Jump to content

User talk:Robertsky: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Fishes: Reply
Line 152: Line 152:


Can you tell me why the original request was not implemented? [[User:Quetzal1964|Quetzal1964]] ([[User talk:Quetzal1964|talk]]) 09:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Can you tell me why the original request was not implemented? [[User:Quetzal1964|Quetzal1964]] ([[User talk:Quetzal1964|talk]]) 09:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

:@[[User:Quetzal1964|Quetzal1964]] those are contested as seen at [[Special:Permalink/1261835653]]. I routinely clear out requests with no activity in the last three days as stale. However, I missed out on your latest comment it seems. If you don't mind, I will restore the previous requests since there's some activity discussion. [[User:Robertsky|– robertsky]] ([[User talk:Robertsky#top|talk]]) 10:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:50, 8 December 2024

NOP for 152.58.93.148 ?

IP 152.58.93.148 Doesn't seem to be an Open Proxy Momosixer (talk) 11:34, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Momosixer I am using the information provided through mw:Extension:IPInfo. Currently it shows some proxy activity. Due to legal policy, I am unable to share further information. – robertsky (talk) 12:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal:IP_Information_tool_guidelines will fix link later – robertsky (talk) 12:04, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From my own tests, it is highly unlikely that 152.58.93.148 is a webhost or a proxy. Your 1 year block seems unwarranted. Momosixer (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Momosixer Feel free to take it up at ANI. I don't know what tests or checks you have conducted but I stand by the information that was given to me through the toll. – robertsky (talk) 13:10, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-49

MediaWiki message delivery 22:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Shollyk Smart (08:18, 3 December 2024)

How can I start my legacy introduction as a musician --Shollyk Smart (talk) 08:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted 3 edits by Justice Chawla

Hi, you said "Reverted 3 edits by Justice Chawla (talk): The sitting judge shouldn't be commenting here at risk of fouling up the legal process". This is not a good reason to revert these, if this was the judge it is their business if they want to foul up the process or not, but none of our business. However, a good reason to remove these is because we have no idea if they are the judge or (more likely) someone impersonating them. If something like this happens again, please use the right description of why the comments get removed. WP:NLT would have been a good reason as well. Fram (talk) 08:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram Indeed, I could have been more accurate with the edit summary. The reversion was primarily due to impersonation concerns, of which I had blocked the account for at the same time, and I should have added that in the edit summary as well. Thanks for the message and I will keep this in mind for future similar actions. – robertsky (talk) 08:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2024).

Administrator changes

added
readded
removed

Interface administrator changes

added
readded Pppery

CheckUser changes

readded

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration


A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your tireless contributions to this project. Happy editing! Maliner (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Maliner thank you! – robertsky (talk) 04:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Hello, Robertsky,

I was looking at an AFD tagged by a new editor, Dmitry Bobriakov, and their User page states they are a member of English Wikipedia conflict of interest volunteer response team. I was unfamiliar with this group so I went to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Conflict of interest reports and saw your name listed so I'm coming to you. I was wondering if you could tell me more about this "team", who is on it and what it does. Thanks for any insight. Liz Read! Talk! 01:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops! It looks like I already asked the editor about this on their User talk page back in October. But I'd still like to get your feedback on this. Liz Read! Talk! 01:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz, the COIVRT team arose from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/2024#April case, in which there were private information being used to investigate into a COI issue involving an admin. After the case, the COIVRT mailing list was established. Admins can apply to the ArbCom to access it and also work on the reports there. Other than applying for access, other admins holding CU rights and on the Arbcom as well may access it. As such, other than the 4 admins listed on the page, CUs and ArbCom members have access as well. If the ArbCom elections is in your favour, you will also have access.
If the COIVRT report warrants it, we may block accounts while tagging the block with [[ticket:2024xxx]] COIVRT or similar in the block log message. We don't do this often as this meant that whatever unblock decisions needed to be made, it will be restricted to only a few admins as the block decision is based on the correspondence.
To my knowledge, the editor in question is not a member of the team. The editor might have submitted reports via the email which may have been handled and closed before I came onboard recently. Their userpage stated that they are "a volunteer who together with the team..." (shortened for brevity) sounds about right as it can be read that they are interested in hunting down COI editors and then sending the reports over for the team to review, akin to an editor reporting suspected socks at SPI then the SPI clerks/admins/CUs work on the report or one working on persistent copyright infringements by others. It just sounds... fluffy (WP:PROMO much?). – robertsky (talk) 04:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fishes

HI I see you did not implement my requested move for Yunnanilus nigromaculatus to Eonemachilus nigromaculatus. The relevant project WP:Fishes agreed in October this year that the taxonomy used in fish articles, for taxa below the level of order, should follow Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes. That is what I was doing in this case. I have re-requested the move.

Can you tell me why the original request was not implemented? Quetzal1964 (talk) 09:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Quetzal1964 those are contested as seen at Special:Permalink/1261835653. I routinely clear out requests with no activity in the last three days as stale. However, I missed out on your latest comment it seems. If you don't mind, I will restore the previous requests since there's some activity discussion. – robertsky (talk) 10:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]