User talk:Nihlus: Difference between revisions
→Question about how Dispute Resolution Works: new section |
|||
| Line 124: | Line 124: | ||
:: Is there any guide to make more sense out of this? [[User:K CMS|k_cms]] ([[User talk:K CMS|talk]]) 03:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC) |
:: Is there any guide to make more sense out of this? [[User:K CMS|k_cms]] ([[User talk:K CMS|talk]]) 03:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC) |
||
== Question about how Dispute Resolution Works == |
|||
Hi. I recently opened a [[Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Young_Living#Prohibited_marketing_claims_discussion|request for dispute resolution]]. I have never been involved in one before and have a question about how it's suppose to work. When I opened the request, I entered a short description of the dispute, trying to be as neutral as possible. One of the involved editors has now responded with their own description of the case, in which they argue extensively for their position, and in the process, mischaracterize the situation extensively, IMO, and also launch attacks against me and other editors. I feel like I should respond to those mischaracterizations and attacks, but I a) don't want to do that it if would be counterproductive at this point, eg. by bloating the request before a volunteer has gotten involved, and b) want to engage in the appropriate place and way, and I don't know how that's typically done. So my question is, would it be appropriate to respond? And if so, when, where, and how would be the appropriate way to respond? Thanks for any tips you can give me. |
|||
Revision as of 18:58, 14 February 2019
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Advice on content dispute
Hi, I seem to have reached an impasse in editing the Low Carbohydrate Diet page Low-carbohydrate diet#Diabetes and I'm not sure how to proceed. Could you have a look at talk and let me know what the best options to resolve this are? Talk:Low-carbohydrate diet#Lifestyle Management: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes 2019. A low-carb high fat dieter (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – January 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- There are a number of new or changed speedy deletion criteria, each previously part of WP:CSD#G6:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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}}.
- The Wikimedia Foundation now requires all interface administrators to enable two-factor authentication.
- Members of the Bot Approvals Group (BAG) are now subject to an activity requirement. After two years without any bot-related activity (e.g. operating a bot, posting on a bot-related talk page), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice.
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:
- At least 8 characters in length
- Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
- 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
- Following the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: AGK, Courcelles, GorillaWarfare, Joe Roe, Mkdw, SilkTork.
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.
Apology
I apologise for pestering your ivote and I struck it and reworded it. I actually believe that you would make a great admin and I will support your RFA whenever you are nominated (hopefully soon). You are a inspiration to a lot of younger editors. JC7V (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
SMU School of Law
I’m sorry,user: Manderiko kept on reverting back the contents in SMU School of Law including advertisement and overly detailed tags from user:Drmies.
I’m not sure if user: Manderiko have any interest in that page since he seems to be overly involved in it and other Law and Law school related pages. Applepineapple (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – February 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
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.
Width=100%
Hello!
I wanted to take the time and ask why do you deem the full-width variable for the RuPaul's Drag Race judges table unnecessary?
Expecting for your reply, k_cms (talk) 11:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- K CMS, it makes no sense to have it span the entire width of the page unless there is a lot of text and info that is causing it to be formatted poorly. That is not the case here. On larger resolutions, the table only spans about 30% of the page, so extending it to 100% distorts to table to unreadable levels. Nihlus 12:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Is there any guide to make more sense out of this? k_cms (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Question about how Dispute Resolution Works
Hi. I recently opened a request for dispute resolution. I have never been involved in one before and have a question about how it's suppose to work. When I opened the request, I entered a short description of the dispute, trying to be as neutral as possible. One of the involved editors has now responded with their own description of the case, in which they argue extensively for their position, and in the process, mischaracterize the situation extensively, IMO, and also launch attacks against me and other editors. I feel like I should respond to those mischaracterizations and attacks, but I a) don't want to do that it if would be counterproductive at this point, eg. by bloating the request before a volunteer has gotten involved, and b) want to engage in the appropriate place and way, and I don't know how that's typically done. So my question is, would it be appropriate to respond? And if so, when, where, and how would be the appropriate way to respond? Thanks for any tips you can give me.