Necessary page protection?Edit

Hello, I recently attempted to make an edit on the page Holocaust victims, but was unable to since several months ago you indefinitely proptected it. You cited an Arbitration Enforcement case, but I couldn't find its connection to the page, and limited edits to "extended confirmed" users only. If vandalism from unregistered users took place on this page, I think a moderate shift to "semi-protected" would have been more sensible (and then if it persists, change it to the current harsh status). Per WP:RFP I'm writing to you about it first, kindly take a look at this. Alternatively, I will submit an edit request on the page. Thanks Bezrat (talk) 08:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The case remedy covers Holocaust in Poland and the page discusses victims of the Holocaust, and the places it occurred—many of which are in Poland. I think this falls within the case remedy, and I’m not in favour of lifting it given the history that led to the remedy being enacted. If you want to lower the protection, I’d suggest making a request at WP:AE, but I think it’s pretty squarely within the scope. TonyBallioni (talk) 08:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
This is quite a stretch from the original topic (history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II). There are dozens of articles that relate to it. Further, it was suggested that "other methods such as reverts, pending changes protection, and appropriate edit filters" be considered. I think this protection should be lifted from the page soon, anyway for now I will just submit an edit request. Bezrat (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
The purpose of that motion was specifically to authorize preemptive indefinite protection of articles like this because of long-term harassment by a globally banned sockmaster and others using proxies that can’t be blocked. This is the type of article that was specifically intended to be extended conformed protected. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)



Thank you for being ready to serve on arbcom, - good luck! - I still have yesterday's good top story to offer, - and a little below is my vision for 2020. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Today's DYK: to be sung "happily" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Request for commentEdit

Hi Tony, my name is Aaron Bandler, reporter for the Jewish Journal. I was hoping you could answer some questions for me about a couple of instances you were involved in as an admin. Aaron Bandler (talk) 23:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Aaron Bandler, I’m not sure what help I could be. I see you’ve been asking about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive, but the cases I looked at there were mostly unrelated. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Arb thingEdit

I should think you will get plenty of support and few opposes for this Arb thing, but good luck anyway! SilkTork (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)