User talk:Johnuniq

I'll reply to messages here, unless requested otherwise.

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).

Administrator changes

BusterD

Kees08 • Nickshanks • Protonk • Schissel • Ultraexactzz • Wknight94

CheckUser changes

TheresNoTime

Oversighter changes

TheresNoTime

ST47

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.

Technical news

• Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)

Arbitration

• Following an amendment request, the committee has clarified that the Talk page exception to the 500/30 rule in remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case does not apply to requested move discussions.

Miscellaneous

• You can vote for candidates in the 2021 Board of Trustees elections from 4 August to 17 August. Four community elected seats are up for election.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

AE

I was wondering if there is a minimum time, an AE thread must be kept open. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I have been meaning to close that for a while and I finally did it. Johnuniq (talk) 10:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

ANI

Thank you for your question to me at ANI, and for coming in with a fresher approach.

I will not have any time today to address it: I will hope to be able to tomorrow morning. Kevin McE (talk) 08:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Flyer stuff

Regarding this warning, the thread immediately above it indicates that Newimpartial should receive one as well; the thread consists of off-SPI accusations of sock-puppetry against two editors whom Newimpartial claims are or "look like" Flyer, and both of them clearly object to the out-of-band accusations. Newimpartial went out of their way to dig these accusations back up after the actual SPI was closed, and the activity smells like coordinated (WP:MEAT / WP:GANG) behavior between Kolya Butternut and Newimpartial to shit-stir in user talk after being prevented from doing so further at SPI and now at ANI.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

First of all, I don't even agree with KB on either how to interpret the Flyer-related evidence or, more importantly, on the interpretation of community norms - I do not think it is in any way ok to try to dox our editors. So I profoundly resent the WP:MEAT / WP:GANG accusation (and at the time I made my Talk page post, I had no idea of any of the sordid details of Kolya's arb filing, even to the extent that they were revealed at the Arb noticeboard).

As far as Newimpartial went out of their way to dig these accusations back up after the actual SPI was closed, that - like so many things SMcCandlish has said about me in the past - is completely false. As I immediately explained to the Admin that closed the SPI, it was an edit conflict situation and I had no way of saving or retrieving my edit except by "restoring" the SPI. No going out of my way, no digging anything back up.

I recognize, Johnuniq, that you disagree with me about the appropriate treatment of Flyer-lookalike accounts going forward, and I will consider myself equally "warned" whether or not you post anything on my Talk page. From my perspective, the Arb noticeboard promises a logical and appropriate path to deal with further disruption arising from the lookalike accounts, going forward, and I will do no more and no less than is necessary to uphold WP rules and community standards in this area. Newimpartial (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

"saving or retrieving my edit ... by 'restoring' the SPI" = "went out of their way to dig these accusations back up after the actual SPI was closed". Restating my observation in Newimpartial's own words but with identical facts does nothing to disprove my observation; rather the opposite. While "I will consider myself equally 'warned' whether or not you post anything on my Talk page" is diffable, few will see it, and it would be better for Newimpartial's user talk page to have a warning, especially since ArbCom keeps making up nonsense rules about whether someone is "aware" in a formal way of potential impending action, and they tie this bureaucratic "awareness" concept to receipt of user-talk notices.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, clicking "restore" - which was the only way I could retain the edit I had already composed to have any record of it - is simply not going out of (my) way to dig these observations back up. Words do not mean whatever you want them to mean, and your repeated ASPERSIONS and unfounded accusations are simply unCIVIL. I am asking you, as politely as I can, to stop doing that. Newimpartial (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

While I agree with you, I think Newimpartial is more sensitive to what they can get away with than some others and doesn't need more of a warning than what we're saying. I can understand what happened at the SPI—Newimpartial had composed a comment they thought useful and when they went to publish they found the page had been deleted so they thought their careful comment deserved to be preserved in at least the deleted version, even if no non-admins could see it. That was a rather full-on blunder of judgment, particularly given that the comment was innuendo without substance. I issued a strong warning to another editor at permalink. That received four endorsements from admins and three thanks from others and I will follow through with that matter or any other similar problem. The community and Arbcom have endorsed the current situation and anyone who wants to see how far they can push at the edges will be bluntly stopped. The internet has thousands of places where people can exchange views on all kinds of fruit-cake ideas—Wikipedia is not one of them. Johnuniq (talk) 01:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, at the time of the SPI, ArbCom had not even announced its intention to create an SPI where these problems could readily be dealt with. Since they have expressed their intention to do so, I am confident that DUCK evidence will be appropriately examined and dealt with as it is identified. Newimpartial (talk) 02:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Program synthesis

Hi! You helped with semi-protecting the page Program synthesis on 4 Mar 2020, to prevent the anonymous IP 2601:184:4081:1cbe:... from disruptive editing. Since the protection has been released, we have the same problem with IP 2601:184:407f:1ac0:... (starting on 20 Aug 2021), so I'd like to ask you to protect the page again. Thanks in advance. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 09:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jochen Burghardt: I partially blocked Special:Contributions/2601:184:407F:1AC0:0:0:0:0/64 so they are not able to edit Program synthesis for two years (they have been pushing their OR for 18 months). I see there is also an account but they could still edit even if the article were semi-protected and the disruption, while frustrating, is not at a level that would justify more restrictions at the moment. Let me know when the next problem arises and I'll deal with it then. Johnuniq (talk) 09:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Thanks! I expect user Mdaviscs to continue the edits now. However, I'm deeply involved in the debate with them, so I'm very biased, and should request moderation of the conflict rather than blocking the user. That said, all recent edits criticized that the approach amounts to plucking a program from a list (starting on 25 August 2019 on the talk page), and I have answered that issue starting on 26 August 2019. Meanwhile I have no idea how to improve the article to meet the critics (a few initial contributions of the IP *did* lead to some improvements in presentation), and I'm tired of repeating myself again and again. (I had also asked JayBeeEll to help settling the conflict, see User_talk:JayBeeEll#Help_needed_with_Program_synthesis.) For now, I'll wait and see what happens, and possibly ask you again. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Deprecated parameter

Hi. Do you know when the caption parameter in this template was deprecated? Someone else began to replace the caption parameter with the footer parameter in several other templates even if the footer parameter did not yet appear in the documentation of the template. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 14:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@LSGH: I don't know anything about that template although I did comment on its talk about some errors that were occurring in articles in January 2021. At Template:Medical cases chart, you can click "history" next to "Template documentation" to see the history of the documentation page. The most recent edit was 26 August 2021 which shows the deprecation. The history at Module:Medical cases chart shows that first footer was inserted as the preferred parameter, and later caption was removed to make it invalid. Johnuniq (talk) 01:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

It appears that this edit allowed both parameters to function properly while the process of replacement was going on. Do you know why the replacement was necessary? Are the two parameters similar in Lua? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 16:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that allowed both parameter names to work and to serve the same purpose. I have seen enough of Module:Medical cases chart to know that it is good code that performs useful work. It is complex and needs knowledgeable maintenance, which it is receiving. In my experience, it's best to let maintainers work in their own way and tolerate any quirks (if there are such quirks). That edit shows that the module uses footer for the parameter and it would be irritating for any experienced programmer to have the inconsistency of the parameter having a different name elsewhere. I infer from your above comments that they changed all the places where the module is used to be consistent so I would say that is a good outcome. My guess is that the replacement was not necessary but was implemented for consistency and a cleaner result. Matters like that are always debatable but I wouldn't raise it without a compelling reason such as errors in articles. Johnuniq (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Conduct Question re Leopard Gecko Article

Hello Again,

Quick question for you - in terms of the curious case of the leopard gecko article, where folks keep edit warring without discussion or citations - I think the most obvious reason for this if we are presuming no malice is that they're confused by the Wikipedia process itself and perhaps don't know how to get to the talk page or check their messages. I could probably find stakeholders interested in discussing some of these issues through herpetoculture groups, but it seems a little sketchy to be soliciting editors from a third party site. It could also have the unintended effect of spreading a position that is not well cited but is widely believed by users of a social media echo chamber. At the same time, it would potentially be a way to increase interest in improving articles. Are there rules/guidelines for or against soliciting editors on websites that are non Wikipedia? Any direction on this topic you could provide would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Connorlong90 (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

This relates to Common leopard gecko and our discussion in January 2021. The problem is clearly one devoted fan but I don't see any activity since July 2021 so we have to call that a good result. There is no way to handle long-term disruption other than tediously repeating standard procedures. Let me know if it resurfaces and I will handle it. I would not recommend starting off-wiki discussions because it's extremely unlikely that our friend would see it, and they almost certainly would not be convinced if they did see it. You would either get no contributions at Wikipedia, or you would wake a small group of people convinced that their experience proves you are wrong and who would spend the next few months trying to correct the article. There are no rules/guidelines about this, other than that canvassing is bad. Generic discussion about the underlying issue (nocturnal/crepuscular) would be fine, but not useful IMHO. Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Articles for deletion/List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming

Hello, Johnuniq,

This page was listed on a database report of orphaned talk subpages, most of which I have been deleting because they were leftover after AFD closures. This talk page had a discussion on it but there is no related article/project page which it is associated with so ordinarily it would be deleted. You were the most senior editor participating in the discussion (many others are no longer active) so I thought I'd check with you and see if you know whether this page should be deleted or preserved and moved to another location. Thanks for any help you can provide. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I closed the AFD and deleted the article, Liz. It was subsequently taken to deletion review here, where the deletion was endorsed. That was the place for a review — not the talkpage of the AFD, which is in any case superseded by the later (and fuller) DR. I think you should go ahead and delete the talkpage. Bishonen | tålk 06:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC).

Thanks for the background. I don't remember that issue from 18 months ago but it looks like I was pinged to that talk page and unwisely responded. I agree with Bishonen that the talk page should be deleted per WP:G8 (dependent on a non-existent or deleted page). @Liz: Thanks for fixing problems like this. Johnuniq (talk) 07:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the background. Most of the pages are more straight-forward, like archived talk pages of deleted articles that were missed when the articles were deleted. I'll go ahead and delete this page. Thanks again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).

Administrator changes

Jake Wartenberg

Emperor • Viridian Bovary

Ashleyyoursmile → Viridian Bovary

Guideline and policy news

• Feedback is requested on the Universal Code of Conduct enforcement draft by the Universal Code of Conduct Phase 2 drafting committee.
• A RfC is open on whether to allow administrators to use extended confirmed protection on high-risk templates.
• A discussion is open to decide when, if ever, should discord logs be eligible for removal when posted onwiki (including whether to oversight them)
• A RfC on the next steps after the trial of pending changes on TFAs has resulted in a 30 day trial of automatic semi protection for TFAs.

Technical news

• The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is in progress to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. Comments and new proposals are welcome.

Miscellaneous

• The 2021 RfA review is now open for comments.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Maxim gun

I'm posting here as an FYI, rather than muddy the waters at WP:ANI#Subtle vandalism or the user TP. As an FCIPA (retd.) and EPA (retd.), I consider "invented" in the first sentence of Maxim gun sloppy wording. Invention date is rarely either known or legally relevant. I would prefer "developed in 1884", which is supported at Maxim gun#Development (1883–1884); the 1884 demonstration shows that Maxim had something that worked, not just a paper patent. I haven't edited the first sentence of the article because of the ongoing discussion, but I did tweak the first one in that section. The patent dates for his invention range 1883-1885, because of the vagaries of C19 patent laws. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 11:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: Thanks, and I agree. However, an editor has to have a reason when they change a date and if they don't give that reason in the edit summary they should be prepared to explain when asked. Contributors who change dates or other factoids without explanation are a particular problem. Presumably, sources use the imprecise term "invented" and that has been copied into the article. Johnuniq (talk) 23:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I too agree, and notice they as yet haven't. Narky Blert (talk) 06:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions on Gender Talkpage

Hi,

Saw your "discretionary sanctions" note on the Gender Talk page and had a few questions: can I "post a new section" on the Talk page or only on the main page?

I have something in the way of a rough draft for a new Lead section that addresses the NPOV issues and clearly discusses the wide-ranging controversies on the topic as required. But I'd like to post to that Talk page for discussion purposes and didn't want to be subject to any further sanctions. And that particularly as I see that the BRD document says "Don't be bold with potentially controversial changes; instead, start a discussion on the talk page first." And I expect what I'm suggesting is likely to be controversial so would like to open it up for discussion first. But I didn't want to spend a lot of time dotting all the Is and crossing all the Ts so it's hardly ready for posting to the main page, although I do have a bunch of links and sources to buttress what I'm suggesting.

Changing gears though, I wonder what the reasons are for "being under discretionary sanctions". And aren't you obliged to log that somewhere or is that not applicable in this case? Though it was maybe a good idea to close that conversation in any case.

But had thought it might have been because they were based on WP:ARBGENDER and were "authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people." But I see that there was something of a further clarification on the "scope" of those sanctions that "Gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender." Or "any discussion regarding systemic bias faced by female editors". But neither I nor anyone else in that conversation was talking about pronoun use or bias faced by female editors. So not sure of the justification for that "under sanctions".

In any case, please advise, particularly about suggested or allowed ways to proceed with further edits and posting that rough draft for discussion purposes. Thanks. --TillermanJimW (talk) 07:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@TillermanJimW: This relates to my close of a discussion at Talk:Gender#Explicit “criticism” section required to address POV issues (permalink). If by "main page" you mean the article Gender—no, I did not intend suggesting anything happen on the article. If you are asking whether it is ok to post a new section at Talk:Gender, of course you can since you are not topic banned. However, uninvolved administrators have a duty to ensure that discussions in topics under discretionary sanctions do not meander on and on because that drives away good editors. The discussion I closed is over 33K bytes and is not leading anywhere that I can see—it appears to concern a belief that there are some hard-to-specify gender issues that require a criticism section (you might review WP:Criticism). As stated in my close, this page is only available for actionable proposals to add/remove/change specific text, with sources. If there is such a proposal, post it in a new section and focus on one specific proposal. Regarding a log, if you want a lot of background reading, see WP:ARBGS and the pages it links to. From that link, "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people." That means Gender and its talk page are subject to the special regime without any logging requirement. If there were, for example, an ongoing edit war, an admin might impose an extra condition such as WP:1RR—that would need to be logged at WP:Arbitration enforcement log/2021#Gender and sexuality. At Wikipedia, discretionary sanctions are very broadly construed. That means that if a topic has any resemblance to gender or sexuality it is covered by WP:ARBGS. Clearly, any valid use of Talk:Gender would be related to that topic, and any invalid use of that page would be disruption which is also covered by WP:ARBGS.

If you intend making a proposal, it needs to be succinct and actionable. For example, it would not be useful to make general comments about a need for NPOV or a need to cover certain points in the article. If you don't know what amendments are needed, you could post a brief suggestion that certain text (that you quote from the article) is problematic due to a brief and clear explanation that you include, then ask if anyone has suggestions. If they don't, you need to move on. If you do have a specific proposal, you should make it. If it requires a massive new section, you should think very hard because it is likely that such a section would not be helpful. If you want to discuss a rewrite of a section of the article, you could put it your sandbox and ask at talk for opinions. However, no one is permitted to argue interminably because it drives away good editors. If you don't get consensus within a couple of days, move on. Johnuniq (talk) 10:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your response and information, particularly for the link to the Criticisms page which I’ll try to plow through and incorporate before posting my “specific proposal”. Some very good points there, particularly about not giving undue weight to either the negative or positive viewpoints. I think there’s quite a bit of merit to both the “orthodox” and the “heterodox” positions and think that much of the “controversy” is due to ambiguous or careless language and various misunderstandings, particularly about defining categories and the use of basic statistics.

But apropos of which, I was just skimming through the “Lead sentence” section – partly to see if other talk sections had anything close to the 33k bytes that the “Explicit criticisms” section did. :-) Seems the former has some 22k bytes; still, 33k is probably beyond pale.

In any case, I happened to notice that @Tewdar: & @Newimpartial: had some exchanges in that section that point to some aspects which I think are important and relevant if not foundational. Hence the pings; hope you don't mind any resulting discussion though I can take it to the Gender talk page or my own later if it gets too lengthy.

But in particular, the latter made a very good point or at least suggestion that defining gender as the “range of characteristics differentiating between masculinity and feminity” can’t reasonably include sex as “a subcategory of gender”, can’t reasonably include sex among those characteristics. As indicated, for example, in the “femininity article, it is more or less defined as those traits typical of women and girls – the sex of the subjects being studied. Those are the traits strongly “associated” with that group, that are more prevalent among that group than among males. But we can’t possibly decide which traits are more prevalent among a given sex if we have first grouped the subjects by sex.

In the language of statistics which I expect you have some familiarity with, gender is the range of characteristics that correlate to a greater or lesser extent with sex: those that correlate more with females are deemed “feminine” while those that correlate more with “males” are deemed “masculine”. Those other characteristics are the dependent “random” variables while sex is the single common independent “random” variable – it is the common point of reference. It is meaningless or logically and mathematically incoherent to talk about sex correlating with sex, to talk about a random variable correlating with itself.

Not quite sure how to integrate that perspective into the definition, into that lead sentence, but it seems an important one. But will try to do so in my proposal.

However, I might note in passing that much of that “lead sentence” discussion was more about gender, more about a clear, unambiguous, coherent and rational definition for the term, and less about the goal of improving the article. Not that I’m complaining as I think we can’t reasonably improve the article without that “rational definition” as a necessary precursor. But not sure that anathematizing any and all discussion about the concept is conducive to reaching that goal.

[BTW, fixing my spelling mistake in the header; it was late ...] --TillermanJimW (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure Tewdar and Newimpartial are smart enough to know that I am not expecting this page to be used to debate gender issues. Re correlation, there will be not be any mention of that unless a reliable secondary source describes the issue in those terms. The way articles should be built is that someone familiar with the topic should examine (that is, thoroughly read as if studying for a uni exam) a wide range of highly reliable sources and should use them to write a balanced view of the topic covering mainstream knowledge. Johnuniq (talk) 03:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Would you consider Scientific American and PubMed Central to be "reliable secondary sources" as they both republished all or part of an article at Frontiers In Psychology? Of particular note is this graph from Frontier, republished in SA, which clearly refers to population distributions in what is clearly a joint probability distribution:

Overlapping distributions of Agreeableness for men and women. Vertical axis indicates density, or the proportion of the sample in a given area under the curve.

(* As an aside, there seems to be a bit of a problem with the copyright for the graph though Frontier article seems clear. I may have to contact the authors but any suggestions would be appreciated. *)

In any case, it is sort of common knowledge - like the statement, in one of the Wiki documents on citations, that Paris is the capital of France - that comparisons of various physiological and psychological traits are based on just those joint probability distributions; it undergirds the whole issue of sexual dimorphism, of being able to say which traits are more common among which sexes.

But more particularly, the article on femininity clearly indicates that "traits traditionally cited as feminine include gracefulness, gentleness, empathy, humility, and sensitivity" - and the "agreeableness" in the graph might reasonably qualify similarly. But the only reason that we can say that is because those traits are more likely to be found among females than among males. For example, notice in the attached graph that the average agreeableness for females is somewhat higher - think the SA text says about 0.4 of a standard deviation - than it is for males. And notice also that it is sex, not gender, that is one of the variables being compared - even if it is a discrete, and binary, variable.

Great deal of evidence that males and females differ not just in the type of gamete that each sex produces - the necessary & sufficient condition to qualify as such - but also in many psychological traits that contribute to what we define as gender. I think there's some utility and social value in the latter concept. But I think we have to be clear on how it is that we quantify those traits - and it seems clear that joint probability distributions is one of the better, and quite commonly used, tools to do so.

Not at all sure how to integrate such perspectives - and sources - into the Gender article, but it seems like it might be a useful discussion to have. --TillermanJimW (talk) 04:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure you are interpreting my messages as intended. My talk page is not available for a discussion regarding article content—use Talk:Gender. However, Talk:Gender has filled its quota of non-actionable lets-have-a-discussion forum-like debate. If you have a specific proposal (add certain text, remove certain text, change certain text), post on article talk with sources. If you do not have a specific proposal, you might re-read my above paragraph with "ask if anyone has suggestions". The situation is that Gender is a topic under discretionary sanctions. Such topics are often subject to prolonged and unfocused debates. That is disruptive. Administrators are supposed to stop disruption. If there is any ongoing disruption, I will stop it. Tools available are providing advice, topic bans and blocks. I think I have provided enough advice unless you have something new and specific to ask. Regarding secondary sources, I would have thought that a topic like gender would have a library full of scholarly works, allbeit some of which would be written by advocates. Scientific American and PubMed Central are wonderful but are not what I had in mind with "as if studying for a uni exam" and the latter is not anything like a secondary source. Johnuniq (talk) 05:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Bravefencer365

I'm the person behind the recent ANI thread regarding User:Bravefencer365, as he's continued his subtle vandalism since then. [1] [2] Loafiewa (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Most of their edits are good. Per WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU, it is possible that Bravefencer365 (talk · contribs) cannot see talk page notifications and that may be why they have not answered the question I left on their talk. I would block if the edits were clearly a problem. Consider your first diff above. That changed 22,500 psi to 22,000 psi. As far as I can see, that edit is good according to what the reference says so I won't take any action at the moment. Given that the ANI report is still open, it would be better to raise new issues there so that the points are more easily found if needed in the future. Johnuniq (talk) 03:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Asking why an edit needed to be hidden

Hi Johnuniq, I'm wondering why this edit of mine had to be removed from public view. Can you give me any more information about the alleged editing by this editor and why it can't be mentioned on-wiki, please? MPS1992 (talk) 04:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I replied at your talk. Johnuniq (talk) 04:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks buddy! Left you another question there about these people-that-cannot-be-named! Wow! MPS1992 (talk) 04:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Johnuniq, just noting for transparency that I've suppressed that edit. I'm not sure if you requested oversight as I've not looked at the email queue today ~TNT (she/they • talk) 11:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

MPS1992 (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked by Arbcom. Johnuniq (talk) 07:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Wow. Softlavender (talk) 09:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Re: Your comments on "Wi Spa Controversy" arbitration/enforcement case

Hi Johnuniq

I had a question re: you comment in the report at Boodlesthecat (and as an aside, to share my feeling that this report was filed by an article creator with WP:OWN issues simply as a form of harassment and to maintain control of an article which other editors have found to have POV issues.) You wrote: The lead at Wi Spa controversy currently has a completely gratuitous "(a.k.a. gender-critical feminists or TERFs)" and the argument seems to be about whether "TERF" is an insult or an objective term that can be applied without attribution. My recommendation would be to reword the article to focus more on the facts of the incident and keep third-party's opinions regarding the motivation of the participants for the body of the article.

My question--should the use of "TERF" be removed from the whole article? There are editors who consider it to be a slur, regardless of whether it's used by some online news sources, and that we shouldn't be using it as a description of particular people (the Wiki entry also acknowledges that some consider it a slur). There are other issues with the lead/body of the article, such as it promulgates a false, somewhat defamatory claim that there is some alliance between gender-critical (GC)feminists (the so-called "TERFs") and neo-fascist/Pround Boy, Capitol-storming types. The lead now as written (which the article creator refuses to correct, and has reverted attempts at correction) places these feminists as the leading force instigating the protests/violence at Wi Spa, when it's pretty universally understood that the primary cause was anti-trans protests organized by the right wing/neofascist types, as well as antifascist counterprotests organized in response, with GC folks mainly involved via chatter on fringe feminist websites. The violence (which is largely what made these protests notable) was basically between the fascists and the antifascists (and the typically out of control LAPD).

Thanks! BTC Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Boodlesthecat: Sorry but I'm not going to be drawn into the discussion any further than the advice I offered at WP:AE. You have to work within the constraints of how things are done here. It's a bit of a farce with people on both sides knowing full well that they are playing a game trying to out-wait their opponents. You have to be WP:CIVIL at all times, and base arguments on reliable sources, and do not offer strong opinions unless describing a conclusion from a reliable source. Showing emotion or a strong personal view is fatal because content has to be neutral and personal opinions work against that. Ultimately, whereas WP:NOTVOTE applies, in practical terms what happens at an article depends on the experienced editors participating, and how many of them fall on each side of an argument. Fighting against a majority of experienced editors is a waste of time and a path to a short wiki-career. A problem is that there is a tendency for topics like this to attract people with a strong view but who have learned how to play the game.

My comment at WP:AE was suggesting that Wi Spa controversy should start by outlining the facts—certain events occurred and certain protests resulted. After covering the value-free facts, there might be attributed opinions regarding the participants and whether they were TERFs or right-wing or whatever. That's how an article should be written but I will stay WP:UNINVOLVED. The official options are listed at dispute resolution. That boils down to patient discussion based on sources, requesting opinions using neutral statements at noticeboards, and possibly an RfC. Johnuniq (talk) 03:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and suggestions. I'm finding this a bit frustrating and dismaying, since what I've done is attempt to provide some well sourced good faith edits in an attempt to bring some neutrality and order to a sloppy and clearly biased article. I guess I wasn't expecting to come up against the same obstinancy from editors who are "experienced" (ironic term, I've been editing and writing since long before they were born) whose main talent seems to be being adept at the "game-playing" you reference. identical to the gaming that I had to deal with years ago on WP when I was up against a cabal of antisemites who were injecting Jew hatred into multiple articles--a group that including admins who were discovered to be coordinating their actions (including seeking sanctions against their "enemies") in private chats. I barely a week I've come up against the same crap, complete with a gratuitous, underhanded attempt by the de facto article "owner" to get me sanctioned. I've attempted rational discussion on the talk page, but come up against filibustering game playing there too, along with passive-aggressive attacks that flip into victim-playing. Oh well. Cheers, Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 04:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) This is how Wikipedia works, on contentious topics. The only real solution is to create an WP:RFC on each item you really care about, and then accept the result(s). It's good to accept going in to any of these topics or articles that the ride is going to be bumpy and possibly/likely unfair, and to know what your best (or only) options are. Softlavender (talk) 05:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes thanks. Still dismaying and sad, but thanks. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 05:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

2404:3C00:502F:4C80:2D67:A50D:3264:B91A / rangeblock

You performed a rangeblock earlier today of 2404:3C00:502F:4C80:0:0:0:0/64 giving the reason of talk page abuse. Not sure if you want to reset the rangeblock with talk page access revoked, but the edits of 2404:3C00:502F:4C80:2D67:A50D:3264:B91A (talk · contribs · WHOIS) show that talk page abuse is still ongoing. -- Longhair\^talk 08:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I see they went wild on that IP talk page and it was deleted. I set it so they cannot edit their own talk. Johnuniq (talk) 10:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I deleted the nonsense once, then let them go as they stopped shortly after and giving them little attention seemed to tire them out before somebody else eventually deleted it again. All good. Cheers. -- Longhair\^talk 10:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

The Wachowskis

Hi, this is re: this discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase&oldid=1043842728#The_Wachowskis, and your reply at 03:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC). The established user (Redacted) is the transphobic troll. In these archived 4channel posts, you can read him drafting this edit: https://archive.4plebs.org/tv/thread/156142956/#156147265, https://archive.4plebs.org/tv/thread/156142956/#156146826 in consultation with other transphobes. Inanna K (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Inanna K: Wikipedia is a confusing place and I have redacted your above attack on another editor—we don't do that unless at a noticeboard such as WP:ANI and with on-wiki evidence (per Joe job, stuff on random websites may not be useful evidence). I believe the issue concerns The Wachowskis and this edit which concerns living people. What I said at the requests for protection page is correct—the protection policy does not help in a situation like that, particularly with an unanswered discussion started on article talk. The way to proceed is to briefly explain the situation at WP:BLPN without mentioning other editors. You can use the "this edit" link in this comment and ask whether it is suitable and whether MOS:DEADNAME applies. Johnuniq (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Help

Hello sir I really need your help, I am contributing in an edit in an article, but as I contribute it always gets deleted and the edit 100% correct I even add citation to it but he is still removing it I need your help I beg Alooypasha (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Alooypasha: I have looked at a couple of talk pages where you have commented. Your use of English indicates that your contributions would be more suitable at another Wikipedia that uses your language. I'm not motivated to investigate this at the moment although I see that 89.148.26.89 and Rayooni (talk · contribs) are blocked. You or M.Bitton might like to let me know with a ping from an article page if problems continue. I would need a brief explanation of a specific edit and why it is inappropriate. Johnuniq (talk) 07:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Charles Darwin

Hello Johnuniq, I'm Dinu1133, and I'm think that the page "Charles Darwin" and the contents under "Biography" should be changed. I think that it is a bit-contenty and so need some changes in order to recreate the page contents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinu1133 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Dinu1133: Please discuss issues regarding an article at its talk page: Talk:Charles Darwin. Johnuniq (talk) 05:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

RfC question

Hi there. A few years back you gave me some advice about writing an RfC. The proposed RfC was to be about magazine rankings being used in US city articles. I never found the right time to start the RfC, but another editor has recently started one at Talk:Chanhassen, Minnesota#Request for Comment - Should the 'Best Place to Live in the U.S.' rankings be included?. I wonder if I could as you a few questions about the RfC? It seems to be heading in the "no" direction, and I'd like to broaden the question to include all magazines that include these sorts of rankings. Do I wait for the RfC to close? Or do I make a proposal now to broaden the question? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 22:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: I would wait for that RfC to thoroughly close (that is, wait until a week after a close by an established editor after the 30 days has elapsed—don't apply WP:SNOW). Waiting would support the view that the issue was settled for that article. If wanted, a more general RfC could then be started with a mention of this RfC as an example. The RfC would need to be in a central location (not sure where, possibly a wikiproject) and be widely advertized. By the way, a recent edit at Chanhassen, Minnesota had summary "Why is this notable?". That is not ideal because opponents can seize on the term-of-art "notable" and point out that WP:N only applies to whether an article should exist—that policy says nothing about what content should be in an article. The correct word is significant as in WP:DUE. After WP:DUE, the next issue is whether the source is authoritative for the claim (is WP:RS satisfied?). Johnuniq (talk) 05:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I'll wait for the RfC to close, and depending on the outcome, will start another RfC. I'll run a draft by you then if it's ok. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 10:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Sure. Johnuniq (talk) 10:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Correction

You're wrong, John. That's not my motivation at all. In fact, it's insulting dismissive of the work I have put in so far.

We now have reliable sources for the first use of the term relating to the Nazis immediately *after* the 1939 September Holocaust (in May 1940, I think it was without looking, the "hideous holocaust of 3,000,0000" in Germany), & before its use for humans (the refs say, 1942). It ties the highlest levels of society in England with the Nazi leadership, involves the military command & intelligence, & pretty much the entire adult population of London.

How can you say that has no relevance?

It's documenting the then contemporary use of the term & is every bit as valid at the references to the Armenian Holocaust. A 45 word reference out of 16,000 words.

Now, before you come back with WP:OR, I'm not present any such interpretations, just documenting the facts.

The study of animals in war is as valid a discipline as any other in the field, albeit far less studied. But it is growing. --Iyo-farm (talk) 00:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)