User talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive 1

Active discussions


Inspire Campaign survey on outreach to outside knowledge networksEdit

Thanks for your participation during the Inspire Campaign focused on outreach to outside knowledge networks from February 2017. I'm interested in hearing your experience during the campaign, so if you're able, I invite you to complete this brief survey to describe how you contributed to the campaign and how you felt about participating. I want to improve how campaigns are run, so let me know if there's something that could be done better for next time.

Please feel free to let me know on my talk page if you have any questions about the campaign or the survey. Thanks! I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

(Opt-out instructions)

Survey link error fixedEdit

Hi there, there was a error with the Inspire survey link that caused the survey to be shown as expired, but has now been fixed. The link in the above message should now bring you to the survey. Apologies, I JethroBT (WMF) 19:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Library User Group is being renamed!Edit

Hello! In the past few months, the Wikipedia Library User Group has been undergoing some major planning and developments. We just finished our very first open call with the user group members, which was a great success (see the meeting minutes). If you joined us during the meeting, we’d like to thank you for your interest. If not, not to worry, we have lots of things planned for the user group in which you can participate.

This message is to inform you that based on the input received from the user group members and the founding members, it was agreed that the Wikipedia Library User Group’s name be reconsidered by a voting process. As a valued member of the user group, we’d like to invite you to vote on the list of potential names. You can vote by following this link. The poll will run for a timeframe of two weeks. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of user group founding members --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Focus GroupEdit

Hi Pigsonthewing,

Thank you for signing up, and welcome to the dispute resolution focus group!

Read over the focus group introduction to get started.

Then read through the first module, which begins now and ends on Monday. The first module will be conducted via email, while later modules will be conducted on a separate page. We will provide additional logistical information as the focus group progresses.

Thanks again! JosephNegotiation (talk) 22:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Focus Group ExtensionEdit

We've extended the first deadline until noon (EST) tomorrow. We hope you can participate! JosephNegotiation (talk) 01:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia and Libraries User Group Steering Committee ElectionEdit

Hi Pigsonthewing/Archive 1! As promised by the Wikipedia Library team at the inception of the Wikimedia and Libraries User Group, we are conducting an open-election for the steering committee with 5 to 8 positions. Nominations will be accepted from 3 January 2018 to 9 January 2018. If you are interested in being a part of this committee, you can nominate yourself starting January 2nd next year. This position should attract Wikipedians and librarians with dedication and time to lead the user group in its first year. The elections will happen following the nominations phase starting from 10 January 2018 to 23 January 2018. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact WikiLibraryUG [at] googlegroups [dot] com. A message will be sent shortly before the dates linking to the venue for nominations and election. Thank you! On behalf of the user group founding members--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia and Libraries User Group Steering Committee Election Nomination PhaseEdit

Hello again Pigsonthewing/Archive 1! As stated in our previous message, nominations for the Wikimedia and Libraries User Group steering committee elections are now open and will remain open until the 9th. If you are interested and have read the instructions, please nominate yourself on the election page. Please forward your queries to libraries lists.wikimedia.org, and for private correspondence, please get in touch with one of the founding members. And finally, wishing you a prosperous and happy new year on behalf of the user group founding members! On behalf of the user group founding members --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Updates on the user group election and #1Lib1RefEdit

Hi everyone, two quick but important updates:

Timeline for nominations and votingEdit

  • Nominations are extended until 12 January 2018.
  • Candidates will be lightly vetted by the Founding Members (excluding those who are candidates) to help form a well-functioning committee.
  • Vetting will happen from the 13th up to 21 January 2018.
  • Voting will begin on the 22nd of January and end on the 4th of February.
  • To be able to vote, editors must have joined the usergroup before the 21st of January.
  • Results will be announced on or before the 10th of February.

How you can support #1lib1refEdit

On behalf of the Founding Members --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Spot a copy Q41780754 (older Q1061107)Edit

For consistency resulting item should be <> P31 Q15731356 D1gggg (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@D1gggg: Resolved, thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikimedia and Libraries User Group Steering Committee Election Voting PhaseEdit

Hello once again! We are happy to announce that the steering committee election 2018 is now open for voting. Because you have joined the user group by 21 January 2018, you are eligible to vote. As mentioned under the instructions for voters, you can vote support for multiple candidates, at most one support for each candidate. Also, oppose votes are not allowed, but discussions are welcome on the talk page.

On behalf of the Founding Members --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikimedia and Libraries User Group Steering Committee Election ResultsEdit

Hello everyone! The steering committee election for the Wikimedia and Libraries User Group is finally over and the results you were patiently awaiting for is here! We had many great candidates with awesome skillsets and experience, unfortunately not everyone could make it to the final eight. We are grateful to all the candidates for stepping up and boldly throwing their hat in the ring. It was a difficult choice and they made it. Now, the results. The candidates who made it to the final eight are,

On behalf of the founding members, the TWL team and the user group members, we congratulate the candidates on their successful run and welcome them to the committee. The steering committee and the founding members will soon meet to discuss the handover and next steps of the user group. Thank you--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Template Wizard script available for testingEdit

Hello. I'm contacting you because you voted for the Infobox Wizard in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey.

The Infobox Wizard has gotten an upgrade - it's now a Template Wizard which works for infoboxes and all other templates. The feature is being developed as an extension (which will allow for localization) but there is a prototype user script which works well.

The Wishlist Team would love it if you could take a few minutes to try the Template Wizard prototype script out and give us feedback on whether it lives up to your expectations. This feedback will help build the script into an extension. To get started, add the following to your Special:MyPage/common.js -

mw.loader.load( 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Samwilson/TemplateWizard.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript' );

The Template Wizard will show up as a puzzle-piece icon in the 2010 WikiEditor. You can click on the icon to insert a template. Your thoughts are needed on whether it makes sense for the wizard to be available for all users by default or if there should be a preference for it. If it's a preference, what should the default be? Please leave your feedback here. Thank you! -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Keegan (WMF): I've been editing Wikipedia since 2003, and I've never heard of a "2010 WikiEditor"; nor is that term explained at Template Wizard. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the point, I'll see about getting the page clarified. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Loves FoodEdit

Hello! After the successful pilot program by Wikimedia India in 2015, Wiki Loves Food (WLF) is happening again in 2018 and this year, we are going International. To make this event a grant success, your direction is key. Please sign up as a volunteer or sign up on behalf of your affiliate here.--Abhinav619 (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

What's new from the Wikimedia and Libraries User GroupEdit

Hi Pigsonthewing/Archive 1! Greetings from the Wikimedia and Libraries User Group. Yes, you heard that right! We are now officially known as the Wikimedia and Libraries User Group (previously, Wikipedia Library User Group). New group contacts are User:Merrilee and User:Sodapopinski7. The elected steering committee has been meeting twice a month ever since their election, working on the organisation and details of user group functioning. Progress is being made and we'd like to keep the members updated.
  • The committee decided to use the libraries lists.wikimedia.org and has started making announcements on the list. Please join the list for future announcements and for internal discussions and communications.
  • The latest meeting minutes of the steering committee meeting (May 14-15, 2018) is now available on Meta.

On behalf of the steering committee,

Aaron,

via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikimedia and Libraries User Group updates and WikimaniaEdit

Hi Pigsonthewing/Archive 1! Greetings from the Wikimedia and Libraries User Group. Thank you for participating in the poll to help the steering committee plan activities for the year 2018. We received 84 responses, and the results can be found on the resources page. In addition to that, there are a few more things we'd like to share with you.

If you are attending Wikimania,

Bon voyage and have a wonderful Wikimania!

If you are not attending Wikimania, we have you covered too!

  • Please help us plan activities for this year by sharing your suggestions on how to implement the top two ideas from the poll results. The discussion is open on the user group talk page.
  • The latest meeting minutes of the steering committee meeting (June 28-29, 2018) is now available on Meta.

On behalf of the steering committee,

Aaron,

via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation website/2017-2018 updateEdit

The new "blog" seems to lack a comment section or any open avenue of discussion about the posts, be it even a link to a forum like wikimedia-l. So maybe WMF is trying to get people used to a lack of interaction and communication, so that WMF staff can more easily live in an ivory tower. :-) --Nemo 19:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The Community Wishlist SurveyEdit

Hi,

You get this message because you’ve previously participated in the Community Wishlist Survey. I just wanted to let you know that this year’s survey is now open for proposals. You can suggest technical changes until 11 November: Community Wishlist Survey 2019.

You can vote from November 16 to November 30. To keep the number of messages at a reasonable level, I won’t send out a separate reminder to you about that. /Johan (WMF) 11:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

[Wikipedia & Education User Group] Updates: November 2018Edit

Greetings,

Integrating Wikimedia with education is a powerful strategy for the outreach of Wikimedia projects. Realising this concept, a group of leaders promoted this and formed the Wikipedia Education Collaborative. After some time, this evolved to become a user group, officially recognised by the Affiliations Committee in June 2018. The user group had its first board elections earlier in September. In the process to formalise activities and give a shape the user group for long-term sustainability, we are now revamping our processes. Thanks for supporting us during incubation stages, we are now inviting you to formally join the user group by following the instructions on the members' page. Being a member will allow you to be a part of this wonderful collaboration and also do interesting stuff.

Kind regards
On behalf of Wikipedia and Education UG, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikimedia and Libraries User Group Steering Committee Election Voting PhaseEdit

Hello Pigsonthewing/Archive 1! We are happy to announce that the steering committee election 2019 is now open for voting. Because you have joined the user group before 28 February 2019, you are eligible to vote. Not unlike last year, you can vote support for multiple candidates, at most one support for each candidate. Also, oppose votes are not allowed, but discussions are welcome on the talk page.

On behalf of the steering committee,

Aaron,

via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Infobox settlementEdit

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_May_7#Template%3AInfobox_Nepal_district - another user. 77.183.141.246 11:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_May_15#Template:Infobox_townlands - same user. 78.54.52.232 12:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_May_16#Template:Infobox_Prefecture_Japan - same. In the referenced Tfd 2011 - you took part - it was claimed that the wrapper was unused. 78.55.246.3 13:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_May_18#Template:Infobox_South_Korean_neighborhood - historian now voted against Japan, could be tight in Korea if s/he votes there too. 77.11.214.55 07:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  5. TfD "no consensus" now in DRV: en:Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_June_9#Template:Infobox_Finnish_municipality 77.11.48.80 00:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Please create an acocunt. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

ORCID API into MediawikiEdit

Hi Andy, I am contacting you because you are listed here as Wikipedian in Residence at ORCID. Are you still doing that?

I run several mediawikis in a healthcare setting. I am researching how we could pull data from a person's ORCID profile into one our mediawikis. ORCID has an API, and mediawiki could feed from that (e.g. via extensions data or widget), but before I try to develop something I wanted to reach out to see if something like this maybe already exists. Do you know?

Thanks! Tenbergen (talk) 14:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi again, I think I might have found a way to do this, see https://wiki.umintmed.ca/index.php?title=Tina_Tenbergen/ORCID_Test#ExternalData, but if you know of other ways I would still be interested to hear about alternatives. Tenbergen (talk) 22:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@Tenbergen: Source MD uses the ORCID API to pull data from public ORCID records into Wikidata, from where Wikipedias and other projects can transclude them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC).

Import requestEdit

From Outreach:Wikimedia:Village_pump#Import_request

In order to implement w:Template:WiR_table_row here, could I request the import of:

  1. w:module:WikidataIB/sandbox to Outreach:module:WikidataIB
  2. w:Template:WiR_table_row to Outreach:Template:WiR_table_row
  3. w:Template:WiR_table_start to Outreach:Template:WiR_table_start

Thank you! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:22, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: That's done, now. Apologies that it took so long, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks! I think I've just finished all of the wikidata items on it, so the timing works out. Should soon be fully implementable over at Wikimedian_in_residence. See the map! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 08:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Community Wishlist Survey 2020Edit

Hello!

You are getting this message because you've previously participated in the Community Wishlist Survey, in either the Wikisource or Wiktionary categories. I wanted to let you know that this year's survey is now open for proposals. You can suggest technical changes until November 11. Unlike previous years, we are only accepting proposals for non-Wikipedia content projects with no dedicated teams (i.e., Wikibooks, Wiktionary, Wikiquote, Wikisource, Wikiversity, Wikispecies, Wikivoyage, and Wikinews). You can learn more on the survey page.

You can vote on proposals from November 20 to December 2. To keep the number of messages at a reasonable level, I won't send out a separate reminder to you about that. We look forward to your participation. Thank you! IFried (WMF) (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Watchlist Expiry project updateEdit

Hello, Pigsonthewing! The Community Tech team has posted an April update to the Watchlist Expiry project, and we would love your feedback. The update includes new mockups, which show how users can determine watch status when viewing/editing watched pages or the watchlist. We invite you to check out the update and share your feedback on the project talk page. Thank you! --IFried (WMF) (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Community Tech Launches Wikisource Improvement InitiativeEdit

Hello,

We hope you are all healthy and safe in these difficult times.

The Community Tech team has just launched a new initiative to improve Wikisource. We have created the first project (Improve ebook exports), which came out of the 2020 Community Wishlist Survey. We now invite you to share your feedback on the project talk page. Please let us know what you think of our project analysis; we want to hear from you! Furthermore, we hope that you will participate in the other Wikisource improvement projects, which we’ll address in the future. Thank you in advance and we look forward to reading your feedback on the project talk page!

-- IFried (WMF) (Product Manager, Community Tech)

Sent by Satdeep Gill (WMF) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

How to deal with PolesEdit

Hi. You are more than welcome to join in the deletion discussion on Meta:Requests for deletion#How_to_deal_with_Poles, but please try to refrain from overriding the community processes. --Base (talk) 12:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The community procrsss decided that such repulsive material was not acceptable a long time ago, so please try to refrain from overriding it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 Which community process are you referring to? There is an ongoing RfD now. --Base (talk) 13:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Consider this your warning: You will be blocked if you engage in such behavior. — regards, Revi 17:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
You don't specify any behaviour, so your post is impossible to comply with. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh yeah, was about to write that, but ECed. Stop the vandalism - emptying the page in question. — regards, Revi 17:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
You don't specify any vandalism, so your post is impossible to comply with. Furthermore, I refute your allegation of vandalism, utterly. Nor have I "emptied" any page. Yours is every odd behaviour for an admin; doubly so for one who claims to work for the WMF. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
You know what I mean, stop playing with the words. My employment doesn't relate to any contribs under this account. Thanks. — regards, Revi 17:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I can't make head nor tail of your ridiculous posts. HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

MetaEdit

I didn't post much of the following on this wiki; it has been moved here by another editor. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

You seem to have made an error on Meta:

18:38, 6 June 2020 TheSandDoctor talk contribs blocked Pigsonthewing talk contribs with an expiration time of infinite (account creation disabled) (Removing content from pages)
Please fix it, asap. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I will answer this here, but for future please direct any meta related questions to meta (e.g. ping on your talk page with a Q) as this is outside the scope of enwiki or any other wiki. No, everything was working correctly, with the exception that indef was too long for a first block. I have adjusted it to 2 months. If you have further questions, please direct to your meta talk page. --TheSandDoctor Talk 21:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I asked, and have, no questions. It was clearly an error, or rather several, on your part:

  • infinite length bock, per above
  • there was no removal of content from "pages" (plural); you have now repeated this false claim
  • removing content from a page (or indeed pages, had that been the case), in the process of rewriting it, is not in itself a blocking matter
  • no prior warning, or indeed any attempt to discuss
  • no post-block notification on my talk page.

Please now fix these egregious errors, by removing your wholly unwarranted block, with a summary that acknowledge the errors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

As I have said, please take this to your meta talk page. I am copying this over there and will respond in turn. --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • indefinite length was corrected
  • the plural form is templated. If you want a third entry in your block log, I can most certainly make it singular. I don't have a problem with that.
  • you refused to accept consensus as was evident by your repeated edit warring
  • "no prior warning, or indeed any attempt to discuss" really? You were not only warned once, but twice yet continued anyways, almost immediately after the full protection was removed
  • "no post-block notification on my talk page." meta doesn't even have a formal blocking policy. Talk page notifications are not required here nor necessarily the norm; even if there was, that does not somehow invalidate the block being placed...it doesn't work that way on enwiki nor here
Based on the fact that you were warned, have been demonstrated to appear to ignore the consensus/your conduct, and have seemingly pretended to not understand the fact that you were warned (if this were enwiki, that would be best described as en:WP:CIR. However, given that you are an enwiki TE, I say you have pretended as you clearly have competence) this is hardly an "unwarranted" block. --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Please examine the timestamps of the three diffs you cite (and the content of the former, which in no way constitutes a "warning"), and then retract your further false allegations; and remove your wholly unwarranted block, with a summary that acknowledges your errors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi @TheSandDoctor:. I am surprised by the heavy handed way you've dealt with an editor who removed content that he feels is offensive. Saying something is funny doesn't make it so, and I too feel the content is offensive. But at the same time, you did not warn the editor before you blocked, or did I miss this. I don't see that a warning, by some other editor, as helpful, in a discussion that is contentious nor should such a statement by an editor, and not the blocking admin, constitute a warning, You, did not warn Andy. Whether Meta has a blocking policy or not seems hardly the point. You are a Wikipedia admin and understand the grounds for blocks. I hope you're not suggesting that Meta's lack of guidance on blocks leaves the door open for anything an admin wants to throw at an editor. This is not about whether META has a block guide but about whether an admin has the background to administer a block fairly. And you do. Further, edit warring even when content is offensive while not the best way to deal with contention, is not generally considered blockable behaviour. I don't see consensus on the talk page, and your comments to the editor suggest he is dishonest when you say he " pretended". That constitutes a personal attack. I'm sorry but this seems a big rush to judgement in a situation where more discussion could have been helpful. Andy seems upset by the article and its tone and content. Isn't it your job as an admin to discuss this rather than rush to block. I hope you'll reconsider your action here. Best. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you were more than warned, by two different users, not to keep up your behavior. Instead, you decided to double down and say the warning wasn't really a warning, when it was, and edited the page yet again as soon as the protection was lifted. The RfD gave a consensus to keep, with Polish users defending that the page be kept, while the page is also linked from multiple user pages of Polish users. From there, we can draw the conclusions that 1) Polish users do not think the page is offensive and 2) you have no consensus to modify the page to your liking. The block was justified, even if the previous length was not. —Thanks for the fish! talkcontribs 23:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Who are you addressing? Littleolive oil (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
If Tks4Fish thinks I was "more than warned, by two different users", I invite them also to examine the timestamps of the three diffs cited by TheSandDoctor (and the content of the former, which in no way constitutes a "warning" and which was posted by an 'involved' admin). I'm also concerned by the implication that a page kept at RfD cannot be modified. Their insincere apology is not accepted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: I can't say that I am an ardent defender of Pigsonthewing at all, but this block for what is basically edit warring is disproportionate, even with the new length of 60 days. Maybe 3-7 days, but 2 months is way too much. --Rschen7754 00:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I wonder about this Rschen. This reminds me of a arbitration case where an editor was accused of wrong doing and a suggested block was advised. Lo and behold there was no blockable offense, but instead of removing any kind of sanction an arb suggested a lesser block. So with no offense why was any block possible? Littleolive oil (talk) 00:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
While you can see how I voted in the RfD, the consensus is that it is not a violation of policy, and this is clear edit warring against consensus. --Rschen7754 00:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think short block will change him, with the arrogance he has shown above. As we see, he started the disruption as soon as the protection was lifted, so I can safely assume he will simply wait for the short block to expire and then try the infight again. My mistake would have been not blocking on first sight — and I would have blocked similar length (min. 1month) to meaningfully prevent disruptions on this wiki. — regards, Revi 00:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
You can't block based on an opinion about the future... after two reverts. And the blocking admin did not warn. Two reverts and a month long block because you think he's arrogant. Is "possible" arrogance a blocking offense. It's not and you all know it. Maybe you don't like the editor and maybe you don't like what he did. But it's not blockable. No admin has been given this kind of power. Littleolive oil (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Where is the context?Edit

I arrived here from the blocking admin's talk page, and am rather surprised about the reason given for a block which was indef first as "removing content from pages", - something I do on a daily basis, and often find necessary when content is bad. What happened? Where's the offense? Who is involved? Is there a block review or just this chat? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I am providing the following explanation to provide a brief overview to those sincerely interested in the situation, that being said I must note that this is not a "block review", there is no such formal process on Meta-Wiki. Blocks are issued on admin discretion rather than following a strict formalised policy here.
In general, there are a lot of valid cases where someone might remove content from pages. In this case, though, we are talking about the editor replacing the content of a page despite an ongoing RfD, which at the moment of the actions was already indicating a consensus towards keeping the page as is. Their action was cancelled with proper explanation by an admin, MarcoAurelio, only to have the editor repeat the action supplemented by a retort in edit summary. Their action was then cancelled by me, also an admin, and a warning and an invitation to the RfD was issued. The editor referred to unspecified "community process … a long time ago" and revered my edit to the page. Lest the edit war continues, but RfD participants have clear overview of the page in question, I have decided to soft-mitigate the situation by linking to a permanent version in the RfD, which was supported by another admin, -revi, soft-blanking and protecting the page for a day. The following day, the RfD was closed by yet another admin, TheSandDoctor, as "keep" and the original text of the page was restored, the protection was lifted. Mere 3 minutes after this, the editor again replaces the text with his own version. This was rolled back by -revi and another warning was issued. Instead of accepting the situation, the editor resolved to sophism pretending he does not understand what is going on. The situation was reëvaluated by TheSandDoctor and the block was issued. The user then further worsened the situation by bringing the block discussion to English Wikipedia, which has nothing to do with Meta-Wiki and which is not watched actively by most of the participants of the situation (my home wiki is Ukrainian Wikipedia for instance). The block was loosened though as the result of the discussion now moved back here.
To sum this up, we have and edit war with 4 admins, despite a community consensus, and while not joining in the discussion to influence the consensus. I think this quite adds up to what you'd call WP:POINT on Wikipedia, but on top of that this is crowned by general sophism and inappropriate attitude here on talk page and an attempt to move the discussion elsewhere. --Base (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Base, but I am disappointed to read a thorough explanation of your view, instead of pointing me to the article in question. - Also, can we agree that the reason given for the block was poor, whether true or not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt and Base: How to deal with Poles (the section right above this also relates). --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I understand we deal with something that is supposed to be humurous ("How to deal with ..."), and some don't think it is. I have little time, so hopefully you will understand that I didn't read all the above, nor that strange humour. Can we break things up a bit.
  1. How can we deal with users who write abbreviations as an edit summary, such as HTH. WP:HTH is no help. My take would have been to request explanation on the talk, unless it is a reason to remove something that needs to be removed.
  2. "This racist content is contrary to WMF policy." is an edit summary I would have understood. It explains that the content HAD to be removed, and why. It could have ended there, no? An RfD plays no role if something is against policy, right? Or enlighten me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

There are a number of falsehoods and misinterpretations in the long screed posted above by User:Base. Meanwhile I await a response by TheSandDoctor to my post above, which I repeat here for clarity: "Please examine the timestamps of the three diffs you cite (and the content of the former, which in no way constitutes a "warning"), and then retract your further false allegations; and remove your wholly unwarranted block, with a summary that acknowledges your errors." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I looked at the diff timestamps. Not sure what I am supposed to notice? Everything looks as expected/they are in chronological order. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

Here are the timestamp of the three diffs you cite, numbered in the order in which you present them, and which you now claim "are in chronological order" (emboldening mine):

  1. Revision as of 12:59, 5 June 2020 (again: not a warning)
  2. Revision as of 17:46, 6 June 2020 (supposed warning)
  3. Revision as of 17:45, 6 June 2020 (my edit)

(I note also that you omit intermediate diffs, including my responses to the former; and the one where I was falsely accused of "vandalism".)

This repeated misrepresentation - if indeed it is accidental - is especially remarkable from someone who has invoked "CIR".

Now, for the fifth time of asking, will you please fix these egregious errors, by removing your wholly unwarranted block, with a summary that acknowledges your multiple errors? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

...tumbleweed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Unblock request June 2020Edit

Unblock request granted

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, and one or more administrators has reviewed and granted this request.

Request reason: Per the above; note that TheSandDoctor has not responded in a week. This block is preventing me from using both the WMF URL shortener and my Wikipedia Library account, both of which are hampering my outreach work on behalf of the Wikimedia movement.
Unblock reason: hard block seems unreasonable. Extended blocking of a valuable community member without some consensus unreasonable, especially where there is the ability to restrict editing while there are functional alternatives.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

This template should be archived normally.


English | español | français | italiano | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | 中文 | edit

Hello. Now that the RfD regarding How to deal with Poles has been closed - are you done editing that page? Without unraveling the rest of the discussion above, it appears your block was solely related to that page - so if you are going to stay away from that page the block seems to be moot. — xaosflux Talk 19:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
If that's what it takes then, under strong protest, I won't edit it again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I wasn't trying to build an 'unblock condition' - just was trying to get you moving again with the other issue you mentioned - even if that other issue still needed follow up, in any case you are already unblocked now so never mind. As far as that page goes, I suggest you propose future changes on its talk page if you are interested in further developing it. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 14:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
So am I prohibited from editing that page, or not? I note that TheSandDoctor has yet to acknowledge his errors, much less apologise, or correct them. And there is no retraction in my block log. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I am pretty certain that there are some clear indications in the above statements that should be guiding you. Do you really want the community to formally discuss this matter?

You can deal directly with TSD about your concerns, that doesn't need our intervention.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

And I am absolutely certain that my question, like my request that TheSandDoctor address and rectify his own errors (which he has yet to address), is perfectly clear. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

barnstarEdit

  The tireless cybernetic contributor Barnstar
thank you for your tireless contributions.Slowking4 (talk) 01:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikisource Pagelist Widget - First Iteration FeedbackEdit

Hello everyone,

I am pleased to announce that Wikisource Pagelist Widget is now available on Beta Wikisource. We need your help in testing the widget and providing feedback.

You can test the widget by editing the following Index page on Beta Wikisource:

https://en.wikisource.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/Index:War_and_Peace.djvu

There is a new ‘Preview pagelist’ button under the pagelist field. Click it to get a preview, and then click on any page number in the preview to open the widget.

You can also create a fresh Index Page for any other PDF or DjVu from Wikimedia Commons and test it.

We need your feedback on the following questions:

  • What is your general opinion about the Pagelist Widget?
  • Is it obvious how to use the widget? If not, what is difficult to understand?
  • What other changes would you like to suggest in order to improve the widget further?

Please provide your feedback on the Project Talk Page on Meta-Wiki.

P.S. - The widget doesn’t work on Local Uploads in Beta Wikisource as of now (due to phab:T257807).

Regards

SGill (WMF) (talk)

Sent using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Feedback requested: Findings & proposed next steps for Wikisource projectEdit

Hello, Pigsonthewing! The Community Tech team has posted an update to the Wikisource Ebook Export Improvement project, and we would love your feedback. The update includes findings from our community consultation, results from two technical analyses, and proposed next steps for the project. Once we receive feedback on the August update, we can begin development work. For this reason, your feedback is crucial and we invite you to check out the latest update and share your feedback on the project talk page. Thank you in advance! --IFried (WMF) (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Wiki World Heritage User GroupEdit

Dear World Heritage enthusiast,
We are thrilled to announce that Wiki World Heritage User Group has been finally recognized ! This wouldn't have been possible without your support !
Please join us on:

Wishing you an excellent week ahead !

Nassima Chahboun (talk) 15:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
On behalf of the founding members.

Community Wishlist Survey 2021: InvitationEdit

SGrabarczuk (WMF)

18:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Community Wishlist Survey 2021Edit

SGrabarczuk (WMF)

16:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Wiki World Heritage UG preparatory meetingEdit

Hello Pigsonthewing/Archive 1,
The first preparatory meeting of Wiki World Heritage User Group will be held on 26 December 2020 at 16:00 UTC, and are looking forward to having you with us!

  • Meeting link : Here
  • Meeting ID : 763 8364 4697
  • Password: WWH

You are also invited to join us on WWH mailing list and WWH Telegram group.
Thank you !

Yamen (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
On behalf of the founding members.

Return to the user page of "Pigsonthewing/Archive 1".