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - it makes sense + great link! Padres Hana (talk) 12:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).

Administrator changes

added TJMSmith
removed Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

Interface administrator changes

added AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
  • When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
  • There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).

Administrator changes

removed Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
  • Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.

Technical news

  • When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
  • Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

[edit]

Would you happen to know how the initial categorization of (Israel) Palestine articles came about? Cheers. Selfstudier (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier: No, sorry. You could look at the history of the category pages to see who created them and when. Zerotalk 14:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

so edit on that page, not my user space. Tiamuttalk 12:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).

Administrator changes

removed Enchanter • Carlossuarez46

Interface administrator changes

removed Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).

Administrator changes

removed Enchanter • Carlossuarez46

Interface administrator changes

removed Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit notices

[edit]

Hi, Is it] really such a problem having this perm? I could understand if I was misusing it but I haven't been.Selfstudier (talk) 10:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC) Thank you for that.Selfstudier (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ARCA

[edit]

Do you have a view on this? I thought it would be just the same as the last time around but seems not.Selfstudier (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

[edit]

Here you wrote that you removed information per consensus on the talk page. In fact there is no consensus, we just started the discussion on the talk page. Could you revert it until the consensus is reached? Alaexis¿question? 07:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alaexis: Per WP:ONUS it is your responsibility to obtain a consensus for including material in an article. If you believe that no consensus has been reached, that just proves that ONUS applies to you. WP:NOCONSENSUS does not, as you apparently believe, refer to a state of there not being a consensus. It refers to a "no consensus" state, which is the stable consequence of an attempt at consensus. Zerotalk 08:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question about the 500/30 restriction

[edit]

Hi, I had a question you might know the answer to. The 500/30 restriction that has been in place for the Israel-Palestine TA covers comments by brand new accounts made at RfCs, right? This has been my understanding but I'm not all that familiar with this topic area. Volunteer Marek 13:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: Correct, such new users can comment on talk pages but cannot participate in "other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions" nor in formal "requested move"s. Zerotalk 14:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).

Administrator changes

added Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless
removed Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
  • An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.

Technical news

  • IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

If I take this UN map and add the names per this one would that be legit? Selfstudier (talk) 10:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier: I'm not an expert on such questions, but I believe it is ok. UN maps are generally in the public domain, see here (which is the tag to use). Manually adding place names doesn't change that. Zerotalk 11:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict...please fill out my survey?

[edit]

Hello :) I am writing my MA dissertation on Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I noticed that you have contributed to those pages. My dissertation will look at the process of collaborative knowledge production on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the effect it has on bias in the articles. This will involve understanding the profiles and motivations of editors, contention/controversy and dispute resolution in the talk pages, and bias in the final article.

For more information, you can check out my meta-wiki research page or my user page, where I will be posting my findings when I am done.

I would greatly appreciate if you could take 5 minutes to fill out this quick survey before 8 August 2021.

Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and anonymous. There are no foreseeable risks nor benefits to you associated with this project.

Thanks so much,

Sarah Sanbar

Sarabnas I'm researching Wikipedia Questions? 21:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Filastin

[edit]

I vaguely recall you having an interest in this newspaper. Is this of any use? Selfstudier (talk) 09:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier: Yes, thanks. Beska has done some excellent work on the late Ottoman period. Zerotalk 12:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weird story

[edit]

Hey. I thought you might find this of interest. Ynet reports (link) that yesterday night, two drunk Israeli women accidentally ended up lost (drunkenly) in the Al-Am'ari refugee camp, a camp which Ynet describes as being one of the most dangerous in the West Bank, which even Palestinian Authority forces are wary of entering.

Anyway, rescued by Palestinian Authority forces and handed over to the IDF. They've been criminally charged for unauthorized entry into Area A and for violating a standing Aluf directive.

Regards, El_C 14:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The subtitle says that they've had difficulties speaking Hebrew, but I think they meant Arabic. Also, correction: the piece did not say that they've been charged, but that they're expected to be charged, which seems likely in light of their fabrication of there having been a 3rd Israeli woman still in the camp, for which much Palestinian and Israeli manpower was devoted to finding. El_C 16:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: Thanks, interesting story. I'm suspicious about the "drunk" claim; more likely they just got lost, which is easy to do. Zerotalk 04:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, according to multiple Palestinian witnesses they were super-hammered. To that: looks like I made a mistake about Ynet conflating Hebrew with Arabic, since the caption for this image reads: "the women were wandering drunk and were unable to communicate even in Hebrew." Lastly, fabricating a 3rd woman seems like a drunken light bulb moment... El_C 05:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.

Technical news

  • Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slur "Silly"

[edit]

Hello, I didn't enjoy the interaction. Please refrain from messaging me in general. If you see a remark I make on a talkpage, you do not have to feel obliged to give conter-criticism of the criticism itself, rather choose to address it in general without asking me to personally respond to you. I don't see the point, and I respond solely because of the provocation, not from interest in the discussion. It's quiet unpleasant and useless.

I don't like the use of the slur "Silly".

Goodbye --Vanlister (talk) 11:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, don't I deserve my own personal message instead of a copy-paste of what you left on two other talk pages? Zerotalk 11:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No --Vanlister (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Really!? Not even correction of the spelling mistakes?     ←   ZScarpia   18:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's something we could consider --Vanlister (talk) 11:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Progress? El_C 12:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).

Administrator changes

readded Jake Wartenberg
removed Emperor • Viridian Bovary
renamed Ashleyyoursmile → Viridian Bovary

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

North Africa - administrator input required

[edit]

Hi Zero, I've been beginning to weigh in on articles on food and other things in the Middle East, and I've noticed that the region is particularly oddly divided/classified on the platform. Some of these problems are clearly years in the making, such as the locking of the Wikiprojects to the UN's geoscheme and the use of the totally unnatural phrase 'Western Asia' to refer to the Middle East. But today, one particular issue has grasped my attention, and it pertains to North Africa. Everything gets fantastically messy here, with Maghreb, Middle East, Northwestern Africa and Northeastern Africa all overlapping, but on the specific note of North Africa, a seemlingly unresolved question that has lingered for decades is whether to include Sudan. This has been discussed extensively on the talk page, in various forms, including in relation to the independence of South Sudan, but not firmly resolved. However, as I have noted in a comment, the issue is actually fairly simple. ONLY the UN Statistics Division, which is locked to the UN geoscheme, includes Sudan, while the African Union, World Bank and Encylopedia Britannica sources (and so on) exclude it. Even in the article, there is little mention of Sudan on the page beyond the UN definition. I personally think Sudan should go, in line with most of the sources, geopolitical definitions such as Mena and based on cultural context. Without Sudan, North Africa is a convenient grouping of Maghreb + Egypt + enclaves + Maghrebi culturally influenced Atlantic islands. With Sudan, it is all of that plus an awkwardly placed Sahel state. Anyway, I thought it could really do with the eye of an experienced editor and administrator with an interest in the Middle East to rule on it. I'd be grateful for your input. Best regards, Iskandar 323 (talk) 12:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Iskandar 323: Administrators don't decide content issues. If there are problems of behavior, as opposed to content, take them to WP:ANI where multiple administrators will look at it. For your content dispute, the best way to stop it going on forever is to start an WP:RFC. Make sure the topic is stated in a neutral fashion (just listing the options is one way). When the RfC is over, everyone has to abide by the outcome. That implies you might not get your preference, but that's Wikipedia. Zerotalk 13:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your ref edit to Yitzchak Ginsburgh

[edit]
You added an unlinked reference to: Herb Keinon (28 March 1996). "Ginsburgh's detention overturned". The Jerusalem Post. p. 22. As far as I can see, the March 1996 edition of the Jerusalem Post seems only to have 16 pages. Be good! 238-Gdn (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@238-Gdn: I don't have easy access to page images from 1996 but only to an article collection via Proquest. For that day they have 84 articles, some labeled "Daily Edition" and some labeled "Magazine Edition". So there were at least two editions that day (Friday), perhaps that explains it. This article says "Daily Edition". I only have a url that includes my account number and pass-key for the paywall, so I can't post it. The page number is unimportant so it could go if you like. Zerotalk 02:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Omnibus

[edit]

Hi, Does it practically change anything as far as Arbpia goes? Selfstudier (talk) 12:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier: I don't think so. Zerotalk 14:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. El_C 12:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Abbas' ultimatum at the UN yesterday

[edit]

Thanks for the clarification — always helps to read the actual UN address in question.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ RE: WaPo's (or AP's Joseph Krauss, rather) final paragraph: Abbas has made veiled threats before, and is unlikely to follow through with the kind of drastic political decision that would spell the end of the PA — what's your take? Regards, El_C 12:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: The fact that he has blocked PA elections for years indicates that relinquishing power is not something he is likely to consider. Officially un-recognizing Israel will just help along the nobody-to-speak-to pretext that Israel uses for not speaking to anyone. The only thing that's plausible is an ICC bid, but he's scared that European countries won't support him. Successive Israeli governments have been telling their constituents for many years that there isn't going to be a Palestinian state but the world pretends not to hear. Abbas doesn't have any real options. Cheers. Zerotalk 13:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was taught early to follow the money trail behind all the hot air. All those bozos in Ramallah are unlikely to leap off the gravy train for a matter of principle. That would cause digestive problems and overburden the small number of oesophagal specialists who handle the neurology of famine. They'd risk ending up like the Palestinians they pretend to represent, wheras policing them for the only states that matter, the US and Israel, is a sinecure with regular foreign junkets attached at the endless cycle of Potemkin village roadmap theatricals. Nishidani (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Along with Biden, old age may be a factor in Abbas' potentially diminishing mental faculties. I presume Marwan Barghouti is the likely successor if and/or when Abbas' old age catches up with him...? Leading the Palestinian National Authority from an Israeli prison would definitely be high on the surrealism scale! Also, I think you meant ICJ — I made the same (ICC) mistake (diff), so... symmetry! Anyway, I guess the ultimate ultimatum would have been for Abbas to say: we're just gonna UDI it in one year and let the chips fall where they may. Thanks again! El_C 14:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nishidani: Sinecure — I learned a new word! El_C 14:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sumtimes I fink dat's why me prose iz eyether red or ignawed, i.e. fa dropping, like farther's pants on weddin nite, lexical succedanea sumwot too kwikly in me tolutiloquent pitterpatter.:)Nishidani (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: Haaretz reported it as ICC, and the slip is understandable since the PA has threatened to take Israel there on charges of war crimes. But ICJ is what it says in his speech and the context makes it clear that ICJ is what he meant. He would win a case at the ICJ since the relevant international law is crystal clear but it would be little more than a show since Israel would ignore it like they ignored the ICJ advisory opinion against the "wall". Contrary to what he claimed in his speech, ICJ rulings are only binding if the parties agree in advance to be bound by them, and Israel is not that stupid. Zerotalk 15:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ICJ/ICC. I hope we've all read this closely, i.e., no illusions. Nishidani (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving aside the binding question, the most straightforward (and arguably better) way to refer to the ICJ is to ask the UNGA to do it.Selfstudier (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Zero, the point is that there's only one UN organ with teeth, the Security Council. The best Abbas can hope to get from the ICJ is a Seal of Approval. That's why I'm saying, if he's gonna ultimatum, UDI or it didn't happen. El_C 19:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Serves him right for refusing to endorse the US's historic function of providing Israel with a Steal of Approval.Nishidani (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I saw another article by a competent journalist which reports it as ICC. I listened to the speech here (about point 22:55), which is an English simultaneous translation that differs in choice of words from the text version so I assume it is independent. Both say International Court of Justice. I'm not able to understand the original Arabic so I didn't try to find it. Zerotalk 01:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JIDF

[edit]

Hi, I saw your comment at the JIDF talk page. The last AfD was inconclusive and I tend to agree with the main argument to delete there about sustained coverage. I'm a little nervous to send it back though, because it seems like a politically-charged topic. OrgoneBox (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cats problem

[edit]

Hi, could you please have a word with @TerraCyprus: re his recent editing of categories in the IP area. Thanks.Selfstudier (talk) 13:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry, all in hand.Selfstudier (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
  • Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
  • The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.

Miscellaneous

  • Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
  • The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tsk

[edit]

Diff This person cannot take a hint (re this) Selfstudier (talk) 12:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

[edit]
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.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unsubstantiated allegations against David Collier

[edit]

You're now the 2nd editor to accuse David Collier of "outing" or "doxxing" wikipedia editors. diff

As of yet, neither of you has provided a reference to substantiate that accusations.

Can you please do so?

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 06:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bob drobbs: Of course I won't. That would be contributing to the doxxing. Outing is considered a serious offence that often leads to indefinite blocks. Linking to an outing site is the same as writing the same information on Wikipedia and will be treated with the same seriousness. Zerotalk 06:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. But there are a couple of issues with that.
It seems to be at least leaning toward a BLP violation, which apply in talk pages and comments, if you're accusing someone of nefarious actions without being able or willing to substantiate those claims with RS. Though there indeed might be shades of gray difference when you have spoken about the website, and the other user spoke about the person.
And I can't imagine how you can imply that there will be any sort of repercussions for linking to this site, if you can't reference any consensus, rulings, RS, etc. Do you expect me to just take your word that he has done what you say? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 06:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. I found the link. I absolutely do not support that and condemn any doxxing. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 07:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lol; and then you start an article about one of the worst doxxers out there? Do you really expect anyone to believe you? Do you take us all for morons? Huldra (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Huldra: Are you trying to be intentionally combative and start a fight? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, @Bob drobbs:; you started the fight by starting an article about a well-known doxxer; you might end the fight by asking for a deletion of the article, Huldra (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Huldra: I created an article in good faith based on a belief that Collier was sufficiently notable and I still stand by that idea. Now please apologize, or at least agree to end what you see as a battle, or else I'll take this to arbitration. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bob drobbs: So you will ask for the article to be deleted, then? Huldra (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At first sight there is a catch-22: how to just justify an assertion that an external actor is engaging in doxxing without linking to the doxxing and thereby participating in it. But this is not the case: evidence about external actors can be sent in confidence to the Wikimedia Trust and Safety Committee, who can evaluate it and take action against Wikipedia editors or not at their discretion. There is no requirement to justify the assertion in public on Wikipedia. Zerotalk 01:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. But you've alluded to some sort of disciplinary action if a user posts a link to his site, which will probably happen at some point if his page survives deletion. Can you reference any sort of consensus or ruling where that's been stated? Surely that doesn't need to be hidden. - Bob drobbs (talk) 01:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most cases of disciplinary action due to doxxing are carried out confidentially, so the limits of what the T&S Committee will consider acceptable are not easy to know. I strongly suspect that the Committee will consider that explaining how to find doxxing information is exactly the same offence as repeating the doxxing information here. Zerotalk 06:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2021).

Administrator changes

removed A Train • Berean Hunter • Epbr123 • GermanJoe • Sanchom • Mysid

Technical news

  • Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
  • The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)

Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

[edit]

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. 20:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

SWU

[edit]

Can you do anything about these two? 5 edits and no others since 23 February & 10 edits and no others since 5 May all for the same thing, pointless repetitive requests to remove the description right wing for StandWithUs, WP:NOTHERE. Selfstudier (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the same. I don't think it is worth pursuing as it will just come back with a new name. Better to keep the article in good shape and ignore the nagging. Zerotalk 00:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merchandise giveaway nomination

[edit]
A t-shirt!
A token of thanks
Hi Zero0000! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk ~~~~~
A snowflake!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zero0000/2021&oldid=1194843425"