User talk:Useight/Archive21

Concern for granting permission
Hello sir, I'm a active user of Wikipedia. And I have requested for permission for helping Wikipedia for a safer place and help fellow Wikipedian's. If you feel I need more practice though, I'll be happy to gain more experience. So, I would like to grab your attention. Im extremely sorry if I words are rude towards you sir. Thank you for taking the time to review my case, and have a nice day! AR.Dmg (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Confirm Involvement in WikiProject Disney
Hello Useight! I'm a new member of the Disney WikiProject. I'm trying to confirm who is still interested in the WikiProject in hopes to build a team of that can revamp the project. Please let me know if you would like to stay on the list of active members, or if I can go ahead and move to you the list of inactive members. You can do so by replying to this message and including the  tag. Happy editing! GeekInParadise (talk) 03:31, 1 April 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 02:55, 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)

Following up on a previous discussion from May
The two closest I have found in terms of admins who were desysopped were two cases. 1)ArbCom voted against a desysop, in a split decision. User voluntarily resigned the bit and later passed a RfA, even though it would seem they were not required to do so. 2)User desysopped by ArbCom. RfA was at 61% support and a bureaucrat acknowledged that while there was no consensus to promote, he/she was overruling the community. I left out the names as I can't find the discussion. Enigmamsg 20:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That is interesting. Thanks for looking that up.  Useight (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The first case came to me after I posted. It was SarekOfVulcan, who indeed is still an admin today. Originally promoted in 2011, resigned in 2013, ran again in 2014 (no consensus), and then successful in 2015. Enigmamsg 21:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the second is Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3? which caused a kerfuffle I believe. –xenotalk 22:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep, that looks to be the one. Thanks.  Useight (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Yes, I think you're right. Unique RfA. Never seen that done otherwise. Upon further research, I discovered that ArbCom made a statement in a Giano case that there was indeed no consensus to promote, so that must be the only time an RfA was closed as successful despite it being acknowledged by bureaucrats and ArbCom that there was no consensus. Unique in perhaps another sense, as I'm guessing that was the only time ArbCom desysopped an account on multiple occasions (I say account rather than individual as there have been sockpuppetry cases with such instances). Enigma</b><i style="color: #FFA500;">msg</i> 22:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Adding more odd cases I stumbled across. GlassCobra passed RfA in 2007, was desysopped by ArbCom in October 2009, and then resysopped by ArbCom in January 2010. I saw no explanation for this and the desysop was not marked as 'temporary'. I guess in the old days if you were desysopped by ArbCom you could just ask them for the tools back? I don't think that's how it works anymore. <b style="color: blue;">Enigma</b><i style="color: #FFA500;">msg</i> 00:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam 2/Bureaucrat chat
I've opened a bureaucrat chat for a current RfA. Your input would be most appreciated at Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam 2/Bureaucrat chat. Primefac (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Cratchat comment
That was an impressive piece of communication. More importantly, I really liked the way you say you approach RfAs and I plan to use The Useight Approach in future. That redlink will turn blue. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you and glad to be of service. Useight&#39;s Public Sock (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

ok - I'm impressed.
I noticed your name as the creator popping up a lot in old NFL articles while I'm working on stuff. (cool) Being the curious type, I had to look. Over 4,300 pages created. OK - I'm impressed. — Ched : ?    —  16:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! A number of years ago I noticed that Wikipedia had articles for most individual seasons of existing NFL teams, but pretty much no corresponding articles for defunct teams (or even older seasons for longer-tenured existing teams).  It was a personal project of mine to go through and make sure there was an article with at least basic information for every season of every team in league history.  I'm a big fan of the NFL.  Useight (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * admittedly I'm a Steeler fan, and I do love me some NFL. It's usually NASCAR 1st, NFL 2nd, NHL 3rd ... then we get into movies and tv .. lol. — Ched :  ?    —  01:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Texans division standings
Hey man don't place the Colts in first in the AFC South in the standings. The official NFL Page on their website currently shows that the Texans are in first place. I don't know why you reverted my edits putting the Colts in first place. AstrosRocketsTexans3522 (talk)
 * Per the text at the bottom of Template:2019 AFC standings, we use the ESPN Playoff Standings, because the standings listed on nfl.com do not accurately account for playoff tie-breaking procedures. As you can see from that source, the Colts are in fourth place in the playoff race, with the Texans being sixth, which you can see current screenshots here and here.  I'm going to go ahead and switch it back to the Colts in 4th and the Texans in 6th, per the source.  Also, as a side note, when you're making changes to the standings templates, please make sure to move the entire row of information together as a block, instead of simply swapping the names in the wikilinks, in order to keep the correct record, SOS, SOV, etc with the correct team.  Thank you.  Useight (talk) 23:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * But why in the division standings for each the division you listed the Houston Texans in first place in that template? AstrosRocketsTexans3522 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Excellent question. When I updated the AFC South template, it was very shortly after the Texans and Colts games had ended, so I wasn't sure if the source standings had updated yet.  So I left it in the status quo (that is to say, the AFC South standings already had the Texans listed above the Colts).  That being said, it always seems like the division standings templates are updated based on this page (which has the Texans listed above the Colts), while the conference standings instead seem to be updated based on this page (which has the Colts listed above the Texans).  It's weird, I know, but I'm just trying to follow WP:Verifiability.  We can definitely have a conversation over at WikiProject National Football League about which sources to follow for maximum accuracy.  Useight (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay I'm sorry I didn't understand first of all. I get what you are following. AstrosRocketsTexans3522 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thought experiment
Is Writ Keeper eligible for reinstatement to <tt>bur</tt>? –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 23:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a trickier question than I first thought. Writ Keeper resigned on September 10, 2014.  According to Bureaucrats, under "Inactive bureaucrat accounts" it states "if an inactive bureaucrat returns to Wikipedia, they may request restoration of the permissions at the bureaucrats' noticeboard provided they have not been inactive from bureaucrat activity for three consecutive years.  I will take on the second half of that quote first.  Has Writ Keeper been inactive from bureaucrat activity for three consecutive years?  To that, I would normally check Bureaucrat activity/report to see when the last (reported) bureaucrat activity was, but that page didn't exist in 2014.  However, I think it's safe to say that Writ Keeper's last bureaucrat activity would have to be, by definition, no later than September 10, 2014.  This was, of course, more than three years ago.  That would indicate that Writ Keeper does not qualify for the "provided they have not been inactive from bureaucrat activity for three consecutive years" portion and therefore ineligible to request restoration of permissions at WP:BN.
 * However, turning to the first half of the quoted sentence "if an inactive bureaucrat returns to Wikipedia", we can see that the bureaucrat activity requirement is applied to inactive bureaucrats returning to Wikipedia. So the question must be: is Writ Keeper an inactive bureaucrat returning to Wikipedia?  Well, what's an "inactive bureaucrat"?  The same paragraph on WP:Bureaucrats appears to define "inactive bureaucrat" as one who goes at least one calendar year without any edits or logged actions.  Which means that Writ Keeper wouldn't be considered an inactive bureaucrat and therefore the three year without bureaucrat activity wouldn't apply.  From a strict reading, it sounds to me that because Writ Keeper never went inactive in terms of edits/actions, then (s)he would still be eligible for reinstatement upon request.  But was that the spirit of the policy?  Was it intended for "inactive bureaucrat" to mean inactive from bureaucrat activity or from edits/actions?  Hard to say without finding the discussion that led to inserting these paragraphs into WP:Bureaucrats in the first place.  But I did notice that there was a change to it just a few weeks ago here.  Until three weeks ago, the line was If an inactive bureaucrat returns to Wikipedia, they may request restoration of the permissions at the bureaucrats' noticeboard provided they have not been inactive for three consecutive years instead.  It was previously not specifically about bureaucrat activity.  I could not find an explanation for Xaosflux's change.
 * Continuing to read the page, under "Restoration of permissions" it states If a former administrator ("lengthy inactivity") or bureaucrat ("inactive bureaucrat accounts") has been inactive (defined by zero edits or logged actions) for a period of three years or longer after the removal of permissions (or for three years from the last edit or log action in the case of permissions removed due to inactivity), they must be successful in a new request for adminship or bureaucratship to have the permission(s) restored. Now, Writ Keeper hasn't been inactive (defined by zero edits or logged actions) for a period of 3+ years since the bit was removed, so it sounds like (s)he doesn't have to be successful in a new RFB to have the permission restored.
 * So, to me, it sounds like Writ Keeper, by virtue of never going inactive in terms of edits/actions, would, in fact, be eligible for reinstatement to bureaucrat upon request, despite going three years without making a bureaucrat action. That's my interpretation of the situation.  What are your thoughts on it?  Useight (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I came to the same technical conclusion. Whether Writ Keeper would be willing rejoin the ranks is another question, mind you. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 04:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * (Always stalk the 'crats!) In my update, I thought I was just fixing a clumsy wording. Suppose we should put this to the community ala how Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2) is looking at it as well.  Looks like even Eloquence could be technically eligible.  Seems like a silly loophole in light of the 3-year rule that 'crats need to actually do more then just breathe.  Not using access and "resigning" shouldn't be treated different from not using access and being force-resigned.  Notably, WK suggested that it was not "a thing I could pick up and use again at any time". —  xaosflux  Talk 11:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hm, so bureaucrats that resigned in good standing should be seen as "bureaucrats-in-waiting", with the clock still ticking and a need to take up the tools and resume bureaucrat activity before the time window closes? That does seem a reasonable way to apply the rule in the spirit of Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats/Archive 5. The conversation is of course academic, I don't think any one that far back is planning a return anyway - simple request or otherwise, unfortunately... But we should think about making that more clear. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 12:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that recent community discussions have shown less support for anything that can be seen as enabling "gaming" of expectations, regardless of the actual motive; and that for 'crats specifically there is an expectation of actual ongoing (though extremely minimal) use of the position. I haven't done an in depth review, but for example if Eloquence asked at BN to be re-crattted I would at the least be in the pocket-veto camp (and I know you really dislike that camp!). —  xaosflux  Talk 13:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we’re in agreement that resigning shouldn’t pause the clock: it haa no discernible effect on whether or not one is seen to have kept up with current community expectations regarding bureaucrats. And if by pocket veto, you mean declining to act: of course not, this is a volunteer project. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 13:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What we do know is the following:
 * 1) Admins/Bureaucrats who don't edit for a sufficient amount of time have their permissions removed for inactivity.
 * 2) If those who had their permissions removed for inactivity return within the required timeframe, their permissions are restored.
 * 3) We don't remove admin permissions simply because the user isn't using them (e.g., editing for years without using the admin bit).
 * 4) If an admin/crat doesn't use their permissions for a period of time and then goes inactive, the last time they used their tools becomes relevant.
 * Those are all contingent on the user going inactive in terms of not editing for a period of time. We know the inactivity policies are based on editing, because there have been RFCs and other posts about users "gaming the system" (as mentioned by Xaosflux) in order to change the policy from merely revolving around whether or not editing was happening.  As far as I know, there has been no consensus to change the policy to include anything more than "one edit per year", for example.  But this, of course, is for admin bits and there is no policy in place regarding requiring admins to use their admin bit (while there is a policy in place requiring bureaucrats to use their bureaucrat bit), so it's not exactly parallel.
 * So the question is, is "the clock" as Xeno called it, supposed to be more of "You didn't use your tools (either by resigning them or by inactivity) so that's why you have to go through a new RFA/RFB" or is it "You were completely gone from Wikipedia (evidenced by the lack of editing) so that's why you have to go through a new RFA/RFB"?
 * At first, I was thinking that the wording of the aforementioned quotes above made it hinge on the edits and the edits alone, if the bureaucrat resigned. However, in the link that Xeno posted Wikipedia_talk:Bureaucrats/Archive_5, it says (in a paragraph that was supported with consensus), "if a bureaucrat does not participate in bureaucrat activity[1] for over five years, their bureaucrat permissions may be removed."  This text was added to WP:Bureaucrats here and was changed from five years to three years here.  But it also says, "Permissions removed for not meeting bureaucrat activity requirements may be re-obtained through a new request for bureaucratship."  In the case of Writ Keeper, the permissions were not removed for not meeting the bureaucrat activity requirements.  However, if (s)he hadn't resigned and just continued editing, the 'crat bit would've been removed in the mean time.
 * I think a good WikiLawyer could probably wriggle this situation into restoring the bit or into declining the bit, and I could see it going either way. I think a Decision tree should be whipped up regarding the order/combination of editing/bureaucrat actions/resignations and any of the possibilities that are hazy should be clarified.  Useight (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup, would be good to document out and see if the current tree matches the current community expectations, then confirm or adjust as needed. I don't like wiki-lawyering much either - and try to read the spirit instead of verbiage when applicable. Statements like ..'may be re-obtained through a new request for bureaucratship'.. don't semantically tell us much, as it doesn't say "only be" and is otherwise a situation that is always available (noone would conclude that RfB would be actually diallowed otherwise). — xaosflux  Talk 15:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In wikilawyerly terms, restoring the bit would be likely seen as the triumph of form over substance. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 15:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have too much to add because I don't think I'm the best wikilawyer. But, this theoretical scenario does remind of the Cyp case a few years ago where I think I was the one crat not willing to do a pocket veto. I tried to close the loophole after, but it's been impossible to tighten up activity requirements. For what it's worth, I don't think that exploiting a loophole, in good faith and to further the aims of the project, is morally wrong. Given what activity standards and community desysop options we have right now, I wonder if it would just be healthier to not bother with activity standards (i.e. no inactivity standards would be a greater net positive than what we have now).   Maxim (talk)  16:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I threw this together real quick in MS Paint: https://imgur.com/a/MP3aBaa. I think it captures the essence of the situations in which the bureaucrat tools are restored via BN request versus requiring a new RFB and also describes the situations that can occur after the 'crat bit is resigned.  If I made any mistakes or missed something, feel free to let me know so I can fix it - it's been a long day.  Useight (talk) 01:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I know it's old, but ...
I saw this recently when I visited Dweller's talk: And I had to wonder if you were a fan of The Big Bang Theory show. I heard the line years ago on that show - and it was just one of those things that stuck with me for some reason (maybe that I found it outright hilarious). Anyway - good to see you about. — Ched (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Congrats on the anniversary - I'll take a virgin Cuba Libre, please. Useight (talk) 23:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's exactly where I got it from. Penny is trying to practice mixing cocktails, so she has everyone order something.  But Sheldon just wants a diet Coke, so he ends up ordering a virgin Cuba Libre and Penny says something like, "So, rum and Coke without the rum."  I know a lot of people rag on that show (particularly because of the laugh track), but I thoroughly enjoyed The Big Bang Theory.  Useight (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I enjoyed it too - I'm really missing it with the lack of good material on this new season. — Ched (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the offer, but I didn't really participate in that discussion - I just asked a hypothetical question on that page. So I don't feel my "participation" warrants responding to the survey.  Useight (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * <b style="color: blue;">Enigma</b><i style="color: #FFA500;">msg</i> 05:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ha! Classic.  Useight (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Bureaucratship Anniversary!
<div style="display: flex; align-items: center; height: 60px; padding: 1em; border: solid 7px #4682B4; background-color: orchid;"> '''Wishing Useight a very happy bureaucratship anniversary on behalf of the Birthday Committee! CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)'''

NFC/AFC Conference Championships
I made the change because other articles on wikipedia follow the wins first order, a football example here: List of Super Bowl champions. Wins first makes more sense to the reader. The number of losses are also listed, so there's no real need for an appearance section. FrinkMan (talk) 03:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Useight (talk) 01:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Bureaucrat chat for RFA - Money emoji
I've opened a bureaucrat chat for the current RfA. Your input would be most appreciated at Requests for adminship/Money emoji/Bureaucrat chat. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

... on Handel's birthday, enjoy --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Today's Alte Liebe became especially meaningful after yesterday's funeral. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

now that comdey
Dose you want to help create a Comdey series by episode count? Fanoflionking 13:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Thanks for the heads-up.  Useight (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

thanks i started a talk page when we can discuss it Fanoflionking 17:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

rollback request
I have been on Wikipedia for some time now. I focus in reverting vandalism and would like to enhance my ability to do so. I know the rules of this tool and when to use it. I feel this tool will help me contribute to Wikipedia. Jcoolbro (talk) 01:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you thoroughly read Counter-Vandalism Unit (particularly the wikilinks in the "How to Help" section), as recommended by in your request for rollback earlier this month? Useight (talk) 02:19, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I understand the difference between what is and what is not vandalism. Jcoolbro (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Rollback permission added to your account.  Useight (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

1920 Buffalo All-Americans season
Hi, I've removed several references to a now-blacklisted website as seen in my edit here. This website was the main source for game-by-game summaries, and that section is mostly unsourced now. Since it is a Good Article, and you were one of the main contributors to the page, I figured I'd let you know here.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  17:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Same with 1920 Hammond Pros season and several other 1920 team season pages.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  17:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. Useight (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Bowling glossary
I have made a post at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Bowling. I guess that you, as a participant of WikiProject Bowling, might be interested in this. Utfor (talk) 13:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am interested in looking into expanding the glossary. Thanks for creating that list and thanks for the heads-up.  Useight (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

wikipedia:USEIGHT
Hi, I don’t think we’ve ever directly interacted, but I’m very happy to see that you’re active here again :) Anyway, WP:USEIGHT exists because of the Useight’s Public Sock years, and I was wondering your thoughts as to if we should go ahead and get rid of it. Don’t want to go through an RfD and you and are both reasonable people so figured poking both of you would resolve it. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Bypass the usages and it should be fine to delete I think. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 09:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, go ahead. It's not presently relevant.  Useight (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick move!

 * My pleasure, and thank you. Useight (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

TfD nomination of NFL season templates
Hi there - I have nominated all of the NFL's team season templates, some of which you created, for deletion. You can find the discussion at Templates for discussion/Log/2021 February 16. Thanks, PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 03:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Request for input
Hello, hope all is well. Are you able to comment at an open BN thread? –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 02:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like the request was withdrawn before I could get there. Useight (talk) 20:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)