User talk:LFaraone/Archive/2015/September

Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing list

Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and MusikAnimal ^talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 December

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. The general confidentiality agreement is now ready, and the OTRS agreement will be ready after 22 September 2015. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 23:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Kwork2

I see that you have unblocked Kwork2, on the condition that he is "topic banned from all pages related to (a) The Israel-Palestine conflict and relations between Israel and Palestine; and (b) Judaism, both broadly interpreted."

After all these years: I have no problem with this.

However, he dives straight into a I/P discussion on WP:ANI, see: Violation of NPA, POLEMIC, POVPUSH, CPUSH of by Nishidani See e.g. this. I just wondered: do you consider that a topic-ban violation, or not? Huldra (talk) 23:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Damn it Huldra, you beat me to it. The following was drafted by me on my phone's notepad before I noticed the above.

Kwork2 (talk · contribs) is violating his TBAN with six posts in an ANI thread about the Israel-Palestine conflict and one related post on the talk page of the SPA at the heart of the ANI thread, whose username is derived from the conflict, over a 23-hour period. Sturmgewehr88 (talk · contribs) has already warned him, but maybe coming from an Arbitrator it would carry more weight.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

According to my understanding there is nothing in the arbcom restrictions that prevents me from commenting on AN/I about the conditions of editing, which is what I discussed there. I think that is important, and not a violation of my agreement. Even without the restrictions, I would have had no intention of returning to edit Israel/Palestine conflict articles because I think it is a wast of my time, and additionally stands to accomplish nothing useful. I do have an interest in articles about bridging groups that bring Jews and Arabs together, such as for example Hand in Hand: Center for Jewish-Arab Education in Israel, Neve Shalom, and Arava Institute for Environmental Studies; and I hope restrictions will eventually be remove to the extent of allowing some editing in those. Kwork2 (talk) 11:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I should add that I did not attack Nishidani on AN/I, or any place else, and in fact described him as a sincere and conscientious editor. I did say that virtually every editor much involve in the Israel/Palestine conflict articles is pushing a point of view, which is not an opinion unique to me. Indeed the polarization of editing into two conflicting camps is no secret. Kwork2 (talk) 11:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I would still like to hear what LFaraone/ Ban Appeals Subcommittee thinks about the matter, Huldra (talk) 22:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Huldra, you seem to be very heavily focused on a single area of editing, and perhaps that caused you to be concerned that I might want to return to editing Israel/Palestine conflict articles, which seems very much your focus of editing. You might want to review Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, which states: Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee has determined that "single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project." There was never a time when my editing was that much focused on the I/P conflict, or any other area of editing. Some variety in your editing might make your life more enjoyable, because your present single interest is a wiki-battleground. Think about that. Kwork2 (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Huldra and Hijiri88:, thank you for reaching out. I've been away the past few days; for the future, violations of unblock conditions placed by BASC may be brought up at Arbitration Enforcement. In re whether this is included in the scope of the restrictions, WP:TBAN explicitly states that topic bans include the parts of other pages that are related to the topic. I've blocked Kwork2 (talk · contribs) for one week. LFaraone 03:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

LFaraone; thank you for your clarification; in the future I will indeed bring any new violations at Arbitration Enforcement (Though I really hope there will be none), Huldra (talk) 22:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)