User talk:Ancheta Wis/Archive 14
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 |
Administrators' newsletter – January 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversighter changes
Arbitration
- Following the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Aoidh, Cabayi, Firefly, HJ Mitchell, Maxim, Sdrqaz, ToBeFree, Z1720.
- Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were enacted in June 2009.
- The arbitration case Industrial agriculture has been closed.
Miscellaneous
- The New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,000 unreviewed articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Recent Blocks
Hi Ancheta Wis. I couldn't help but notice that you blocked User:147.236.228.132, User talk:2607:FEA8:4B67:4E00:8C97:A0F9:35FF:31F1 (after they undid an edit of yours?), User:152.32.99.27, and User:Bon Joe vie all without warning, citing NOTHERE. I then saw that you blocked User:Kent Dominic with a reason of "cooling off time". I'm curious if you can you tell me the answers the following to the questions:
- When is it ever appropriate to block an editor without warning?
- What is the difference between NOTHERE and vandalism?
- When it is ever appropriate to make a "cool down" block? -Fastily 06:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Good questions: NOTHERE means making edits for other-than-improving an article. However, a hasty skip-through (in the sense of a drive-by edit) need not be vandalism. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 06:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Interesting. Can you elaborate? And are you going to answer Q1 and Q3? -Fastily 06:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Example for Q1: the IP knows programming, but the name they attempted to add does not show up in the Haskell talk sites.
- Q3:Some users use speedy operations (such as in the deletion discussions) and then reverse course when they learn from my replies. (Loose cannons) --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 07:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Regarding the edits to Mathematics: My citation is H.S. Wall Creative Mathematics "A proof consists of a succession of statements, each of which leads to the next". The substitution of "entails" is indirect, compared to the more direct "consists of". --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 07:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- This is going to sound harsh, but I mean this in the nicest way possible. Please resign adminship at BN. Each one of your responses to my questions is catastrophically wrong and neither represents nor reflects current practices/policies/guidelines. I've reviewed your block history and it looks like you have been making bad blocks for years. I know you've done great work for us in the past, but it's time to hang up the tools. Please do the right thing and resign. If you don't, I'll have no choice but to escalate this to ANI and possibly ArbCom. Thanks, Fastily 08:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Not to rehash nearly forgotten bygones, but it remains my understanding that (1) “Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators” and (2) a “cooling off time... intended solely to ‘cool down’ an angry user” is out of bounds. The block I endured for those reasons is small peanuts, yet the lack of accountability still chafes. A simple "my bad, sorry" from Ancheta (re the rationale for the block and administrative involvement in the pertinent editing dispute) would have kept me from weighing in here, but if my experience reflects a pattern of administrative irregularity, something needs to be done. Kent Dominic·(talk) 13:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Kent Dominic: Ancheta Wis has resigned their tools. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Hey man im josh: Where is that documented? Kent Dominic·(talk) 01:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Kent Dominic: You can see here or here. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Hey man im josh: Where is that documented? Kent Dominic·(talk) 01:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Kent Dominic: Ancheta Wis has resigned their tools. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Not to rehash nearly forgotten bygones, but it remains my understanding that (1) “Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators” and (2) a “cooling off time... intended solely to ‘cool down’ an angry user” is out of bounds. The block I endured for those reasons is small peanuts, yet the lack of accountability still chafes. A simple "my bad, sorry" from Ancheta (re the rationale for the block and administrative involvement in the pertinent editing dispute) would have kept me from weighing in here, but if my experience reflects a pattern of administrative irregularity, something needs to be done. Kent Dominic·(talk) 13:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Ancheta Wis: Solely re the substance of the pertinent edit to Mathematics: I downloaded H.S. Wall's Creative Mathematics pdf to check the quote you attributed to that source. The quote is nowhere to be found in the corpus of that pdf. I stand by [my original substitution] of "entails" (i.e., requires or necessarily involves) for "consists of" as explained in the corresponding edit summary. I'm surprised Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) never had a kick at the polysemic consists of cat. Kent Dominic·(talk) 01:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- See p.xii of Creative Mathematics (the AMS .pdf version). In it, H.S.Wall says:
A proof of a theorem consists of a suitable succession of statements each of which is completely justified. It has been my experience that there will be about as many different proofs of certain theorems as there are students who have proved them in my classes. I would not say that one of these proofs is better than another. Different people think in different ways and all should be encouraged. It is thus that new ideas are born!
- You can see how Professor H.S.Wall lets his students each unearth their own path to a proof of the theorem under study, without their having to look up the proof in the work of other mathematicians. -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 09:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Ancheta Wis: You've perfectly illustrated the root of my contention. Namely, the Mathematics article seemingly purports that an axiom's "proof consists of..." By contrast, H.S. Wall asserts that a theorem's "proof consists of..." I trust you'll agree that an axiom, per se, isn't amenable to a proof but is instead a proposition that is assumed to be true without proof. Hence, I continue to defend the statement that "in modern mathematics—entities that are stipulated to have certain properties, called axioms. A proof [i.e., contextually relating to 'axiom' but equivocally relating, perhaps, to 'mathematical proof'] entails a succession of applications of deductive rules to already established results." Accordingly, I suggest that you do one or more of the following:
- Restore my edit substituting "entails" for "consists of"
- Qualify "A proof" so that it instead reads "A theorem's proof" (or, alternatively, to "A mathematical proof")
- Reconfigure the ensuing sentence so that "previously proved" cannot be construed to operate distributively to axioms but in in a way that operates solely to theorems (e.g., From "These results include previously proved theorems, axioms, and..." to "These results include axioms, previously proved theorems, and..."
- Bifurcate the entire paragraph so that the discussion of axioms is more clearly distinguished from the discussion of theorems.
- Kent Dominic·(talk) 12:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- For a mathematical object under study, axioms and definitions are taken without proof. A mathematician can select axioms, and can define salient properties of the object under study.
- For example, in homotopy type theory Voevodsky formulated a univalence axiom but there are multiple ways to express the axiom. In one of those formulations, univalence is a type, and the u. axiom is that the type under study has an inhabitant. These concepts are new and have not yet become canonical among mathematicians. To use your vocabulary, it remains to be decided just 'what entails what'. -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 14:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Your reply, excluding the last sentence, goes without saying despite being tangential to the issues I identified above. To reiterate, the Mathematics article says:
- These objects consist of either abstractions from nature or—in modern mathematics—entities that are stipulated to have certain properties, called axioms. A proof consists of..."
- The given instance of proof semantically qualifies "axiom." That clearly is not the contextually intended meaning. Since you yourself quoted H.S. Wall's assertion re "proof of a theorem" and since you also understand that definitions and axioms are taken without proof, it should be plain to see that the verbiage in the Mathematics article, as it's currently written, fails to identify the relevant proof as either a mathematical proof or as a theorem's proof but ridiculously presents it – given its collocation with axiom – as an axiom's proof.
- Whether using "consists of" or "entails", the current wording nonetheless requires qualifying proof of what. That's why I suggested (but you ignored) that you might qualify "A proof" so that it instead reads "A theorem's proof" (or, alternatively, "A mathematical proof") so it doesn't continue to read as an axiom's proof. You also failed to comment on the pitifully constructed distributive syntax re "These results include previously proved theorems, axioms..." verbiage. It's a simple fix to properly edit it as ""These results include axioms, previously proved theorems, and..." Kent Dominic·(talk) 17:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Your reply, excluding the last sentence, goes without saying despite being tangential to the issues I identified above. To reiterate, the Mathematics article says:
- @Ancheta Wis: You've perfectly illustrated the root of my contention. Namely, the Mathematics article seemingly purports that an axiom's "proof consists of..." By contrast, H.S. Wall asserts that a theorem's "proof consists of..." I trust you'll agree that an axiom, per se, isn't amenable to a proof but is instead a proposition that is assumed to be true without proof. Hence, I continue to defend the statement that "in modern mathematics—entities that are stipulated to have certain properties, called axioms. A proof [i.e., contextually relating to 'axiom' but equivocally relating, perhaps, to 'mathematical proof'] entails a succession of applications of deductive rules to already established results." Accordingly, I suggest that you do one or more of the following:
- This is going to sound harsh, but I mean this in the nicest way possible. Please resign adminship at BN. Each one of your responses to my questions is catastrophically wrong and neither represents nor reflects current practices/policies/guidelines. I've reviewed your block history and it looks like you have been making bad blocks for years. I know you've done great work for us in the past, but it's time to hang up the tools. Please do the right thing and resign. If you don't, I'll have no choice but to escalate this to ANI and possibly ArbCom. Thanks, Fastily 08:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Interesting. Can you elaborate? And are you going to answer Q1 and Q3? -Fastily 06:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day!
 | Happy First Edit Day! Hi Ancheta Wis! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC) |  |
Administrators' newsletter – February 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).
Administrator changes
Bureaucrat changes
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.
Technical news
- Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)
Arbitration
- Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
- Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.
Miscellaneous
- Voting in the 2024 Steward elections will begin on 06 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 27 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
- A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
- Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
- The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in February 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – March 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Phase I of the 2024 RfA review is now open for participation. Editors are invited to review, comment on, and propose improvements to the requests for adminship process.
- Following an RfC, the inactivity requirement for the removal of the interface administrator right increased from 6 months to 12 months.
Technical news
- The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)
Miscellaneous
- The 2024 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ＊ぜ, AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Doǵu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, MdsShakil, Minorax, Nehaoua, Renvoy and RoySmith as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
- Following the 2024 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Ajraddatz, Albertoleoncio, EPIC, JJMC89, Johannnes89, Melos and Yahya.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – April 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).
Administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC is open to convert all current and future community discretionary sanctions to (community designated) contentious topics procedure.
Technical news
- The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)
Arbitration
- An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".
Miscellaneous
- Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I want to create a short description for this article but have no idea where to start. It is so dense with military jargon that it is nigh-understandable—I'd be fine with this, given the field, if just the lead section were more understandable. Is the split mentioned in the hatnote complete? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the split is largely complete. The transformation allows the US Army to fight in large-scale ground combat operations (against Russia or China etc.), while avoiding large-scale waste of US military lives. See call for fire.
- Transformation is the reason for seeking US machines (drones) to fly near the adversary, and for using satellites to communicate a situation across the globe in seconds. This is called JADC2.
- The chief problem for the Army is to convince adversaries (especially their commanders, and ultimately their nations) that combat is futile in the face of such knowledge. This is called deterrence. -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 06:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).
Guideline and policy news
- Phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship review has concluded. Several proposals have passed outright and will proceed to implementation, including creating a discussion-only period (3b) and administrator elections (13) on a trial basis. Other successful proposals, such as creating a reminder of civility norms (2), will undergo further refinement in Phase II. Proposals passed on a trial basis will be discussed in Phase II, after their trials conclude. Further details on specific proposals can be found in the full report.
Technical news
- Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531
Arbitration
- The arbitration case Conflict of interest management has been closed.
Miscellaneous
- This may be a good time to reach out to potential nominees to ask if they would consider an RfA.
- A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in May 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 15,000 articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!
- Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is open until 9 May 2024. Read the voting page on Meta-Wiki and cast your vote here!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)