Jump to content

User talk:Valereee/Archive 31

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Valereee

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 03:18, 23 January 2021 (Archiving 4 discussion(s) from User talk:Valereee) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 25 ← Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 → Archive 35

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

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.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended protection on 2021 United States Capitol protests

Hi Valereee, could you clarify why this article was EC-protected? The log states as being due to persistent vandalism. Is this correct? Thanks, Arcturus (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

hm, I thought I checked the box for disruptive editing. —valereee (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
It is tagged as that, but I don't see any disruptive editing. However, I've just based this on there being no edits tagged as Reverts. If there is no disruptive editing, then really it shouldn't be flagged as such. ECP is a pretty severe restriction and it's causing a bit of a backlog of edit requests on the Talk page. Might be worth considering lowering protection to semi to see how things go, but your call, of course. Thanks, Arcturus (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
No objection to any admin working there reducing. —valereee (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your extended protection of 2021 United States Capitol protests

Hey Valereee. I actually came here specifically to thank you for making that page extended protected. We were getting 4+ edits a minute there for awhile even with extended protection, so I can only imagine what it would have been like with IP's editing, and with people reverting the IP's. I think the article came out really high quality considering how breaking this news is. Less than 12 hours after it happened, we already have a lengthy article, of good quality, and multiple sub-articles. Also, I checked the last 500 edits, and there were only 3 undos or reverts. It is quite a treat to work on an article with other experienced editors, who rarely make bad edits, rarely revert, and don't vandalize at all. So anyway, thank you, I think you made a great judgment call and I really appreciate it. See you around. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: See Wikipedia:Protection policy and in particular, search for the word "preemptive". Arcturus (talk) 10:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I disagree. Clearly more pros than cons in this scenario. WP:IAR. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
"It is quite a treat to work on an article with other experienced editors". It seems you find the underlying principle; "Wikipedia is built around/with the principle that anyone can edit it" a bit problematic. My view is that the protection applied to this article strikes right at the heart of Wikipedia. Something else to consider. It's well known that articles like these - fast moving recent events - are great for pulling in new editors. Well they would be, if they could actually edit them. Arcturus (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Lobby her in your own section please. You're making the vibe of my section dramatic, when my intent was to give a genuine compliment. Please resist the temptation to respond to this. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I'll resist. Arcturus (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Question from a noob

Hello Elder Wikipedia Entity, you seem like the person to ask my question to: is there a way to find articles that specifically need copyediting or other specific fixes? For a while, when I started editing, a little bar would pop up at the top of my screen and say 'edit another article' or something like that after I finished editing the last page, but I've lost that little bar and it won't come back. I've just been hitting the random article link to find articles with a flag for copyediting, but that's inefficient. Can I get that bar back or is there a button for that? Any help is appreciated! Cheers and please take care in these trying times. JoePhin (talk) 08:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

JoePhin, I can answer that: Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors GPinkerton (talk) 09:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
GPinkerton, That is just what I was looking for! Thank you good sir, I shall be joining this Guild of Copy Editors posthaste. (Thanks for letting me use your talk page as a medium for this Valereee, sorry if it was a bother. JoePhin (talk) 09:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
JoePhin, Category:All articles needing copy edit may also be of interest. CMD (talk) 09:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Chipmunkdavis, Aw, you're all too nice. That's also helpful, thanks! JoePhin (talk) 11:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
You're always welcome to ask questions here, and my friendly talk-page stalkers are always welcome to engage. :) —valereee (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Cheers Valereee, let me know if there's anything you need, maybe I could help. Now, I'm off to some copyediting! JoePhin (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

My edit at Kingdom of Judah

Hi, this is just a message to let you that I added a link at Kingdom of Judah. Feel free to review my edit. Thank you. Firestar464 (talk) 10:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

Should the T-Bans of Fiveby, Amr Ibn and Supreme Deliciousness also be noted at the Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant? Also, seeing those general sanctions already existing and that most blocks were enforced for 3/1RR violation. Couldn't there be imposed also blocks for ISIS-Erdogan or Assad POV pushing? We are on Wikipedia where consensus is supported, and POV of authoritarian regimes doesn't seem to have a lot of academic consensus but cause a lot of disruption to Admin attention. I mean, Admins do really have better things to do than to figure out if areas liberated from ISIS are or were Kurdish occupied or not. ISIS is the most classified terror organization and very well known for their fierce opposition to women's rights thanks to their multiple front page appearances in reliable news outlets. If wonder what would happen if anyone would call the Warsaw Ghetto Jewish occupied.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 03:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The ISIS-Erdogan-Assad POV is vilifying a gender-egalitarian, women empowering, multi-cultural, direct-democracy based Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria. The policies in the AANES are similar to the ones of Wikipedia.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 03:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
PC, if someone has t-banned them under GS, then yes, they should be logged, but as far as I know they've not been t-banned. I have no opinion on the subject of the article and other articles in the area. —valereee (talk) 12:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Kurdish ArbCom Case

I've seen your interest in a broader case, and your amusement over the resistance to accept the case filed by GPinkerton. I was actually attempting to file a case on the broader Kurdish issue and viewing that one of the resistance is based on that it was filed by GPinkerton, could you quickly check on what I've prepared at User:Paradise Chronicle/ArbComCaseand see if this could actually find some approval? I've added some more diffs than GPinkerton, but the issues are mainly the same.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

PC, bemusement, not amusement, and more over the assumption that because the evidence is a bunch of diffs of content disputes that means the case is content dispute at heart when it's actually a case of overwhelming POV-pushing. I don't actually have a strong opinion about whether the committee should accept a full case or simply provide minor clarification of policy. I'm afraid I'm the wrong person to ask about what works well as an arbcom case, I have practically zero experience in the area. —valereee (talk) 12:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer and we keep on trying:) We should really be able to make it happen.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

RS/NPOV/MOS issues related to past RSN/ANI discussions

You may want to review the policy and MOS violations that were reinstated at Dudjom Jigdral Yeshe Dorje and its talk page discussion, since you are experienced and have dealt with similar RS and NPOV issues in this area. — MarkH21talk 20:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. —valereee (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Two years!

- Have a good new year! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, @Gerda Arendt! Here's hoping both our years will be much better than the last! :) —valereee (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 2, 2021)

Hello, Valereee. The article for improvement of the week is:

Lumbersexual

Please be bold and help improve it!

Previous selections: Pork chop • Fishing industry

Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions

This Month in GLAM: December 2020



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

This Month in GLAM: December 2020



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

DiscussionTools

Hi, Valereee,

The Editing team has scheduled a major update to mw:Extension:DiscussionTools (the new Reply tool) for next week's deployment train. Since you invoke the feature from a script (I do, too), you're probably going to see that update next week, before it's officially released in the mw:Beta Feature system. The new update will use a similar system for starting a ==New discussion==. As before, full-page wikitext editing will not be affected. There is more information on the project page at mw:Talk pages project/New discussion.

You don't have to do anything about this; I just didn't want you to be surprised. If you encounter problems next week, please ping me or leave a note on the talk page for the project. Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Whatamidoing (WMF) thank you, I look forward to seeing whatever changes there are! Oooh, we'll be able to start a new discussion? Cool! —valereee (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that's the plan. It should appear whenever you click the "New section" (or anything else that results in &action=edit&section=new in the URL). I believe that the last bit of code is on its way to QA soon, so there's still plenty of opportunity for things to go wrong/get delayed, but it should be nice whenever it gets here. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 04:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Question 2

Levivich accused me of "cheery picking" here:[1], Are you going to block him for that or does that only apply to me? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not confident I'm an admin at that article any more. You'll have to ask someone else for help while I figure that out. —valereee (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
In that case, you should lift the source restriction you imposed on the article. You also didn't gather consensus for it at the AN thread.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
There's an open discussion on that. —valereee (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Actually, the normal rules for DS, in line with Bbb23’s close as well, are that there needs to be a “clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved editors” at AN to overturn/modify a DS sanction placed by another administrator. If there’s no consensus that generally means the status quo prevails. Strictly speaking, it’s on you to gather consensus to remove it. By my rough count, the support is 7-4 for retaining the restriction for the time being. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
The SK article is not under DS and valereees rule is not a DS sanction.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
See Talk:Syrian Kurdistan. Specifically: The article Syrian Kurdistan, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is currently subject to discretionary sanctions authorised by the community. The current restrictions are: [...]. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion at AN is now archived. There was no consensus for it. Can you now remove the source restriction? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Interesting determination. 7-4 editors in support last I counted (that's about 65%, in support). Whether you call this a consensus in favour, or no consensus, is irrelevant, as either way there was no consensus to overturn the restriction. It seems to be working, too. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Its not a vote. But if we remove the involved editors, I see 1 in support and 1 against, the rest are unclear. The source restriction failed to get support.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
What?? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Even if we accept the 1-1 count as accurate, that's still no consensus to overturn the restriction, which means the restriction stays in place, as explained up above. And anyway, what source is it that you want to include in the article that the restriction is preventing you from including? There are now more than 30 recent academic works cited in the article, what non-academic source could we possibly need? Levivich harass/hound 06:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
There are some well sourced historical texts and maps that needs to be restored into the article and attributed to those historical sources, to show a historical view. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
The maps (specially the ones depicting a Kurdistan outside! of present-day Syria, one even depicting one in Arabic script at lake Urmiah far away from Syria, giving the impression Syria span all over to Urmiah) were simply included by a never-ending edit-war which now finally stopped thanks to the measures taken.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
SD, you can unarchive and request a formal close. It may be moot if arbcom accepts a case. —valereee (talk) 12:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Vandal User

@Valeree Hi, I would like to report a vandal user User: 2405:201:2:E939:A4E8:5949:7AB5:A921 who vandalized the page 2020–21 Coppa Italia at 18:49 of 14 January 2021. Have a good day Dr Salvus (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Dr SalvusDr Salvus (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Dr Salvus why do we think it's vandalism rather than simply a good-faith but incorrect edit? —valereee (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
@Valeree it is patently vandalism. Milan called him "Merda Jr" and Inter "Merda". Merda means "Shit" in Italian. It looks like pure vandalism to me. Please see the cronology. Dr Salvus (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Dr SalvusDr Salvus (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
@Dr Salvus ah, I see. Then yes, it's vandalism, although rather pointless vandalism on English wikipedia. :) It doesn't look like they're on a spree, that's the only edit they've made, so I'll just warn them at their user talk. You can also warn other users at their user talk for things like this. —valereee (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee ok, I will warn other users later. Have a good day Dr Salvus (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Dr SalvusDr Salvus (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

WP 20

Thank you for providing alt texts for the lead images for DYK! - Happy Wikipedia 20, - proud of a little bit on the Main page today, and 5 years ago, and 10 years ago, look: create a new style - revive - complete! I sang in the revival mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, @Gerda Arendt! I see that on the MP today! Cool on the revival -- I see your upcoming image hook that shows musicians socially distanced, and I'm thinking about mentioning that in the alt —valereee (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, good observation! Next on Sunday, hopefully. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Band1301

I know you blocked this user last month, so just wanted to point you out to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Band1301... I reported a user there at the start of the month, but now it's highly likely a WP:DUCK case, exact same editing style as Band1301. Magitroopa (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Magitroopa. —valereee (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

As-Sajda

Hi, pinging you again about As-Sajda and related articles (previous thread here). JorgeLaArdilla is doing it again [2] [3], multiple editors pointed out problems in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#JorgeLaArdilla's_edits_on_Quran_suras those problems are still not fixed, and in the discussion no one seems to agree with the user's edits. Could you take a look again? Sorry for troubling you. HaEr48 (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@HaEr48 I've posted to their talk. I'm wondering if a p-block from the article is what's needed, although based on the WP Islam discussion, perhaps what they need is to stop editing articles about Islam directly? Does it feel to you as if they're not able to be neutral around Islam articles? —valereee (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Valereee, What is a p-block? I'm not a good judge of character to see if the they're able to be neutral. Some of their incremental edits are fine, the problem is that there is a set of articles about Islam (more specifically about Quranic chapters/suras) that they're editing in a similar pattern and those edits have similar problems. I have tried to explain the problem in that WP Islam discussion as well as in some of the articles talk pages, but sometimes it does get tiring if they don't seem to get the point and insists to restore the edits without consensus or fixing the problems mentioned. HaEr48 (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Update: I found out about WP:PBLOCK. If such thing is possible, the problematic area where I interacted with them is the articles in this category: Category:Chapters in the Quran. I don't know if they make disruptive edits elsewhere. HaEr48 (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately we can only do like 10 pblocks at a time, I think. Which unfortunately means the next thing to try would be a topic ban for Chapters of the Quran. That may be what's necessary. —valereee (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I see, thank you for the suggestion. What kind of evidence do people need for a topic ban proposal? Would a temporary block with a warning to not repeat the behavior be a lighter next step? HaEr48 (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Really what we need to see is that an editor can't seem to get or refuses to get neutrality in a particular area. I don't know if we're there yet, but if JLA doesn't offer an extremely compelling explanation for the repeated reversions, certainly a p-block from that article will be necessary. —valereee (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
My second edit is my first piece of evidence in my defence. I believe the improvement is the removal of confusion to the reader. The removal of a second Arabic script and it honorific-style counterpart means it is easier to recognise the Arabic script in foreign texts. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Valereee/Archive_31&oldid=1002156566"