User talk:Seraphimblade

Archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Please do be nice.

Please read before posting

• Post all new sections under a new header at the bottom of this page, not at random. If you make it clear you ignored these instructions by placing it elsewhere, I am likely to ignore your request in turn.

• If you leave me a message here, I will respond to it here, as fragmented discussions are confusing. I may or may not leave you a notice that I've responded on your talk page. If you specifically request that I do (or do not) give you such a notice when I respond, I'll honor that request. If I contact you on your talk page, I will watchlist it so that I can respond there. If you'd like to leave me a notice when you respond (a ping will also suffice), it would be appreciated, and you'll probably receive a faster followup.
• If you are an admin here to ask me about someone I blocked for vandalism or spamming/advertising, they've agreed to stop it, and you believe they intend to edit productively, go ahead and unblock them. If you still want my opinion please feel free to ask, but there's no obligation. For more complex cases I would appreciate a heads-up, but please go ahead with your best judgment if I don't seem to be online. I would appreciate it if you'd let me know after you do.
• If you email me a question or request, and do not indicate why the matter is sensitive and must be handled privately (and such is not immediately obvious), I may ignore it or respond on your talk page rather than by return email. Talk pages are open to other editors to read, and so are the preferred method of communication for matters involving Wikipedia. If the matter you are speaking to me about is Wikipedia-related and would not violate anyone's privacy by being posted publicly, please use my talk page instead of email. This does not, of course, apply to editors who are blocked from editing, though I still may respond on your talk page rather than by return email. Also, if you are contacting me for a matter related to the Arbitration Committee, please specifically indicate this in your email. All correspondence of this nature will be treated as confidential, though I am likely to forward it to the Committee as a whole, or any appropriate subcommittee, for consideration.
• If you are here to ask a question regarding deletion of any kind, please read this before asking, and ask only if you need further clarification or still disagree after reading. If you ask a question answered there, I'll just refer you to it anyway.
• While I will generally leave any personal attacks or uncivil comments you may make about me here, that does not mean that I find them acceptable, nor that I will not seek action against attacks that are severe or persistent.
• I reserve the right to remove, revert, or immediately archive any material on this page, but will do so only in extreme circumstances, generally that of personal attacks or outing attempts against others. I will only revision delete material on this page in accordance with the revision deletion policy, and will clearly denote the reason why.

Administrators' newsletter – September 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz

Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

Amorymeltzer • Mr. Stradivarius • MusikAnimal • MSGJ • TheDJ • Xaosflux

Guideline and policy news

• Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.

Technical news

• Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
• Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
• Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Why so quick with the trigger?

I contested the deletion of Ontario Horticultural Association at Talk:Ontario Horticultural Association, requesting input from the nominator. You either didn't bother checking, or ignored the talk page discussion, or felt it was unreasonable. Could you please state which? Moreover, after posting the message, I was in the process of adding references to the article. Did you read any portion of the article or talk page, and if so, can you please identify the contentious advertising material for me? To be given only a few minutes to update the article between notification and deletion is ludicrous.

In the meantime, please restore the article so I can update it. As an admin, I could easily do this myself, but I don't like overriding other admin actions. Mindmatrix 17:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Mindmatrix: The article was a bit of "about us" stuff, and then what looks to be uncritically regurgitated "mission" type stuff. That's the G11 portion. For A7, it does not in any way assert notability, nor cite a single source other than the organization's own website. Speedy deletions are speedy, and while I read the comment on the talk page, the article still was in a condition that met both criteria. If you'd like, I'll restore it as a draft to work on, but it needs to assert notability, and be referenced primarily from third party sources rather than recite the organization's own self-congratulatory material, prior to being returned to mainspace. Given your experience, I would, to be quite honest, expect you to already know these things. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I did state "I was in the process of adding references"; I'm not sure why you assume that these would not be third-party sources, since my editing history demonstrates I add reliable sources and remove fluff. Anyway, if you prefer, restore article revisions to User:Mindmatrix/Skunkworks/Ontario Horticultural Association for me to update it. Should I move it back into mainspace once I'm done, or should I have someone review it beforehand? (If so, who?) Mindmatrix 17:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I just realized you meant the Draft namespace - that's fine. I'll edit it there. Mindmatrix 17:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Done, it's at Draft:Ontario_Horticultural_Association. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Peter Lorimer Music Producer

As I am new to Wikapedia please can you explain why the 2 pages I created one is classed as advertising. (Peter Lorimer) Ewan Venters runs a shop so he is also advertising and promoting Fortnum Mason. Richard Branson, Michael Rapino, Live Nation lots of people are promoting and advertising what makes Peter Lorimer a presenter on Netflix any different. His Co presenter has a Wikipedia page though. I am only asking and don’t want to upset anyone. All the people i mentioned are commercial people making money so why can they have a Wikipedia page? I watched Peters programme on Netflix and it’s very goodBusinessExpert99 (talk) 19:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC) No problem and many thanks for explaining. Hopefully Someone can write the page correctly

@BusinessExpert99: Firstly, as you have been aggressively attempting to create an inappropriately promotional article, please clarify whether you are being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia, including being asked or expected to do so as a duty of employment or internship. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)No I can assure you I am not being paid by anyone to write any Wikipedia page. I just watched Mr Lorimer’s new series on Netflix and enjoyed it and thought he was an excellent presenter, then I googled him. Can I ask why would anyone pay me to write a Wikipedia page? I would be surprised if anyone got paid to write a page but as stated I am new to Wikipedia. I know in this modern world it’s a shock when a person does something for free so maybe I am just being stupid to spend my time writing any article. I know it’s not that well written but that’s not really one of my best skillsBusinessExpert99 (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I see you have deleted the page again and I personally cannot see any advertising on the new page. I personally will not be writing the page again or creating any other Wikipedia pages I will leave that to the experts plus I don’t have much time to waste. You already have a page for his Netflix series so not sure Peter really needs his own page. Please could you do me a favour and delete all the pages I created as I don’t know how to do that myselfBusinessExpert99 (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC) I have managed to delete one of the Wikipedia page content I created and would appreciate if you can help me and delete all the others including the draft pages. Thank you for your help in advanceBusinessExpert99 (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@BusinessExpert99: Yeah, it's a problem that people do that, but thanks for clarifying it. Since you're not, there were several problems. First, the page was inappropriately titled, a biography on a person should be titled with just their name. Secondly, the article was very far from neutral, and was promotional. That doesn't just mean "advertising" in the "buy our stuff now!" sense, but also by taking a positive tone or talking someone up. In this case, the article did things like "quickly carved out a career for himself" ("worked as" will quite suffice), "...in-demand remixer and producer" ("in-demand" is unneeded fluff), "...where he earned the prestigious distinction..." (again, "prestigious" is unneeded fluff), "Never one to rest on his laurels..." (leave that out, just stick to the facts), "Where he and his team of hand picked agents cater to a discerning clientele, many of whom are extremely well known individuals with creative tastes, but wish to remain fiercely private." (Then that's unverifiable, don't put it in.), "...realized a tremendous need to assemble a S.W.A.T. team..." (it is not a SWAT team, it is just a team), and on and on with all that unneeded embellishment. Just stick to presenting facts that reliable sources verify. Don't talk the subject up. Don't use flourishes like "SWAT team" unless you are actually describing a SWAT team. Stick to the facts and present them in a completely neutral tone. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, for one final issue on naming, that was inappropriately done as well. We use a formal tone, so he should on first reference be referred to by full name, and thereafter as "Lorimer", not "Pete". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)No problem and many thanks for explaining. Hopefully Someone can write the page correctly. I personally just don’t have the spare time to keep working on it so it meets with your approval. I only had the time as it’s Sunday to even create itBusinessExpert99 (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2018 (UTC)just for the record from what I just looked at the latest version did not have the detail you highlighted like SWAT team etc or any promotional mention of his business. I had already removed all that stuff as far as I am aware and the latest page was very basic with no advertising is was more about his music careerBusinessExpert99 (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Universal Coin & Bullion

Hi, you recently deleted a page I created (Universal Coin & Bullion). It was deleted for promotion, which makes no sense to me, as all articles I create/edit are encyclopedic, complete with valid references and sources to substantiate all content, and meet Wikipedia's notability.

If you feel there was any promotional content, please point me to it so I can address the issue, but I don't feel like the page should have been deleted. Thank you.

Jbaysinger (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jbaysinger: Alright, well let's be frank. You previously told someone that you are not being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia. The frank part of it is that I don't believe you. In addition to the fact that you've written exclusively about subjects there would be commercial interest in, you wrote, for example, an article on Candace M. Smith that is also somewhat promotional, but not quite enough to delete. In that article, however, there is File:Candace M Smith4.jpg, a photo you uploaded, with the source as "own work", meaning that you took the clearly posed photograph very shortly before the article was created. So please consider your answer carefully: Are you being paid or compensated in any way, including indirectly, including being asked or expected to do so as a duty of employment or internship, to edit Wikipedia? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

No, as previously stated, I do not receive compensation for my edits. I do sometimes contact the subjects, or people directly and indirectly related to the subjects that I write about.

You alluded to the file on Candace Smith's page as an example. I never stated I created that file, only that I own the rights to the file, which I do. The rights to the photo were passed on to me by the copyright holder.

I'm a technical writer. I'm basically working all day, and I edit Wikipedia when I have time, which is not often.

In my line of work, I frequently come in contact with people who give me ideas for Wikipedia pages/edits. Other times I browse existing Wiki pages looking for content that needs to be revised.

But no, I am not being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia.Jbaysinger (talk) 00:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Alright, then you're telling me you've been dishonest in a different way. "Own work", in the context of a photograph, means that you took the photo. Never anything else. If someone else wants to release the rights, they need to follow the process to donate a copyrighted work and be listed as the author, not you shortcut it by making a fake claim of authorship. Given that you've already admitted to being dishonest once, I'm sorry, but I'm not really inclined to listen further. Please conduct yourself with complete honesty in the future. I'll list the image for deletion as appropriate since it has a false source and authorship. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

AE case timelines

Hi Seraphimblade. Sorry to pick on you since you've both closed AE's related to GMOs and were an arb in the original GMO ArbCom, but I was wondering if I could pick your brain a little.

You probably saw the AE case where I pinged you when I quoted your arb vote. I won't get into the meat of the Petrarchan case since that should be handled strictly at the AE case at this point. However, there's a lot of stuff going on with other editors there and not much discussion from admins yet. It seems like we have a history of GMO AE cases on aspersions festering a bit with slow action, other editors getting emboldened to cast their own aspersions, and needing to sanction multiple editors instead of one.[1] Originally, the aspersions principle we crafted at ArbCom was meant to tamp down on editors making either direct aspersions or indirect ones (e.g., preventing gaming by not directly mentioning a specific editor).

It seems like the current case has been fairly slow on admin comments and is starting to go down the path of other editors joining in the aspersions like directly calling others' editing "pro-Monsanto"[2], excusing aspersions because they don't directly mention an editor by name[3], etc. I don't feel like opening separate AE's for other individuals since there likely would be more claims I'm trying to control the topic or display a "sense of superiority"[4], which seems to be an escalating problem of editors attacking those trying to get others to knock off stuff already consistently leading to aspersion-based sanctions in past cases. However, I'm also in a position where I can't respond to all the misrepresentations of my edits or talk page comments without opening separate cases or essentially derailing the current case even if I got a word extension since a lot of those have gotten into the realm of WP:BLUDGEON. I tend to ignore most of those claims since what they claim about me doesn't show up in the diffs and it's better to focus on the case at hand, but I guess it's just describing the languishing case issue again when these cases don't seem to be taken very seriously or at least expediently.

With some discussion on the AE talk page about slow cases in general, can you think of any reasons why these cases tend to not be dealt with a bit quicker, or does this seem pretty normal compared to general AE cases? It may be tough to say after two days though. For the GMO aspersions principle specifically, are there any ways to to briefly get the history and intent of it across to admins about why that behavior needs to be tamped down better than I presented in this current case? Back before the principle was written, I for one was tired of being called a shill, pro-Monsanto, etc. when sticking to WP:MEDRS, etc. on scientific content regardless of who it benefits or detracts from. A surprising number of editors don't seem to be taking these kind of aspersions seriously that caused the principle to be written in the first place, but I'm wondering if admins potentially reviewing such cases might not quite be getting how serious of problem this has been in the topic? Is there any way such aspersions cases can be made less prone to what we're seeing in the current case? Either way, these are mostly just broad meta- questions and advice on AE and the principle for the future rather than trying to litigate the current case here, so thanks in advance for any thoughts. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)