![]() | This page 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. |
Hi there. Apologies if I've misunderstood the process, but could you help me understand how this edit happened the day after dnbnumber dot com was added to the blacklist? Thanks! — johndburger 20:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear that your wifi is carp. Is there something fishy going on? – dlthewave ☎ 17:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
FYI. Leviv ich 00:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Dear JgZ,
Do you "own" the United Daughters of the Confederacy Wikipedia page?
The reason I ask is because its my understanding that Wikipedia is a platform anyone can edit; yet, it appears that, based on your recent reversions, if the edits do not agree with the exact subject heading or sentance paraphrasing that you ideologically subscribe to, edits are reverted (with intimidation, I might add). I cannot help but question your motives as they very well could be biased, since by your own admission (from your own Wikipedia profile) you state the following: "This user is one of the 532 left-wing thought police who aggressively force their biased perspective on the rest of the world."
Having read the Wikipedia "non-bias" neutrality rules, I can't help but think arbitration dispute might be in order.
That said, I would like to understand your point of view as I might be persuaded otherwise. Thank you. __ Lieutcoluseng ( talk) 11:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Hey Guy. Just coming back to the dramahz at AN/I. I know this kind of criticism, well-founded or not, can be very demoralizing, and I also know that we're all real humans who feel real human emotions, and we sometimes overreact in ways we shouldn't. That doesn't make us less valuable. Just want to remind you that you're still one of the most respected admins around, and, while you can and should learn from this experience, I hope you will bounce back and continue standing up for what's right. Because you're not wrong very often. Regards, ~Swarm~ {talk} 05:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Guy, A day or two ago I think you protected Greta Thunberg from IP editing, but IP vandalism is still sneaking through. Could you look at that please? While you're at it, there is a surge of interest in [{School climate strike]] too, since today is the big international joint strike day. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I know we don't see eye to eye on everything, but I'd appreciate some support here if you think the Crapwatch is a good initiative. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 12:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
As the administrator who originally protected this page from creation, can you please unsalt Kiwi Farms? The website has received significant coverage from sources like New York magazine and News.com.au. This topic may pass WP:GNG. I've created Draft:Kiwi Farms, which may be expanded further. feminist ( talk) 09:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi. A conflict has arisen on the Adam Hughes article. Can you offer your opinion in this discussion? It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 21:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
Acupuncture: not sure what to do here.
Guy Macon (
talk)
18:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).
|
![]()
|
![]() |
Administrators
must secure their accounts
The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.
|
This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
For the Arbitration Committee, - Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).
the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so
will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
~ Rob13 Talk 13:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).
Hi. I'm confused about how Vaccine controversies got moved to Vaccine hesitancy. Your edit summary refers to a consensus, but I couldn't find anything on the talk page. I'm not necessarily against the move, I'm just trying to understand it. R2 ( bleep) 20:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi JzG, you might remember my December 2018 proposal here to replace the "Consensus Required" sanction with an "Enforced BRD" sanction. (You commented there saying you thought it would be an improvement.) The proposal kind of became moot and went unclosed into the arthives after Arbcom changed their DS rules in a way that allowed me to remove/replace all of the Consensus Required sanctions thathad been placed by User:Coffee. (All in all I removed it from 26 low-activity pages and replaced it with the BRD sanction on about 55 other pages.) Anyway there are still around 25 or so pages that I could find in the topic area that still have the old CR sanction, and two of those ( Judicial Watch and Kirsten Gillibrand) were placed by you. I was wondering if I might be able to convince you to lighten the CR sanction to the Enforced BRD on those two articles. You can see the exact wording of the two sanctions in the documentation at {{ American politics AE}} ~ Awilley ( talk) 03:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Template:Partisan sources has been
nominated for merging with
Template:Third-party. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.
wumbolo
^^^
23:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
Hi there. Apologies if I've misunderstood the process, but could you help me understand how this edit happened the day after dnbnumber dot com was added to the blacklist? Thanks! — johndburger 20:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear that your wifi is carp. Is there something fishy going on? – dlthewave ☎ 17:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
FYI. Leviv ich 00:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Dear JgZ,
Do you "own" the United Daughters of the Confederacy Wikipedia page?
The reason I ask is because its my understanding that Wikipedia is a platform anyone can edit; yet, it appears that, based on your recent reversions, if the edits do not agree with the exact subject heading or sentance paraphrasing that you ideologically subscribe to, edits are reverted (with intimidation, I might add). I cannot help but question your motives as they very well could be biased, since by your own admission (from your own Wikipedia profile) you state the following: "This user is one of the 532 left-wing thought police who aggressively force their biased perspective on the rest of the world."
Having read the Wikipedia "non-bias" neutrality rules, I can't help but think arbitration dispute might be in order.
That said, I would like to understand your point of view as I might be persuaded otherwise. Thank you. __ Lieutcoluseng ( talk) 11:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Hey Guy. Just coming back to the dramahz at AN/I. I know this kind of criticism, well-founded or not, can be very demoralizing, and I also know that we're all real humans who feel real human emotions, and we sometimes overreact in ways we shouldn't. That doesn't make us less valuable. Just want to remind you that you're still one of the most respected admins around, and, while you can and should learn from this experience, I hope you will bounce back and continue standing up for what's right. Because you're not wrong very often. Regards, ~Swarm~ {talk} 05:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Guy, A day or two ago I think you protected Greta Thunberg from IP editing, but IP vandalism is still sneaking through. Could you look at that please? While you're at it, there is a surge of interest in [{School climate strike]] too, since today is the big international joint strike day. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I know we don't see eye to eye on everything, but I'd appreciate some support here if you think the Crapwatch is a good initiative. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 12:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
As the administrator who originally protected this page from creation, can you please unsalt Kiwi Farms? The website has received significant coverage from sources like New York magazine and News.com.au. This topic may pass WP:GNG. I've created Draft:Kiwi Farms, which may be expanded further. feminist ( talk) 09:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi. A conflict has arisen on the Adam Hughes article. Can you offer your opinion in this discussion? It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 21:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
Acupuncture: not sure what to do here.
Guy Macon (
talk)
18:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).
|
![]()
|
![]() |
Administrators
must secure their accounts
The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.
|
This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
For the Arbitration Committee, - Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).
the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so
will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
~ Rob13 Talk 13:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).
Hi. I'm confused about how Vaccine controversies got moved to Vaccine hesitancy. Your edit summary refers to a consensus, but I couldn't find anything on the talk page. I'm not necessarily against the move, I'm just trying to understand it. R2 ( bleep) 20:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi JzG, you might remember my December 2018 proposal here to replace the "Consensus Required" sanction with an "Enforced BRD" sanction. (You commented there saying you thought it would be an improvement.) The proposal kind of became moot and went unclosed into the arthives after Arbcom changed their DS rules in a way that allowed me to remove/replace all of the Consensus Required sanctions thathad been placed by User:Coffee. (All in all I removed it from 26 low-activity pages and replaced it with the BRD sanction on about 55 other pages.) Anyway there are still around 25 or so pages that I could find in the topic area that still have the old CR sanction, and two of those ( Judicial Watch and Kirsten Gillibrand) were placed by you. I was wondering if I might be able to convince you to lighten the CR sanction to the Enforced BRD on those two articles. You can see the exact wording of the two sanctions in the documentation at {{ American politics AE}} ~ Awilley ( talk) 03:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Template:Partisan sources has been
nominated for merging with
Template:Third-party. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.
wumbolo
^^^
23:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)