User talk:Stwalkerster/Archive May 2019

Re: Proxying caution
Hi. I saw that you cautioned me for responding to an edit request by a banned user. Now the rule on WP:PROXYING is very clear, it indeed says its not permissible, however only unless an editor "is able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive" and that an editor has "independent reasons for making such edits.". Regarding the first point, the edit was both verifiable as there was a valid source in line with WP:V and productive as it keeps the article up to date. As for the second part you will see that I am actively engaged in editing visa related articles, therefore I do have independent reasons to make that edit. Also that user was indeed banned but for anger management issues in interaction with other editors and not his article contributions.

I hope that satisfies you that there was no violation of the WP:PROXYING rule.

Generally speaking, even if the rule here wasn't so clear, and surely there are situations where that is the case, it's important to keep in mind why the rules exist. The rules do not exist for the sake of rules but for the sake of functionality, predictability and accountability. In fact, it's all part of the wider Wikipedia policy and standard - WP:UCS: "Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. [...] Our goal is to improve Wikipedia so that it better informs readers. Being able to articulate "common sense" reasons why a change helps the encyclopedia is good, and editors should not ignore those reasons because they don't include a bunch of policy shortcuts. [...] The principle of the rules—to make Wikipedia and its sister projects thrive—is more important than the letter. [...] Why isn't "use common sense" an official policy? It doesn't need to be; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy."  Thank you for your time.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi ! Yep, I'm aware of the wording you've raised and also that the edit you made is fine under WP:PROXYING. That comment I left (although pinging you to make you aware) was actually mostly not directed towards you but towards the banned user on whose talk page I left the message as a reinforcement of not using other people to effectively evade their block. The fact you share an editing area is probably the exact reason why they came to you specifically. :)
 * It's also worth noting that the user in question indeed has a history of abusively evading their block, and as such WP:DENY is also highly applicable here. I would prefer it if you didn't make edits directly on behalf of blocked users (or appearing to bend to their wishes), but I do see no issue if you make a similar edit at a later time such that the satisfaction a banned editor might get is massively reduced. It's not a case of trying to enforce rules for the sake of rules, I'm trying to protect the project and the larger community working on the project. Allowing abusive users to believe they can get around blocks or bans after they've been shown the door means they never really go away, and that just encourages abusive behaviour because people start believing they can get away with it, and those attitudes just turn away good community members who are actively contributing to the project.
 * Sorry if my wording worried you a bit, I'm really not trying to get at you, rather trying to keep the door closed on an abusive user in the hope they'll find something else to do instead. stwalkerster (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular
   

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg HickoryOughtShirt?4 • RexxS
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Necrothesp
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Bratsche • Kyle Barbour • Kzollman • Madman

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Pharos

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Primefac

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Reaper Eternal

Guideline and policy news
 * A request for comment concluded that creating pages in the portal namespace should be restricted to autoconfirmed users.
 * Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Technical news
 * XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration
 * In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically.  All current administrators have been notified of this change.
 * Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous
 * A request for comment is currently open to amend the community sanctions procedure to exclude non XfD or CSD deletions.
 * A proposal to remove pre-2009 indefinite IP blocks is currently open for discussion.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

just curious
What did you WP:REVDEL from Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2018) by IP User:188.138.9.180 ? X1\ (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Disruptive material from a long-term abusive user. stwalkerster (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. X1\ (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2019
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)