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. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 |
That statement on the most recent case request reminded me of this discussion about apologies for some reason. JoJo Eumerus mobile ( talk) 22:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I find this statements concerning. We all are capable of being upset, of being pushed to a limit and of reacting badly. I don't believe, with all respect to Iridescent, that these are the true colors of any editor. Why are we talking about stress testing people. How about just trying to get to the bottom of the issues at hand supporting editors and trying reintegrate them into the smooth workings of an encyclopedia. Seems to me that when we look for guilt we are already in trouble; when we push people to react then we are not getting to the bottom of the issues. I wonder if this is a punitive model. I'm not usually a talk page stalker but this caught my eye, really bothered me, and I couldn't not comment. By the way I was told many years ago by an arb that they seldom read everything so anyone posting should make it short and very very succinct. Littleolive oil ( talk) 18:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
read the diffs in context or examine the components of a case, but that's what the evidence page is for; the workshop these days is just a glorified talk page in which all the usual look-at-me types wade in explaining why the evidence proves that the best course of action is to block the guy with whom, by complete coincidence, they're currently in dispute. If we need to keep Arbcom (a big if), I personally don't feel anything would be lost if cases jumped straight from the evidence phase in which people post the relevant diffs and explain how they pertain to the case, to the PD page in which people discuss which parts of the evidence are potentially actionable and what the best action to take would be. There's absolutely no benefit to either the parties, the arbs, or the wider community in the current double-phase approach in which the proposals for the PD are effectively written twice, once with running commentary from the peanut gallery and once about.
I have had an interest in Arbitrations for many years not because of my own experiences which I believe in the end were fair although complex and convoluted, (and AE is another matter) but because I have seen well meaning editors lost to Wikipedia because the "ropes" at arbitration and even AE created an uneven playing field for those newer editors. I think Iridescent's suggestion for request page is excellent. But more importantly is something that is missing from the way arbitration functions now and that is that editors and especially newer editors do not always know what they will be sanctioned for, what the real issues are, what the arbs are looking at and might want to see in their deliberations. Experienced editors in the same situation know what arbs generally look at what, the trigger words are which can nail the coffin shut. What is lacking overall is transparency. We as experienced editors know lots of discussion goes on the background which the editor is not part of and often even understands. That can't be corrected, but an antidote can be created in a very concrete and transparent way by simply openly asking the editors questions, questions which are based on the issues the arbs see as problems. From the answers to those questions arbs will get a very good idea of the editor's knowledge, and understanding of what is going on. How often have I seen an editor say something innocently and with integrity that will hang them not because they did anything wrong but because they did not understand the situation and "looked" guilty. In this model, at this initial phase of a case there is no place for anyone else with an interest wether helpful or not to comment. That, if necessary, comes later. Experienced editors do not always realize how far they've cone in understanding the complexities of the Wikipedia culture, norms and language. Second to this arbs must not come into an arbitration with an agenda assuming guilt or innocence and must maintain the non-punitive stance Wikipedia was built on. Further, and on a less positive note experienced editors can know how to hang an inexperienced editor if that is their leaning. We have lost good editors this way as inexperienced editors trying to do the right thing but not understanding the culture are dragged to Arbitrations and sanctioned. Experienced editors don't see this as a problem since they may feel they are fighting for Wikipedia and the ends justify whatever means necessary to remove editors rather than integrate them. I realize there are many situations where editors are here to damage but an open transparent model where editors see and understand what the issues are because they are being asked about it should deal with that problem too. And no this isn't about me or my experiences, it's about a long term issue which I have viewed and wondered about and even written about [1] in the past. Dr Chrissy has since died but he was a good editor potentially great who could have been saved had he been dealt with differently. One thing I do disagree with is that the editor who becomes upset is not admitting in some subtle way to guilt. There are multiple reasons they might be upset. We can find out why by simply asking them. Littleolive oil ( talk) 17:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
The introduction of the workshop page was one of the worst things to happen to arbitration, in my view. The intentions were good, but the effect was to intensify disputes, rather than giving people a rest and allowing time for the strong feelings to die down between the evidence phase and the decision. Now after the dispute itself and perhaps an AN/I, we have a lengthy RfAr, followed by the evidence phase, followed by the workshop, followed almost immediately by the decision and the lengthy voting. It's too much to expect anyone to tolerate. I think these cases are affecting people's mental and physical health, and that we really ought to sort it out. SarahSV (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
(outdent) While I agree that the ArbCom case process might usefully be reviewed, the fact remains that at this point, the Committee hears only a handful of cases each year. If there's a will to push for improvement of dispute-resolution processes, then just from the point of view of benefitting the most participants, the much more frequently used forums such as AN and ANI might be a better place to focus attention. (I'd nominate the complexities of the discretionary sanctions system as another worthwhile target, but frankly I don't understand all the rules myself any more.) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
... with thanks from QAI |
On a recent trip, I took hundreds of pics, even six of cats thinking of you, but none of those was good enough to be uploaded. Click on "March" for some of the others, with thanks. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I made a little monument for a (distant) cousin who died, which the German Wikipedia kindly presented yesterday, on his birthday, - below the travel pics -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Four years! |
---|
moar thanks, and you said you like blue ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I nominated Eastern brown snake. Covered important venoms but maybe needs more detail...or too esoteric? Also looking at this but not so sure if anything else to include.....all input appreciated. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 01:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
"In fact, I'd go one further and say that a single instance of apparent misbehavior by a long-standing and otherwise reliable admin is a potential signal of broader and more serious underlying issues." ? -- GRuban ( talk) 16:03, 30 April 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 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
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 02:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||
Did you know a cat can jump higher than a house? It’s because of their extremely strong legs....and the fact that a house can’t jump. 🙀 Atsme Talk 📧 22:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Here, I had the perfect DYK for you, wanted to wait until it appears, BUT ... -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
No cat today. In teh history, I reached the stage of supplying something unwanted in an arbcase: facts. I wonder if anybody looked at them - until 3 years later. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
|
As you approach your 3.5 year mark for time on ArbCom, I just wanted to thank you for your service. I know that when I come across a comment of yours that I am going to read (a lot of text which will be) something that makes me think carefully whether I agree or disagree with your thinking. Thank you for being willing to benefit our quest to improve the world's knowledge by serving on this essential, if challenging in many aspects, group. Thanks and Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Six years ago, the shortest and sweetest infobox discussion I remember: Talk:Siegfried (opera)#Infobox. If I had been arbitrator, I'd have told all participants in the case: do it like this from now on ;) - Why, instead, happened what happened? Warum? - a work in progress dedicated to John. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:29, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
For being a sane and kind person. CyrilleDunant ( talk) 10:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Template:This user talk has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Viztor ( talk) 16:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
I have always thought of you as one of the members of ArbCom whose views I respect. You will not have heard much on the "Community response" page in the present crisis from the oppressed minority, the people at the receiving end of harassment, because the overwhelming response there is outrage that the Office took action, not that harassment occurred, and anyway, the victims are mostly gone, driven away from Wikipedia by the actions of others.
However, looking back at the case I attempted to open about Fram's behaviour back in October 2016, makes me really cross. The case was declined because ... well, apparently it was not ripe, no-one was interested in harassment, you suggested a boomerang. I thought it was dreadful that Nvvchar had been driven from Wikipedia in the way I described, but ArbCom was not interested. When I suggested the members were closing ranks in failing to take action against an influential administrator, I was reviled.
With ArbCom being unable or unwilling to take action against harassment, I approve the actions of the Office, following receiving and investigating complaints. AGF is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. The Office apparently gave warnings and eventually acted to ban Fram, so the community should AGF that they had sound reasons for doing so. Time to get on with building an encyclopedia. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 11:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
community is also reminded that they may issue topic bans without the involvement of the Arbitration Committee if consensus shows a user has repeatedly submitted poor content [to DYK]is something that's been explicitly established by Arbcom to the extent that it's good-as-policy. Given that at a rough estimate you're responsible for between 1⁄3 and 2⁄3 of all the errors that reach the main page, is a case in which the actions of all parties are considered really what you want to be angling for? ‑ Iridescent 14:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
cornflowers |
Thank you for the good advice to do so ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
WMF gets one of these wild hairs every two years or so? I'm baffled, perhaps because I'm not a native speaker. What kind of wild hair? Bishonen | talk 10:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC).
How not to catch a wild hare. The phrase is two-fold with the original referring to the skittish behavior of wild rabbits and their breeding ritual. The other is vulgar and has to do with the location of a wild hair, but really doesn't make much sense. Courtesy of Atsme's Rural Dictionary Atsme Talk 📧 13:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
That cat belly looks so soft. It's a trap, isn't it? Opabinia regalis ( talk) 08:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Franz Kafka: Das Schloss | |
---|---|
... about about alienation,
|
... best on a meadow ... -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Just wanted to say Thank You for your participation. Awilley & JFG helped get my alert up and running on my UTP. If you get a chance, check it out by trying to post a DS alert. Atsme Talk 📧 00:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
That's kind of you to say. That's a busy page, so I can't thank everyone who says nice things there - and some said even nicer things than you - but that particular comment came right when I was starting to get particularly disappointed in some of the other comments, so it came at just the right moment for me. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 17:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I watched DYK from my very first article on (nominated by someone else), so may possibly know a bit about it. Years ago, every hook got its own "nom template" (which isn't a template, but we have no better name), and all in the review process are transcluded to the " nom page". As that got too long, more recently those already approved got their own page where they stay until promoted to a preparation area, so only noms with no review yet or a review in process are on the nom page. However, changes to the page are only 1) moves of complete nom templates (manually or by bot), or 2) edits within one nom template. The latter usually includes only 2 people, the nominator and the reviewer (example: Template:Did you know nominations/A Clare Benediction). Sometimes there is more than one nominator (example: Template:Did you know nominations/Psalm 150), and sometimes more than one person comments (example Template:Did you know nominations/Lilian Benningsen). Any questions? - In a nutshell: while the nom templates are presented in close vicinity on the page, interactions stay within one nom template. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Please take a moment to look at User talk:Gerda Arendt/Archive 2019#Feeling fine on July nine, cat pic and especially "this user will not rest ...", - resting today, because that step was achieved, thanks to The Rambling Man. Hope is precious ... -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Email. ‑ Iridescent 2 08:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for supported my recent, albeit unsuccessful RfA. Your support was greatly appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC) |
Working on mulga snake and trying to figure out how much detail to go into about the venom. This page (115) in this book has a good overview. All input over how much detail (and how to phrase or expand upon cyclic nucleotide–gated ion channels) much appreciated.... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 04:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
red admiral | |
---|---|
... with thanks from QAI |
Hey there,
Just letting you know of this Signpost submission. It's based on work by Icewhiz, but he handed it over to me about a week ago and hasn't edited it since. I've made significant changed to the text and am pitching it myself, so there shouldn't be any problem with his T-ban. François Robere ( talk) 13:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't do the barnstarry stuff, but I would like to say that I was very impressed with your Fram-related editing; if only more Arbs could be bothered to spend time to dig more closely into complicated issues such as that. If you are considering standing again this time (and I must say I would not blame you in the slightest if you weren't), you would certainly have my vote. Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
OR, thank you for your hard work. I can only imagine how difficult this has been for all of you, and I appreciate the time and energy you all spent on this. -- valereee ( talk) 13:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
meadow saffron |
---|
... I agree -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't do the barnstarry stuff, but I would like to say that I was very impressed with your Fram-related editing; if only more Arbs could be bothered to spend time to dig more closely into complicated issues such as that. If you are considering standing again this time (and I must say I would not blame you in the slightest if you weren't), you would certainly have my vote. Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
... with thanks from QAI |
...is at FAC here ( Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/King brown snake/archive1) - any input on venom would be appreciated :) Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't do the barnstarry stuff, but I would like to say that I was very impressed with your Fram-related editing; if only more Arbs could be bothered to spend time to dig more closely into complicated issues such as that. If you are considering standing again this time (and I must say I would not blame you in the slightest if you weren't), you would certainly have my vote. Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
... with thanks from QAI |
Today, I am proud of a great woman on the Main page, Márta Kurtág, finally! - Here's my ideal candidate for arbcom, - restored to his talk, along with the precious-concersation which made me blush the most. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
...is at FAC here ( Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/King brown snake/archive1) - any input on venom would be appreciated :) Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello!
The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.
Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.
The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.
Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I note you have recently decided to suppress evidence of Eric Corbett’s thousands of edits and details of the huge amount of pages he raised to FA and GA status. Doubtless, your own work far surpasses this. However, if you could add these to your own watchlist, and help maintain them, that would be good. Many thanks Giano (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I note you have recently decided to suppress evidence of Eric Corbett’s thousands of edits and details of the huge amount of pages he raised to FA and GA status.decided on?! Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 21:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
Thank you!
-- User:Martin Urbanec ( talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I see that you're not running for reelection to Arbcom. I read some of your comments over the past few years, and generally I like how you think. Thanks for your work. ↠Pine (✉) 17:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Happy Holidays! |
-- Cameron11598 (Talk) 21:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
この
ミラ
PはOpabinia regalisたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます!
フレフレ、みんなの未来!/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラ
P 03:05, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Imagine a cat behind the rose hips. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
My arbcom term is over, I decided not to continue on the two cases being carried over, and... for the first time in four years, there is nothing waiting for me to read/respond to/deal with in my Wikipedia inbox! Go me! Maybe I'll write an article or two sooner or later... :) Opabinia regalis ( talk) 09:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
La Palma |
---|
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
For your service on the Arbitration Committee. ↠Pine (✉) 20:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC) |
Did you know ...
... that
Elke Heidenreich,
two-time winner of the
Grimme television award,
wrote the book Nero Corleone
featuring a tomcat
as the bullying protagonist?
15 February 2020 (her birthday)
I brought a cat to the Main page ;) - a late Valentine -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
five years! |
---|
For music and such see my talk, working on two Bach compositions towards higher quality, including my song of defiance, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
↠Pine (✉) 02:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Re your re-RFA at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Why are we doing this. Just letting you know in case you don't get the ping, as you haven't edited since January. Graham 87 04:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Sadly longer and longer: the list of people for whose life we are thankful enough to improve their articles. - I have a FAC open, one of Monteverdi's exceptional works, in memory of Brian who passed me his collected sources. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
today a composer pictured (one from the list above, sadly) who wrote a triple concerto for violin, harp and double bass, in honour of the composer who died and my brother who plays double bass. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I have nominated DNA repair for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
The following users have voluntarily relinquished the Oversight permission:
The committee also belatedly acknowledges the resignation of SQL ( talk · contribs) as a CheckUser.
The Arbitration Committee extends its sincere thanks to Keegan, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, and SQL for their service as functionaries.
Katie talk 14:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I have nominated Cell nucleus for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. ( t · c) buidhe 22:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Beautiful Main page today, don't miss the pic by a blocked user (of a 2013 play critical of refugee politics), nor a related video, interviews mostly German, but music and scene. - How are you? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 23:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Beautiful Main page today, don't miss the pic by a blocked user (of a 2013 play critical of refugee politics), nor a related video, interviews mostly German, but music and scene. - How are you? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 23:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Today's DYK: to be sung "happily" - instead of turkey -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Hey OR, hope all is well. I saw this edit and, while I think the addition of "ub" is a typo, I don't know enough about this domain to be sure of that. — Earwig talk 00:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maltose-binding protein, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Outer membrane. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 06:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Gronenborn until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Blablubbs| talk 13:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed you'd returned to more active editing. Glad to see you back. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 22:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Six years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
wild garlic |
---|
More memories on the Main page today, Psalm 115 thinking of Yoninah, Christa Ludwig and Milva, - voices that made the Earth a better place. Sad that the psalm hook didn't appear on Earth Day as planned, but better pictured and late than going unnoticed ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Enjoy two ladies today, one played in an iconic film (picture a bit below, she plays with Die Fliege), the other sang in the premiere of a famous opera, with her husband-to-be ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Today: Kammermusik (Hindemith), - don't miss caricature, "badboy" and the review! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
See my talk today, - it's rare that a person is pictured when a dream comes true, and that the picture is shown on the Main page on a meaningful day. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
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. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 |
That statement on the most recent case request reminded me of this discussion about apologies for some reason. JoJo Eumerus mobile ( talk) 22:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I find this statements concerning. We all are capable of being upset, of being pushed to a limit and of reacting badly. I don't believe, with all respect to Iridescent, that these are the true colors of any editor. Why are we talking about stress testing people. How about just trying to get to the bottom of the issues at hand supporting editors and trying reintegrate them into the smooth workings of an encyclopedia. Seems to me that when we look for guilt we are already in trouble; when we push people to react then we are not getting to the bottom of the issues. I wonder if this is a punitive model. I'm not usually a talk page stalker but this caught my eye, really bothered me, and I couldn't not comment. By the way I was told many years ago by an arb that they seldom read everything so anyone posting should make it short and very very succinct. Littleolive oil ( talk) 18:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
read the diffs in context or examine the components of a case, but that's what the evidence page is for; the workshop these days is just a glorified talk page in which all the usual look-at-me types wade in explaining why the evidence proves that the best course of action is to block the guy with whom, by complete coincidence, they're currently in dispute. If we need to keep Arbcom (a big if), I personally don't feel anything would be lost if cases jumped straight from the evidence phase in which people post the relevant diffs and explain how they pertain to the case, to the PD page in which people discuss which parts of the evidence are potentially actionable and what the best action to take would be. There's absolutely no benefit to either the parties, the arbs, or the wider community in the current double-phase approach in which the proposals for the PD are effectively written twice, once with running commentary from the peanut gallery and once about.
I have had an interest in Arbitrations for many years not because of my own experiences which I believe in the end were fair although complex and convoluted, (and AE is another matter) but because I have seen well meaning editors lost to Wikipedia because the "ropes" at arbitration and even AE created an uneven playing field for those newer editors. I think Iridescent's suggestion for request page is excellent. But more importantly is something that is missing from the way arbitration functions now and that is that editors and especially newer editors do not always know what they will be sanctioned for, what the real issues are, what the arbs are looking at and might want to see in their deliberations. Experienced editors in the same situation know what arbs generally look at what, the trigger words are which can nail the coffin shut. What is lacking overall is transparency. We as experienced editors know lots of discussion goes on the background which the editor is not part of and often even understands. That can't be corrected, but an antidote can be created in a very concrete and transparent way by simply openly asking the editors questions, questions which are based on the issues the arbs see as problems. From the answers to those questions arbs will get a very good idea of the editor's knowledge, and understanding of what is going on. How often have I seen an editor say something innocently and with integrity that will hang them not because they did anything wrong but because they did not understand the situation and "looked" guilty. In this model, at this initial phase of a case there is no place for anyone else with an interest wether helpful or not to comment. That, if necessary, comes later. Experienced editors do not always realize how far they've cone in understanding the complexities of the Wikipedia culture, norms and language. Second to this arbs must not come into an arbitration with an agenda assuming guilt or innocence and must maintain the non-punitive stance Wikipedia was built on. Further, and on a less positive note experienced editors can know how to hang an inexperienced editor if that is their leaning. We have lost good editors this way as inexperienced editors trying to do the right thing but not understanding the culture are dragged to Arbitrations and sanctioned. Experienced editors don't see this as a problem since they may feel they are fighting for Wikipedia and the ends justify whatever means necessary to remove editors rather than integrate them. I realize there are many situations where editors are here to damage but an open transparent model where editors see and understand what the issues are because they are being asked about it should deal with that problem too. And no this isn't about me or my experiences, it's about a long term issue which I have viewed and wondered about and even written about [1] in the past. Dr Chrissy has since died but he was a good editor potentially great who could have been saved had he been dealt with differently. One thing I do disagree with is that the editor who becomes upset is not admitting in some subtle way to guilt. There are multiple reasons they might be upset. We can find out why by simply asking them. Littleolive oil ( talk) 17:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
The introduction of the workshop page was one of the worst things to happen to arbitration, in my view. The intentions were good, but the effect was to intensify disputes, rather than giving people a rest and allowing time for the strong feelings to die down between the evidence phase and the decision. Now after the dispute itself and perhaps an AN/I, we have a lengthy RfAr, followed by the evidence phase, followed by the workshop, followed almost immediately by the decision and the lengthy voting. It's too much to expect anyone to tolerate. I think these cases are affecting people's mental and physical health, and that we really ought to sort it out. SarahSV (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
(outdent) While I agree that the ArbCom case process might usefully be reviewed, the fact remains that at this point, the Committee hears only a handful of cases each year. If there's a will to push for improvement of dispute-resolution processes, then just from the point of view of benefitting the most participants, the much more frequently used forums such as AN and ANI might be a better place to focus attention. (I'd nominate the complexities of the discretionary sanctions system as another worthwhile target, but frankly I don't understand all the rules myself any more.) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
... with thanks from QAI |
On a recent trip, I took hundreds of pics, even six of cats thinking of you, but none of those was good enough to be uploaded. Click on "March" for some of the others, with thanks. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I made a little monument for a (distant) cousin who died, which the German Wikipedia kindly presented yesterday, on his birthday, - below the travel pics -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Four years! |
---|
moar thanks, and you said you like blue ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I nominated Eastern brown snake. Covered important venoms but maybe needs more detail...or too esoteric? Also looking at this but not so sure if anything else to include.....all input appreciated. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 01:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
"In fact, I'd go one further and say that a single instance of apparent misbehavior by a long-standing and otherwise reliable admin is a potential signal of broader and more serious underlying issues." ? -- GRuban ( talk) 16:03, 30 April 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 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
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 02:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||
Did you know a cat can jump higher than a house? It’s because of their extremely strong legs....and the fact that a house can’t jump. 🙀 Atsme Talk 📧 22:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Here, I had the perfect DYK for you, wanted to wait until it appears, BUT ... -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
No cat today. In teh history, I reached the stage of supplying something unwanted in an arbcase: facts. I wonder if anybody looked at them - until 3 years later. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
|
As you approach your 3.5 year mark for time on ArbCom, I just wanted to thank you for your service. I know that when I come across a comment of yours that I am going to read (a lot of text which will be) something that makes me think carefully whether I agree or disagree with your thinking. Thank you for being willing to benefit our quest to improve the world's knowledge by serving on this essential, if challenging in many aspects, group. Thanks and Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Six years ago, the shortest and sweetest infobox discussion I remember: Talk:Siegfried (opera)#Infobox. If I had been arbitrator, I'd have told all participants in the case: do it like this from now on ;) - Why, instead, happened what happened? Warum? - a work in progress dedicated to John. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:29, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
For being a sane and kind person. CyrilleDunant ( talk) 10:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Template:This user talk has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Viztor ( talk) 16:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
I have always thought of you as one of the members of ArbCom whose views I respect. You will not have heard much on the "Community response" page in the present crisis from the oppressed minority, the people at the receiving end of harassment, because the overwhelming response there is outrage that the Office took action, not that harassment occurred, and anyway, the victims are mostly gone, driven away from Wikipedia by the actions of others.
However, looking back at the case I attempted to open about Fram's behaviour back in October 2016, makes me really cross. The case was declined because ... well, apparently it was not ripe, no-one was interested in harassment, you suggested a boomerang. I thought it was dreadful that Nvvchar had been driven from Wikipedia in the way I described, but ArbCom was not interested. When I suggested the members were closing ranks in failing to take action against an influential administrator, I was reviled.
With ArbCom being unable or unwilling to take action against harassment, I approve the actions of the Office, following receiving and investigating complaints. AGF is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. The Office apparently gave warnings and eventually acted to ban Fram, so the community should AGF that they had sound reasons for doing so. Time to get on with building an encyclopedia. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 11:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
community is also reminded that they may issue topic bans without the involvement of the Arbitration Committee if consensus shows a user has repeatedly submitted poor content [to DYK]is something that's been explicitly established by Arbcom to the extent that it's good-as-policy. Given that at a rough estimate you're responsible for between 1⁄3 and 2⁄3 of all the errors that reach the main page, is a case in which the actions of all parties are considered really what you want to be angling for? ‑ Iridescent 14:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
cornflowers |
Thank you for the good advice to do so ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
WMF gets one of these wild hairs every two years or so? I'm baffled, perhaps because I'm not a native speaker. What kind of wild hair? Bishonen | talk 10:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC).
How not to catch a wild hare. The phrase is two-fold with the original referring to the skittish behavior of wild rabbits and their breeding ritual. The other is vulgar and has to do with the location of a wild hair, but really doesn't make much sense. Courtesy of Atsme's Rural Dictionary Atsme Talk 📧 13:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
That cat belly looks so soft. It's a trap, isn't it? Opabinia regalis ( talk) 08:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Franz Kafka: Das Schloss | |
---|---|
... about about alienation,
|
... best on a meadow ... -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Just wanted to say Thank You for your participation. Awilley & JFG helped get my alert up and running on my UTP. If you get a chance, check it out by trying to post a DS alert. Atsme Talk 📧 00:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
That's kind of you to say. That's a busy page, so I can't thank everyone who says nice things there - and some said even nicer things than you - but that particular comment came right when I was starting to get particularly disappointed in some of the other comments, so it came at just the right moment for me. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 17:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I watched DYK from my very first article on (nominated by someone else), so may possibly know a bit about it. Years ago, every hook got its own "nom template" (which isn't a template, but we have no better name), and all in the review process are transcluded to the " nom page". As that got too long, more recently those already approved got their own page where they stay until promoted to a preparation area, so only noms with no review yet or a review in process are on the nom page. However, changes to the page are only 1) moves of complete nom templates (manually or by bot), or 2) edits within one nom template. The latter usually includes only 2 people, the nominator and the reviewer (example: Template:Did you know nominations/A Clare Benediction). Sometimes there is more than one nominator (example: Template:Did you know nominations/Psalm 150), and sometimes more than one person comments (example Template:Did you know nominations/Lilian Benningsen). Any questions? - In a nutshell: while the nom templates are presented in close vicinity on the page, interactions stay within one nom template. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Please take a moment to look at User talk:Gerda Arendt/Archive 2019#Feeling fine on July nine, cat pic and especially "this user will not rest ...", - resting today, because that step was achieved, thanks to The Rambling Man. Hope is precious ... -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Email. ‑ Iridescent 2 08:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for supported my recent, albeit unsuccessful RfA. Your support was greatly appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC) |
Working on mulga snake and trying to figure out how much detail to go into about the venom. This page (115) in this book has a good overview. All input over how much detail (and how to phrase or expand upon cyclic nucleotide–gated ion channels) much appreciated.... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 04:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
red admiral | |
---|---|
... with thanks from QAI |
Hey there,
Just letting you know of this Signpost submission. It's based on work by Icewhiz, but he handed it over to me about a week ago and hasn't edited it since. I've made significant changed to the text and am pitching it myself, so there shouldn't be any problem with his T-ban. François Robere ( talk) 13:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't do the barnstarry stuff, but I would like to say that I was very impressed with your Fram-related editing; if only more Arbs could be bothered to spend time to dig more closely into complicated issues such as that. If you are considering standing again this time (and I must say I would not blame you in the slightest if you weren't), you would certainly have my vote. Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
OR, thank you for your hard work. I can only imagine how difficult this has been for all of you, and I appreciate the time and energy you all spent on this. -- valereee ( talk) 13:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
meadow saffron |
---|
... I agree -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't do the barnstarry stuff, but I would like to say that I was very impressed with your Fram-related editing; if only more Arbs could be bothered to spend time to dig more closely into complicated issues such as that. If you are considering standing again this time (and I must say I would not blame you in the slightest if you weren't), you would certainly have my vote. Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
... with thanks from QAI |
...is at FAC here ( Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/King brown snake/archive1) - any input on venom would be appreciated :) Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't do the barnstarry stuff, but I would like to say that I was very impressed with your Fram-related editing; if only more Arbs could be bothered to spend time to dig more closely into complicated issues such as that. If you are considering standing again this time (and I must say I would not blame you in the slightest if you weren't), you would certainly have my vote. Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
... with thanks from QAI |
Today, I am proud of a great woman on the Main page, Márta Kurtág, finally! - Here's my ideal candidate for arbcom, - restored to his talk, along with the precious-concersation which made me blush the most. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
...is at FAC here ( Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/King brown snake/archive1) - any input on venom would be appreciated :) Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello!
The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.
Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.
The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.
Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I note you have recently decided to suppress evidence of Eric Corbett’s thousands of edits and details of the huge amount of pages he raised to FA and GA status. Doubtless, your own work far surpasses this. However, if you could add these to your own watchlist, and help maintain them, that would be good. Many thanks Giano (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I note you have recently decided to suppress evidence of Eric Corbett’s thousands of edits and details of the huge amount of pages he raised to FA and GA status.decided on?! Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 21:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
Thank you!
-- User:Martin Urbanec ( talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I see that you're not running for reelection to Arbcom. I read some of your comments over the past few years, and generally I like how you think. Thanks for your work. ↠Pine (✉) 17:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Happy Holidays! |
-- Cameron11598 (Talk) 21:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
この
ミラ
PはOpabinia regalisたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます!
フレフレ、みんなの未来!/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラ
P 03:05, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Imagine a cat behind the rose hips. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
My arbcom term is over, I decided not to continue on the two cases being carried over, and... for the first time in four years, there is nothing waiting for me to read/respond to/deal with in my Wikipedia inbox! Go me! Maybe I'll write an article or two sooner or later... :) Opabinia regalis ( talk) 09:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
La Palma |
---|
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
For your service on the Arbitration Committee. ↠Pine (✉) 20:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC) |
Did you know ...
... that
Elke Heidenreich,
two-time winner of the
Grimme television award,
wrote the book Nero Corleone
featuring a tomcat
as the bullying protagonist?
15 February 2020 (her birthday)
I brought a cat to the Main page ;) - a late Valentine -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
five years! |
---|
For music and such see my talk, working on two Bach compositions towards higher quality, including my song of defiance, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
↠Pine (✉) 02:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Re your re-RFA at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Why are we doing this. Just letting you know in case you don't get the ping, as you haven't edited since January. Graham 87 04:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Sadly longer and longer: the list of people for whose life we are thankful enough to improve their articles. - I have a FAC open, one of Monteverdi's exceptional works, in memory of Brian who passed me his collected sources. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
today a composer pictured (one from the list above, sadly) who wrote a triple concerto for violin, harp and double bass, in honour of the composer who died and my brother who plays double bass. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I have nominated DNA repair for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
The following users have voluntarily relinquished the Oversight permission:
The committee also belatedly acknowledges the resignation of SQL ( talk · contribs) as a CheckUser.
The Arbitration Committee extends its sincere thanks to Keegan, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, and SQL for their service as functionaries.
Katie talk 14:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I have nominated Cell nucleus for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. ( t · c) buidhe 22:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Beautiful Main page today, don't miss the pic by a blocked user (of a 2013 play critical of refugee politics), nor a related video, interviews mostly German, but music and scene. - How are you? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 23:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Beautiful Main page today, don't miss the pic by a blocked user (of a 2013 play critical of refugee politics), nor a related video, interviews mostly German, but music and scene. - How are you? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 23:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Today's DYK: to be sung "happily" - instead of turkey -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Hey OR, hope all is well. I saw this edit and, while I think the addition of "ub" is a typo, I don't know enough about this domain to be sure of that. — Earwig talk 00:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maltose-binding protein, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Outer membrane. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 06:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Gronenborn until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Blablubbs| talk 13:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed you'd returned to more active editing. Glad to see you back. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 22:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Six years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
wild garlic |
---|
More memories on the Main page today, Psalm 115 thinking of Yoninah, Christa Ludwig and Milva, - voices that made the Earth a better place. Sad that the psalm hook didn't appear on Earth Day as planned, but better pictured and late than going unnoticed ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Enjoy two ladies today, one played in an iconic film (picture a bit below, she plays with Die Fliege), the other sang in the premiere of a famous opera, with her husband-to-be ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Today: Kammermusik (Hindemith), - don't miss caricature, "badboy" and the review! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
See my talk today, - it's rare that a person is pictured when a dream comes true, and that the picture is shown on the Main page on a meaningful day. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)