Yesterday I initiated an upgrade of my workstation to Debian/Bookworm and the drivers (either AMD or Nvidia) have screwed it up so much I can't boot into a graphical interface, just the command line. As such I can't access the 2FA and password files. I'm currently trying to find updated drivers but, if that fails, it will be a full wipe-and-reinstall, so I only have tablet access which is restrictive. I'll try to check in when I can. --AlisonW (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Notice
Please note that whilst I am always interested in hearing about different tla arguments (eg.rfa) I am highly unlikely to actually get involved unless I already have some connection to the matter under discussion. Please do NOT email me direct or dump tons of information here therefore as, if anything, it might energise me to come in on the opposing side. Thank you.
Please use [+] link above to add a new section at the end of this page, thank you.
The rollback of Vector 2022 RfC has found no consensus to rollback to Vector legacy, but has found rough consensus to disable "limited width" mode by default.
A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.
Technical news
Progress has started on the Page Triage improvement project. This is to address the concerns raised by the community in their 2022 WMF letter that requested improvements be made to the tool.
Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.
Technical news
Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.
Arbitration
The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.
Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments5 people in discussion
AN/I is what it is. I don't think I'm telling you anything new.
I just thought I would mention 2 things worth thinking about.
The first is that if you voluntarily give up the tools right now (though not necessarily a bad idea), it would likely be considered "under a cloud" (See Wikipedia:ADMIN#Restoration_of_admin_tools.) And if you decided later you wanted them back, you would need to go through RfA, which probably would mean (at least) 6 months to a year of active editing prior to it.
Second, I look at your responses, and I can understand what you're reading and why you're interpreting the guidances in that way. But it's in the details. and also how you went about it.
An initial rollback due to unexplained removal? Could be fine, depending on the circumstances. Continued unexplained removal? Same thing.
But that's not what subsequently happened. The editor provided their reasoning. Now you, presumably, saw their interpretation of WP:TRIVIA as flawed. But at that point - merely based upon your and their comments - it became a difference of opinion about whether certain content should or should not be added to an article per WP:TRIVIA. And so it became not a behavioural issue, but then a content issue. And you were just drawn into a content discussion in edit summaries. It's a trap. Likely unintentional on all sides, but you seemingly fell into it nonetheless. It's easy to do. As an admin, you're trying to help, and oops. It's not uncommon. Hence why you're hearing several people suggest that you apologise. We're human, and mistakes can happen.
And that's probably also why you are seeing the responses about WP:INVOLVED, that you are.
One additional thing I'll note. I see that the editor removed the text with no explanation, and then restored it [1], and then removed it again with an explanation of WP:TRIVIA, the second time. I wonder if you got caught in between those edits and initially saw the unexplained revert. I note this, because it looks like, when you did your initial revert months later, your edit summary calls it an unexplained removal, and I wonder if you might not have seen the subsequent edits.
Anyway, I posted this here in the hopes that it better clarifies. And everything above was a.) with an outpouring of good faith, and b.) with my admin hat off, obviously.
I'm coming to this dispute completely fresh, and I've just recommended that Arbcom decline a case, explaining that I'll have a word here first, which I'm now going to do.
First, some introductions - I've been on Wikipedia for years and years, an admin for quite some time now (though relatively recently in the grand scheme of things). I've also had my fair share of disputes with other users and identified what works and what doesn't. I'm also a regular at the London Meetups, though I don't ever recall meeting you personally (cf. User:Ritchie333/Drinking).
The problem you're getting here is, I think, rooted in how the community thinks RfA is unfair or difficult, there's never any consensus to change it, and are resentful towards those who passed RfA before about 2008 when standards were easier. Consequently, when any admin does something that's questionable or sub-optimal (as this was), there's a huge outcry from the community with a shout of "off with their heads". Which is why you've been dragged off to ANI and now Arbcom for this.
The best thing you can do moving forward is a) Say what you did was wrong, ideally citing some policy such as WP:EXPLAINBLOCK : "Blocking is a serious matter. The community expects that blocks will be made for good reasons only, based upon reviewable evidence and reasonable judgment, and that all factors that support a block are subject to independent peer review if requested." b) Apologise to Veverve for blocking them, and recognise that it was wrong to do so. This is really important; I've probably managed to avoid sanctions on at least one occasion because I respected and realised why other people thought what I did was wrong, and apologised for it.
As a worked example, consider User talk:Manticore/Archive 4#July 2021 (and related block log) - even though I the block was justified and within policy, I reversed it anyway simply because another administrator disagreed with it. Indeed, my user page says "Admins, if you think an administrative action (including, but not limited to protecting or deleting a page, or blocking a user) is not an improvement, just undo it." and I think all admins should have this.
I'm saying this because I've got no desire to see another admin dragged off to Arbcom and get desysopped, when it could have been avoided had the conversation turned a different direction. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry all this is happening. It's got to be painful since you've put so much of yourself into this project over the years.
I agree with some of the criticism of your actions but I absolutely disagree with the tone. Mostly, I see shades of gray in your actions and those of the other editor. Sadly, the dysfunctional WP:ANI culture requires things get sorted into black and white.
Like you, I'm a long time editor back after a long lull. The rules haven't changed much but the norms have. I'm carefully picking my way. It was probably a blessing in disguise that I was desysopped for inactivity -- I've had fewer opportunities to accidentally attract lightening. I suggest you be more cautious, relying on talk page discussions as opposed to edit summaries. It's what I'm doing for now.
Anyway, I appreciate all you've done over the years.
Thank you for your kind comments, though as I've never been "away" I'm not actually a 'returning' editor. This sequence of events over recent days has shown that there is, indeed, something broken when my simple reversion of what appeared to be many cases of deletion vandalism has resulted in this situation. That current policy appears to vary wildly from past ethos (eg. 'assume good faith' appears to have disappeared?) is regrettable, and of course I regret acting against current policy, however much it has suggested to me that things are not right in the land of wiki. I'd massively disagree with User:Ritchie333 and others that becoming an admin/sysop was much 'easier' back at the start, because back then it relied much more on direct personal interaction between editors and not just on-wiki activity levels. I also mostly attended those early meetups (I'm right in the middle here though I've also been at a few in the last ten years too. Anyway, I'm working on a fuller response. --AlisonW (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Alison, I've never interacted with you before and criticized you at the AN thread so you have no particular reason to listen to me, but for what it's worth. You say: 'assume good faith' appears to have disappeared? This whole incident began because you did not assume that Veverve was acting in good faith: even in your arbcom statement (which I realise you are revising) you apparently continue to hold that their edits were vandalism, and continue to assert that they were made without explanation when anyone uninvolved looking at the edit summaries you yourself quote can see an explanation clear as day. Please, please, practice what you preach and try to rewrite your statement starting with the assumption that Veverve was acting in good faith. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your comment. Clearly if you believe that "apparently continue to hold that their edits were vandalism" applies I am not making myself sufficiently clear. I don't hold that the edits were vandalism, but that they appeared to be so. They have since made clarifications (comment by Veverve) which did not appear against the mass deletions which explain their actions. Your reference to 'good faith' is valid. I failed to assume someone making such major deletions with no explanation in the edit summary might actually be trying to good, and that was wrong of me. -AlisonW (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Here are some thoughts I've had about the current situation:
I think it's actually better if you use your admin tools than if you go on admin hiatus since many people's concern is admin rustiness. However, you've got a bunch of editors are currently wary of your abusing them. Acknowledge that you've learned you're rusty. Note that you've poured heart and soul into Wikipedia over the years; you want to continue to be a positive force.
Offer to take no administrative actions against registered, confirmed users for at least 2000 edits and/or 500 administrator actions (AIV blocks, deletions, etc.).
Ask for a bureaucrat to be a mentor (suggest you pick the bureaucrat).
Use article talk pages a lot
I think the drama at WP:ANI could be cut by a third if editors used article talk pages more as opposed to just edit summaries
Offer to have an Administrator review. Perhaps now and then again at the end of the mentoring interval.
This is more wide-ranging covering all sorts of things such as AfD, editorial decisions, etc, not just the Veverve incident
The emphasis is supposed to be on improving admin performance
It's potentially less work for others such as ArbCom
I would have your mentor set it up and I'd give it a couple of weeks before starting - let everybody calm down and think about things
These steps also set a good example for future admin controversies as opposed to some of our more common admin dramas.
P.S., one more thought on the topic of "legacy" vs "modern" admins. There is value in any community in having some long-term continuity in leadership. Longevity in the community does not entitle one to deference but it does provide perspectives that are sometimes not obvious to others. A. B.(talk • contribs • global count)23:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#AlisonW and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The blank edit yesterday was me intending to only leave an edit message - that I cannot make further replies there because I would immediately exceed my permitted wordcount - without adding any additional text on the actual page. Turns out though that using the reply button didn't permit an edit comment. Whups! Thank you to those who queried me, on and off-wiki. --AlisonW (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
They have allowed you another 250 words for replies, if you want to use them. (Not sure if you saw the ping yesterday.) (Personally I was never a big fan of strict word limits, but probably not the best time to debate that.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry for your loss, and I'm also sorry that you have to go through this while also being subject to an ArbCom case. I hope that in real life, you have all the love and support you need to help you process the loss of your mom. Kurtis(talk)06:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
AlisonW, a clerk told you this on the proposed decision talk page, but just to make sure this information doesn't slip thru the cracks and you're surprised: The case is still open and there is still a decent chance that you'll be desysopped. While the admonishment has 7 votes and the desysop has 6, several of the admonishment votes are marked "second choice to desysop". Floquenbeam (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Floq, Sorry, but that's false hope. ArbCom always votes to desysop, even if they have to drag up 17 year old evidence to do so. Ok, nobody voted to support that FoF, but it's still in the case, still on the table, still read, still considered factual, still considered in the case. As if that's not enough, they also had to use statements Alison made in the case itself to convict. "Hey we've got a brilliant idea! Let's get a case started, see how Alison responds, and then use that response to convict!" Alison, whatever has happened, I'm very sorry that you have been victimized by ArbCom's misconduct. No, I'm not posting here as some platform to criticize ArbCom. I'm honestly sorry for you it's come to this. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW has been closed, and the final decision is viewable at the case page. The following remedy has been enacted:
For failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, AlisonW's administrative user rights are removed. She may regain them at any time via a successful request for adminship.
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi AlisonW, I've applied temporary semi-protection to this talk page to prevent further trolling. I know that you've edited this page from an IP address in the past when you were unable to access your account, so if you would prefer to leave it unprotected in the meantime, just let me know here (or on my talk page) and I'll do so. The current semi-protection will expire next week, in any case. Regards, DanCherek (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.
The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.
Miscellaneous
Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
I agree with you, indeed until I looked at the History page I'd not realised I'd had anything to do with it as the topic rang no bells. Chuck it in the bin! --AlisonW (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thin Ice (2020 TV series) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.
Miscellaneous
The Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in November 2023, with 700+ drafts pending reviews for in the last 4 months or so. In addition to the AfC participants, all administrators and New Page Patrollers can conduct reviews using the helper script, Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!
Latest comment: 11 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.
Latest comment: 5 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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.
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Arbitration
Miscellaneous
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Potentially involved block by AlisonW. Thank you. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 01:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Administrator changes
Bureaucrat changes
Interface administrator changes
Template:BS3text has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
