User talk:Rschen7754/Archive 42

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

16:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

  • As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Global watchlist - Update 1

Conflict in regards to US 95 in Arizona

I hope you don't mind me asking, but I'm having a bit of a conflict with another editor in regards to U.S. Route 95 in Arizona. Greggens and I apparently have very different views on how the major intersections table should look as well as a different understanding of US 95's general routing through San Luis, Arizona. Greggens is insisting that US 95 still follows Main Street from the border gate to Juan Sanchez Boulevard, while street-view images on Google Maps and ADOT GIS shapefiles show US 95 being routed as a one-way pair down two parallel streets to Main Street, similar to the routing of NM 478 through downtown Las Cruces. That and he has removed the intersection with Imperial Dam Road and the Gila River bridge crossing from the major intersection table. Imperial Dam Road is the Arizona continuation of California County Route S24 and the main access road to the Yuma Proving Ground. The Gila River is also a major tributary within the state of Arizona and should be noted in major intersection tables. How do I handle a situation like this within our Wikiproject and is there anyone I can turn to for help to resolve said conflict? I'm very new at all the formalities and processes within WP:USRD and do not want to take the wrong steps. On a related note, is it wrong if the mileage numbers on the major intersection tables reflect the posted mileposts along said highway? I had them set up on the US 95 in Arizona article to reflect the mileposts of US 95, I-10 BL (Quartzsite) and I-10, which are the mileposts that are shown the Highway Log and displayed on US 95 in the field. Greggens changed the mileage to reflect only US 95 between San Luis and Ehrenberg, and I wanted to know if his rendition or mine was the correct way to go about it. Sorry if this is a bit of a bother and thanks for taking the time to read this. I wanted to find another way of dealing with this situation other than changing the major intersections table again to avoid creating an edit war. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 04:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Generally it is best to start a discussion at WT:USRD to get more editors to review the situation. I agree that we should follow whatever the GIS sources say unless there is a very good reason not to. As far as the major intersections, I could go either way, but then most of the Southern California road articles have seen enough editors edit warring over what is ultimately an insignificant part of the article - that I've become numb to that sort of thing. --Rschen7754 06:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. If I can't resolve this dispute with said user one on one, I'll create a discussion over at WT:USRD. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 06:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

15:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Highways

I saw your name on WT:USRD so I thought I'd ask since no one ever seems to respond to my posts:

The article List of temporary Interstate Highways has been unsourced since creation in 2005 and hasn't gotten an iota of TLC. Some of these are so short-lived that they probably didn't even appear on any maps. What should be done with this list? Does anyone want to clean it up? Should it be deleted? Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 18:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

If it were up to me I would say delete but maybe there's something I'm missing. --Rschen7754 21:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

23:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

14:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Taconic State Parkway

Thank You
Thank you very much for protecting the Taconic State Parkway article. It's a very important part of transportation history and I'm glad that it's now easier to preserve its history. -Anonymous user 68 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.217.229 (talk) 02:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that both of you are edit warring, and I will have to block you. --Rschen7754 03:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Persistent incivility

Hi Rschen7754, I'm addressing you as the person who resolved this ANI case last month. After that block ended, the same user has been brought back to AN, in a case that's dragging along slowly in the same way. A little while ago the user left this message on my talk page. (There is no recent context for it beyond the current AN thread.) I do not think it would be productive for me to comment on the message or its appropriateness, but I was hoping that someone else (e.g., perhaps, you) might be able to offer then some advice they would listen to. Thanks for your time. (Also pinging @Barkeep49:, who wrote the closing statement.) --JBL (talk) 12:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much for taking a look. --JBL (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

16:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2019

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

Guideline and policy news

  • A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

16:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Global watchlist - Update 2

22:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

20:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

problems with CU discretion

This opinion of yours, pure whataboutism, is beneath your station. Allowing this shifting baseline will only discredit CUs and the larger management clique. I support getting rid of all badly-behaved CUs. My private data is not for misuse, regardless how prevalent. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: I don't understand what you are trying to say. --Rschen7754 01:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 36

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 36, September – October 2019

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Global watchlist - Update 3

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

16:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2019

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).

Administrator changes

added EvergreenFirToBeFree
removed AkhilleusAthaenaraJohn VandenbergMelchoirMichaelQSchmidtNeilNYoungamerican😂

CheckUser changes

readded Beeblebrox
removed Deskana

Interface administrator changes

readded Evad37

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

16:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Need help, pls advice

Hi Rschen, I noticed that you, as a former steward, are very experienced in WP matters, thus I'm asking you for advice. Point is, I notice several anonymous, unsigned (!) "notes" added to postings by participants in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Media_bias_against_Bernie_Sanders, which tried to raise unsourced suspiciouns about their votes. One of those notes links to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rvoskoboynikov. I went there, but there's no case there, no discussion, no defence, no archive link, only a posting by User:ST47. As someone who once had been vicim of a wrongheaded and harassing sockpuppet accusation, I'm concerned about that. Could you pls look into this and check if everything's ok, please? And advice where I shall raise my concern about the unsigned "notes? Gray62 (talk) 11:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

It just became more annoying: Now admin User:Berean_Hunter is threatening me, for daring to protest the inofficial (!) habit of adding unsigned notes that raise suspicions about users. ->Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Media_bias_against_Bernie_Sanders#Who_the_hell_is_raising_unsourced_and_unsigned_accusations_against_participants_here? Should this become worse, where's the proper place to raise a complaint? Arbcom? Gray62 (talk) 14:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
ST47 is a CheckUser and apparently ran a check to determine if the IPs of those users were the same. It seems that you have prejudged this matter to determine that those users are not the same - but what if they are?
While his comments may be a bit harshly worded I would largely have to endorse what Berean says. It appears that canvassing has taken place on external sites to affect the outcome of this discussion - which is against our policies. --Rschen7754 19:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
The bad thing here is that there was an admission to the socking the day before Gray62 decided to complain about the handling of the case. He didn't do his due diligence and has still not relented after being shown the admission today. He responded at 13:53, December 3 following a post where I showed him the admission. He still continues to accuse ST47 of wrongdoing, nonetheless as may be seen here just a little bit ago. His timing is very off as my response shows. His failure to concede and continue with accusations is digging him a bigger hole.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

16:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Global watchlist - Update 4

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

00:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

20:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Be well at Christmas

Have a WikiChristmas and a PediaNewYear

Be well. Keep well. Have a lovely Christmas. SilkTork (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2019

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

21:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 28, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyokotalk 04:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

California roads

I have a definite hard source on the state road article. I moved it to the correct road and took it out of a direct quotation, but gave the full citation. I do not understand what your issue is. While I appreciate the correction to the proper road, your reversion seems unnecessary Mark Sublette Mark Sublette (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mark Sublette: Please read Wikipedia:Plagiarism and WP:QUOTEFARM. It is concerning that someone who has been an editor for almost 15 years does not know what plagiarism is, what copyright violations are, and how to avoid them. --Rschen7754 00:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rschen7754 I gave a full attribution for a very brief entry. In the second edit I took it out of direct quotation. I believe that this is fair use of historical source material. Mark Sublette Mark Sublette (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Mark Sublette : Wikipedia has a very strict copyright policy, stricter in some ways than copyright law itself, because our fair use policy does not allow us to copy material from copyright sources when there's a freely licensed alternative available. In this case the freely licensed material is prose that we write ourselves. You must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Please also see my post on your user talk page.— Diannaa (talk) 00:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

19:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 January 2020