User talk:Maxim

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has bureaucrat privileges on the English Wikipedia.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Barnstar of Diligence
Hi Maxim! I wanted to thank you personally for your contributions to the Arbitration Committee. I've observed that you played a key role during your term in responding to the steady stream of block and ban appeals that come in—making sure they are tracked and answered in an organized fashion. I know that arb work isn't always the most rewarding experience, in part because much of the work you do is behind-the-scenes and invisible to the broader community. For your diligent work in this thankless role, please accept this barnstar. Best wishes for the new year! Mz7 (talk) 21:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Happy New Year!
Hello Maxim:

Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?

Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters.

CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message
CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bureaucrat chat - invitation to participate[edit]

The RfA for MB has gone to a bureaucrat chat. Please join in the discussion. Primefac (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good article reassessment for Curtis Joseph[edit]

Curtis Joseph has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've got mail[edit]

Guessing you'll see the email before this talk page message but just in case.... Barkeep49 (talk) 01:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy Bureaucratship Anniversary![edit]

Happy Bureaucratship Anniversary![edit]

Dinoz1 (chat?) (he/him) 15:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom block[edit]

It's ok to discuss this, but make it a public discussion, where I can defend myself. I was rather friendly in the discussion and Tony Ballioni strongly justified my block, to answer to that is only fair. Accusing me of Ethno-nationalist debates for reverting a disruptive and eventually blocked editor in a joint operation with another editor and justifying their oppose to the unblock based on that, is at least questionable. I edit for the calmness of wikipedia, and for this I get this justice? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You might not realize this @Paradise Chronicle but Maxim is no longer an arbitrator. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah but they seemed to suggest it. Anyhow, most of who commented at that discussion are just wielding the block weapon and have no diffs for an eventual disruption nor do they even consider my arguments for a solution. I was correct with the ArbCom, the ArbCom told me all is good. Why former members of the ArbCom are now thinking of a block is a bit of a mystery to me.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure how "having served", being in the past tense, could suggest that I am still an arbitrator. Paradise Chronicle, I don't think you realize how much luck you've had in your dealings with ArbCom. It's not that you simply won the lottery, but it's that you've won the lottery at least twice, given the unblock and the follow-up emails, and perhaps even thrice if we consider that you got out of this case with only a warning (Tony's recent comments suggest to me that a more thorough examination of your behaviour may have been appropriate at the time, but not that much was presented in the evidence phase). I urge you to quit while you're ahead, provided that's still possible. Maxim (talk) 11:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've got mail[edit]

Hello, Maxim. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Barkeep49 (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pppery/Bureaucrat chat and join the discussion when you have an opportunity. Maxim (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quick question[edit]

Is there a log of every request for adminship that was closed via bureaucrat chat? Thank you. CityOfSilver 18:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi CityOfSilver, see WP:CRATCHAT, which I believe is exhaustive since the beginning of time. Maxim (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What's hilarious is that I came here to pester you only after I tried WP:BUREAUCRATCHAT and struck out. Thanks again! CityOfSilver 18:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hey Maxim,Yunshui here unfortunately I lost access to my old account as I've forgotten my password and don't use that email anymore. I'm back and am ready to get back to editing again so please let me know if there's a way to get my account back. Yunsui (talk) 09:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've taken the liberty of assigning the appropriate editing privileges. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But you should have given mass message sender first so "Yunshui" could have asked every bureaucrat directly that much more easily... :-) Maxim (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RPPD request[edit]

Hello, I'm cleaning up various syntax errors across Wikipedia that are collectively called WP:LINT, and the particular error I'm focused on, the tidy font error, I have down to 1900 errors on less than 400 pages. 38 pages you full protected, and per WP:RPPD I was wondering if you had any objection to lowing their protection to allow me to address these issues. The pages of interest are User talk:Sceptre archives 1, 3 through 16, 18 through 29, 31, 32, 35, 37 through 41, 43, 46, and 48. Do you have any objection to these pages being lowered?

If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. I have Extended Confirmed access, so that or lower is fine, and assuming this is a temporary lowering, I'd let you know when I was finished with the set.

Thanks, Zinnober9 (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sceptre, what do you think of setting all of those archive pages to ECP protection permanently? It's probably what we would have done 15 years ago had we had that option... Maxim (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That’s fine by me. Sceptre (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Zinnober9, I've changed the affected archive pages to permanent extended confirmed protection instead. Maxim (talk) 01:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you both, I'll get on those shortly. I see that Archives 5 through 9 seem to have been skipped. Any issue with those?
I'm also interested in Archive 57 being lowered for the Tidy Fonts. I had not included it in this requested set initially since it was protected by PeterSymonds (on Sceptre's request), but since Sceptre has given the okay, I'd assume you could lower that one as well? Zinnober9 (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The issue was that Special:PrefixIndex spits out pages in alphabetical and not numerical order (so archive 1, 10, 11, ... , 2, 20, 21, and so on) and I cut off at 48, skipping 5–9. I think everything is sorted out now. Maxim (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perfect, thank you! Zinnober9 (talk) 02:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Glad to see...[edit]

...that you're running for ArbCom again. You have my support! :D Acalamari 21:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the kind words, Acalamari. It is very heartening to read that some are excited to see me run again. :-) Maxim (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

November thanks[edit]

November songs
story · music

Thank you for standing to become arbitrator again! My story today is Canticle I: My beloved is mine and I am his, - the composer, born OTD 110 years ago, didn't want it shorter (but the publisher), - more here. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you know that I made {{Benjamin Britten}}, 10 years ago on the occasion of his centenary? And have a tradition of presenting one of his works when his birthday returns, such as this latest? - Thank you for a reply to my cand question. I may discuss it after tomorrow's concert when we will sing the Mozart and listen to Pärt's urgent call for peace played by the strings, - I'm not in the mood before ;) - I mentioned Pärt for a reason, could have been Beethoven as well, in other words: I believe it's time for a fresh look, as we were told 10 years ago. - "Infobox chaos": no idea when that happened where. I met the conflict in 2012, for Samuel Barber, and then we discussed operas such as Siegfried, and we three discussing cordially (I think) were admonished by arbitration a few weeks later - no idea why, still ;) (the discussion is still on the talk, 10 years later) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The concert was good, User Talk:Gerda Arendt#Mozart Requiem --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding your answer: the status quo is that editors are compared to armies, and I think that could be improved ;) - Many new editors have no idea of any conflict - we had years without disputes, remember? - and may be surprised that what they added thinking they improved Wikipedia is reverted citing some "PR/FAC" abbreviation they may not understand, instead of an argument. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Today: in memoriam Jerome Kohl who said (In Freundschaft): "and I hope that they have met again in the beyond and are making joyous music together" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RE: By ARBELECT question[edit]

Thank you for replying to my question; I didn't want to reply there as it doesn't seem overly relevant, but in regards to:

On the other hand, if the push-back happened to be related to a Committee decision, then there would be a responsibility to carefully review the original decision, at least internally. Perhaps it was communicated poorly, or perhaps it is indeed just a poor decision. Committees of the past have certainly made questionable calls, but I don't recall them provoking mass wheel and edit warring, and I like to think that it comes as much as anything from the fact that around this time each year, we as a community can chuck out half the committee, and the rest of it the year after.

My belief is that if there comes a point that ARBCOM makes such a questionable call (one example that comes to mind was the proposed source language restriction) that the community feels it cannot stand, the community will just abuse the ratification and amendment process to overturn it - I don't think it would come to any sort of edit or wheel warring because there is a clear path to correcting it through established processes. BilledMammal (talk) 13:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a very fair point. The hypothetical of a Fram-style situation with regards to an ArbCom decision made me think back to the older days of the Committee where we had incidents between ArbCom and the community that we can call "near misses", but there wasn't a clean way of amending ARBPOL—that process was only put in place in June 2011. If one goes even further down this kind of rabbit hole, ex-arbitrators were only removed from arbcom-l in January 2009 (in part, I believe, due to too much kibbitzing; this is how functionaries-en was created), and, to the best of my knowledge, Jimbo was still "interpreting" election results as late as December 2008 (Special:Diff/259248025). Maxim (talk) 14:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]