User talk:AlexEng

Note: You are welcome to email me, but I will always reply on Wikipedia. If your question/concern seems private, I will reply as ambiguously as possible, or I will not reply.

Dude, relax. This isn't an edit war, it's maintaining the status quo while an ongoing discussion takes place: which is very normal. Adding the comment about the officer's death initially is fine: I'm willing to believe you didn't see the talk page. But then you added it again after I directed you to the talk page, and you even called the whole debate "ridiculous". It's not ridiculous at all, which is why we're having a discussion. I would have thought an editor who has been around as long as you should know how this works: given how controversial this is, we need to achieve a consensus. Especially on an article as volatile as the Capitol storming. Please just relax yourself and wait for consensus to be achieved: the article will be fine in the meantime. — Czello 21:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Czello: Honestly, I don't think it should be this controversial... The line I added proceeds one that says The department responded to "a couple of incidents" where officers threatened to harm themselves; one officer turned in her weapon because she feared what she would do with it. Do you consider that controversial too? I'm not saying we should articulate in Wikipedia's voice that the officer's suicide is a direct result of the riots. I'm only saying we should do what the sources do and just mention it within the context of the riots, in the appropriate section, with no added embellishment. Why is that controversial? AlexEng^(TALK) 21:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's controversial because it's been removed several times in the past (and I wasn't the first) which is why we're having the talk page debate in the first place. All I'm asking for is calm while we wait for a consensus to emerge; that's all. If consensus decides in favour of including it, then I'm happy for it to be included. Let's not jump the gun while the debate is still ongoing. — Czello 22:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine, but it's a moving target. The people who !voted in the first day or two were making their decisions based on the fact that it was only supported by tabloids like the NYPost. At that time, we weren't even sure it was a suicide. Now, it's pretty widely reported in reliable sources. Anyway, I didn't draw any conclusions regarding the officer's motivation for killing himself. Was the previously removed text the same as what I added? AlexEng^(TALK) 22:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The solution to that isn't to ignore the discussion and shoe-horn your own preferred version into the article; it's to raise this in the discussion itself and maybe ping the relevant parties. You could have even raised an RfC to draw attention to the fact that the sources have changed. — Czello 22:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Ethnic cleansing and Talk:2020 Ganja missile attacks on "Politics, government, and law" request for comments. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Arbitration

• The standard discretionary sanctions authorized for American Politics were amended by motion to cover post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people, replacing the 1932 cutoff.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2021 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2021, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2021, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Wikipedia has now been around for 20 years, and recently saw its billionth edit!

---

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

Administrator changes

TJMSmith

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

Interface administrator changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
• A request for comment is in progress to remove F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a, which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
• A request for comment seeks to grant page movers the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at Wikipedia:Page mover/delete-redirect.
• A request for comment asks if sysops may place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
• There is a discussion in progress concerning automatic protection of each day's featured article with Pending Changes protection.

Technical news

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

Arbitration

• By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
• The Kurds and Kurdistan case was closed, authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2021 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AmandaNP, Operator873, Stanglavine, Teles, and Wiki13.

---

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Conservative Political Action Conference on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Goths on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

• A community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure is open until April 25.

---

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2021 New York City mayoral election on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found you on the list: Wikipedia:Translators_available#Russian-to-English.

I'm looking for someone to translate an article from Russian Wikipedia that does not seem to have an article in English Wikipedia, ru: Альянс врачей. They an organisation being mentioned in recent news about Alexey Navalny. There's no information about them in English Wikipedia but there is extensive article in Russian Wikipedia. I can't find any mention of them in English Wikipedia using that specific Russian name "Альянс врачей", or a literal translation "Alliance of Doctors".

Irtapil (talk) 01:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

Enchanter • Carlossuarez46

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, consensus was found that third party appeals are allowed but discouraged.
• The 2021 Desysop Policy RfC was closed with no consensus. Consensus was found in a previous RfC for a community based desysop procedure, though the procedure proposed in the 2021 RfC did not gain consensus.

Technical news

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

Arbitration

• The community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.

---

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

Administrator changes

Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless

Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)

Guideline and policy news

• Consensus was reached to deprecate Wikipedia:Editor assistance.
• Following a Request for Comment the Book namespace was deprecated.

Technical news

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

Arbitration

• After a Clarification request, the Arbitration Committee modified Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case. This means sourcing expectations are a discretionary sanction instead of being present on all articles. It also details using the talk page or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to discuss disputed sources.

---

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Green-Wood Cemetery on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Fidesz on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AlexEng,

I was wondering if you were going to be working on this sandbox article. A Wikipedia bot has to keep removing images from the page as they get deleted and I'm not sure whether you were keeping this page around for your personal use or you were actively editing it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: thank you for notifying me. I am editing wikipedia only very rarely these days, so I doubt that I'll get around to fixing the issue that I had with that page. It can be deleted as needed. Thanks again! AlexEng^(TALK) 16:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Eoin Ó Broin on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

• The community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.

---

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

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

• Following an amendment request, the committee has clarified that the Talk page exception to the 500/30 rule in remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case does not apply to requested move discussions.

Miscellaneous

• You can vote for candidates in the 2021 Board of Trustees elections from 4 August to 17 August. Four community elected seats are up for election.

---

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2022 South Korean presidential election on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

Jake Wartenberg

Emperor • Viridian Bovary

Ashleyyoursmile → Viridian Bovary

Guideline and policy news

• Feedback is requested on the Universal Code of Conduct enforcement draft by the Universal Code of Conduct Phase 2 drafting committee.
• A RfC is open on whether to allow administrators to use extended confirmed protection on high-risk templates.
• A discussion is open to decide when, if ever, should discord logs be eligible for removal when posted onwiki (including whether to oversight them)
• A RfC on the next steps after the trial of pending changes on TFAs has resulted in a 30 day trial of automatic semi protection for TFAs.

Technical news

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

Arbitration

• A request for comment is in progress to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. Comments and new proposals are welcome.

Miscellaneous

• The 2021 RfA review is now open for comments.

---

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Ahvaz on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, extended confirmed protection may be used preemptively on certain high-risk templates.
• Following a discussion at the Village Pump, there is consensus to treat discord logs the same as IRC logs. This means that discord logs will be oversighted if posted onwiki.

Technical news

• DiscussionTools has superseded Enterprisey's reply-link script. Editors may switch using the "Discussion tools" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features.

Arbitration

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

Miscellaneous

• Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
• The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.

---

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Havana syndrome on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

• Toolhub is a catalogue of tools which can be used on Wikimedia wikis. It is at https://toolhub.wikimedia.org/.

Arbitration

• GeneralNotability, Mz7 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections. Ivanvector and John M Wolfson are reserve commissioners.
• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves to stand in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections from 07 November 2021 until 16 November 2021.

Miscellaneous

• The 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of five new CheckUsers and two new Oversighters.

---

Hi Alex. You tagged me, but by the time I saw it, the discussion had already been closed. I was thinking of messaging you to respond, but only remembered to do it now.

I did revert an edit because another GSoW editor posted on FB about the SPA vandalizing that page. They didn't ask for anyone else to get involved, they just said "An SPA attempted to rewrite this…". I checked to see what had been done and the SPA had made changes again, so I just undid them. The thing is: it was completely uncontroversial.

If anyone says I shouldn't have done that because I learned about the SPA trying to EW from a post on Facebook, I'll have to ask "why?" It's not like there was a discussion and one of ours was "losing it" or something. It's not like there was the slightest chance in hell that the user I reverted would be not be considered "NOT HERE to build an encyclopedia". It can't be "abuse" if it didn't change the outcome of things. I just call the WP:SNOWBALL clause.

So, that's what happened, I hope you understand my position on this matter. If you think there is a problem with what I did, I'll read it and consider it, but I think I already explained myself enough. Please tag me if you respond, I'm not watching this page. Cheers! VdSV9•♫ 20:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@VdSV9: that might be interpreted as an action which is against the letter, if not the spirit, of WP:CANVASSING. However, since that was an uncontroversial edit, I think it's clearly a scenario where WP:IAR applies. Canvassing editors to establish a false appearance of consensus through reverts is an actual thing which is against policy, but I don't think that was the case here. There are probably a lot of eyes on GSoW now since the ANI drama. I hope you and the others make efforts to keep your edits above reproach, as even the appearance of impropriety would probably result in more annoying drama to contend with. Best wishes! AlexEng^(TALK) 21:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Politics of Austria on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Lachin on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ديلي سبايدر جلي (talk) 17:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections is open until 23:59, 06 December 2021 (UTC).
• The already authorized standard discretionary sanctions for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), broadly construed, have been made permanent.

---

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Lakhimpur Kheri violence on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of presidents of the United States on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. Had the options been made available at the List of presidents of the United States RFC? I would've supported removing the vice presidents from the article & likewise, remove the presidents from the List of vice presidents of the United States article. GoodDay (talk) 06:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, GoodDay. You can always suggest another option. RfCs are not intended to present a false dichotomy (trichotomy?). I always invite participants to add their own proposals to my own RfCs, as this user chose to do. At this stage in the discussion, it may make sense to ping all of the participants in the relevant section to reassess their responses. AlexEng^(TALK) 07:11, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I'll bring up the idea at the RFC. GoodDay (talk) 07:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought your AE report was good and sufficient, even if people were slow to comment on it. You might actually get better traction in ANI, but it's a crap shoot. Anyway, I don't think you're barking up the wrong tree.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: Thank you. I appreciate the sentiment. In any case, it seems like the user is no longer being disruptive, so the necessity for administrative action seems to be stale. If it happens again, then I'm sure it'll get a faster response at ANI when it's filed. AlexEng^(TALK) 09:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Pig War (1859) on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dinkus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Subsection. 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) 05:55, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Looks like I had missed one. AlexEng^(TALK) 06:09, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Guideline and policy news

• Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

• Additionally, consensus for proposal 6C of the 2021 RfA review has led to the creation of an administrative action review process. The purpose of this process will be to review individual administrator actions and individual actions taken by users holding advanced permissions.

Arbitration

• Following the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Cabayi, Donald Albury, Enterprisey, Izno, Opabinia regalis, Worm That Turned, Wugapodes.

Miscellaneous

• The functionaries email list (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.

---

It feels like we've come to a logical conclusion on this, so I'd prefer to collapse it. Thanks, everyone, for your time and respectful conversation. Please feel welcome to come back any time. AlexEng(TALK) 21:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(Moved here from my talk page to avoid Even More Drama. --Guy) Hi, Guy. I saw that you posted a request to have your voluntary I-Ban removed at WP:AN. I know that you didn't commit to returning, but I am hopeful that you do come back to editing regularly. The project has lost a lot of good editors, and you were one of the best. It's not the same without you, and I hope to see you come back someday. Best wishes, AlexEng(TALK) 10:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] That would be entirely up to Floquenbeam. My only condition for returning is that he simply agree to step aside and let other administrators deal with any misbehavior on my part. To make it easy for him to make that decision, I am not asking Floquenbeam to in any way admit to any fault or say that he was wrong. I am not asking Floquenbeam to apologize for calling me a liar, calling me a troll, ect. he can simply agree without comment, or with some sort of comment such as "for the good of the project" or "to avoid more drama" or even "in an effort to get Guy to stop his constant lying and trolling" I would be fine with Floquenbeam reporting me to ANI if they think I misbehaved. I would be fine if any other administrator said that they will be monitoring my behavior and will deal harshly with any "intentional mocking of someone's gender" on my part. I can no longer contribute my edits to Wikipedia (other than maintaining some essays) because trust was broken. I trusted Wikipedia's administrators to warn me if I do something wrong. I expected them to trust me to do as I have always done; stop the behavior when warned whether I agreed or with the warning or not. I trusted that blocks are preventative, not punitive, and that, as my user page and talk page clearly specified, you don't have to block me to prevent any behavior. Just ask. If there is an actual policy or guideline that says that purposely avoiding all personal pronouns is a no-warning blockable offense I would very much like to see it. All of this could have easily been resolved by treating me as a human being and simply talking to me instead of instantly reaching for the block button on an editor with 15 years and 60,000 edits with no blocks. I am convinced that Floquenbeam has a personal animosity against me, is monitoring everything I do, and may, at any time, once again invent a new rule not found in any policy or guideline and block me without warning for violating it. I am convinced that however hard I try and no matter what I say, I am doomed. I did my best to follow every policy and guideline to the letter, and I did my best to do exactly what Floquenbeam ordered me to do. Clearly my best isn't good enough. I don't anticipate Floquenbeam ever agreeing to walk away from this, so I don't anticipate ever editing articles again unless Floquenbeam retires or is desysopped. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 11:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] @Guy Macon Alternate Account: I believe that I fully understand your perspective, having spent several hours reading the entire context of the situation after I returned from a semi-wikibreak and learned that you had retired. I agree that you should have been warned, particularly given your history of taking great pains to abide by sanctions and administrator requests when they are put plainly and are specific. I won't comment negatively on Floquenbeam's actions. It pains me a little that you and I both supported his bid for reclaiming sysop after the Framgate situation, and that the relationship between the two of you was able to deteriorate to the point that such a miscommunication was possible. RfA review is always a long and involved process for me, and I typically spend hours looking through a candidate's contributions and history before responding. I still respect Floquenbeam's contributions with the tools, though I like to think that this situation could have been handled in a way that would have led to better outcomes for everyone involved. I do take you at your word when you explain your thought process or when you promise that you'll do something based on your understanding of what is expected. @Floquenbeam: maybe this is a long shot, and maybe you don't have a good reason to do so, but I'd like to ask you to consider what Guy Macon wrote above. Will you please consider agreeing to merely recuse yourself personally from administrative decisions related to Guy? Guy has been a prolific and valued contributor on the articles I have seen him work on, and I would be really happy to see him return to the project. I just ask that you please not use my talk page to rehash the initial disagreements that led to Guy's block and retirement. Please. If you don't feel that you can respond without that, I will happily accept silence. Otherwise, please feel free to say whatever you like. Thank you both. AlexEng(TALK) 12:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] No. That demand is made in bad faith. Guy is welcome to return at any time; it’s his decision, not mine. At your request I won’t go into more detail here, but I’m of course willing to do so if you have questions. —Floquenbeam (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] Closed The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Please explain your refusal. If AlexEng doesn't want it here, do so on my talk page. It really sounds like you don't trust the other admins to deal with my behavior. Again, you don't have to admit you were wrong. I am pondering whether to escalate this issue. To save a possibly wasted effort, if I bring this up at AN and it is the consensus of the community that you step aside and leave me to the other admins, would you comply? If not, then I won't waste everybody's time at AN and will have to decide between doing nothing and seeking your desysopping. AlexEng, are you OK with this discussion here, or should I move it back to my talk page? I would kind of like you to be involved; I trust your judgement and If Floquenbeam can convince you that I am acting in bad faith then I would seriously reconsider my position. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] I am convinced that Floquenbeam has a personal animosity against me, is monitoring everything I do, and may, at any time, once again invent a new rule not found in any policy or guideline and block me without warning for violating it. This is the crucial point. Guy cannot return with the Sword of Damocles called Floquenbeam hanging over his head, and the claim Guy is welcome to return at any time is made in bad faith - one can almost see the malicious smile behind it. If it were otherwise, if this were about an objective problem with Guy instead of just bullying of a user by an admin, F. would trust other admins to "do the right thing", and accepting the proposal of letting other admins handle him would be no biggie. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] I won't be participating in this discussion anymore. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] @Guy Macon Alternate Account, Floquenbeam, and Hob Gadling: thank you all for respecting my request not to continue the discussion on my talk page. I'd urge you to try and come to a mutual understanding on a different page. Hob Gadling, I'm largely against removing other peoples' comments myself, but I would strike what you said about malice and bullying. Even if you don't consider it a personal attack, it's not particularly civil. I don't ascribe any malice to Floquenbeam. My point of view is that this is a solvable misunderstanding based on two users' differing interpretations of each others' motives. Floquenbeam, I don't think Guy is issuing demands in bad faith; I think he was hurt by what he sees as a misinterpretation of his actions and intents. Instead of demanding an apology or a dramaboard case or any other form of self-serving vindication, I believe he just wants to be sure that he won't need to have anxiety about being blocked by you specifically. Guy, I don't think Floquenbeam is exhibiting a lack of trust in other admins here. I think he sees the condition you stated for your return as a point of vanity or pride rather than a principled response from an aggrieved party. My interpretation is that he thinks if you actually wanted to come back, then you wouldn't see that as a barrier. By no means am I a mind reader, so please excuse me if I have misrepresented any of your opinions. It would be a mistake, but in good faith. So as to not silence any of you, I invite you to please feel free to ping me at your respective talk pages if you'd like to discuss anything one-on-one; you are also welcome to email me for private messages, but if a response is required, I will respond on wiki as is my personal policy, and I'll be as ambiguous or brief as possible to prevent breaches of confidence. Thanks, everyone. Best wishes. AlexEng(TALK) 00:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] It's your home. Sorry for causing a mess here. I still think that when an admin consistently violates - or maybe completely ignores - the WP:AGF guideline, that guideline stops applying to him, but I struck the part going beyond that, as you wanted. It's probably just a Manichean worldview, with Guy on the side of the villains because he was not 110% obedient. I would have deleted my whole contribution, but there were already responses to it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] Does anyone object to me moving this back to to my talk page? No need. Question answered. Unwatching this page now. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)I am still hoping for an answer to my question: [reply] Extended content "I am pondering whether to escalate this issue. To save a possibly wasted effort, if I bring this up at AN and it is the consensus of the community that you step aside and leave me to the other admins, would you comply? If not, then I won't waste everybody's time at AN and will have to decide between doing nothing and seeking your desysopping." --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] I am not going to discuss this on your talk page, where Hob Gadling et al. can say truly rotten things like I'm somehow glad you're not editing and enjoying seeing you suffer, and you'll do nothing about it and I'll be expected to just sit there and take it. So at the risk of annoying AlexEng, I'll say this here, now, and will not reply further: If there is a consensus at AN/ANI that there is a policy-based reason for me to no longer act in an administrative role regarding you, of course I'll abide by it, even if I disagree. If there is a consensus at AN/ANI that it would just be easier if I did you the non-policy-based favor of no longer acting in an administrative capacity regarding you, I'll respectfully decline to just make it easier. Partially because I cannot bring myself to do favors for people who are actively lying about me, but mostly because it is not in WP's interest to allow people to pick and choose which admins can take administrative actions against them. I have taken a grand total of two administrative actions against you in the 12 years that I have been an admin (counting the clear warning to you in my closure of the 2019 ANI thread as an administrative action), and the second of those actions - the 2 day block - was directly related to enforcing the first warning, after being requested to look into it by another editor. Both of those admin actions were upheld by the community. I exchanged a pleasant email with you a few months before the block. When asked if I'd accept replacing the block with an iban, I agreed. When you started violating the iban, I warned you via email, rather than blocking you. When you were found using an undisclosed sock to edit articles, I said nothing. When asked if I'd object to rescinding the iban earlier this week, I agreed. None of which are what you would expect from someone who has it out for you. There is zero evidence the admin actions were made in bad faith or as part of some vendetta, and lots of evidence they weren't; your repeatedly claiming this does not make it true. You've made up the idea that I am out to get you out of whole cloth. It is rude. It is unfair. It is not true. It's been a long-held principle that taking administrative action does not make one WP:INVOLVED with an editor. It would not be good to waive that principle because you are refusing to edit WP articles with your main account while I'm still around. If you want to edit articles, you should edit articles. If you feel you've backed yourself into a corner and need me to say something so you can save face, then you can now use an undisclosed alternate account to edit articles instead. If you think that saying untrue things about me often enough will make me involved, that shouldn't be rewarded, or everyone will start doing it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding a disagreement with your recent closure of a COIN thread. The thread is Closure of COIN thread by involved editor. Thank you.Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting the ball rolling, A. C. Santacruz. No ill will here, and I'm happy to apologize and self-revert if there is consensus that I was wrong. AlexEng^(TALK) 11:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If consensus is you were wrong, it won't be wrong by much. I do think your closure is constructive in a way. It serves to remind editors that the thread is meant to end at some point, and that we should try to reach a constructive conclusion before then. I hope it will thus keep editors more focused on the main issues of the thread and wait for other venues to discuss minor details or user conduct. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I liked your comments on this discussion. To me there are just too many like but not quite the same things going on here, to easily justify more than one article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Johnpacklambert. I tried to articulate the reasons that we don't need a separate article for this topic, but it seems that not many people agree with me. This "photo negative" technique is very niche. It was only used in Patrick Stewart's novel production of Othello, and I haven't been able to find any other examples of it. The article cites an essay about a particular production of Antony and Cleopatra, but I read the essay, and all they're talking about is the fact that Cleopatra was played by a white actor, while one servant in particular was played by a black actor. That doesn't seem like photo negative casting to me, and the source only tangentially notes this in a broader discussion of the relationship between race and gender in casting. Again, though, it doesn't seem like anyone is going to change their minds. Maybe someday. AlexEng^(TALK) 22:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • To me possibly the next closest example is the pairing of Guess Who's Coming to Dinner and the I think 2003 film Guess Who, where you go from a black man about to marry a white woman to a white man about to marry a black woman. However they are not by any stretch of the imagination the same plot, or the same work with a slight casting change. They are both set at the time they were made, they have totally different feels, and other than what I said above the rest of the plot is pretty much different.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind saying which discussion you were asked to participate in? No worries if not, not trying to pry further than I should, but it would be useful to notify any potential closer of the attempt. And a very sincere thank you for reporting it. nableezy - 04:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: Yeah, it's the Counterpunch RfC over at WP:RSN, much to nobody's surprise. This is the third email I have gotten from this user's socks. I have no desire to participate, but I did plaster the canvassing banner template on the discussion the first time I got an email. Also, to clarify, I'm totally fine discussing the content of these particular emails, since there is no confidential information or reasonable expectation of privacy. My only concern is about the metadata of the email, because my email address can be tied very easily and obviously to my real life identity. AlexEng^(TALK) 06:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well thats disappointing, but again thank you so much for reporting it. I dont think you should feel as though you should not participate due to the canvassing, as you clearly have Wikipedia's best interest at heart, Do you mind if I reference this on the RFC to inform people of the stealth canvassing? nableezy - 13:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a quick suggestion, make an email with something anodyne like AlexEng_wiki@gmail or something and set up 2FA for it, and use it only for Wikipedia. You get a notification when somebody emails you anyway so dont even need to set up forwarding to your usual email, just check when notified. But I would strongly advise anybody not wanting to have their identity outed to do that, there been a number of hacking incidents here over the years. nableezy - 14:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: thank you for the advice. I do appreciate it. I'd like to keep the email I have now, but I have added further restrictions through preferences. I'm not particularly concerned about an account breach, given the high security standards that I maintain. AlexEng^(TALK) 19:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AlexEng - You were selected because you participated in this discussion giving statements against their foes [1]. Now that you demonstrated integrity by refusing to cooperate they might choose you as prey to punish you. I strongly recommend you follow Nableezy's advice. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GizzyCatBella: thank you. I don't think I fit neatly into any particular ideological position, so it was strange for them to consider me as an ally. I suspect you are right, though. As for the prospect of punishment, I think it would be amusing to watch the attempt. I hide my real life identity out of personal preference, but I am not concerned about any particular consequences if it were to be revealed. It would just be annoying. Thanks again! AlexEng^(TALK) 19:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, I raised this at AN, sorry you are involved in something youd rather not be. nableezy - 16:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! You can quote me wherever you like. AlexEng^(TALK) 19:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The very-high profile move was closed by a non-admin without any evidence of weighting rationales. User had previously expressed support for a moratorium against future move proposals. Wikipedia works when everyone does their part. I don't feel qualified to initiate a move review, but I hope you will. Feoffer (talk) 01:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Wingnut (politics) on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Brahma Chellaney on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, I'm more than happy to work with you on adjustments in wording once it's established (if it is) that the sentence can be added. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: thank you. I appreciate that. I just wanted to be clear in this case that I'm not married to any particular phrasing, but that I agree with the substance of what you wrote. If the consensus view moves in a similar direction, then I think it's fine to iterate on it to get to the best version. AlexEng^(TALK) 03:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

Guideline and policy news

• The Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines have been published for consideration. Voting to ratify this guideline is planned to take place 7 March to 21 March. Comments can be made on the talk page.

Technical news

• The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
• The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration

• Community input is requested on several motions aimed at addressing discretionary sanctions that are no longer needed or overly broad.
• The Arbitration Committee has published a generalised comment regarding successful appeals of sanctions that it can review (such as checkuser blocks).
• A motion related to the