User talk:Just Step Sideways/Archive 45
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Just Step Sideways. 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 40 | ← | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | → | Archive 50 |
Where can I go for wiktionary disputes
As I haven't been able to find the page for disputes with wiktionary admins TheGroninger (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- I have no idea. I'd suggest asking over there, using one of these pages. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Oversight
From your edit history I guess that was you? Thank you :) 92.24.246.11 (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
ANI
Thread about you, nothing serious, you can't hardly miss it... CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Looks like it was over pretty quick. I take their outrage as a badge of honor. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Invitation for Functionary consultation 2021
Greetings,
I'm letting you know in advance about a meeting I'd like to invite you to regarding the Universal Code of Conduct and the community's ownership of its future enforcement. I'm still in the process of putting together the details, but I wanted to share the date with you: 27 June, 2021. I do not have a time on this date yet, but I will let you soon. We have created a meta page with basic information. Please take a look at the meta page and sign up your name under the appropriate section.
Thank you for your time.--BAnand (WMF) 15:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Blocked & locked User:SangeetaMehtaMagazine is back and flogging the "English Magazine"
You blocked that user on 8 May 2021. Now they are back as two new socks:
User:SangeetaMehtaTeacher
User:Sangeeta666666
Copying online English grammar and yoga content from copyrighted sources, posting to sandbox, user page, talk page, even after reversion, posting Blogspot URL for "magazine", etc. Annoyingly, they disrupt WP while seeming to waste their own time.--Quisqualis (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- For someone claiming to be a teacher they sure are not good at learning. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Quisqualis: by the way they have also been engaging in cross-wiki abuse so stewards are willing to globally lock any new accounts that may pop up, as these two were. (requests have to be made at Meta) Beeblebrox (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
User:Gexajutyr topic ban violation block
Just as an FYI as you were previously involved with the user User:Gexajutyr. I've just blocked them indefinitely for blatant violations of their topic ban and unblock conditions. Their very first edit, and most since, were violations of their no altering or "fixing" redirects and not broken links. Canterbury Tail talk 13:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Unfortunate but not at all surprising. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah. I only noticed it yesterday, but yes it's continued since a couple of days after their last unblock. That's basically it for them, keep an eye out for socking. Canterbury Tail talk 18:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
A question about Wikipedia's grammar
Could you answer my question about User:ClueBot III#General template format: Which is right? Which is wrong? (1) |archiveprefix=User talk:User name/Archives/ (2) |archiveprefix=User talk/User_name/Archives/ There are slash / and underscore _ issues. Sawol (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you think I would know. If you are having a problem with archiving using a bot, I'd suggest asking the bot operator on their talk page. The ClueBot series has their own forum at User talk:ClueBot Commons. Be sure to explain (as you failed to do at the Help Desk) why this is a problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- You don't know that. You are an administrator. I am disappointed. User:Baffle gab1978 believes that (2) is right. I said to User:Baffle gab1978 that (2) is wrong. But User:Baffle gab1978 don't agree User:ClueBot III#General template format. User:Baffle gab1978 are likely to follow an argument from authority. Sawol (talk) 11:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
You can borrow my copy of "The Administrator's Compendium of All Knowledge in the Known Universe" if you've misplaced yours, Beeblebrox. You'll have to pick it up though, the shipping is killer due to the weight. Because of all that knowledge.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- I know I come across as an omnipotent superbeing, but there are a few things I don't know. I guess I could add that I don't care even a little bit since the distinction seems essentially meaningless.... Beeblebrox (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- What!?! You mean you don't have the answer to life, the universe, and everything? I'd have just replied with "42". I tend to know a lot about grammar, so this caught my eye when it crossed my watchlist, but to me this just looks like mark-up code, which has nothing to do with grammar as far as I can tell. I'm pretty well baffled by all of it. To this day, if I want to use a conversion template or make a degree symbol, I have to go find it done somewhere, and copy/paste it into what I'm writing. Zaereth (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- What's even more fun is it is now apparent that they got a clear answer to their question a week ago, but they apparently want to continue griping about it for no apparent reason. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Well, if the President of the Galaxy doesn't know about these things, who does? I'm applying Hanlon's Razor to Sawol but I suggest Sawol drops the stick concerning my talk page archiving code, otherwise it'll all end in tears. Sawol's contribs contain lots of interesting page moves, by the way. Thanks for standing_up_for_the_underscore. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 02:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- What's even more fun is it is now apparent that they got a clear answer to their question a week ago, but they apparently want to continue griping about it for no apparent reason. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
For the record, there was an actual (minor) problem here, but it was not being explained clearly. It's been resolved amicably now. Cheers. — The Earwig (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – June 2021
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.
Unprotection request
Caesar salad was protected in 2013 for persistent vandalism. In the past year, it looks like the vandalism has died down to manageable levels under recent changes patrol and normal counter-vandalism (17 reverts in the past year). I am requesting to remove PCR from the article. Thanks in advance! (please ping on reply) Sennecaster (What now?) 05:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Done I'm not super confident this is a great idea, PC was a good fit for this page because it is low-traffic, edit-wise, but it has been a long time so it's worth a shot. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Amendment request closed and archived
The amendment request you filed regarding the case Privatemusings has been closed and archived. You may view a permalink of the amendment request here. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 15:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Sunshine
|
Sunshine! | |
| Hello Beeblebrox! Interstellarity (talk) has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding {{subst:User:Meaghan/Sunshine}} to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! Interstellarity (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC) |
Happy first day of summer, Beeblebrox!! Interstellarity (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Signatures RfC
It's surprising to see a hotly contested RfC closed early, even if comments have slowed down, but meh. I don't have any reason to think the outcome would change. My main reason for leaving this message is to ask if you would consider rewording the closing statements? The questions were to assess where consensus is on the subject, not to propose specific changes to the guideline. They're based on ways people have interpreted and attempted to enforce our guidelines in practice rather than on the way the guideline is written, which has been interpreted and enforced in wildly varying ways. Since the guideline seems out of step with practice, the idea is to just ask the question, putting the guidelines aside, and then ensure the guidelines align with the consensus on the question.
So while it's often true that "no consensus to implement" is functionally equivalent to "consensus against implementation", in this case they are different. When I look at question 1, for example, I have a hard time seeing anything other than consensus against rather than just a lack of consensus in favor. Consensus against gives us something we can use when trying to clarify the guideline without mandating any particular change. Question 2 is harder, of course, but if you could read into the answers to extract anything there is consensus for or consensus against (assuming there is such consensus for anything) rather than assess it like a specific proposed change, that would be helpful.
Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- My wording was based on the exact opposite concern, that some supporters might object to saying there was a consensus against it, but I couldn't see how they could argue there was a consensus for it either, so just saying "there is no consensus" seemed like something that was objection-proof. Closing statements are often a no-win situation where no matter what you say someone will object, and I probably should've just accepted that when I decided to close it. I'll reconsider at least question 1 though, as it got pretty strong opposition. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the updates. I think that helps. I went ahead and added this footnote to the guidelines. The idea being to avoid some small amount of hassle in the future (like the very ANI thread that led to this RfC). Seem fair? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- That works for me. I suppose it is n't worth pondering why {{consensus}} is invisible to mobile users.... Beeblebrox (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the updates. I think that helps. I went ahead and added this footnote to the guidelines. The idea being to avoid some small amount of hassle in the future (like the very ANI thread that led to this RfC). Seem fair? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
An old
but eternal truth, it seems: still freaking out, still denying reality, revoking talk page, as usual
. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose! ——Serial 16:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
- Took me a second to figure out what this was about, but yeah. Maybe it won't come to that this time.... maybe. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – July 2021
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.
Palmer Report question
Hello Beeblebrox, thank you for banning John Paos from the Palmer Report article. I have a question, and forgive me if this is not the correct place for it. If John Paos been banned from editing the article, why are his biased additions and deletions to the article still intact? Shouldn't all of his alterations be removed or undone? In addition, if John Paos was correctly banned for his bias and inappropriate behavior, why has Dr. Swag Lord not also been banned? At this point Dr. Swag Lord is treating this article as his personal playpen, with dozens and dozens of successive edits – and much of what he's tweaking came from John Paos to begin with. They appear to be working as a team. Dr. Swag Lord's bullying and threats against EraserHead1 on the Talk page were completely inappropriate.
At the least, the Palmer Report article should be reverted to what it was a few weeks ago, before John Paos deleted all the positive and neutral language, and replaced it with 100% negative language. The article previously had mentions of Palmer from major news outlets like USA Today and Washington Post that Paos simply deleted; those should be brought back. Or, seeing how the article has been perhaps irretrievably defaced by a gang of editors whose leader has now been banned from the page, perhaps the article should be marked for deletion. Thank you for your consideration.
- Blocking them from the article does not indicate that every single edit they ever made to it is automatically wrong. And the personal attacks from all sides need to stop, like now. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:04, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
In any case, there is significant cleanup work that needs to be done to the article to correct the damage that John Paos did. Every established editor who has stepped in to try to clean up the mess has been bullied and chased away by Dr. Swag Lord, who at this point essentially has sole control over the page. Seeing as how Dr. Swag Lord's behavior toward other editors has been wildly inappropriate, blocking him would allow established editors who have been chased away by him to step back in and try to return the page to something fitting Wikipedia guidelines. As of now the page is a disaster, and it will remain that way as long as Dr. Swag Lord is allowed to continue treating it as his personal property. He's got to go. Thank you.
Thanks for your question at my RfA
I am reliably informed that it's bad form for a candidate to use the bully pulpit of candidacy to discuss issues during the process. I don't know if that is true; I do know I made the barest of protests of form. Your question allowed me to state my views coarsely. I took advantage. Thanks for your boldness; I appreciated your courtesy. BusterD (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- You're welcome. And congratulations/condolences. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Mail Notice
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Lengthy but explains things in detail Celestina007 (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Revdel request
Hi, can you please take a look at Mashup (web application hybrid) when you have a quick minute? I added template to it and I already removed the offending material (copyvio), but I don't think I got the ranges right and I've already edited it once so I don't want to keep going back and changing it over and over. This is the first time I've used the revdel template. Thanks, Johnnie Bob (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Checking... The range is indeed not correct, I'm trying to find where the copyvio was actually added to the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- Done Took a bit of looking, an IP editor added the offending content just shy of a decade ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Hey! I was just about to revdel that... I'll look at the ip's other edits. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 21:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day!
Have a very happy first edit anniversary!
From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Eight years! |
|---|
Explaining things
The first thing that I just wanted to let you know is that I wasn't aware that I had done anything that was against the Wikipedia rules. First you said told me not to correct typo. The editor's typo whose typo that I corrected has told that they don't mind if I correct their typo and has even thanked me for doing it at times. Second you did that I had stealth canvassing and I don't see how since I let them know on their talk page and that is not done in a secret manner. Also you told me that they would have seen the AFD, well no, not everyone sees the AFDs. There are AFDs that I have missed that I wish that I had voted at, but didn't know about. Also I read that you are ALLOWED to let people know about AFDs, so I don't see how that would be even canvassing neither. I really didn't think that I had done anything wrong. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Q
Hello. I'm having an issue with the ownership an editor has taken of the article Nicki Minaj. I've noticed many others have pointed out in his talk page that this is a repeated behavior. Asking for an experienced, third-party opinion, for a less-biased lead section of the mentioned article. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- I see you've opened a request for comment on the matter, I think that is probably the right approach. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – July 2021
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.
ygm
ygm... — xaosflux Talk 16:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Request input on John Carter IBAN appeal
Hi! Long time no contact. Sorry to message you out of the blue on a somewhat weighty topic, but I was wondering if I could get your opinion on an AN draft?
Request IBAN repeal
|
|---|
|
Back in 2015, 2016, and early 2017 John Carter (talk · contribs) repeatedly hounded me, following me to multiple articles and undermining my edits. I requested that an interaction ban be put in place to prevent this from happening again, and my request was granted.[1] John Carter then continued to hound me for the next several months (indeed, a fairly sizable portion of his relatively infrequent edits throughout 2017 and 2018 were IBAN violations), and he was blocked three times (the first one was undone by the same admin, the last one being indefinite and (given that it has been more than three years with no appeal, and some off-wiki stuff that I won't link to -- some readers may remember what I'm talking about) likely permanent. Because an IBAN with indef-blocked editor does not impede my editing under normal circumstances, I never outright requested anything be done about it. But over the last three and a half years the fact that I "have been subject to X number of IBANs" has been used as evidence that I must be at fault in whatever dispute is ongoing at the moment, and I have been unable to explain the background of my IBAN with John Carter (which, when this started happening, was actually my only active IBAN if I recall correctly, although it has since been used as a basis for others) because that would involve discussing the hounding of me by a now-blocked editor with whom I am still technically IBANned. (I have requested email contact with several such editors to explain the circumstances; some accepted, and when I explained things off-wiki they backed down, while others shot me down; I won't name names because I'd rather avoid drahma.) The most recent instance was last night, but it has happened on average at least once every two or three months. I would rather not have this keep happening, especially when the IBAN was put in place at my request to protect myself from one-way hounding and the editor in question has been effectively banned from the site for well over three years. So that's why I'm here. I'd be happy to field any questions (the original IBAN was imposed following a long ANI thread, and I can appreciate that, under the circumstances -- the thread was filed by John Carter about me, and a lot of the sympathy I got from the community at the time was less about "hounding" than about personal attacks -- my statement that it was originally put in place at my request for hounding may cause some confusion), but if, given John Carter's apparent disinterest in returning to Wikipedia, this seems clear-cut enough, then I'll leave it to the community. |
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think the community is generally willing to reconsider older sanctions, especially when one of the persons sanctioned has been blocked for several years. If I'm reading your block log correctly you were never blocked over this specific iban, so that helps. One never knows how these things will turn out but this seems reasonable enough to me. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Arbcom announcements
You alluded to a forthcoming Arbcom statement here. Where would such a statement be posted? The noticeboard? OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. We're still firming up the wording, as a sensitive topic we felt it was important to get it right, but I'm hoping it will be posted in the next 12-24 hours. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, "Flyer22 Frozen" has a space in it, but the announcement does not. Thank you. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- I was just going to say that myself. Also, the announcement has transcluded on all of the socks' pages. I am not sure if that is intentional because you removed it on Flyer22's talk page. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, "Flyer22 Frozen" has a space in it, but the announcement does not. Thank you. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I hope you got the information I sent ?
I wrote to ArbCOM but unfortunately for me I somehow managed to send it wrongly only to BDD, but they have been gracious enough and have promised to share it with the rest of you all. So basically a lot of off-wiki solicitations and canvassing I haven’t been privy to due to the ban of Twitter in Nigeria have been on-going, I’ve heard talks of off wiki massive canvassing but I haven’t seen for myself thus In order to see things for myself, I’ve managed to temporarily bypass the Twitter ban and of a truth it’s really alarming what I’m seeing. I’ve sent the first batch to ArbCOM, ehh to BDD actually (silly me). In the little time given to me to temporarily bypass the Twitter censorship, I would optimize it thoroughly, i would send a second batch to ArbCOM tomorrow. I am doing this so I can substantiate what I said to you in the personal private email I sent to you in relation to a particular organization I made mention of. On upwork it’s a whole other story for another day. What I see there is equally alarming. Celestina007 (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Celestina007, when was this? And are you sure it was me? I apologize if I've let anything through the cracks. --BDD (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- @BDD, Ehh yes, I believe this was your reply (removing the private details) I believe your last remark was For the Arbitration Committee, BDD or perhaps was that an automated response? Or am i probably reading the mail wrongly? huh perhaps I’m just getting old. Celestina007 (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I got autoconfirmed
so you remember my request to be confirmed early and it got denied well i did 9 more edits most of the pages were given to me from the task center so i did them and now i'm autoconfirmed Savitarp45 (talk) 03:16 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- um...ok. Not sure why you're going out of your way to tell me that. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope
Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope (3rd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Jacona (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Give it enough nominations, and it'll delete itself..... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
I have drafted an alternative version of this essay at User:Cullen328/sandbox/One last chance and invite your input. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
FYI
(Just a watcher, with no involvement anywhere whatsoever) User talk:Fæ#Blocking admin Review, IMO, has reached a point where you deserve notification (this is it). Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notification. Since outright lies about me or being told there, it was certainly in order. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).
Administrator changes
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.
Self imposed block
May I have a WikiBreak block ending on 1-1-2022. I'm hoping by that point, I'll just sort of forget about logging in. Thank you for your time. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- I usually advise users asking for this about the wikibreak enforcer you can use yourself but I see you've already tried that. You appear to meet my criteria, I also always like to remind anyone asking for this that I will issue a hard block, with talk page and email access revoked. If that's ok with you I'll go ahead and block. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes please. Thanks by the way. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)