User talk:MelanieN: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:16, 1 March 2023

ATTENTION: Moderator Abuse of Power - "Wes Sideman"

Hello,

I am writing to you concerned about moderator Wes Sideman (whom I have linked to below). He seems to have an obsession with this television character “Chad Johnson” from the TV show “The Bachelorette” and his Wikipedia page. He continues to change the notoriety of Chad Johnson from his TV shows, to his arrest records attempting to defame him. Those charges were dropped and as you can see in the video below, his girlfriend admits no assault happened. Apparently Wes Sideman knows more than the two people actually involved in the incident. Wes Sideman also continues to remove any remotely good press about Chad from the Wikipedia page. For some reason Wes has been monitoring and harassing this Wikipedia page for over two years now. If you have time, I would ask or suggest that you look into doing something about this Wes Sideman moderator using an abuse of power on Wikipedia.

Thank you.

Admission of no assault - https://youtu .be/qyK8-_kaVt8

Examples of Wes Sideman’s edits - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1116808783

Wes Sideman’s page - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Wes_sideman&action=view

Chad Johnson’s Wikipedia - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chad_Johnson_(TV_personality) 193.192.116.74 (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: Oddly, I got one of these messages on my own Talk page. No idea why, as I don't recall any interaction with either the IP editor or the target of their ire, Wes sideman. See also this entry: Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase#Chad_Johnson_(TV_personality). A puzzle that I can only resolve by referring the IP to ANI. Cheers! Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like you,Geoff, I have had no interaction with this article and have no idea why they chose me (and you, and Ed Johnson) to post his identical complaint. And they have now posted it on the BLP notice board. I see no reason to get involved with the situation myself. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Socrates

Hi MelanieN, hoping you are well. Can you pls do something about the talk page of Socrates, someone is messing around, apparently. [1] Cinadon36 11:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, User:Cinadon36, and thanks for the note. I know this kind of thing is annoying, but it is not anywhere near the level needed to add protection to a talk page. There were just two problem edits this week, and before that nothing since October. This kind of thing can be handled by normal watchlisting. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks Mel! Cheers Cinadon36 05:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peace Dove Christmas

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.

Happy Holidays. ―Buster7 ☎ 04:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
Have a great Christmas, and may 2023 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls, vandals or visits from Krampus! Cheers SchroCat (talk) 11:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons Greetings

Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}} [reply]

Donner60 (talk) 05:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, MelanieN!

Happy New Year!

MelanieN,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 05:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 05:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help with a disruptive editor?

Hello! I raised this issue at ANI but no admins have responded. User:GigachadGigachad has made a slew of unsourced and misrepresented edits and removed content without explaining why, for which they were blocked in the past, and yet they are at this point ignoring the many warnings that users have posted on their talk page. This seems like a clear WP:CIR issue, so can you take action? Thanks. (Also sorry for posting this, deleting, and then reposting. Had some big formatting issues) Cpotisch (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

I was just doing some editing for the first time in a while (someone was putting in spam links in article I was interested in) and so was catching up and looking back. I see I got a barnstar once from someone who is now an admin, though it has been a long time so you might not remember giving it to me. I need to find that article I was quoted in. Anyways, glad to see you are doing well here. I think I might have caught the editing bug again, so I might do some more editing now again. XinJeisan (talk) 07:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, XinJeisan! Yes, that was me. That was a long time ago, back in 2011. I don't remember what was the occasion for you being quoted in the press (and I stupidly didn't provide a link - I was kind of a newbie myself back then). But I'm sure you deserved it. Glad to see you are back! -- MelanieN (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Pure Storage requested edits

Hi MelanieN. I work for Pure Storage and have a disclosed COI. The page seems to have a confusing history. At times editors have said to edit the page, to not edit the page, that the company already edited the page inappropriately (many years ago), and there’s a lot of very vague comments/feedback saying the page needs improvement.

I disclosed a COI and requested some edits here to clarify the Purity OS is used on most (but not all) products, to update the list of product families, etc. A couple editors responded, but it is not very clear what next steps are. Your help would be much appreciated if you could clear the fog, even if it’s just to tell me my requested edits are bad and why. ZacBond (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kiefer Sutherland and Charlize Theron

Hi, I noticed that the pages Kiefer Sutherland and Charlize Theron are both indefinitely semi-protected but are both missing the padlock icon at the top right of the page, can you fix this for both pages? Thanks. Voabo (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, Voabo. Looks like alert editor LilianaUwU has already fixed it. Thanks, Liliana! -- MelanieN (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hogwarts Legacy protection

Hello, thanks for taking care of the vandalism on the page. However, I would consider the 1 month protection too long. Right now, the page is being worked on a lot as it got newly released and a lot of people come around. Could you reduce the protection again to one level lower than now? Vestigium Leonis (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vestigium Leonis, and thanks for the note. I see the problem: you yourself are not Extended Confirmed, and so the new protection is keeping you from editing. I sympathize, because you were not the one causing the problems. But there was a real problem with vandalism edits from auto-confirmed editors (or one editor under multiple names; several of the names have been blocked but there are always more in this kind of case). The vandalism was such that it is covered by the rules of WP:GENSEX. Let's do this: After a week I will lower it to semi-protection and we will see what happens. If things stay calm, fine. If the same problem comes back, I will have to restore the extended-confirmed protection, possibly for a longer time. Post here on my talk page on Sunday, Feb. 19 to remind me. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just here for the reminder. Thanks (Depending on timezones it might not be Sunday for you already though). Vestigium Leonis (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good point; it's still Saturday here. But I will reduce the protection level and let's see what happens. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfPP request at Gqeberha

Hi! I understand you declined the RfPP request for Gqeberha because most of the disruptive edits were by a single auto-confirmed editor, Dgv102. Of course this is completely reasonable.

You might want to take another look at their edits though as they have continued to remove/change referenced content about South African city naming across several articles. Also another IP (196.41.10.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) continues to make similar edits at Gqeberha and other South African city articles.

Thanks! — MarkH₂₁^talk 11:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also add that their only response continues to be If you censor me I will report you to the USA House of Representative media committee, so they're WP:NOTHERE. — MarkH₂₁^talk 12:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked them for 48 hours. I'll keep an eye on that IP; my hunch is it is the same person, editing without logging in. I will look forward to being reported to the USA House of Representative media committee, or possibly to the United States, House of Representatives Committee on Social media. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hogwarts Legacy semi-protection

Hi MelanieN. I've noticed that you reduced from ECP to semi-protection on Hogwarts Legacy with expiration time left in place. However, you may have not noticed that another admin placed indefinite semi-protection under CT procedures per WP:GENSEX? See the log here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=140949542.

In my opinion, I think you should revert back to indefinite as other admins cannot modify his restriction under CT procedures for one year without his affirmative consent, community consensus, or arbcom. Stylez995 (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the alert. I missed that. I will restore the semi-protection to indefinite. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ScotRail

Thanks for your change, but it seems like protection of ScotRail after three bad edits in 10 days seems like overkill. I wouldn't say we are struggling to say on top of the article in any way. Just my US$0.02. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, 10mmsocket. That's why I gave it Pending Change protection instead of semi-protection. PC is exactly designed for the kind of article that gets problem edits, not frequently enough for semi-protection, but recurrent over a period of months or longer. It also has the advantage that when there are edits from IPs that are constructive, they can be accepted and integrated into the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never saw it that way. Thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USPLACE

Hi Melanie - rather than further mucking up the RfC talk, I wanted to ask you about USPLACE here for a minute. For years, I was essentially neutral on this. I see the pros of keeping the USPLACE status quo - it's a bright line rule, and as you note, it is at least rooted in one clearly reliable source. But after seeing the issue come up over and over and over, either as a full RfC, or on individual city article RMs (and I think your private list is missing a number of those discussions, just fyi), I've come around to thinking that the only way to truly retire this as an issue is to do one simple thing: anywhere - but only where - a city name is a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to a city article, swap City, State for City. That's it. No other discussion needed. This would mean zero "constant battles" because the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has already been decided. If someone wants to battle about Phoenix or Nashville or Raleigh or Charlotte, they are already free to do that today - regardless of USPLACE. Swapping primaryredirects would have no impact on Springfield or Greenville or anywhere else - no battles.

The main problem with USPLACE - the reason challenging it will never die - is because it is so arbitrary. It's a fundamentally flawed compromise. There have been countless other Wiki battles that did resolve - WP:COMMA, WP:ENDASH, New York, etc. This one keeps going because in standard American usage, there is no reason to allow Seattle but not Nashville, or to allow Honolulu but not Beverly Hills.

I know you've been a staunch supporter of USPLACE for a long time. I also know you are a dedicated, smart, pragmatic editor. This just feels to me like the pragmatic way out of all this! Appreciate you taking the time here, and interested in your thoughts. Dohn joe (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughtful note, Dohn joe. (And how are you? Long time no see.) I do strongly feel that US cities should have the state appended to their name, for reasons I have spelled out elsewhere, so I do not agree with dropping the state. And I am not moved by the argument that the US naming convention has to be identical to every other country's; uniqueness for individual country standards or formats is accepted at Wikipedia. But I do see where you are coming from about the AP exceptions. I would be perfectly OK with eliminating the AP rule and making all of our cities have the state added. This would not really create any disruption, because someone searching for "Chicago" would automatically end up at "Chicago, Illinois" without even noticing they have been redirected. Whereas removing the state from all cities that are unique would, as I have argued in the past, have cities like "Hawaiian Gardens, California" or "Sleepy Eye, Minnesota" demanding their states back. Continuing the Minnesota examples, a city name like "Elko New Market" or "Shoreview" or "Sauk Centre" or "Blue Earth" or "Olivia" or "St. Bonifacius" ... well, you get the idea. The name conveys no information without the state. I should probably make clearer at the discussion that I am willing to abandon the AP and list the state at all city articles. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Melanie, doing well - hope you are too! U.S. placenames are such an odd situation. I looked at it a long time ago, and somewhere around 80 percent of U.S. placenames will require disambiguation no matter what the convention is. So having the "default" be City would mean only 20 percent of U.S. places would really be at City. Which is a good WP:CONSISTENCY argument to just have everything at City, State. But then it's not consistent with normal WP practice, which is to have everything at Name unless there are two topics called "Name", in which case you go to the primarytopic discussion. If Hawaiian Gardens was a town in New Zealand, it would be at Hawaiian Gardens. Which is why I disagree with adding the state to "give context" or "convey information" - that's not how WP usually titles things. All that said, universal City, State is my second-best situation. I still think that people would come along trying to get things in line with regular WP usage, but it's a much better outcome than what we have now. I'll go say that over at the RfC. Dohn joe (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 134: / Line 134: @@
 I know you've been a staunch supporter of USPLACE for a long time. I also know you are a dedicated, smart, pragmatic editor. This just feels to me like the pragmatic way out of all this!  Appreciate you taking the time here, and interested in your thoughts. [[User:Dohn joe|Dohn joe]] ([[User talk:Dohn joe|talk]]) 16:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 :Thanks for your thoughtful note, [[User:Dohn joe|Dohn joe]]. (And how are you? Long time no see.) I do strongly feel that US cities should have the state appended to their name, for reasons I have spelled out elsewhere, so I do not agree with dropping the state. And I am not moved by the argument that the US naming convention has to be identical to every other country's; uniqueness for individual country standards or formats is accepted at Wikipedia. But I do see where you are coming from about the AP exceptions. I would be perfectly OK with eliminating the AP rule and making all of our cities have the state added. This would not really create any disruption, because someone searching for "Chicago" would automatically end up at "Chicago, Illinois" without even noticing they have been redirected. Whereas removing the state from all cities that are unique would, as I have argued in the past, have cities like "Hawaiian Gardens, California" or "Sleepy Eye, Minnesota" demanding their states back. Continuing the Minnesota examples, a city name like "Elko New Market" or "Shoreview" or "Sauk Centre" or "Blue Earth" or "Olivia" or "St. Bonifacius" ... well, you get the idea. The name conveys no information without the state. I should probably make clearer at the discussion that I am willing to abandon the AP and list the state at all city articles. -- [[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN#top|talk]]) 17:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
+::Thanks, Melanie, doing well - hope you are too! U.S. placenames are such an odd situation. I looked at it a long time ago, and somewhere around 80 percent of U.S. placenames will require disambiguation no matter what the convention is. So having the "default" be [[City]] would mean only 20 percent of U.S. places would really be at [[City]]. Which is a good WP:CONSISTENCY argument to just have everything at [[City, State]]. But then it's not consistent with normal WP practice, which is to have everything at [[Name]] unless there are two topics called "Name", in which case you go to the primarytopic discussion. If Hawaiian Gardens was a town in New Zealand, it would be at [[Hawaiian Gardens]]. Which is why I disagree with adding the state to "give context" or "convey information" - that's not how WP usually titles things. All that said, universal [[City, State]] is my second-best situation. I still think that people would come along trying to get things in line with regular WP usage, but it's a much better outcome than what we have now. I'll go say that over at the RfC. [[User:Dohn joe|Dohn joe]] ([[User talk:Dohn joe|talk]]) 01:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)