User talk:Johnuniq/Archive 28
 | 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 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | → | Archive 33 |
Index of stuff
- Comments re free speech
- Jagged progress • more • genre articles
- Links to highbeam.com from dumps of external links • earlier • more Credo • JSTOR results • JSTOR + Cochrane January 2015
- Gregorian serial date template
- Analysis of EL dump using Amazon S3 very interesting methods from GabrielF
- Module:Number at Hindi Wikipedia request from Siddhartha Ghai
- Discussion with pointer to problem re Nagle's algorithm that should be fixed
They don't seem to have noticed...
...that you and I rewrote the thing. Yet the debate lumbers on. EEng 03:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Assistance
Recently, the contributor that has been unblocked for their edits on the Greater Houston and List of Texas metropolitan areas has returned with the same contributions again, tagged as manual reverts. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 12:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Heh, welcome you to discussion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hate_group#Our_#Wikipedia_is_not_one's_Political_Instrument.
My heart is bleeding from English Wikipedia Censorship. My ancestors, who were imprisioned to labor and concentration camps because of their nationality, ethnicity and views, also would not approve your totalitarian informational policy of global source for the sake of polarisation and mobilization of population within one country before their local elections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9E01:740:A4A5:22F0:4853:5FB3 (talk) 05:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- You're not alone. Hundreds of editors battle over article content every day, and half of them are dissatisfied. My protection of Hate group was standard since edit warring to win a disagreement is not permitted. Rather than leaving a hard-to-parse rant at Talk:Hate group, it would be more useful to propose a change and explain which reliable sources justify the change. Johnuniq (talk) 07:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- Did it there there (you see an unjust decline of it based on one thesis) and now there there. Hope you might help me, because english is not my first neither my native fiddle I used to play and think. But I like the truth, all points and information outside politics. 2600:1700:9E01:740:448C:3DC0:8562:CCF9 (talk) 19:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Did you see this?
I think it's pretty obvious by now which side of the infobox debate is coming out with any dignity at the Sinatra talk page. Somewhat predictably, the RfC has become a festering echo chamber of incivility, righteousness and OWN, at the hands of those on the pro-side of the debate. I must admit, I unwatched the page after my last edit as I grew bored of it, but I've been told over email of this comment, made by someone who is clearly a banned individual, who has less than ten edits to their history. For a group of people, who invested the time and money to write something for the benefit of others, to be described as "amateurs" is a kick in the teeth. It's no good pinging anyone from the failed, previous ArbCom committee, as they considered me to be the problem. But I think the current cess pool at Sinatra is proof that this problem still very much exists. Oh, and funny how HAL333 didn't hit the troll with a civility warning, just a hand-wringing comment about the comment "not being fair". It took an IP to dish this warning out. CassiantoTalk 18:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Care to answer? I mean, you've been active for a good few many hours now. I also don't like being ignored - you are the fourth such administrator to have done this. Do I take this deafening silence to mean that you endorse this kind of personal attack? CassiantoTalk 10:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- I've been playing with something off-wiki (and doing some work). You would be right to think that I have not looked forward to replying but I was going to. I had a look at your links. Given the naively open approach at Wikipedia, there is nothing that can be done about the troll at this stage. They might be a new editor who could eventually do something useful (although their most recent interest is, um, not encouraging). At any rate, there is no admin action that can be taken. Most people are really tired of the infobox issue and the only way to stay sane is to avoid following it. As confirmed daily at Wikipedia, there are a lot of dumb people so it does not make sense to get upset by anything they say. Just go through the motions by putting in a couple of comments at each "discussion" (copy/paste will do), then ignore them. Johnuniq (talk) 11:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Johnuniq, thanks. The truth is, everyone is sick and tired of the infobox arguments – none more so than me. Don’t be under any illusion that those who oppose the uniform usage of infoboxes across the site enjoy these arguments. We don’t. We’d all rather be improving the project; but when you have people like Levivich, HAL333, Leprevierk and others, who as far as I can tell are no more than gnomes and dramah board regulars who enjoy opening up discussion after discussion on pages that we’ve all worked hard on, purely to disrupt, it becomes difficult to improve things and keeps us in the rut.
- I’ve asked no-less than four admins to look in on the Sinatra talk page to assess the incivility breaches and bludgeoning that has been going on there and on other editor’s talk pages, but this has been ignored. Had this of been me, of course, I’d have been blocked in minutes.
- But what fuels these arguments is the reluctance by admins and ArbCom to do anything meaningful about it. Bishonen was good, for a year or so, dishing out DS alerts, but she soon became disillusioned by it all. I don't blame you all for a minute, but all the time these people are allowed to disrupt the project, the more this problem is going to fester.
- Let me make this abundantly clear: ArbCom have handled this diabolically. This has been brought to their attention two times and on both occasions they have failed in their duties as arbitrators. A few years ago, a case opened against me, called “Incivility in Infobox discussions”. I say it was about me, as I was the only one to walk away with any restrictions, despite the fact that there was incivility on both sides; it’s just that I happened to be on the opposite side of the debate to those on the "Impartial" committee. The “incivility in infobox discussions” part of the case was not dealt with at all and those on the other side of the debate now openly go around causing trouble, opening up discussion after discussion, adding boxes to well-known, contentious articles, chucking around PAs, abusing the “thank” button by thanking people for edits made five years ago to infoboxes, in a creepy “I’m watching, and I’m aware of what you've been up to” kind of way.
- There is also an unprecedented amount of “new accounts” that pop up at the time of an RfC; sleeper accounts that suddenly become active when such discussions take place, and banned users who due to the antiquated SPI technology Wikipedia has, come and go as they please. It’s a joke. CassiantoTalk 14:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you are describing standard operating procedure at Wikipedia. If you had experienced Gamergate controversy and the appalling WP:ARBGG arbitration case, you would feel that the infobox issue had been handled well. The condensed version of gamergate is that a bunch of gaming trolls abused female writers in a shocking manner, then tried to use Wikipedia to justify their attacks with dozens of new and returned users. The good editors who fought them off ended up with topic bans or site bans. It's all over now, but the stench of that arb case lingers. Arbcom is useless for cases where rational judgment is needed. All they do is count the number of bad words and edit warring incidents from each side, then sanction by the numbers (with rare exceptions). They are not authorized to use their brains and declare that permitting trolls to pick off anti-infobox articles and editors one at a time is obviously bad for Wikipedia. They did authorize discretionary sanctions but applying them needs to be justified and it would be very hard for an admin to sanction a new editor simply for stating their opinion. The only good way to respond to that situation is to disengage—make a couple of comments for each new eruption but ignore the day-to-day arguments. Yes, it is a bad joke. Johnuniq (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- I've been playing with something off-wiki (and doing some work). You would be right to think that I have not looked forward to replying but I was going to. I had a look at your links. Given the naively open approach at Wikipedia, there is nothing that can be done about the troll at this stage. They might be a new editor who could eventually do something useful (although their most recent interest is, um, not encouraging). At any rate, there is no admin action that can be taken. Most people are really tired of the infobox issue and the only way to stay sane is to avoid following it. As confirmed daily at Wikipedia, there are a lot of dumb people so it does not make sense to get upset by anything they say. Just go through the motions by putting in a couple of comments at each "discussion" (copy/paste will do), then ignore them. Johnuniq (talk) 11:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Ezra Miller controversy
Why did you remove ezra Miller controversy section in its entirety? Him choking a woman to the floor almost got him kicked off one of his biggest projects to date and created a huge backlash amongst fans, its a big moment in his career, it needs to remain Eglued (talk) 12:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- You might be referring to my revert at Ezra Miller of diff from 27 July 2020. Wikipedia articles do not record every incident, and certainly do not record everything that surfaces on social media. Further, per WP:BLP, a source saying someone appeared to do something bad is definitely unacceptable. Discussion should occur on the talk page of the article. Johnuniq (talk) 00:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Module:Wiktionary
Hey, as the creator of Module:Wiktionary, are you planning on continuing work on this? --Gonnym (talk) 14:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Gonnym: I was going to deny any connection with Module:Wiktionary but I see my name all over it. I must have suppressed memory of Template talk:Wiktionary (the whole page, permalink) because I asked some simple questions (and at MOS) but got nowhere. @Erutuon: Do you have any thoughts? I guess the module is now dead because no one can decide whether certain words should be in italics. I don't have any plans for the module but would be happy to fix anything needed if it were to be used. Johnuniq (talk) 01:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Reason I'm asking as I'm in the process of doing cleaning and sorting the language-related templates and modules and if this isn't being used, I was thinking of starting a RM later to move a module to that name. So if it isn't used and you want it, could you move it to your module sandbox? --Gonnym (talk) 08:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
- A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors
must
orshould
use the articles for creation process. - A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.
Arbitration
- A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2020 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
- An open request for comment asks whether active Arbitrators may serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or Ombudsman commission.
Nomination for deletion of Template:Footnote group
Template:Footnote group has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.Manabimasu (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Clarification
With no reference to its topic, may I ask how this was a violation? It is my understanding of BANEX that reporting/proving an IBAN violation is allowed but continuing to harp on the topic is not. Did the report on the administrator's talk page cancel out the retracted community-wide report at WP:AN? Darkknight2149 04:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Darkknight2149: Exactly what is and what isn't a violation of an interaction ban is hard to pin down. The history appears to be that there was a possible/probable violation by an opponent where they ranted but did not name anyone in April 2020. You reported that to an admin, also in April. The admin advised letting it go. Now the opponent has been indeffed regarding an unrelated melt down and is appealing. My feeling is that it is inappropriate for anyone interaction banned with the appellant to add dirt that is five months old and which is not a direct violation (just a rant), and which was addressed even if informally. By all means seek other opinions but doing that to add dirt to your opponent's appeal may look off-color to others as well as myself. Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
A comment at Talk:Day-care sex-abuse hysteria
Even if Firejuggler86 (talk · contribs) means well here, just the fact that he uses the word nigger like that seems like the post should be removed. And, of course, WP:Not a forum applies. I haven't yet read that discussion or looked into what type of editor Firejuggler86 is. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Firejuggler86: I read your comment in the diff above. Please do not reply to old comments (that was over six years old!). Article talk pages are to discuss actionable proposals to improve the article based on reliable sources. The comments you replied to were mini-rants by passing people and even if they were new there would be little benefit from replying to them. I can see that your use of the n-word was appropriate and your comment was well founded but it is advisable to avoid such an approach because that terminology is highly charged and very likely to cause offense to some people even if intended as a parody of a killer's rationale. I archived the talk page without your comment to focus future use of that talk page on its purpose. Johnuniq (talk) 09:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for helping with that. I did consider the editor's use of that term inappropriate, but I didn't want to come across as overreacting with regard to whatever I would have stated about it in the edit history while reverting. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Dav.tay427 strikes again
Hi there. The user has again, without discussion, continued the same actions they've been banned for twice already. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- I have blocked Dav.tay427 (talk · contribs) indefinitely until they are able to discuss their proposed changes. By the way, the word is block (not ban). Johnuniq (talk) 00:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for the assistance and correction. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).
Administrator changes
Ajpolino • LuK3
Jackmcbarn
Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM
There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely
1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created
.
- A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely
Technical news
- The filter log now provides links to view diffs of deleted revisions (phab:T261630).
Arbitration
- The 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place from September 27th to October 7th.
- Following a request for comment, sitting Committee members may not serve on either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee. The Arbitration Committee passed a motion implementing those results into their procedures.
Miscellaneous
- The Universal Code of Conduct draft is open for community review and comment until October 6th, 2020.
- Office actions may now be appealed to the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee.
Traci Lords
I really don't know what I am doing on this site so when they said Traci Lords first legal movie was release in 1988 and that movie was Traci I love you the would put her year of birth in 1970 I don't know they date but I do know christy canyon was born in 1968 she had said that in some interview on some tape I seen so many years ago If I made a mess I won't ever attempt such a thing again and might be best to block me from altering anything sorry for any mess but one of the picture looked more like Moana Pozzi than Traci Lords once again sorry and have a good day — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunderstrike70 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your efforts at Traci Lords but the references say she was born on May 7, 1968. Unless a better reliable source is available, her birth date will not be changed. Your edits at the article were reverted because you removed the image without explanation and changed the date without a reference. How do you know it was 1970? What reliable source verifies that? Questions can be asked at WP:Teahouse. A previous discussion is here. Johnuniq (talk) 00:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Wow, Ju, you certainly have an unexpected range of interests. 04:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Huh EEng, you should see some of the really kinky stuff I watch. Just to help out you understand. Johnuniq (talk) 05:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- For research purposes of course. Perhaps you could help out at the bottom of this thread. EEng 07:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Huh EEng, you should see some of the really kinky stuff I watch. Just to help out you understand. Johnuniq (talk) 05:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
I want to talk about Experiences during World War II (1939–1945) Audrey Hepburn
Hi Johnuniq!!! I have just read your your message. I can't understand why that is First Word War: " After Britain declared war on Germany in September 1939, Hepburn's mother moved her daughter back to Arnhem in the hope that, as during the First World War". Can you explain for me?? I think writing Second World War will be more suitable because Second World War started in 1939 . Thank you so much !! Raspberry hepburn (talk) 04:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- I replied at User talk:Raspberry hepburn. Johnuniq (talk) 04:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you !!!
Thank you for explain for me about " Experiences during World War II" of Audrey Hepburn. I didn't read the word "as during" carefully. I'm really sorry to change the content without reading it carefully !!! Raspberry hepburn (talk) 11:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
You may have already noticed - but the "rules man" is at it again. I am SO fed up with this -which is probably all this troll really wants. Trying hard to be patient but what the [naughty word expunged]. I suspect you are even more fed up than me, but would appreciate your support in establishing a firm consensus here. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Soundofmusicals: I have a long reply which I recommend for study.
- Roman numerals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- No admin action can be taken because it looks like a standard disagreement. It's very likely that is how it will always look to outsiders, regardless of the silliness of some proposals. Therefore, the only way to handle the problem is to play it by the book. That means an RfC is required to resolve significant issues. I gave everyone very explicit advice at Talk:Roman numerals/Archive 9#RfC: Orthography/logic/rules for Roman Numerals but there was no engagement. You have to play the game and engage. That RfC was poorly worded and it's been abandoned, but resolution by RfC with everyone engaging is what is required. A couple of RfCs should make the position clear, and that would lead to resolution because further problems (which pushed back against consensus shown in an RfC) would be regarded as disruption that could be resolved with admin action. I can't take such action myself as I am involved at the topic, but someone else would eventually intervene.
- Sorry, but I think the wording in Roman numerals#Standard form is overly pompous. It currently reads:
- To resolve the ambiguities and inconsistencies inherent in Roman numerals, a conventional orthography, permitting only one permutation for any given value, is widely recognized and adhered to. This table of digits and their equivalents is a convenient representation of this convention:[ref]
- That wording obviously needs cleaning and getting resolution with that current text won't be possible because onlookers will always say it needs to be changed. It should say something like:
- A conventional orthography is used to resolve ambiguities inherent in Roman numerals, as shown in the following table.[ref]
- Replacing orthography with plain language would be better.
- I suggest that at least three editors (including me) should devise a proposal. That might happen somewhere like here, perhaps with a mention at article talk. Don't continue bickering until a proposal is ready—further discussion is pointless. Also, I wouldn't do any more reverts on the article—ignore it until agreed text is ready. Then post a new section "Text for standard form" with the proposal and invite comments. I could make a list of all the editors who have participated in 2020 and ping them.
- If there is clear consensus after the proposal is discussed for a week, the matter would be effectively resolved. Edits against consensus could be reverted with an edit summary linking to the consensus. If the consensus is not extremely clear, it would be necessary to hold an RfC.
- Any RfC should use wording agreed in a draft on article talk. I would offer my thoughts.
- Johnuniq (talk) 01:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- User:Soundofmusicals - How do you propose to establish consensus? I think that User:Johnuniq is saying that an RFC is the only workable way to establish consensus, and I agree. I haven't researched the annoying history, but I think that this was at DRN, which would have been where I got involved, and I think that this was another case where someone was planning to use an RFC and then didn't. Well, if you don't use an RFC, it is hard to complain about the desire for consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
@Soundofmusicals: It's ok to ignore my suggestions although I don't know why you wouldn't at least acknowledge what I've written here. There are three choices: (1) Continue with what doesn't work (arguing at the article); (2) forget about the article and leave other people to change it; (3) take the approach outlined above. Johnuniq (talk) 04:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry if it seems your suggestions have been "ignored". I'm sure this was not anyone's intent. Can we agree on a moratorium on references to "rules" for the moment, at least to let the dust settle, and a discussion on a definitive form for the section in question based on the following mildly edited version of the "current" form - with any amendments/alternative versions suggested by other editors. I'm sorry, but I have not previously been involved in an formal Rfc - and I suspect other users involved in this "dispute" may also be confused about exactly what we need to do next. If you could act as our guide this would be very useful. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Soundofmusicals: Thanks for the wikitext which you added below. I have moved that to User:Johnuniq/sandbox where it can be better handled. First, I copied the section from Roman numerals#Standard form (permalink at 04:57, 17 October 2020) to my sandbox at 09:20, 18 October 2020. Then I copied in the wikitext you added below at 09:23, 18 October 2020. That means the sandbox history can be used to show exactly what changes to the article wikitext have occurred. Let's slowly think about what is in the sandbox and possibly edit in the next 24 hours or so. Then I will mention it at article talk and invite others to contribute. I would like you and I and at least one other to agree that the sandbox version should be in the article. It doesn't matter if we don't get one other so long as you and I agree. Then we can edit the article and see what people really think. I will handle all aspects of an RfC, if one is needed. There won't be any mention of "rules" in the sandbox and I strongly recommend that you do not discuss whether that term is useful with anyone—not until an RfC is held, if needed. Suppose you are discussing rules with someone. If they make a point and you respond, they are duty bound to respond again. Then you respond, and they respond, and it goes on forever. You will never agree, so just stop responding. The problem will go away if consensus says there should not be a mention of "rules", but we won't start that discussion about that until you and I are satisfied with a draft for the article. Please edit the sandbox if you think anything else would be desirable. I don't understand
"usual modern standardized orthography"
which is mentioned twice in the article. Presumably that means what is in the "Standard form" section? That wording might benefit from a tweak. Let's take our time. Johnuniq (talk) 09:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)- I have addressed (I hope) concerns about
"usual modern standardized orthography"
- I agree this is pompous and unnecessary - it was left in largely out of "respect" for the editor who will (presumably) be our main respondent - we were concentrating on our main objection to his edits rather than reverting everything he had to contribute without distinction. Otherwise, I leave this matter in your hands for the moment. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)- The "rules man" has unfortunately returned to this thread with more of the same old, and I have (possibly mistakenly) felt constrained to answer his "points" yet again. There is a very real risk of us "losing" this one in a back and forth quarrel between him and me - in fact I wouldn't mind one little bit if you removed both his last post and my answer as being unhelpfully repetitious! ---Soundofmusicals (talk)
- The current situation happens at many articles every day: one person wants X and others want Y. Wikipedia works by WP:CONSENSUS and that means universal agreement is not needed. The standard procedure in a situation like this is simple: do not feed the argument by responding to points repeatedly made by one person, and revert any edit that does not have consensus using a polite edit summary saying that consensus on talk is against the edit. I am watching the page (and saw the recent comment several hours ago). By all means draw my attention to something you think I've missed, but the only way to avoid a never-ending argument is to stop arguing. If necessary, I will start a process that finishes with an RfC to settle outstanding issues. You know what they say about the definition of insanity? In this context, insanity is replying to every point hoping that the other person will change their mind. Johnuniq (talk) 06:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know if what I have done to the talk page of this one is even "legal" = but desparaion has driven me to "split" the topic at the point that it actually went off the rails. But do we already have enough to declare a consensus that the section concerned is ok as it is? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:56, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- You are doing the exact opposite of what you should. Perhaps my long replies are too tiring, so here is something short: SHUT UP! When you respond, they respond; when you take an action, they take an action. Can you see a pattern emerging? Let them have the last word, and the word after that. Johnuniq (talk) 08:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Well, I've tried to do as you suggest! I have long recognised the deliberate "goading" behind much of Bigdan's input and I suspect there is more than a little truth in what you say. Unfortunately repeated "last words" do not seem to be settling anything, and disruptive edits to the article itself have resumed. Rather than simply revert, I have suggested (in talk) an alternative, asking for comment. From Bigdan himself, precedent suggests nothing in the least constructive is to follow - but from the several other editors? Not 100% sure this even belongs on this particular thread - especially if it only unleashes a further set of tirades about nobody loving him. Anyway - any remarks you want to make very welcome. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Soundofmusicals: You have to live with the fact that disagreement occurs—it's ok, don't worry about it. The only thing you did wrong was to comment on talk with a continuation of the argument. Don't do that! The only way to stop an argument is to stop arguing. The edit was reverted by someone else 12 hours after it was made, and it had zero chance of surviving more than a day or two. Ignore edits like that and let others deal with it. It's only if against-consensus edits are frequently repeated that a problem arises. If that occurs, I will start the RfC process if needed. Either that, or prepare a report for the edit warring noticeboard. Johnuniq (talk) 08:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- Well, I've tried to do as you suggest! I have long recognised the deliberate "goading" behind much of Bigdan's input and I suspect there is more than a little truth in what you say. Unfortunately repeated "last words" do not seem to be settling anything, and disruptive edits to the article itself have resumed. Rather than simply revert, I have suggested (in talk) an alternative, asking for comment. From Bigdan himself, precedent suggests nothing in the least constructive is to follow - but from the several other editors? Not 100% sure this even belongs on this particular thread - especially if it only unleashes a further set of tirades about nobody loving him. Anyway - any remarks you want to make very welcome. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- You are doing the exact opposite of what you should. Perhaps my long replies are too tiring, so here is something short: SHUT UP! When you respond, they respond; when you take an action, they take an action. Can you see a pattern emerging? Let them have the last word, and the word after that. Johnuniq (talk) 08:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know if what I have done to the talk page of this one is even "legal" = but desparaion has driven me to "split" the topic at the point that it actually went off the rails. But do we already have enough to declare a consensus that the section concerned is ok as it is? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:56, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- The current situation happens at many articles every day: one person wants X and others want Y. Wikipedia works by WP:CONSENSUS and that means universal agreement is not needed. The standard procedure in a situation like this is simple: do not feed the argument by responding to points repeatedly made by one person, and revert any edit that does not have consensus using a polite edit summary saying that consensus on talk is against the edit. I am watching the page (and saw the recent comment several hours ago). By all means draw my attention to something you think I've missed, but the only way to avoid a never-ending argument is to stop arguing. If necessary, I will start a process that finishes with an RfC to settle outstanding issues. You know what they say about the definition of insanity? In this context, insanity is replying to every point hoping that the other person will change their mind. Johnuniq (talk) 06:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- The "rules man" has unfortunately returned to this thread with more of the same old, and I have (possibly mistakenly) felt constrained to answer his "points" yet again. There is a very real risk of us "losing" this one in a back and forth quarrel between him and me - in fact I wouldn't mind one little bit if you removed both his last post and my answer as being unhelpfully repetitious! ---Soundofmusicals (talk)
- I have addressed (I hope) concerns about
- @Soundofmusicals: Thanks for the wikitext which you added below. I have moved that to User:Johnuniq/sandbox where it can be better handled. First, I copied the section from Roman numerals#Standard form (permalink at 04:57, 17 October 2020) to my sandbox at 09:20, 18 October 2020. Then I copied in the wikitext you added below at 09:23, 18 October 2020. That means the sandbox history can be used to show exactly what changes to the article wikitext have occurred. Let's slowly think about what is in the sandbox and possibly edit in the next 24 hours or so. Then I will mention it at article talk and invite others to contribute. I would like you and I and at least one other to agree that the sandbox version should be in the article. It doesn't matter if we don't get one other so long as you and I agree. Then we can edit the article and see what people really think. I will handle all aspects of an RfC, if one is needed. There won't be any mention of "rules" in the sandbox and I strongly recommend that you do not discuss whether that term is useful with anyone—not until an RfC is held, if needed. Suppose you are discussing rules with someone. If they make a point and you respond, they are duty bound to respond again. Then you respond, and they respond, and it goes on forever. You will never agree, so just stop responding. The problem will go away if consensus says there should not be a mention of "rules", but we won't start that discussion about that until you and I are satisfied with a draft for the article. Please edit the sandbox if you think anything else would be desirable. I don't understand
- Sorry if it seems your suggestions have been "ignored". I'm sure this was not anyone's intent. Can we agree on a moratorium on references to "rules" for the moment, at least to let the dust settle, and a discussion on a definitive form for the section in question based on the following mildly edited version of the "current" form - with any amendments/alternative versions suggested by other editors. I'm sorry, but I have not previously been involved in an formal Rfc - and I suspect other users involved in this "dispute" may also be confused about exactly what we need to do next. If you could act as our guide this would be very useful. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: I suggested the following a few days ago as a new (if less succinct) version of the first sentence of this section but I think people must have missed it - as it got buried in indents on the article talk page. I have actually had a personal chat with Bigdan, and he seems surprisingly positive - at least he didn't raise the opposition I expected! While I am far from "wedded" to this - if it proved to be the circuit breaker for this long running mess I would ta least have something to be relieved about! Note that rules are "mentioned" as Bigdan is still insisting - but in a sensible context - and with an implied reason why we don't follow sources that include rules, preferring our table.
- Some sources suggest more or less elaborate "rules" which attempt to define Roman numeral notation in terms of what is (or is not) "permitted" - the following table, on the other hand, shows the simple pattern behind the usual, or "standard" form, and is a simpler and clearer way of conveying this information.
--Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Soundofmusicals: Would you please respond to the edit request. Say why it is a good idea and should be done (or make the edit yourself), or, say why it is not a good idea. In the latter case, you should also change
answered=notoanswered=yesor you can leave that and I'll do it.Regarding the "Some sources suggest" text: please no! If wanted I'll list a dozen inappropriate features of that proposal but there are two simple reasons why it is undesirable. First, it's too wordy (and unsourced), and a gnome would delete 90% of it. There is no point reaching a compromise among current talk-page participants if the first passing editor would remove it. Second, the aim is to bring discussions to a close and regardless of the good intentions, an attempt to introduce "rules" would not be the end of the matter—in due course, the rules would need to be expanded. As a student, one of my first programming exercises was to write a Roman numeral converter and many programming sources refer to rules because you can't write a program without a clearly documented unambiguous procedure. However, in a general encyclopedic article about historic and current usage of Roman numerals, it would be unnecessary and inappropriate to explain rules because there is no standards body, and there never was. Like all things done by humans, there were different approaches that met local needs and customs.What is needed now is nothing—we want talk page activity to dwindle to nothing, and we want people to get used to how the article is, without some modern retrofitted set of made-up rules. We do not need to respond to repeated and failed proposals, and in fact the only way to reach a conclusion is to not respond and let anyone wanting to edit against consensus get bored and move on to other things. Sorry but that is how Wikipedia works. Johnuniq (talk) 03:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
94.4.135.30
Please block user:94.4.135.30 ASAP. CLCStudent (talk) 00:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- @CLCStudent: Done. Johnuniq (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Kasautii zindagii kay 2001
You made this page as proteced because of some people made constantly change... But you have to check that who made right info... I mean after wrong changes you made this page protected. Now this page will display wrong info untill it become unprotected Vatsavi1452 (talk) 08:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- I responded to a request at WP:RFPP, see permalink. Per WP:WRONGVERSION, articles are protected without regard for the current state of the article. If necessary, an edit request can be made on the article talk page.@Atlantic306: There is no need to respond here, but I thought you might like to see this discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 09:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Agree, what with the constant edit-warring the correct version will be persistently changed to and fro, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Grieve&action=history, I suspect that the named editor in among the IP addresses is related to the IP addresses. Don't know what they are doing in the article, though think that it is a bit of sandboxing. I have just slapped them at enWS and followed up here for autobiography issues, so hoping that the problem is at an end, though I suspect that the ego is strong in this one. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst: Nothing unusual then! Thanks for your tireless work. Johnuniq (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- And back at you! — billinghurst sDrewth 22:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Name-change on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Hijiri88?
Any chance the name of this thread could be changed to "Trouble on Ghost of Tsushima talk page" or "Canvassing accusation on Ghost of Tsushima talk page" or some such? Given the circumstances, I think it would be understood why I find it problematic that my name appears in the title of an ANI thread that probably shouldn't have been opened in the first place. Two days ago I was expecting that either there would be a formal close to the effect that I had done nothing wrong and the OP was trouted, or the OP comment would be outright stricken, but given that neither of these has happened and that there's been very little activity in two days, I am a little afraid that an ANI thread called "Hijiri88" will be allowed to get archived with no formal exoneration. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
October harvest
 |
thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – November 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection
any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet
, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.
- Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection
Technical news
- Sysops will once again be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to interface administrators when that group was introduced.
- Twinkle's block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a discretionary sanctions block and/or template.
- Sysops will be able to use Special:CreateLocalAccount to create a local account for a global user that is prevented from auto-creation locally (such as by a filter or range block). Administrators that are not sure if such a creation is appropriate should contact a checkuser.
Arbitration
- The 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections process has begun. Eligible editors will be able to nominate themselves as candidates from November 8 through November 17. The voting period will run from November 23 through December 6.
- The Anti-harassment RfC has concluded with a summary of the feedback provided.
Miscellaneous
- A reminder that
standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.
(American Politics 2 Arbitration case).
- A reminder that
Hi, please don't take this as criticism of your action, but I'm wondering why you only semiprotected this talk page for one day. Is it a policy that it can't be longer or something else? Given the way the US presidential election is going on I would predict that the vandalism will continue as long as we don't know the winner and is likely to spike harder when a winner is declared. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- @IHateAccounts: The problem is that freedom is a big idea and while I agree that passers-by adding nonsense is pointless and a waste of time for good editors, protecting talk pages is tricky. Protection has to escalate. The provisions of WP:ARBAP2 are available so bolder protection might be available. However I would be happier with a more central discussion, perhaps at WP:AE or WP:AN. I suggest waiting until there is sufficient evidence to make a good case, then posting in one of those locations. Johnuniq (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Richard Dawkins
Thank you for the valuable introduction! I'll be sure to consider my edits more carefully in the future. I feel very welcomed by your kind advice. Socialequilibrist (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Socialequilibrist: Thanks for the feedback. If you edit this section you will see how Help:Notifications can be done to draw another editor's attention to a discussion. They aren't used all the time. Johnuniq (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Johnuniq: Got it. Socialequilibrist (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
What do you mean about my revert?
An example is User:fuckthewikipaedia. Blatant vandalism, blatant attack name. No block reason was given. 4thfile4thrank {talk} :? 00:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- @4thfile4thrank: This relates to my revert of your edit at WP:RBI. Please post at the talk page (WT:Revert, block, ignore) and explain why "and in some blatant cases to not even provide a reason for the block" is useful, bearing in mind that policies do not try to cover all cases and the text is already saying to ignore. Johnuniq (talk) 01:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Taga za Yug
Hello, Johnuniq. No such RfC is needed. Would you look at the article Miladinov Brothers, hence one of them was its author, and especially the section Controversy. Today in North Macedonia are schools named after them, but the pupils there do not have the access to the works of their schools' patrons in original. There is a similar case with the national museum of North Macedonia which, apparently, refuses to display original works by the two brothers, because of the Bulgarian labels on some of them, etc. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Jingiby: This relates to my decline of a WP:RFPP request to semi-protect the article, see RFPP permalink. The blocking policy does not allow long-term semi-protection of an article merely because a never-ending stream of IPs change X to Y. Protection can only occur if there is very clear consensus that the IP edits are unsatisfactory. Whether you or I are convinced about the point is immaterial. If there were several established editors from a relevant wikiproject who had explained why the edits should be reverted on article talk, protection would probably be possible. However, I don't see that so an RfC is the standard method of establishing a consensus. Here is a repeat of some of my reply at WP:RFPP:
Please consider whether some other wording could be devised to avoid the nationalist edit warring. I read the quote in ref 1 which does not really justify a statement in Wikipedia's voice about a particular nationality.
That's just my opinion which is not relevant for whether protection should or should not occur—I'm just letting you know what views might be expressed in an RfC. Handing this issue (the nationality of Taga za Yug) would be easier if it were covered by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe—I don't know if that applies or not. Johnuniq (talk) 05:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)- Hi again. I failed to find the decision of the Arbitration committee, that before 1860-s there was any idea of Macedonian identity and on Wikipedia is impossible to write about it in that period. The author died at that time. He never gave any sign of such ideas in his works.Regards. Jingiby (talk) 06:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Your response to my request at WP:RPP
Hi - Johnuniq. Thank you for responding to my request at WP:RPP. I saw your response which said Sorry but I'm not going to semi-protect a BLP with what might be WP:UNDUE text in the WP:LEAD. The talk page was last edited in February 2019. Please ask for opinions at WP:BLPN.
. Could you perhaps elaborate on your response? Did I do something incorrectly? P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 02:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- @P,TO 19104: No, you did not do anything incorrectly, and thank you for reporting the issue. I can see that the IPs are here only to remove an embarrassing incident from Enrico Fazzini however the only response from established editors was to revert the IP's edits without explanation (other than the catch-all "unexplained removal"). There is nothing on article talk and nothing currently on WP:BLPN. That means the dispute is an edit war and full protection is the appropriate response. If I were to semi-protect it, I would be declaring that the IP's edits were vandalism but, regardless of how irritating they are, the IP's edits definitely do not satisfy Wikipedia's definition of vandalism. Also, the article is very short and using primary sources to add someone being drunk in a bad situation may not be WP:DUE. If the subject has a history of problems, a secondary source should be used to briefly summarize them. Johnuniq (talk) 02:48, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. I was worried that I was a part of the problem. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 02:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Returning repeat offender, probably
Two days ago I asked for page protection because of repeated original research edits by a user at IP address 78.118.77.170. At the time, the page protection was declined, and the user at 78.118.77.170 was blocked for a period and you stated the following: "Please let me know if problems persist. Johnuniq (talk) 02:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)". Today, a user at a new IP address, 77.196.166.246, is making the same edits, so I have a suspicion it is the same user. User:Ohnoitsjamie deleted the birth date of Diane Birch as unsupported, but I restored it with some citations, which I admit are not as strong as I would like. One solution would be that you or Ohnoitsjamie deletes the birth dates again stating that until strong support is provided, no dates shall be listed. I would not like that, but could live with it, as I am somewhat unhappy with the strength of my citations. I would not have used them if I thought they were bad, I am saying they are not great. I also initiated a request on the article talk page for help. Otherwise, I would ask that the user at new IP address 77.196.166.246 be watched for vandalistic editing, or perhaps you might suggest that I could re-list the Diane Birch article for page protection. I would appreciate any help or advise or action that you would grant. Mburrell (talk) 21:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Mburrell: That's not an ideal source (it looks some kind of aggregator with no known pedigree) but it's better than some. I'm glad to say that Ohnoitsjamie handled 77.196.166.246 (talk · contribs) an alternative for 78.118.77.170 (talk · contribs). By the way, please don't use "vandalism" in an edit summary. If something is vandalism (see Wikipedia's definition at WP:VAND), either rollback or use "rvv" (revert vandalism) as the edit summary. Telling a vandal they have performed vandalism only encourages them. The IP's edits were unsourced and did not have consensus. That is not vandalism and the edit summary should refer to WP:RS and/or WP:CONSENSUS. That's a good comment at Talk:Diane Birch, thanks. Let me know if further problems occur. Johnuniq (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Attempts to change the Sydney lead image again
Hello. In May you implemented a one-year moratorium against changing Sydney's lead image. During the discussion, user Ashton 29 was blocked for continued disruptive editing of the page, which culminated in a 1 month block for evading (editing as an IP). He has now once again tried to anonymously change the Sydney lead image. Note the similarity between this IP he recently used during an edit war on the Melbourne page, and the one he used to edit the Sydney page. This is a clear violation of the consensus reached and the moratorium. - HappyWaldo (talk) 07:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- @HappyWaldo: I know it's frustrating but remember that while the Sydney RfC was tedious, it went smoothly and there is now a defined consensus. The IP was quickly reverted and I will warn/block anyone who causes disruption against that RfC. There is no cause for alarm. If I miss activity, notify me. However, you must play the game and AGF. I don't see any reason to think the IP is a particular logged-out editor and there certainly is no evidence. Accordingly, it would be best to not cast aspersions. Complaining about editors is a poor strategy. It's ok to complain if someone goes crazy and replaces content with poop, or if they break 3RR or work against the RfC. However, complaining about a particular editor under other conditions would not be effective and will only boomerang. If disagreements at Melbourne cannot be settled soon, the only effective path would be to run another RfC. If several editors engage in a discussion there but cannot settle it, and if wanted, you could ask me to help draft an RfC there. Johnuniq (talk) 09:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response and sound advice. It may just be a hunch that the IP is Ashton, but he has been shown in the past to edit pages anonymously to avoid detection, and has used numerous sockpuppet accounts. I've asked two other editors of the Melbourne page for their input, so hopefully something comes of it. - HappyWaldo (talk) 12:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Attack editing on Fadlo R. Khuri
Hi, thanks for putting the BLP of Fadlo R. Khuri on your watchlist. Mandalorian123, the user who was suspended last week and is being looked into for NPOV, waited out their one-week ban and came back to restore their hostile version of Dr. Khuri's biography. This person is clearly determined to use WP for a personal agenda. At what point can they be stopped from doing this? CorneliusVanDyck (talk) 12:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, I posted on article talk that it's under control now (handled by another admin). Please keep an eye on American University of Beirut and any other articles that might be related and let me know if problems arise. Johnuniq (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Fadlo R. Khuri, again
Hey. Since the admin protection has expired, the user has continued to restore the potentially defamatory content. Could you talk a look at Fadlo R. Khuri and the talk page again, and issue protections and blocks where necessary. Kind regards, MrClog (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Please explain your comment on my talk page
Johnuniq, I'd like an explanation for this edit you made to my talk page.
You might be mistaking politeness for vindication. Did you notice "However, you are on the wrong side of this one." which followed the polite assumption of good faith (diff)? I have changed the heading of this section because the ANI report (permalink) has a closing statement including "Consensus is clear that the concerns voiced by Drmies were valid and that no admin abuse, intended or incidental, occurred." Wikipedia involves disagreements and prolonged discussions, aka arguments. However, experience shows that it is not possible and not desirable to pursue all discussions until everyone is satisfied. You could try asking at WP:Teahouse whether they think an external link to a copyrighted map was (a) desirable and (b) ok regarding copyright. However, requiring busy and very productive editors to argue for a prolonged time is disruptive. Johnuniq - 01:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC) [original signature]
Specifically, I'd like you to explain:
1) Given that the AN/I case was closed, and neither I nor anyone else had discussed it anywhere afterward, why did you mention it here?
2) Is it appropriate for an admin to discuss a closed AN/I case with a participant after it's closed when no one asked them to comment further?
3) Why did you change the header of this section on my talk page?
4) If you thought it was important to change the header, why didn't you ask me to change the header instead of making the change yourself?
5) Given the various policies governing changing or deleting other editor's comments on their own talk pages, for instance WP:USERTALKBLOG, which says "The best option if there is a concern with a user's page is to draw their attention to the matter via their talk page and let them edit it themselves", do you think editing my header without first asking me was appropriate?
6) Why did you respond to a comment I made to Ivanvector on my own talk page?
7) In your comment, given that that Ivanvector hadn't responded himself and no one had complained, why did you undermine the note of thanks I made to him by countering, "You might be mistaking politeness for vindication"?
8) If perhaps you objected to comments I made about Drmies in my note to Ivanvector, why didn't you let Ivanvector or Drmies respond themselves?
9) Why were you reading my talk page at all? Were you stalking me?
10) As an admin, looking at your own behavior, do you not consider it bullying and ganging up for you to revert an edit I had made on my own talk page without first asking me about it, to undermine a note of thanks I made to another editor on my own talk page, and to relitigate and criticize me on my own talk page about an AN/I case that was already closed?
11) Were you retaliating against me for having opened an AN/I case against Drmies?
Thank you.
Coastside (talk) 16:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- 1) See my edit summary: "change heading per WP:POLEMIC".
- 2) Yes, although being an admin is irrelevant.
- 3) WP:ASPERSION + WP:POLEMIC.
- 4) It's a wiki.
- 5) Yes, it's a wiki.
- 6) It's a wiki.
- 7) Outside views can be helpful.
- 8) It's a wiki; nothing I did impeded them.
- 9) No.
- 10) No.
- 11) No.
- Johnuniq (talk) 03:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Reversion of my edit on Gallon article
Here is a link to the edits that you reverted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gallon&oldid=prev&diff=988953612
So the reason I removed "(metric; adopted 1964 in Canada, 1976 in UK)" is because some people who are not familiar with this topic may interpret this piece of text as if Canada and the U.K. adopted a metric gallon, which obviously isn't true. I think it is better to just remove that piece of text and leave it as "Imperial gallon" as not to cause any confusion.
Have a good day
Unofficialwikicorrector (talk) 03:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Gallon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- @Unofficialwikicorrector: It's useful to use an edit summary to explain the point of an edit. In my edit summary, '
what about "defined as"?
' referred to the fact that the article explains that the metric imperial gallon is exactly 4.54609 liters because it is that value by definition. At any rate, the text has been removed now. By the way, the proper place to raise this matter would be the talk page of the article so that other editors can easily find it. Johnuniq (talk) 06:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I apologize for not leaving an edit summary, that was a mistake on my part. Secondly, the imperial gallon isn't "the metric imperial gallon", just because it's current definition is based on the litre or cubic decimetre if you want to be technically correct. Either ways, have a good day and a good Thanksgiving if you're an American.
Unofficialwikicorrector (talk) 15:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
It's a free website.
What is it to you? GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- This (May 28, 2016) and this. Oh, and in case you missed it, I'm not an admin, please go and bother someone else. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the article that I requested to be semi-protected
While I appericate you allowing 1 week of Raphael Warnock's article to be semi-protected. Is their a way you can extended it for atleast 2 months, or would I have to make a request again to have the article semi-protected for a longer period of time? Their is a high profile election going on, on January 5 of next year and that article is vulernable to vandilism which is why I'm asking for an extension. Dillon251992 (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Dillon251992: The problem is that the article had not been protected before and protection is supposed to escalate. In a week, assuming problems resume, please do two or three reverts with polite edit summaries mentioning DUE/BLP and directing them to talk. If that doesn't work, post here with two diffs or the time/date in history so I can easily find the problematic edits. If appropriate, I would extend to a month. After that, one more go here would get a total of the two months. This section will probably still be here in a week, so edit here if needed. Johnuniq (talk) 23:01, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Courtesy Notice
Since I'm not ever sure if pings work in a long comment, I thought I would let you know that I mentioned you on User talk:JzG. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 05:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Assistance needed at Parga
Hello Johnuniq,
Ktrimi991 is edit-warring to restore the POV tag to the history section at Parga [2]. He is also edit-warring in general [3]. This user has minimal talkpage participation, consisting only of token "there are POV issues" type comments without making specific proposals, e.g. [4]. This behavior is part of a consistent pattern by users that include Ktrimi991, Maleschreiber, and several others. Articles that they tag stay tagged essentially indefinitely until their demands are met. This has happened not only at Parga, but also Northern Epirus and Pelion (Chaonia). No article that has been tagged by this group of users has yet been untagged. I believe this is a pressure tactic to force their demands being met. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Khirurg (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hello Johnuniq, hope you're well. Despite the fact that you advised all editors to stop reverts on Parga, just because I was very busy and didn't reply for less than two weeks and neither did Khirurg, Khirurg reverted/removed the tag which I had placed before you protected the article[5] with the excuse that the "discussion ceased long ago" (how can that be perceived as consensus for Khirurg's edits?) and another editor [6] removed other parts of the edits put forward before the full protection. Ktrimi basically reverted the article to the stable version which you had protected. It's a problem that two editors both involved in the dispute decided to proceed to reverts and removals even though no other editor involved in the dispute added or removed parts because everybody followed your guideline and decided to stop editing/reverting without an explicit consensus.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, the "busy" excuse. The last post on the talkpage before today was by Johnuniq on November 8, more than two weeks. You have made over 200 edits since then [7], just nothing on Talk:Parga. I think it's pretty obvious what's going on. Khirurg (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- I've made edits most of which are in the last few days. I've been busy and haven't had the time to formulate a possible RfC. But you haven't proposed any RfC question either. The dispute involves at least two editors. You decided that you specifically have consensus and proceeded to reverting because nobody prepared the RfC in last days. I never thought that because nobody else replied I somehow received consensus for edits which I've put forward and have been removed.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- You've been editing more or less continuously since November 8. And this section [8] shows a clear 5-1 consensus against the material you added on the grounds that it's a misuse of sources. The last edit to that section was on November 5, by a user who was also against inclusion. And neither nor anyone edit-warring to keep the tag in replied. Khirurg (talk) 19:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- The tag is related to many topics including Talk:Parga#Kolokotronis-Farmaki plan. To recap, you went back to reverting, you were reverted back to the stable and the article is where it stood originally and nobody (including you) has prepared a possible dispute resolution discussion. Instead of accusing other editors, basically, that they disagree with your edits - as they did 2 weeks ago - maybe you should turn your attention to how the RfC could be formulated. --Maleschreiber (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- The onus on the RfC is on the one wanting to add contested material to the article. But I'm guessing the reason you haven't started an RfC is that you can probably figure out that it is unlikely to go your way based on the talkpage comments, so that's why you keep talking about an RfC instead of starting one (two weeks since Johnuniq's comment). So now you are trying to shift the burden. Pretty obvious what's going on. Khirurg (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- You want to remove the tag and another editor about a completely different dispute tried to remove material. The way to add/remove anything is via dispute resolution. Now, I'm not going to discuss about anyone's motives as you've been doing. It's a discussion which leads to nowhere and doesn't improve cooperation. I've proposed a possible RfC on the talkpage.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- The onus on the RfC is on the one wanting to add contested material to the article. But I'm guessing the reason you haven't started an RfC is that you can probably figure out that it is unlikely to go your way based on the talkpage comments, so that's why you keep talking about an RfC instead of starting one (two weeks since Johnuniq's comment). So now you are trying to shift the burden. Pretty obvious what's going on. Khirurg (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- I've made edits most of which are in the last few days. I've been busy and haven't had the time to formulate a possible RfC. But you haven't proposed any RfC question either. The dispute involves at least two editors. You decided that you specifically have consensus and proceeded to reverting because nobody prepared the RfC in last days. I never thought that because nobody else replied I somehow received consensus for edits which I've put forward and have been removed.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, the "busy" excuse. The last post on the talkpage before today was by Johnuniq on November 8, more than two weeks. You have made over 200 edits since then [7], just nothing on Talk:Parga. I think it's pretty obvious what's going on. Khirurg (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hello Johnuniq, hope you're well. Despite the fact that you advised all editors to stop reverts on Parga, just because I was very busy and didn't reply for less than two weeks and neither did Khirurg, Khirurg reverted/removed the tag which I had placed before you protected the article[5] with the excuse that the "discussion ceased long ago" (how can that be perceived as consensus for Khirurg's edits?) and another editor [6] removed other parts of the edits put forward before the full protection. Ktrimi basically reverted the article to the stable version which you had protected. It's a problem that two editors both involved in the dispute decided to proceed to reverts and removals even though no other editor involved in the dispute added or removed parts because everybody followed your guideline and decided to stop editing/reverting without an explicit consensus.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
This arose from WP:RFPP 5 November 2020. I will get to this but not for a few hours. Would everyone please take a break for now. Johnuniq (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- I commented at Talk:Parga#POV issues. Johnuniq (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
| | 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 |
Appeal at ARCA
Hi Johnuniq. I wanted to let you know that The C of E is appealing at ARCA a topic ban imposed by a consensus of administrators at AE, which you commented at as an uninvolved administrator. The ARCA request is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_The_Troubles. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- I just wanted to clarify, the reason I said that allegedly sentence was to set out the background of the grounds for my restrictions for those who didn't know. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Please provide the reason of the ban
Sorry, but you forgot to provide the reason of the ban. Yurivict (talk) 04:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Review of a recent AE close you did
Here you closed an AE filing against BullRangifer (now going by the username @Valjean:) stating clearly "BullRangifer is warned that he must not speculate about the competence of other users in discussions regarding a topic under discretionary sanctions"...yet in the case you just closed against Yurivict, Valjean violated this many times..I count Valjean questioning Yurivict's competence twice and saying he is also incompetent twice and the second time they used all caps. Valjean's zeal not only to topic ban but to even site ban a long term contributor with a clean block log, while violating portions of a prior verdict against them is stunning. Your close on the Bullrangifer case was less than a year ago and perhaps their name change was confusing but sanction should have also been applied against Valjean for this violation of an earlier AE judgement you made. Are you going to address this or do I have to open up another case for this violation?--MONGO (talk) 05:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Was this clearly about "a topic under discretionary sanctions," or was it about user behavior at a much more basic level, something that affects their abilityto edit properly on any topic?
- All were agreed that extreme incompetence is the problem, so do I get punished for being right and siding with the mainstream majority, just because some defenders of the fringe position (as in editors who defend narratives based on unreliable sources) side with the sanctioned editor? Wouldn't their siding with that editor by exploiting the situation to take out a mainstream editor be seen as gaming the system to bolster the continued pushing and defense of fringe sources and narratives, the very narratives and unreliable sources that are resulting in a well-deserved topic ban, one that would happen even without any of my commentary?
- This looks like a bizarre trap that strikes against everything we stand for here. We are supposed to encourage the editors who defend reliance on RS. What kind of message would sanctioning my agreement with all the other mainstream editors and my totally unquestioned reliance on RS send to fringe editors,including Rusf10, who was behind that January warning?
- The current topic ban action has nothing to do with me, so there is no need to suspend it.
- I am also perfectly willing to strike any and all of my comments that were wrong. Maybe I do deserve a trouting for getting carried away and siding with policy and the majority position, as expressed by most participants and all admins. Anyone else who said what I said would be commended for defending Wikipedia's policies, but I do need to be more careful.
- I was under the impression that your warning to me was about "speculating," but all are agreed that there is no speculation occurring. This is as open and shut a case as I've seen in years. So was I engaged in "speculation"? If so, then I do apologize.
- There was nothing "gratuitous" about my current comments. The situation with Rusf10 was wildly different than this one.
- Speculation about competence, where there might be some doubt, can come across as uncivil and bordering on a personal attack. This situation bears no resemblance to that. This is not some heated article or user talk page discussion where things got carried too far. The setting here is specifically designed for seriously addressing any and all types of problematic behavior, as long as it isn't speculation, uncivil, and person attacks. There was none of that in my comments.
- Am I forbidden from ever taking the word "competence" in my mouth at Wikipedia, especially at a place designed for addressing that topic, when that is agreed by all to be on-topic? I need clarity on that. Am I now to be permanently treated as a fringe, disruptive, editor? -- Valjean (talk) 08:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Valjean: I was called elsewhere just after I undid my WP:AE close. I had intended posting a stern rebuke at your talk regarding this matter but I'll reply here for now. I have no idea why you would continue to rabbit on about the competence of another editor when you can see a report of a warning in January that you must not do that. If you want to ask an admin to sanction you, please do that at WP:AE. Johnuniq (talk) 08:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Valjean:
"Am I forbidden from ever taking the word "competence" in my mouth at Wikipedia"
Maybe you should try that. Just stop using the word. Is it that hard to edit a collaborative encyclopedia without calling your colleagues incompetent? Make a contingency plan for the next time you feel you need to question someone's competence. Put a reminder sticky note above your monitor. Remove the letter C from your keyboard if you need to. Don't let your fascination with the competence of others be the thing that drives you off Wikipedia. ~Awilley (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- MONGO I prepared the following reply earlier (in a text editor) and previewed it. I intended to publish it before undoing my close at WP:AE but evidently I didn't.
I closed that earlier WP:AE discussion on 6 January 2020 (by the way, the major part of that close involved an unwisely complex if-this-then-that sanction against another party which was later overturned). I did not study all the statements at the current WP:AE request. I did see comments about Valjean when I examined Yurivict's statement but I had no idea that Valjean was someone I had previously encountered—I now see that searching the long User:Valjean shows that it includes "On 14:30, March 23, 2020, Turkmen moved User:BullRangifer to User:Valjean." I'm not sure what to do about that. On the one hand, BullRangifer/Valjean must not speculate about the competence of other editors, particularly in highly contested topics such as AP2. On the other hand, the diff of the earlier infringement showed gratuitous use of "competency issue" whereas the current case is rather different. The difference can be seen in several of the diffs in the current WP:AE and in the mentioned RS discussion (permalink). At any rate, I don't think I have seen mention of BullRangifer/Valjean since January and I would not have remembered the warning without a reminder. My close was intended to minimize a loss of time at WP:AE where the outcome was very clear. However, if that close stands, more time might be lost with another request to deal with Valjean's warning violation, so I think I'll undo my close and comment there with a paraphrase of this comment as an explanation. You, or anyone, might like to comment about the new issue. Johnuniq (talk) 08:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – December 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).
Administrator changes
- Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- There is a request for comment in progress to either remove T3 (duplicated and hardcoded instances) as a speedy deletion criterion or eliminate its seven-day waiting period.
Technical news
- Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.
Arbitration
- Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 7 December 2020 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.
Neutral facts
Dear Johnuiq, I noticed you put in a lot of effort on wikipedia to help keep it neutral. I tried to request a "fully protected" status for some articles but could not find out how to do it (are the "guidelines" deliberately vague or technical to prevent too many requests of that nature?)
Anyway, one article was "Late antiquity", where I removed a timeline phrase about a mob of "christians murdering female mathematician hypatia". I realize this is a serious problem on wikipedia in numerous articles. This CANNOT be the place for factional wars. An encyclopedia article must reflect neutral facts as much as possible. It cannot be lists of events selected and worded to make one faction seem "good" or "evil" by design. The article must be protected from vandalism, and all these people hating each other must find other venues. It applies to many articles.
If you know whom to contact about this problem, how to protect the articles or who can start a "wikipedia neutrality task force", please respond. I am not really interested in religious discussions but can spot a red flag, it simply cannot be right that when I go to find some simple information about late antiquity I have to read propaganda inserted by angry people. It is not serious, it needs some attention/protection from serious people within the wikipedia moderator community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.173.226.101 (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Re your removal of File:17 Robert Hooke Engineer.JPG at Catenary arch: That image has been in the article since April 2016 and possibly earlier (it looks like the April 2016 article was created by copying from somewhere, possibly Robert Hooke). The image is one from commons:Category:Paintings by Rita Greer from 2009. I understand the concern about artists using Wikipedia to gain attention but perfection is rarely achievable and it boils down to editorial judgment regarding whether the image is useful. It apparently depicts various objects Hooke worked on so might be said to be encyclopedic. I wouldn't object to its removal or its inclusion. I don't see anyone pushing that artist so it's probably ok.
- Re your removal of "
415: Hypatia of Alexandra, pagan female mathematician is murdered by a Christian mob. The murder of an academic was unusual, and sent shock waves through the Roman Empire.
" at Late antiquity: I don't know anything about that history but I can recognize righting great wrongs when it's presented with your "of all the events during eight centuries of this timeline hypatia's death can only be called a "major event" by an author manipulating the reader into thinking badly of christianity; there is no mention of select christian martyrs "murdered by a pagan mob", this would be subjective pandering and so is this, it is feminist pandering
" edit summary. That text has been in the article since 7 June 2019. Hypatia#Aftermath has "Hypatia's death sent shockwaves throughout the empire
" with a scholarly OUP reference. - Getting discussion from people who understand history might not be easy. You might try WT:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. If you saw someone actively adding images that might promote an artist, you could ask at WP:COIN or possibly ask a generic question at WP:VPMISC. What article needs protection? Johnuniq (talk) 00:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Template help?
Hi Johnuniq, I'm working on some block messages right now and one thing I think would be really useful is a simple template that returns yes if it is passed a valid IP address or range (IPv4 or IPv6) and no otherwise. I know this is probably way below your skill level but I was wondering if you could help me with this since you seem pretty familiar with the lua behind our current IP parsing templates as well (I saw you wrote all the IP range code for Module:IP). Is this something that you'd be able to help me out with? Thanks so much! KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Also, by the way, Template:IsIPAddress is a similar template but only works for single IP addresses but not IP ranges. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:05, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- @KevinL: Sure, I can devise something. I need to know what output is wanted. {{IsIPAddress}} returns 4 or 6 or nothing, and that sounds desirable. By IP range, I guess you mean valid CIDR notation like 192.168.0.0/16 or 2604:2000:8000::/33? Do you need a distinction between a single IP and a range? I need these details (example input and output for single IPs and IP ranges) and a few days. Johnuniq (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yep, by "range" I mean valid CIDR notation. At the core I really only need one output if the input is a valid IP address or range, and another output otherwise, but it would be nice for it to distinguish between single IPs and ranges. If you want me to come up with specific values, these will do well:
- "1.1.1.1", "2000::": "ip"
- "1.1.1.0/24", "2000::/16": "range"
- "Other": "other" or "none" or something
- That's all I need for what I'm doing, but if you want to further classify them ("ipv4", "ipv4 range", "ipv6", "ipv6 range") I would be completely OK with that as well. Thanks so much for your help. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- See my result at Module talk:IPAddress#isIpOrRange where I pinged you. Johnuniq (talk) 09:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yep, by "range" I mean valid CIDR notation. At the core I really only need one output if the input is a valid IP address or range, and another output otherwise, but it would be nice for it to distinguish between single IPs and ranges. If you want me to come up with specific values, these will do well:
- @KevinL: Sure, I can devise something. I need to know what output is wanted. {{IsIPAddress}} returns 4 or 6 or nothing, and that sounds desirable. By IP range, I guess you mean valid CIDR notation like 192.168.0.0/16 or 2604:2000:8000::/33? Do you need a distinction between a single IP and a range? I need these details (example input and output for single IPs and IP ranges) and a few days. Johnuniq (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Flyer22 and WanderingWanda arbitration case opened
The Arbitration Committee has accepted and opened the Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 30, which is when the evidence phase is scheduled to close. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Workshop, which closes January 13, 2020. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. To opt out of future mailings please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Shubman Gill
Please unlock editing Shubman Gill wikipage Rabin Banik (talk) 07:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Please see my response at your talk page (User talk:Rabin Banik). Johnuniq (talk) 09:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Assistance Request
Are you available to help with a user who is getting a little bit out of control? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:29 on December 26, 2020 (UTC) • #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter
- I'm not sure if you'll like my response at Talk:WKHJ (FM). I'll be unavailable for a while but will monitor the situation. Johnuniq (talk) 10:50, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- I read some unfortunate news about Jim, so in the spirit of the season (and as a middle finger to 2020), I did something nice (which I almost never do with annoying users who break the rules). I can't guarantee this behavior won't continue...but we'll wait and see (and hope). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:24 on December 26, 2020 (UTC) • #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter
- Thanks, I think that's a good idea. Johnuniq (talk) 23:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I don't think this behavior will cease or desist. While I did what I did out of kindness, I am beginning to regret it. Since you have the page watchlisted (obviously), if I go after him anymore, one, I'm going to feel like a putz, and two, I'm going to get blocked. So, I leave it in your hands. I will, however, look for a reference. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:02 on December 31, 2020 (UTC) • #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter
- A good reference would settle the content issue, but frankly I doubt one is available (even given that I know nothing about radio stations). Often something like the "meaning" of a call sign is lost in a complex web of what actually took place when the call sign was chosen. Two or three people would have sat around and thought about it for a while and each would have had various views, and restrictions on what's available and possibly other things would have been an influence. The meaning might have been retrofitted later (like backronyms). Regarding editors, it's a big world and I think we have to tolerate diversity even in basics such as the ability to interact with others in a decent manner. People come with their own backgrounds and problems, and someone with under 500 edits might not be up to speed with how things are done here. Johnuniq (talk) 05:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- I am looking for a reference, not actively, but looking. To be honest, the "hat tip" reference seemed fairly obvious to everyone except for Jim. Plus, with the original KHJ having such a HUGE presence and it's Boss Radio format having such an effect on radio and spinning off so many big name DJs, it's very hard to believe that the original owners of WKHJ didn't pick the callsign (which has always been WKHJ), for that sole reason.
- A good reference would settle the content issue, but frankly I doubt one is available (even given that I know nothing about radio stations). Often something like the "meaning" of a call sign is lost in a complex web of what actually took place when the call sign was chosen. Two or three people would have sat around and thought about it for a while and each would have had various views, and restrictions on what's available and possibly other things would have been an influence. The meaning might have been retrofitted later (like backronyms). Regarding editors, it's a big world and I think we have to tolerate diversity even in basics such as the ability to interact with others in a decent manner. People come with their own backgrounds and problems, and someone with under 500 edits might not be up to speed with how things are done here. Johnuniq (talk) 05:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I don't think this behavior will cease or desist. While I did what I did out of kindness, I am beginning to regret it. Since you have the page watchlisted (obviously), if I go after him anymore, one, I'm going to feel like a putz, and two, I'm going to get blocked. So, I leave it in your hands. I will, however, look for a reference. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:02 on December 31, 2020 (UTC) • #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter
- Thanks, I think that's a good idea. Johnuniq (talk) 23:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- I read some unfortunate news about Jim, so in the spirit of the season (and as a middle finger to 2020), I did something nice (which I almost never do with annoying users who break the rules). I can't guarantee this behavior won't continue...but we'll wait and see (and hope). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:24 on December 26, 2020 (UTC) • #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter
- I am more than happy to be accepting and tolerant of others. I get diversity, backgrounds, and problems. Believe me. I grew up a Navy brat in Norfolk, Virginia, I have Aspergers, and went to public school all my life, so I get all that. :) What I won't tolerate is people being jerks just for the sake of being jerks. Jim knows the rules and policies, he quotes them and cites them. He dropped this entire thing for 4 months and a day, then went into a long tangent about God only knows what on Christmas Night. I TL;DR'd. Then, when he doesn't get his way, takes his nonsense to another user's talkpage. O_O?! Then when he gets what he wants accuses me of "slander" and invents a claim that I "just learned it", which is not said anywhere in any discussion him and I have had. That's clearly someone not operating either with a full deck nor is it someone here to build an encyclopedia. I'm just sayin'. I am tolerate of many, many, many things. Jerks are NOT one of them. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:44 on December 31, 2020 (UTC) • #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter
I found a reference. Took me a couple, but again, I wasn't actively looking. :) I have added it to the page. It's not going to be enough for Jim, but he got his reference. That's enough for me and that specific site was enough for GAN and FAC reviewers on a radio station article. If it passed their scrutiny twice, it will work just fine on a Stub article. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:55 on January 5, 2021 (UTC) • #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter
Kumioko again
This is just to notify you that Kumioko has resumed editing from the 98.118.241.107 IP since you were the admin who blocked him earlier this year. Kges1901 (talk) 16:15, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Super Junior RPP
Thank you granting semi-protection on the page and also for your advice on the RPP. I gather that it was wrong to request pending changes on the page? --Ashleyyoursmile! 06:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Ashleyyoursmile: No, not wrong. Frankly I'm far from an authority on pending changes but I find it to be a nuisance as IP edits have to be inspected and approved, and/or probably reverted in an article where there are not many positive IP contributions. At any rate, my understanding is that PC is to be used only where needed and as I mentioned at WP:RFPP, there has been not been much recent activity at the article, and it has not been protected for over three years. If an article has not been protected recently, it's hard to jump to PC unless some other situation applies such as occassional WP:BLP violations. Johnuniq (talk) 06:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, I get the point now. Thank you for the clarification. --Ashleyyoursmile! 06:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Trying to learn from your instruction
Regarding your comment here, I'm having trouble understanding how I communicated "indignation or homely thoughts about other editors." Would you please give me an example of where I did that? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Your 18:25, 16 December 2020 edit at WT:Avoid instruction creep added 4,295 bytes, including three subheadings, to justify your proposed change—a change which does not have consensus. The issue is not sufficiently important to justify further discussion. A few editors, including you and I, offered thoughts (not instructions) and the matter is settled. A very important part of life at Wikipedia, and life in general, is the ability to move on without dwelling on past problems. Johnuniq (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Right, I got the TLDR message loud and clear. And I have not renewed my defense of the article changes I proposed. What I am asking about now is how my talk page post expressed "indignation or homely thoughts about other editors." That was certainly not my intent and I don't want to inadvertently do it again. Will you please help me see what you saw in my text that led you to the conclusion that I was uncivil? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- I renew my request. You said my talk page post expressed "indignation or homely thoughts about other editors." Please tell me how it did that. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'm happy to repeat my answer: A very important part of life at Wikipedia, and life in general, is the ability to move on without dwelling on past problems. We are free to ask questions so long as we accept that we might not like the answers. Johnuniq (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for responding. I accept your choice to give no more than a Delphic answer. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'm happy to repeat my answer: A very important part of life at Wikipedia, and life in general, is the ability to move on without dwelling on past problems. We are free to ask questions so long as we accept that we might not like the answers. Johnuniq (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) And these bytes and subheadings were actually on the talkpage of Avoid instruction creep? Surely that was a performative joke? Bishonen | tålk 22:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC).
- In answer to your first question, "yes." In answer to your second question, "no." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Tl here and on Commons
Re [9], you said "I struggle with the equivalent of {{tl|xxx}} at Commons". They seem to render slightly differently (Commons uses truetype and includes the brackets in the link), but still seem to work the same function-wise? What am I missing? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- As I recall, using
{{tl|example}}at Commons uses a monospaced fontlike thiswhich marks the person posting the wikitext as an interloper from enwiki, while the regulars use{{t|example}}. I'm not complaining as it's inevitable that different communities will do things differently, and that's even a strength which binds a community together. I'm sympathetic to your idea that it would be nice if{{tl|support}}worked at all projects so people could participate more widely with less technical obstruction—I just think they should stop using that template to be like us, rather than the reverse! Johnuniq (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – January 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Speedy deletion criterion T3 (duplication and hardcoded instances) has been repealed following a request for comment.
Technical news
- You can now put pages on your watchlist for a limited period of time.
Arbitration
- By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized
for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes)
. The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason). - Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.
- By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized
Unusual activity
Compare this user and this one. Probably no need for one of these since the user isn't blocked, but the "bot" username needs addressing. I figured since you'd had contact with the older account, I'd tell you rather than go through UAA. If you need me to file at UAA, let me know. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Parga RfC closure
Hello, The RfC at Parga has been open for very long time (40 days) and it is clear the discussion has run its course. Perhaps it is time for the RfC's closure? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 10:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- @SilentResident: I asked for a close here. Unfortunately that will probably take a week or more. I could escalate it if there is no close in, say, a month. I want to not offer an opinion, even in a close, so as to remain uninvolved in case admin action is required. Johnuniq (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
ANI you probably already know about
Just letting you know of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent WP:BLP issues at John Weaver (political consultant) in case you don't know about it, as I mentioned you there. Nil Einne (talk) 10:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)