Jump to content

User talk:Samsara

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2001:8003:5901:b400:5035:b7ce:159e:e954 (talk) at 07:11, 5 April 2019 (→‎Melbourne City Wrestling: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Threads  Dates Archive
1 to 39  September 2003 to February 20 2006 0
40 to 82  February 20 2006 to March 19 2006 1
83 to 101  up to and all of May 2006 2
102 to 121  June 2006 3
122 to 169  July 2006 4
170 to 203  1 to August 19 2006 5
204 to 234  19 August to 30 September 2006 6
235 to 266  October 2006 7
267 to 305  November 2006 8
306 to 344 December 2006 9
345 to 384 January to April 2007 10
385 to 440 May to December 2007 11
441 to 471 December 2007 to February 2008 12
472 to 544 2008-2012 13
545 to 626 2013-September 2015 14
627 to 695 October 2015-2016 15
696 to 725 First half of 2017 16
726 to 807 Second half of 2017 17
808 to 834 2018 18
RfC invites 00

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019

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

Guideline and policy news

  1. G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
  2. R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
  3. G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.

Technical news

  • Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
  1. At least 8 characters in length
  2. Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
  3. Different from their username
User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.
  • Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
  • {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
  • Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Angels Request for Reduced Protection

Hello Samsara, last year you and I worked on protecting the page: Blue Angels (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) due to some vandals. It was set to expire on 12/22/17. Unfortunately, it seems it's still protected. The RfPP page says ask the protecting admin first so that's what I'm doing. I'm sorry if I'm going about this the wrong way. If I don't hear from you I'll post a request there as instructed in the WP:RFUP section. Thanks! -Frapsity (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Frapsity: The only "protection" on the article is pending changes review, which is considered a very low and uncontroversial protection. In essence, anyone can edit the article, but changes do not go live immediately to allow monitoring for vandalism or other problems that may recur. Since the actual protection expired only recently, I would suggest leaving pending changes intact for a little while longer to see if things have really calmed down. Regards, Samsara 09:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For some added insight, if you hover over the protection icon, it will display this information and link you through to the pending changes article. Samsara 09:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

Thank you the warning. I should know better. The discussion is at Talk:Assamese_people#Dravidian_element_in_Assamese_people. Chaipau (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019

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

Administrator changes

added Enterprisey • JJMC89
readded BorgQueen
removed Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes

removedEnterprisey

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
  • Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news

  • A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Concerning Emirates Stadium...thank you for implementing the protection I thought I had applied. Lectonar (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lectonar: My pleasure. I figured since you'd made a call, it made sense to follow it. Thanks for saying hi. :) Samsara 03:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is L. Inc. protected (thanks) but at the wrong title (oops)

Hi there,

Thanks for looking over the page move warring at This is L. Inc. [sic] but you've protected the page while it was at the "wrong" title. The move discussion at Talk:L. Inc.#Requested move 26 January 2019 opened when the page was at L. Inc.. Can you move it back there, please? 94.21.238.64 (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I would not touch this as per Wikipedia:There is no deadline, meta:The Wrong Version and because it is an admin's responsibility to be impartial when administering a dispute. However, apparently rogue moves were not considered when Template:requested move was created, so I guess it'll have to be moved back just so the move request displays correctly. Only for that reason. Samsara 03:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please semi-protect

Please can you semi-protect Ilhan Omar. The subject of this article is a living person who is currently in a large controversy in US media over a possible antisemitic remark, and this article about a living, controversial figure currently has no semi-protection to stop vandalism. There is currently a large edit war happening on this page due to the controversy. Please fix this quickly! TheNavigatrr (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller has already activated pending changes, and there hasn't been much happening since. Samsara 21:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your quick response. TheNavigatrr (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Hopefully this will end the rash of meritless AE ECP requests of late. Pinging Oshwah too because he's had to help with it. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to TonyBallioni for pinging me in on this message and discussion. As someone who evaluated many of the arbitration enforcement requests for protection made by this user, I declined all of them due to the article subjects not involving the Arab-Israeli conflict as was incorrectly stated. I actually got to the point where I refused to evaluate any more of them and instead would remove them as they came in so that they wouldn't waste anyone's time. I admire this user's diligence; I'm sure their heart was in the right place when making these requests. But when you're seeing a near-100% decline rate with the numerous requests you're making, and then continuing to make more of them despite the multiple messages from users telling you that what you're doing is becoming disruptive and asking you to stop - a discretionary sanction becomes a necessary action to take in order to put the brakes on this user, get them to look up from what they're doing, and pay attention to the warnings from others when they're telling you that you're being disruptive. In this case, had TonyBallioni not imposed this sanction on the user, I definitely would have done so myself. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(possible ec) I agree that these requests are a form of being disruptive as a result of being possibly too invested in the PIA conflict, or overly fascinated with making Wikipedia's mechanisms churn. So no objection from me. In spite of this, I've assessed Palestine Solidarity Movement as being a valid enforcement target. I don't believe we need to be cutting our own nose just to show disruptive people what's what (and as you say, the intentions may have been good). If we see an article that needs to be placed under sanctions, we should generally do so regardless of the circumstances in which this was brought to our attention, imo. If there has been any guidance from ArbCom about the threshold of disruption below which we should not enact ECP, then I haven't seen it. As I've said before, it is my assessment that the PIA conflict is currently reasonably well controlled and additional ECP will be having an increasingly marginal impact. Samsara 02:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rum

i didn't understand your comments, please elaborate, regards. 175.137.72.188 (talk) 10:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest issue here is that I did not find the claimed facts in the book you referred to. You said page 91, but the link was to page 140. Neither page seems to discuss either of the two aspects you mentioned. Samsara 10:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
sorry its page 60 and 59 of the book and not the slide, i did mention page 60 in the citation while mistakenly put the wrong link, regards.
Rum175.137.72.188 (talk) 11:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see that it's there. Next point - the book bears a 1994 copyright mark. So it is not out of copyright yet. This means you should use paraphrasing and not copy phrases from the book unless you do so explicitly, marking them clearly as quotations and while also giving the reference. Samsara 11:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for your contributions in Rum, regards. 175.137.72.188 (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection icon hidden

Hi Samsara. I have a question about your recent edit of the Jim Acosta article. As far as I can tell, even after purging the page cache, the semi-protection icon does not show up. I'm curious what action/edit was used to hide the icon - if any. Do you know? --77.173.90.33 (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The padlocks are an unresolved bug. In contrast to some other wikis, on the English Wikipedia, they do not display automatically and have to be added manually if desired. This gives an overview of the situation including phabricator tickets, in 2016. I've added the padlock on the mentioned page now to show you that edit. HTH, Samsara 15:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information and link. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stray edit

Hi, your helpful insertion of a historic edit prior this edit of mine that I made today made my edit moot, nosensical and misleading. Can you delete my edit, please? Thanks! --В²C ☎ 01:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see you also mentioned this at RfPP, so let's see how the discussion proceeds there. Regards, Samsara 06:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Inserting an older edit prior to mine changed the effect of my edit. The edit summary doesn’t even match what the edit does any more. You’ve essentially gone back in time and changed the world out from under me, turning my edit into nonsense. Surely you see this? Please delete my edit which your action inadvertently corrupted. Thanks. —В²C ☎ 07:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFPP

There are too many requests ... Hhkohh (talk) 02:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that it will need manual attention until either Enigmaman or Cyberpower respond. I've cleaned it up once now. Samsara 04:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stitch's Great Escape

Hi there, since you semi-protected Stitch's Great Escape! do you mind removing the pending changes please, Thanks Pepper Gaming (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Afaik, the bug whereby pending changes will lose all information if removed, still exists, so my practice is that if a significant amount of information has been gathered under PC, I leave it enabled to preserve that information. I understand this is not an ideal situation, but it's the one we're in. Samsara 06:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion For New User

On the article I'm trying to edit, Ebyabe states "Non-encyclopaedic tone" - this is opinion - theirs vs. mine. If I think it's encyclopedia tone and they don't - why is theirs favored?

Also, you said I was doing "disruptive editing" in your comments for protecting the page, but when I look up the definition of disruptive editing it says, "a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time on many articles". How can you establish a pattern when you haven't let me finish the edits I wanted to do? This is my first night on a wikipedia registered account and from what I'm learning, there is a responsibility on users to first educate new people and teach them before resorting to things that block them from editing altogether. I did not make edits "over a long time" or "on many articles" so I did not do disruptive editing and I can't see why I'm being treated this way. Instead of talking to me I'm being shut out and I don't even know how to private message you or if this will reach you. I tried to use the page's talk page and it says I'm blocked from that. So what am I supposed to do now? Seems like I'm not being treated fairly or given a fair opportunity to be taught how to use this site let alone share my thoughts intelligently in a discussion with others because now I can't use the talk page either due to the protection level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcontributor777 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a false dichotomy. Your edit was disruptive as you labelled it as "minor edits" when it was anything but. Bearing false witness - twice now! Samsara 06:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Samsara: Hi Samsara - Maybe our views on major and minor are different - the first edit I did I did not mark as minor - the second edit I did was a minor edit from my first edit, but major and minor are opinions. My intentions were not bad, but perhaps we view things differently and instead of thinking I have good intentions you are assuming I don't and pre-judging me instead of having an honest dialogue to understand me. I have good intentions - not deceptive ones. And for the record - I made two revisions - one NOT marked as minor - and one that I did view as minor. Maybe you missed that in the details or maybe we just view major and minor differently, but your assessment of me having negative intentions or not trying to do good is incorrect. But after the treatment from you and others I am done with this site. You do not show appreciation for people with education and knowledge to share when you pre-judge them as troublemakers before you really know who they are. Not everybody on the Internet is out to violate rules and cause problems. Have a great day. I won't be reading to reply back or coming on here probably.

Thanks

Thanks for the page protection at Drought NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fazal Ahmad Khalid

Same issue. There are people continuously adding the controversy section, even after I have tried to explain (in edit summaries and on user talk page) that the controversy section's references do not support the claims made.

I only come to you because I do not know what else to do, and that you were the last admin to look at the page.

Can you please take a look at this?

Thanks, Levvyowo? 19:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Levityn: The disruptive user is now blocked; I've extended semi by three months as this is clearly still an ongoing concern. If we continue to see autoconfirmed disruptive activity, elevating to ECP is another option. Samsara 06:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Improper use of the Undo by Mrschimpf

Hello,

I noticed you recently protected the Rotten Tomatoes page from vandalism which is probably a good thing at the moment. However, my edits were NOT vandalism but they were still reverted by a user named Mrschimpf without sufficient reason or explanation TWICE. Could you please look at them and restore them? You'll see they fully met the WP:PRIMARY guidelines as they simply linked to RT's statement and made absolutely no judgment call on the material itself. I'm not a regular Wikipedia user and this experience isn't exactly making me want to become one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.123.197 (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He used undo and not rollback, which is perfectly fine, and gave explanations of his edits, pointing to WP:POINT, although I understand this may not have been entirely clear to a new user. You should (1) be careful to avoid edit warring and instead use the talk page to discuss whether there is consensus in favour of your proposed changes, (2) avoid forum shopping, that is, posting the same issue in multiple locations, and (3) take note to paraphrase material from reliable sources in a way that is neutral in tone and does not introduce synthesis. It's not easy being a Wikipedian, but I hope this gives you some useful guidance. If you need more help, feel free to ask again. Samsara 05:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox album change

Hey, can you point me to where the discussion was held regarding Template:Infobox album/genre/Sol-Angel and the Hadley St. Dreams and the change to {{Infobox album}} to support it? --Gonnym (talk) 09:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The same mechanism is already in use on {{Infobox single}} and {{Infobox musical artist}}. We need this to be able to correspond appropriately to genre warring under the guiding principles of the protection policy (specifically, not protecting more than is necessary). I only make that change to a template when an actual use case arises, which is why you haven't seen it at Infobox album until now. If you feel that a separate discussion is needed for Infobox album, feel free to start one. I would ask that you leave it intact for now as it supports an administrative action. Thank you. Samsara 09:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The RfPP request is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Sol-Angel_and_the_Hadley_St._Dreams. Regards, Samsara 09:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the reasoning behind your action, but how it was done was not really done by any consensus made process (what other templates do has no automatic baring on what this template does). As these sub-pages aren't really templates, but store article text (not following WP:TG), have much less eyes on them are usually left and forgotten, I think you should have gained consensus on the actual template page before making the change, and not make the change and require me to start a discussion regarding if it should be kept or not. Personally, I'm against such uses of templates to bypass just protecting a page. --Gonnym (talk) 09:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
    • paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wraper11

Hi Samara, the page is now protected, so I removed words here. I also sent you an email containing proofs, hope you can see I'm sincerely protecting the page from vandalism here.

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Your article protections have been awesome. Any time I've requested protection over on RFPP, and you're around, you've been on top of it. Plus, you do really long semi-protections because of the silly IPs who will return—eg, Henry Danger and its LOE—and I think you're about the only admin who does that. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Amaury, it's nice to know that my work is appreciated. :) Samsara 19:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eurovision 2019

Since you have added the protection of that article, would you be so kind to take a look at what’s happening on that page? In my opinion, the high ticket prices are a reason to mention, however, others reckon it should not be included. Is there any way someone unbiased could take a look, and decide what to do, because this has became an edit war. It will be greatly appreciated! 「Robster1983」☞ Life's short, talk fast ☜ 10:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Samsara: Please change the protection level back to Extended confirmed protected as all of the users who edit the page are not administrators and the page needs update regularly. Thank you. —Dimsar01 Talk ⌚→ 11:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dimsar01: Can you stop being disruptive for even five minutes? You are clearly engaged in an edit war, so don't complain about the protection going up. Samsara 11:13, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Samsara: I don't want to be disruptive. That's why I also agree with Robster1983 that someone else has to check the issue. I'm complaining about the update of the page; I wouldn't continue the edit-war anyway. Friendly regards —Dimsar01 Talk ⌚→ 11:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Samsara/vector.js

FYI the protection you added to this page is redundant: even without any special protection, only you and Interface administrators can edit JS pages in your userspace. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time left over, I would encourage you to help with triaging bug reports such as this as the WMF does not seem to be getting around to it. Samsara 15:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Een ster voor u!

De ster van verdienste
Thanks a million for giving some guidance in a nasty debate. It helped a lot. 「Robster1983」☞ Life's short, talk fast ☜ 23:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Ombuds

Hi, re: this, I'm taking it off the RfB because I'm not trying to get you to change your !vote at all but rather to clarify what the role of the ombudsman commission is. I know what the meta policy says, but what I'm saying is that the odds of the Ombudsman Commission actually taking actions involving a sysop on en.wiki that is not related to the privacy policy are less than zero, and I don't think it has ever happened in the history of it's existence. Regardless of what the written policy says, it's current role is confined to advising the WMF on what actions should be taken for violations of the privacy policy/NDA and the global CheckUser and Oversight policies, and if it still exercises any function outside of that, it would be for stuff like an admin showing up at someone's house (this happened on nl.wiki in 2014 and from what a steward has told me, before Alex Shih it was the last time the WMF advanced permissions banned someone.)

I'll ping @Risker, Ajraddatz, and MarcoAurelio: to correct me if I'm wrong, but I really think this is an important understanding to clear up, regardless of the outcome of the RfB. If an admin on en.wiki thinks that the Ombuds commission handles things that are normally handled by the local ArbCom, there are likely others who have this impression too. That, or I'm off-base completely and the people I pinged clearing up my confusion would be helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The OC only investigates alleged violations of the privacy policy and access to nonpublic information policy (and as a result the CU/OS policies), and does not deal with admins (or any group) outside that context. Further to that, any ombudsperson is required to recuse themselves from an investigation where they have a real or perceived COI. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)
  • the odds of the Ombudsman Commission actually taking actions involving a sysop on en.wiki that is not related to the privacy policy are less than zero
    • It makes me quite concerned when people present opinion as fact. And as a sysop, I believe you should avoid gaffes like this.
  • don't think it has ever happened in the history of it's existence
    • This is a non-argument, and I suspect you know that. Ombudsman commissions exist to handle rare cases.
  • Regardless of what the written policy says
    • If you believe there are issues with the policy, meta is the place to raise that.
  • it would be for stuff like an admin showing up at someone's house (this happened
    • Aha.
  • If an admin on en.wiki thinks that the Ombuds commission handles things that are normally handled by the local ArbCom, there are likely others who have this impression too.
    • The point here is that any normal person would take the policy to be valid as written, so if there are issues with that, meta is the venue. Just because someone you've pinged tells me that things are such and such is not going to change the course of the world. If you want something to take effect, you have to attack the problem at the root, and that's on meta. That's not saying that I believe a word of your claims (other than the Dutch incident - I was aware of that), just advising you what to do if you genuinely believe there is a problem and you want to see an effective solution. Samsara 00:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, and I've raised it on meta since I agree the current wording can be confusing, but as has been pointed out there it's authority is limited to what the board resolutions gives it. The current expanded scope can be found here. That expanded the initial scope, which is found here. That is controlling, not what the meta information page says. The only things that it has been authorized to investigate on behalf of the board are:
  1. Violations of the privacy policy.
  2. Whether or not local policies for CheckUser or Oversight violate or conflict with corresponding global CheckUser and Oversight policies
  3. CheckUsers or Oversighters have violated the global CheckUser or Oversight policies.
People who abuse these positions usually are sysops, but the ombuds would not be investigating outside of the scope of the board resolutions. Are there other roles that you think it performs that are not listed here? I really am trying to understand where you are coming from, and get this clarified, because unless there is a board resolution expanding their scope beyond what is listed, that's all they investigate. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm trying to get my head around what you think is the potential conflict of interest here, and why you think it should relate to the current candidacy. As best I can figure, a complaint to the Ombudsman Commission would result in the current RFB candidate recusing from the discussion on *that* committee, and would not result in any COI on enwiki; in practice, Ombuds do not normally participate in discussing any cases that involve their "home" wikis, according to every member of the Ombudsman Commission that I have spoken with over the past 10 years. Anyone can be the subject of a complaint - in the past, we have had Arbcom members named as parties in Arbcom cases - and their conflict of interest is addressed in a situation-specific means, both on English Wikipedia and on the Ombudsman Commission. (And yes, people with CU permissions from enwiki have been brought before the Ombudsman Commission, but only in their role as CheckUser, not in their role as administrator, or any other role. As far as I know, there has never been an enwiki Oversighter or Arbitrator brought before the OC for actions in those specific roles, nor have enwiki administrators or bureaucrats for actions in either of those roles. We have an Arbcom that deals with all of that.)

    Now, I do understand the position that a candidate already has too many roles and responsibilities to grant a new role (if we're being snarky, the term "hat-collecting" might even make it into the sentence), and I personally think that's an entirely valid reason for an oppose vote. I think this might actually be a more accurate description of your concern. I don't think you've made a good case for conflict of interest in your comments, because you haven't shown a situation that is within the OC's remit where being an enwiki Bureaucrat would conflict with deliberations by the OC. Incidentally, the Ombudsman Commission is what is called a "committee of the Board of Trustees" - that is, it is responsible directly to the Board, and makes recommendations to the Board (which has in turn delegated responsibility for action on those recommendations to the WMF staff). It has no reporting duties at all, except to the designated WMF staff and the Board, and it has no mandate to act, only to recommend action. Risker (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Actually, I'm going to correct myself here. I do have some knowledge that a person who met multiple criteria (CU/OS/Arbitrator) was the subject of a complaint to the OC; however, as it is a private complaint, I am not entirely familiar with the nature of the complaint and whether it was specific to one or more than one of those roles. It's possible that it involved all three roles. Given the OC almost never reveals the subjects of their complaints, even if they are recommending action, it's sometimes pretty hard to figure out what happens there. Doesn't help that they pushed most of the 2018 cases on to the 2019 commission. Risker (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

googol

This page has been semi-protected since 2017, and is not edited much. Any chance of unprotecting it? I'd like to make some edits. It can always be protected again if vandalism restarts. Thanks. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 08:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it hasn't been edited much is that it was under protection, and most of the previous edits were vandalism from IPs and the corresponding reverts, so it goes without saying that the edit rate will go down drastically. The only reason I'm granting your request is that it looks like you may be a user in good standing (assuming you are the sole user of that IP address on wiki - you don't need to tell me if this is true, I'm just laying out my reasoning). I've put it on PC1 as I don't want the vandalism to just resume in full force. This means you can make edits, but they will need to be approved by registered editors. Happy editing, Samsara 08:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but it looks like it's still semi-protected? I see your PC change in the history and the page log, but there's still "view source" instead of an edit button. There are a few bouts of vandalism in the history but it doesn't look like anything that much shorter semi-protection can't handle. Some of the vandalism was from logged-in users too. I think after this long, it's ok to unprotect and see if the vandals come back. It was just easily revertable page blanking and gibberish insertions anyway, no big deal. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 10:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for notifying me. This is a bug we've been hunting, so I'm reporting it and will apply the change when the bug has been discussed, hopefully later today. Thanks for your patience and understanding. Samsara 10:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, no prob. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to what was said on Phabricator, it should be good to edit now. When I log out, the edit button shows and the edit window opens as it should. Samsara 19:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite protection

Hey, could you indefinite protect the pages: Benjamin Burnley and Sam Hunt because of long-term vandalism please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.157.19.180 (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've put Sam Hunt on indef PC1. The other doesn't have enough recent activity. Samsara 14:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Angels unprotection?

Would the Blue Angels article be able to be unprotected? It has very few (if any) instances of vandalism or disruptive editing, as far as I can see, and the pending changes was placed on the article around two years ago. EggRoll97 (talk) 07:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Samsara 04:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for your help with the WP:RfPP backlog! Keep up the good work! ~Swarm~ {talk} 09:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nia Sioux

Hi Samsara, regarding this, it looks like Admin Primefac moved a page over the protected page, which removed the create protection, then speedy deleted it. Thus the page was left unprotected. Not a technical glitch, just missed during the move/delete phase. --kelapstick(bainuu) 16:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, kelapstick, somebody else said the same thing. Can't remember who and I'm not sure it's worth looking up as there's clearly nothing left to do here - thanks for getting back, though! Samsara 16:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Kst (software)

Notice

The article Kst (software) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Thanks for monitor page Sophie Scholl.

From Malaysia

Alif Fizol (talk) 07:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne City Wrestling

Please revert the edits by Drummoe. They are not sourced and the claims to Cage Match are not reliable. The site can not be used under BLP - see WP:PW sources list. It needs proper sources. As it stands the claims are controversial. 2001:8003:5901:B400:5035:B7CE:159E:E954 (talk) 07:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Samsara&oldid=891039045"