User talk:BU Rob13

Please feel free to leave a message for me here. You can click the link in the box below to do so. Please be sure to link to relevant articles/diffs and sign your name by typing ~~~~ at the end of your message. Adding content within an irrelevant subsection on my page will likely result in no response.

If you sent me an email, there's no need to notify me here. I check my email regularly and will respond as time permits.

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by .

Clarification

Would it be a topic ban violation to comment here? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SheriffIsInTown: No, as it is a discussion regarding your sanction. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, how about commenting here as I already participated in another discussion on that talk page which was related to the topic same as Mar4d did when reference to the conflict was not added as it was in this RFC? Should I abstain from commenting just because the filer mentioned the conflict whereas the RFC could have been very well formulated without the mention of the conflict? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can comment there, but do not comment specifically regarding the India-Pakistan conflict. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sock?

I have a feeling this fellow is back, with a new user name and all. Could you take a look? Qwirkle (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't check without some evidence. Which username? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2018).

Administrator changes

Justlettersandnumbers • L235

Bgwhite • HorsePunchKid • J Greb • KillerChihuahua • Rami R • Winhunter

Interface administrator changes

Cyberpower678 • Deryck Chan • Oshwah • Pharos • Ragesoss • Ritchie333

Oversight changes

Guerillero • NativeForeigner • Snowolf • Xeno

Guideline and policy news

Following a request for comment, the process for appointing interface administrators has been established. Currently only existing admins can request these rights, while a new RfC has begun on whether it should be available to non-admins.
There is an open request for comment on Meta regarding the creation a new user group for global edit filter management.

Technical news

Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, amended the procedure on functionary inactivity.
The community consultation for 2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments has concluded. Appointments will be made by October 11.
Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ARCA

The ARCA has been closed regarding IP conflict.[1] Most arbitrators suggested that I should file AE. Though I don't know if that is really a diplomatic approach at this moment to file an AE. Instead I was thinking of your comment[2] that how we would be able to solicit community opinion and from where? Thanks. Orientls (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Orientls: Community opinion would be at AE and involve identifying specific edits you thought may violate topic bans. It's impossible to answer general questions about topic ban violations like this, since the specifics matter quite a bit. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)--I was somewhat surprised at the consensus at ARCA, which shook it's hands off the matter.

Per my understandings, the editors who were T-banned from the topic-area did not just limit themselves to despicable behavior in cases of actual-conflict between India and Pakistan but often veered to meat-puppetry and stonewalling on anything connected to the relative power balance and geopolitics of the region.

Whether Pakistan/india can be classified as a regional power is definitely connected with the broader locus of the power-balance between the two (and it's conflicts).

And, IMO, any T-banned editor participating over there is testing the boundaries of the ban.

And, as Ivan noted in SdMarathe's AE request:--Sdmarathe's new RfC, whether deliberate or not, is a discussion on whether or not to include Pakistan in the list. Adding a tangent related to the India-Pakistan war does not make the RfC about the India-Pakistan war. It's just yet another typical dispute, in an artfully crafted discussion.

The nationally-polarized-voting-trends in the RFC (barring a few sane heads)just reinforces it. ∯WBG^converse 15:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Though I am uncertain, as to whether ARCA ever clarifies the scope and ambit of their TBan in specific cases or always leave it to the discretion of enforcing sysops.If the latter is a set-precedent, the proceedings at ARCA is perfectly rational. ∯WBG^converse 16:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's usually the latter. There is a useful "separation of powers" in having enforcing administrators enforce our arbitration decisions rather than the Committee itself. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]