User talk:WJBscribe: Difference between revisions

13:36, Saturday 19 October 2024

Userpage (commons · meta)	Talk (Archives)	Gallery	Barnstars	Drafts

Hi! Please leave a message and I'll get back to you... Don't hesitate to get in touch if you have a question or need help. I'll do my best and can probably point you in the right direction if it isn't something I can sort out myself. Will

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	I appreciate your contributions regarding my topic ban as well as your thoughts on Arbitration Enforcement. --MONGO 13:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... and five! Happy 2019, with new images! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bots Newsletter, March 2018

Greetings! Here is the 5th issue of the Bots Newsletter (formerly the BAG Newletter). You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding/removing your name from this list. Highlights for this newsletter include: ARBCOM Magioladitis 2 happened, leading to further restrictions on Magioladitis (decision, summary). Betacommand 3 was proposed to be amended to lift the indefinite ban on Δ, but was unsuccessful (decision). A motion concerning Crosswiki issues (mostly concerning Wikidata) was passed (see discussion). BAG Hersfold was removed from the BAG due to long term inactivity. BRFAs We currently have 6 open bot requests at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, and could use your help processing! Discussions While there were no large-scale bot-related discussion in the past few months, you can check WP:BOTN and WT:BOTPOL (and their corresponding archives) for smaller issues that came up. New things WP:BOTDICT, a dictionary of common bot-related terms (see discussion). 6 inactive bots have been deflagged (see discussion). The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey happened. Two bot-related proposal passed, #6 deploy Article Alerts to other languages and #10 Commons deletion notification bot, although other entries may affect bots as well. Category:Wikipedia bots and its subcategories has had some cleanup. Bot-related pages that were historically important but are no longer of interests can be found in Category:Wikipedia bots (historical) The edit summary limit has been increased to 1000 characters (see T6715). If a bot you operate relied on the old truncation limit (255 characters), please review/update your code, as overly long summaries can be disruptive/annoying. If you want to use extra characters to have more information in your edit summary, please do so intelligently. You will soon be able to ping users from the edit summary (see T188469). If you wish to use this feature in your bot, please do so intelligently. Upcoming HTML Tidy will be phased out in June 2018, or possibly earlier. This may affect some bots (see FAQ). Thank you! edited by: Headbomb 03:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply] (You can subscribe or unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Somewhat surprised at your surprise over Lourdes' temperament/dressing down of Acalamari since you !voted in her first RFA where the exact same temperament issues were raised. Surprised to see she passed #2 with flying colors, yet not at all surprised that the same behavior is present. Somewhat hoping she doesn't come back to reclaim her bit, since I don't see this ending well. StarM 03:08, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know that there was such a discussion 4 years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_111#Retain_the_opt-in_requirement

I see that well over 100 people had privacy concerns but the end result was to eliminate privacy (about 170 or so votes) and some other votes in other categories.

Independently, and without knowing of the 2014 results, I raised a very similar question to RickinBaltimore because he is an AC member and I didn't know who to ask. He suggested VPP. Someone writing in VPP supplied the above link.

Often with privacy, we err on the side of more privacy so consideration should be given to those 100+ people. How can we have a less private English Wikipedia and a more private other than English Wikipedia?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#time_edited,_a_privacy_issue

I view this issue as privacy being important even though you could think of an excuse for less privacy. For example, when you are in a public street, you give up privacy. People can tabulate when you leave your house. However, I am confident that people would consider it an invasion of privacy if a sign were posted in front of your home/flat showing the times that you leave the house and come back, along with the days of the week. This is exactly what English Wikipedia does. True, someone could tabulate what time and dates you edit but there is a linked tool that shows exactly how often you edit on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, etc. and what time you edit during those days.

I believe many people don't want that information displayed. What do you think can be a way to resolve this issue? Vanguard10 (talk) 03:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow bureaucrats, in regards to a current RfA that has met its time, I would like your assistance in judging the community consensus presented in the discussion at Jbhunley's RfA. Your input would be most welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jbhunley/Bureaucrat chat. Best regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bots Newsletter, August 2018

Greetings! Here is the 6th issue of the Bots Newsletter. You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding/removing your name from this list. Highlights for this newsletter include: ARBCOM Nothing particular important happened. Those who care already know, those who don't know wouldn't care. The curious can dig ARBCOM archives themselves. BAG There were no changes in BAG membership since the last Bots Newsletter. Headbomb went from semi-active to active. In the last 3 months, only 3 BAG members have closed requests - help is needed with the backlog. BOTREQs and BRFAs As of writing, we have... 24 active BOTREQs, please help if you can! 5 open BRFAs and 3 BRFAs in need of BAG attention (see live status). 54 approved bot tasks since the start of 2018. Of note, Community Tech bot 5 (the #10 Wish on the 2017 Community Survey) was approved to notify users concerning problematic images and files from Wikimedia Commons. Also If you're a bot operator that can help with Tidy/Linter error cleanup (see discussion, discussion), please file a BRFA! 8 inactive bots have been deflagged (see discussion, discussion, discussion). Discussions These are some of the discussions that happened / are still happening since the last Bots Newsletter. Many are stale, but some are still active. Use of tags by bots – Exploring the use of a new 'bot' tag. Mass page moves – Bot policy question/clarification about mass moves. Creation of redirects – Bot policy question/clarification about the creation of redirects. Guidance on disruptive use of semi–automated tools? – Related to meatbots (see also MOS discussion, which resulted in small addition to MOS:VAR). Discussion concerning WP:BOTFLAG/WP:RC – A reminder that bots should use the bot flag when it makes sense to use it (see also VPT discussion and CREATEBOT update). Out of curiosity... (to all bot operators) – BotPasswords vs OAuth usage amongst bot operators. Introducing Toolhub – Toolhub is looking for feedback. New things {{Automated tools}}, a new template linking to user-activated tools and scripts has been created. It can be used in articles previews, and can be placed on any non-mainspace page/template (e.g. {{Draft article}}) to provide convenient links to editors. AWB 5.10.0.0 is out, after nearly 20 months without updates. If you run an old version, you will be prompted to install the new version automatically. See the changelog for what's new. Note that the next version will require .NET Framework 4.5. Many thanks to Reedy and the AWB team. BotWatch, "a listing of editors that have made >2 edits per minute [without] a bot flag", is being developed by SQL (see discussion). Massive updates and improvements have been made to Citation bot in the past few months (see discussions, discussions, discussions). You can activate the bot here, amongst other methods. HTML Tidy has been phased out (see Tech News #28). {{Newbot}} has been reorganized a bit (diff). In particular, it links to previously approved BRFAs (see discussion). Wikipedia:Bots#See also has been reorganized a bit (diff). The bot dictionary has two new entries, context bot and context-sensitive edit. The bot request header has been updated to include better guidance (see discussion). The subcategories of Category:Wikipedia bot requests for approval have been sorted in a consistent manner to make past BRFAs easier to find. Thank you! edited by: Headbomb 15:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply] (You can subscribe or unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding or removing your name from this list.)

I am unsure of the reasoning to revert my changes to the Castaibert page. First, obviously if I could have created the page, I would have; however my information is lacking. Second, red-linking is a accepted and necessary means of promoting article growth. Finally, he should be referred to his actual name in his language as opposed to the anglicized name Paul. I have been editing less than normal for a while so forgive my possible lack of changes. - speednat (talk)

The reason is that the page is a redirect, not an article. Although we include red links in articles to promote creation of missing content, we do not redirect pages to non-existent pages, because this hinders navigation. You will see that redirecting pages to pages that do not exist is given as an example under "Avoiding creation of certain types of red links" at WP:REDNO. Until an article about the person is created, the redirect to the page about the aircraft looks valid. WJBscribe (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and sorry, I am a little out of practice. But I see that the link to Pablo is still red which is what I felt was needed. If I had the necessary books or info I would add the page but I seem to be hitting empty on all 4000 of my books. - speednat (talk)

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:INTADMIN#Alternative proposal, quick expiry only. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Hi WJB, thanks for your last post at AE - I hope you won’t mind me coming here, as it strikes me another back and forth there would be off topic. We have each said everything relevant there I think. I am here simply to answer your implicit question as to why I reacted so strongly, even though I know that it was never going to be helpful to my case to do so.

You wrote: “I expressed sympathy for your appeal, said that what gave me pause were words you had recently written and in response I have been accused of acting outrageously, misrepresenting you and casting aspersions. All for daring to react to your own words.”

My strength of feeling was actually due to your two statements: “that comment makes it clear to me that Onceinawhile would benefit from...” and “battleground mindsets“.

These statements are very personal in nature - you made a comment on the content and then extrapolated to comments on the contributor. You made the comments in good faith and in order to support a relevant discussion, so I don’t object per se the fact that they were personal, I just expect to see a MUCH higher standard of care being taken when comments are made on editors “mindsets” or similar. Perhaps you did apply such a standard, but you haven’t mentioned it yet.

Onceinawhile (talk) 11:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind at all. That said, I'm not sure why you came here - to resolve or continue conflict? I ask because you have complained at WP:AE that I quoted you out of context, something that I don't agree with but is always a risk when not including all of a comment. However, we are all constrained in space and I have no objection to you shortening two of my statements above. But please note how you have quoted my second statement and the lack of ellipses (which you used when quoting the first statement) even though it is a quotation of part of a sentence. What I said was "I don’t think WW1 anniversaries excuse expressions of battleground mindsets..." (my emphasis). The way you have quoted me above makes it appear that I made a comment about your mindset, rather than about how you expressed yourself. I didn't. It's the difference between saying someone was angry and that they sounded angry. And it is important here because the rest of your comment focuses on whether it was appropriate for me to comment on your mindset, which actually I didn't. You even deliberately linked the word personal to "Wikipedia:No personal attacks" (by which I assume you mean to suggest a breach of that policy). But I doubt there are many who would find a personal attack there. So I'm not sure where that leaves us. I do appreciate you stopping by to clarify your position, but I'm not sure we're going to make a lot of progress if we continue like this. WJBscribe (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That’s fair enough.

I came here simply to explain and try to clean up misunderstandings. Communicating solely in written form is always a challenge because without tone and body language it is hard to communicate feelings. I don’t see any benefit to conflict between us; I simply hoped it may be possible to develop some mutual respect. My post(s) here are intended to be read in a conciliatory manner.

For the record, the point about “expressions of” is why I used the term “casting aspersions” at the AE. Perhaps I used the wrong term? It seemed to me that the “expressions of” precursor had little meaning, because the way you built to your conclusion implied to the community that you absolutely considered that I must actually have such a mentality. The same is true for the “benefit from” statement. In both cases I accept that you did not fill in all the gaps in writing, but working back from your conclusion, I can’t see any other logical interpretation of what you meant.

Either way, I accept your point about the parallels between our quoting of each other.

On your second point, I don’t think you breached policy, for the reason I said - the context of your comment, the AE review, requires an assessment of the contributor, and you made yours in good faith. But I absolutely consider it an insult to be accused of having a battleground mindset, even if the accusation was made indirectly or by implication.

None of which goes to the actual point that I feel strongly about, which I will not repeat.

Regards, Onceinawhile (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS – I just found the time to look up the meaning of “casting aspersions”. I see it has a much simpler and slightly different meaning (“making negative statements or accusations”) than I had always understood. Until now, I have incorrectly used it to mean a more negative form of “casting doubt”. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Casting aspersions - the phrase has featured in a number of past ArbCom decisions... WJBscribe (talk) 01:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. From a purely semantic point of view, why do you think that policy uses the term “casting aspersions” rather than the simpler “personal attacks”. Is there a nuance in there? Pinging @Wbm1058: who created the page in case they can shed any light. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) One can cast aspersions unintentionally, but something is only an attack if it's done with the intent to damage. When decisions written in Bradspeak make the distinction between the two, they're distinguishing between whether the comment itself was the problem (aspersions), or the attitude of the person making the comment was the problem (attacks). It's an apparently minor point, but it can be a significant one. ‑ Iridescent 09:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if "Bradspeak" will ever have a place in the Oxford Dictionary... ;) Kurtis ^(talk) 01:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I started this page three years ago (around the time of an ArbCom election) because it was redirecting to one specific case, and I didn't think that was right. So I found several cases also stating the principle and made it a general overview, for the purpose of explaining this oft-misunderstood term. Iridescent's comment is insightful; I'm not a close-enough follower of ArbCom proceedings to have noticed that. I pay the most attention to ArbCom at this time of year, then most of the rest of the year I'm usually focused on gnoming mainspace. I've thought about reviewing the archive of ArbCom decisions to make more pages like Wikipedia:Casting aspersions that show Committee "principles", but to date that's the only one I've done. wbm1058 (talk) 13:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Wikipedia talk:Casting aspersions, where in response to a clarification request, Brad explains, and other Committee members concur. First time I've noticed that discussion. wbm1058 (talk) 13:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. That talk page explanation is fascinating. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Onceinawhile: it was actually Sandstein who started the Wikipedia:ASPERSIONS page back in 2013, first linking to the Climate Change ArbCom case, then the Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds case. It was much used at AE a while...in the IP area (where socks are rampant) you learned soon to not say what everyone knew was true, when a "new" obvious sock appeared....as that was "Casting aspersions", Huldra (talk) 20:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 27, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 27, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WJBscribe. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is incredibly pointless, but your close of Wikipedia:Requests for BAG membership/Coren noted 23 supports, but AFAICT there are 25? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, good spot - looks like I didn't update the tally [1] when I closed it - no automatic tallies back in those days! WJBscribe (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello -

I put in a request to have this title unprotected at WP:RPP, and the admin there asked me to ask you about unprotection first, since you were the protecting admin in 2008. I have drafted an article at User:Chubbles/Daniel Brandt; Brandt meets WP:MUSIC and the article I have written is robustly sourced. Would you mind having a look? Our discussion is at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Daniel Brandt. Chubbles (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page watcher dropping in to make a quick comment. @Chubbles:, I'd urge you to search for and include more independent references for that article, so that it is obvious the subject not just meets, but really exceeds, minimal notability standards for musicians. There is an excellent reason why that article title is "salted" (the original subject was *not* the musician you are writing about), and it is on the watchlist of a few hundred longtime editors, so any new article creation should be rock-solid. I'm pretty hardline on notability, so I'd suggest you get the opinion of several other editors before proceeding to move this to mainspace.

WJBscribe, apologies for jumping in early. I'd suggest that if you do decide to un-salt, you leave the deleted revisions deleted. I can provide more details as to why if you need them, but I suspect you can figure it out by yourself. Risker (talk) 04:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Chubbles: and thanks @Risker:. As Risker says, there are good reasons why the article is currently protected against recreation, but the old article was not about the musician. The deleted revisions would stay deleted, but the page could be unprotected to allow recreation. I actually think it is an excellent idea to have an article about someone else with that name. Notability of musicians is not a topic about which I claim any expertise, but Risker is probably correct that some extra eyes would be a good idea on this special case. Aside from anything else, I am reluctant to risk the page being edited to change it from being about the musician to being about the subject of the deleted article after it is unprotected.
Perhaps it is worth posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music if that WikiProject is active? If a consensus is in favour of your article being created, I would be happy to unprotect the page. WJBscribe (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I occasionally weigh in at WikiProject Music, and can take it there if you think it decreases the chances of an ugly AfD from people uninterested in the scope of our coverage in music. I've also left comments at RPP - ultimately, I want the solution that results in this article going live (somewhere) with the least amount of drama for myself and any involved admins. Chubbles (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi WJBScribe - just to let you know that I completed the page moves very early today (well, technically, late last night my time), and that Chubbles' draft article is now moved to mainspace at the most appropriate article title, Daniel Brandt. Took me a bit longer than I expected - finding archived talk pages was a bit bizarre, and all of the pages were really big. I am probably responsible for the death of a server kitty or two. But it's done. Another weird chapter in Wikipedia history. Risker (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Risker: Thanks for sorting. I've semi protected and move protected the page to deter casual mischief and will keep an eye on the page. WJBscribe (talk) 13:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe we discussed this and consensus was not to protect this new page pre-emptively. Samsara 00:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • If you link me to the discussion I’ll take a look and reconsider. The discussion I participated in, which you closed, doesn’t appear to have included consideration of longer term semi protection and I can’t see a more recent discussion at RfPP. Given the particular sensitivities in this individual case, it would take lot to convince me that preemptive protection was unwarranted. WJBscribe (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      • That's the one. To remind you: "change Daniel Brandt into a dab - probably not too big a deal. Time would tell if Daniel Brandt (musician) would also need some form of protection." Nobody dissented with that proposal, only the name of the page changed from Daniel Brandt (musician) to Daniel Brandt. So we have discussed it, and you were part of that discussion. Pre-emptive protection is not covered by policy - policy explicitly states that semi, PC and ECP should not be applied pre-emptively, and that doing so is "contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia". I strongly believe that normal users should be given the opportunity to edit this page until (and unless!) this proves infeasible. And perhaps we may discover along the way that some of our fears will evaporate. Samsara 07:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

        • I'm confused. Protection was suggested in the discussion as a potential outcome for a different title and no one objected? I don't see how this can be described as "consensus was not to protect" this title. There was either no consensus or a tacit consensus that protection may prove needed (on the basis of a proposal that met with no resistance).
          I'm familiar with the general policy against pre-emptive protection, but I don't agree that this is pre-emptive. An article of this name has been the subject of sustained problematic editing and the protection is justified on that basis. The move protection is in effect just a continuation of my salting of the page post deletion, designed to prevent recreation of the article about the former subject. The semi protection is intended to reduce the chance casual reinsertion of material about the former subject, or a wholesale rewriting of the article. The protection is not speculative, it reflects my assessment of the particular risks posed by this article in the context of its wider history. In response to your point, leaving the page unprotected has already proved infeasible. The fact that the page history of problematic editing has been deleted, moved and oversighted does not mean that it should be disregarded when considering appropriate steps to protect the subjects of BLPs (and/or, for that matter, Wikipedians). WJBscribe (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I see DB still has the power to cause discord, gnashing of teeth, and disruption. Just like old times, I guess. Glad I missed it. Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this RevDel action of yours, I don't see any reason this needs to be redacted. Please note, that according to WP:REVDEL#Log redaction, it should not be used merely to cover your won mistakes; and the accusation you made (vandalism to our web site), especially given its immediate redaction, doesn't justify redaction. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this should be undone. I believe your intent was not to hide your action but to spare the user an otherwise spotless block log, but that is not justification for hiding the entry. An apologetic unblock entry, an apology to the user, and a self-trout are sufficient. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi both. Old Mishenu, I think the accusation that I used the tool to “cover your won mistakes” (sic) was an unnecessary accusation of bad faith on your part. Both my message to the user concerned and my entry in the log plainly demonstrated that isn’t the case. Amory is closer to the money but the reason for my use of the tool is recorded in the log, “potentially libellous/defamatory”. The rev deleted entry amounted to an accusation that the user concerned had vandalised Wikipedia in a manner that called for a block. That is untrue, and therefore defamatory of the user concerned. I stand by the rev deletion, but do not feel sufficiently strongly about it to want to get into a long argument. If either of you feel strongly enough about the issue that you wish to reverse my action, I will not object. WJBscribe (talk) 11:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly had no intention of turning this into a big thing! I've gone and undone the revdel, though, basically per everything said here. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• (talk page stalker) Without speculating on the motivation, this seems to fall easily in the 'ordinary manner' condition of when not to RevDel logs described in the policy. The rapid retraction in the next log alleviates the first action sufficiently. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • In order for it to be removable as “potentially libellous/defamatory”, it must be an accusation which a reasonable viewer may believe to be true. A block of an account for on-site activity, followed by an immediate unblock for a reason which clearly indicates the block in question was applied to the wrong user, is clearly not an accusation to be believed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   Wow,that was a tremendous relief: I succeeding in making my personally-conventional two-Non-breaking-space, single vanilla-blank indent at the beginning of a 'graph, --- Note: By request from Jerzy, I am interrupting this conversation. I am his wife. (My full name is Gini Kramer. My contact information is as follows: ginikramer@comcast.net, phone/text 203-676-5381 )For the moment, I am typing his dictation. The following paragraphs are Jerzy's dictation.

So, Jerzy is my Wikipedia ID. I am an administrator. I've been an administrator since 2003, 2004 or 2005. At the instigation of user:angela and now I'm 72 and a half and getting pretty daffy. But still understand what my responsibilities as an administrator are. I doubt that I am going to abuse my permissions but I also doubt that it's worth my leaving that possibility open. So probably the first thing worth discussing is downgrading my status at least one level. I'd like to continue editing; it wouldn't hurt to have someone at least occasionally reviewing my edits to see that I haven't done anything unusually stupid, taking into account how routine it is for editors to do something stupid and our ability to bounce back from such occasions. The reason I thought a bureaucrat might be a useful status from the person I appealed for help from is that I'm pretty sure a bureaucrat could do the downgrading of my permissions, and also facilitate the recovery or changing of my password which briefly I thought I had rediscovered but to no avail. I've been logged in with my administrator privilege for longer than I remember; I have the feeling that it used to be necessary to "refresh" it annually, but I suspect it's been over a year and maybe several since I did so. So I conjecture that rule changed. But I'm kind of stuck with an iPad2 that's been dropped, logged in with my admin status in effect. My hard drive on my real computer having probably been recycled though our internet provider is still providing service to our wifi and the wikipedia server understands that my account is in fact the Jerzy account. I went to a library a month or so ago and did some work, and chatted with some kind of live wikipedia helper who instructed me on upgrading my security level on my account. I printed out the procedure at the library and have those instructions somewhere close at hand (though I've forgotten where) and did not act on that recommendation. I've got plenty of projects I'd like to continue on, at least as an editor, even though I don't think I would trust myself as an admin too much longer. The iPad2 is a F'g PITA, and I'm going to need a password reset which perhaps should be executed by you, if that conforms to policy.

The last thing I want to do is stop editing. But the admin powers are probably pointless as a needless risk -- though I'd love to be designated as as "administrator emeritus." I'm not sure what medium I'm going to use from now on but there's no great rush to settle that. Libraries are one possibility; at the moment buying a computer that I can edit comfortably on sounds to me like the sort of ridiculous extravagance my wife would lavish on me if I would let her. But not a socially and ethically and politically acceptable choice in my mind. (We'll have to argue that out for ourselves.)

Maybe the crucial question is: is your lowering my privileges at least to vanilla-registered editor and notifying my wife, Gini Kramer, of my new password an appropriate course of action at this point?

Thanks for reading this tome. I look forward to your response.

--2601:199:C202:287E:7C7F:519E:95D9:67A6 (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]