Jump to content

User talk:Nick/Archive21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on Wikimedia Commons.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Nick

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Amkgp (talk | contribs) at 14:59, 9 March 2021 (→‎Request for comments: Replying to Nick (using reply-link)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Must be nice

Having so little talk page activity that you can get away with archiving everything once a year in one go... Primefac (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!

Hello Nick: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great New Year! Cheers, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Hello and Happy New Year!

Hi! The undersigned user account is not compromised in any manner. I am solely using the account for the last eight years but actively using it after my unblock in Sept 2020 only.Thanks and regardsRV (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year 2021 !
User:Nick, Wish you and your family a very Happy and prosperous New Year! best regardsRV (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

WP:PERM/R

Hi Nick, your input would be welcome regarding JJPMaster's request. :) Thanks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Gagan Gupta

You have recently deleted Gagan Gupta citing WP:G11. I don't think this is appropriate. Myself and two other editors disputed the speedy deletion request, and the article's creator edited the article thoroughly to remove bias. They also requested comments and assistance on the article's talk page (which they didn't get). I think this shows that they weren't interested solely in promoting the subject, and were acting in good faith. Furthermore, I recall the article included several notable publications as sources, which establishes a plausible claim of notability. I kindly ask that you restore the article. If you still believe it should be deleted, please submit it to AfD. Thanks.

(Note: this is unrelated to our discussion at Talk:Fabrice Amedeo. I was already involved with both articles prior to that.) --Un assiolo (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Un assiolo: No. Nick (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Gagan Gupta

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gagan Gupta. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Un assiolo (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021

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

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh.

She began doing it as soon as the partial block was implemented. What a gross willful violation. -- ferret (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And has since responded asking if she can still edit talk pages. WP:IDHT. CUPIDICAE💕 22:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A cheeseburger for you!

Ignore the buns, lettuce and patty - you deserve the cheese! EvanTaylor1289 (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2021

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

Administrator changes

added TJMSmith
removed Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

Interface administrator changes

added AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
  • When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
  • There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fast on the block trigger on TruthPR?

TruthPR, a new editor was asked if there was a paid or COI situation with the SG article. Minutes later, stated is SG. Minutes after that, you initiated an indefinite block. The editor's editing aside, shouldn't there have been time to provide the standard warning to cease editing until declaring paid, rather than the block? David notMD (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD: The indefinite block was the safest course of action here. The account claims to be Scott Gardenhour, which would require a block pending verification to prevent impersonation, additionally the username will need to be changed if the account is confirmed to Scott Gardenhour, it's also incumbent on the user to comply with our Terms of Use when starting to edit, we don't need to provide time for them to comply when they have begun to edit. The block is indefinite, not permanent, there's an unblock request and subject to confirmation via OTRS and a renaming to a username that isn't potentially deceptive to other editors, I'll unblock myself (and I'm happy for others to unblock when those issues are resolved). Nick (talk) 09:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I was just trying to see it from TruthPR's (Scott's?) perspective - a newbie trying to improve an existing article about himself, with the unintended consequence of the article now at AfD, and the block. David notMD (talk) 09:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking over BLP

Hi

I feel that you have made incorrect decisions in regards to edits around Alexander Zaytsev (businessman). I do not believe I have violated WP:BLP because the discussion did not suggest anything illegal. Your questions on my talk page indicate moreover that you do not know yourself what was meant by my edits on the talk page. I used the terms "wallet" and "politically exposed person" interchangeably and neither suggest anything illegal. I offered the explanation of "politically exposed person" before you asked for a further explanation but then later pretend not to understand.

Apologies, I seem to have copy+pasted the incorrect url to the discussion. It was not supposed to be a US senate report but a general World Bank report.

Moreover your conduct has not been professional, you gave me little chance to respond to your question, a very short time, and the ban you've meted out is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.

If you do not respond here to explain your reasoning I will go through an appeal channel. If you (bizarrely) believe that this is too sensitive to be discussed here you can indicate so and I will go through arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. --Jabbi (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jabbi: I disagree - the tone and nature of your comments violated BLP and the fact you don't see that or understand it is why I felt I was left with no option but to ban you from editing BLPs for a year. You are, of course, welcome to appeal the sanction via the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard. If/when you appeal, please remember to mention that I was not the only administrator concerned about your editing; Barkeep49 asked you to confirm you would stop making edits in violation of the BLP, a request you are yet to answer, I note. Nick (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick: Those are very ambiguous accusations. I will go through an appeal. I responded to Barkeep49 here, just one more thing you've not understood. Banning should not be done without proper process, you did not discuss what exactly you found problematic until after having banned me. You gave me very short time to respond to your question. Is this your final answer? --Jabbi (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jabbi: My final answer is that you're welcome to appeal the BLP topic ban. Nick (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick: I would thank you but I don't think you've done anything useful here. --Jabbi (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabbi (talk • contribs) 00:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why my rights were removed ?

Dear Nick, it was very painful to see that most of the permissions were removed after decline at here for something that was resolved and was reviewed before granting some of the permission. For your reference, I am enclosing links to block discussion. See block1 and block2. I am an active new page patroller (you can verify from my contributions) and AfC reviewer (See User:Amkgp/CSD log and AfD log also), an active page mover (especially use it in draftify of undersourced new articles), an active pending changes reviewer and file mover (in fact yesterday I helped to reduce a backlog and you can see permission was granted and a brief discussion took place User_talk:Wugapodes/Archive_17#Permissions already). Beside these I used to help at WP:DYK in making prep sets. I have also helped to promote Mahadevi Varma and Sidney Hill to GA status. I am also a WP:TEA host and help editors when ever I am able to help. I also help in copyright cleanup at commons when I get a chance. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Amkgp. I was really socked to see that I was stripped off most privileges that I earned after spending long time here in en-wiki through positive contributions and trust only. I kindly request you to please restore all the removed rights, so that I can contribute as I was doing. Thank you. — Amkgp 💬 04:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How can I become an untrusted user now? Does getting blocked earlier and rectifying thereafter or asking permission based on contributions/improvements makes one untrusted? But at-least restore the flags because I contribute there with permissions very seriously and with responsibility. Thank you — Amkgp 💬 05:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Amkgp: I'm aware of the block discussions - that's why I consider you to be lacking in the level of trusted and competency needed to hold these permissions. You lost all of the trust you earned when you were caught abusing multiple accounts, for which Tony blocked you, and the previous copyright issues are another significant concern. Your permissions should have been removed at those poinst, but at the absolute minimum, you need to demonstrate to myself and the wider community why you can again be trusted to again hold these permissions. You are welcome to request their return at the relevant Requests for Permissions pages, explaining in detail about your block history, and allowing discussion about these permissions, but I do not think it appropriate for you to continue to hold them without that discussion, and I do not think it's appropriate for you to have any advanced permissions weeks after coming off a block for abusing multiple accounts and copyright violations - if you were a new account, we would want to see some level of trust build up, given the way you destroyed the previous trust we had in you, I would also expect a lengthy period of several months editing, and confirmation perhaps from checkusers that there is not repeated violations regarding the abuse of multiple accounts, before I'd be truly happy for you to hold all of these permissions. I am sure you can understand the risk in someone previously blocked for abusing multiple accounts in being able to patrol pages and such, whilst I'm also sure you can understand the risk of someone with demonstrable failures in copyright understanding to be working in the File namespace. Nick (talk) 08:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Amkgp: Thank you for explaining your rationale behind your action. — Amkgp 💬 09:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can I expect you to be active after several months? Otherwise, asking for so many permissions via WP:PERM will look WP:HATSHOP to anyone. One lines within 20% WP:COPYVIO threshold is generally allowed. — Amkgp 💬 10:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The CU block was imposed because I posted some constructive request at WP:AN without logging. It was a honest mistake which I had rectified immediately thereafter. — Amkgp 💬 10:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Till date I have never abused here in any form and I am serious regarding my editing. — Amkgp 💬 10:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Amkgp: That isn't actually true, is it. You were logging out and posting to WP:AN about backlogs at WP:PERM every single time you were requesting permissions at WP:PERM. You were warned not to log out and make anonymous edits by ST47 before Tony blocked you, and he presumably considers your behaviour so serious he informed you that a repeated occurrence would likely be met with an indefinite block. This is all coming after you were warned that your repeated requests for permissions was disruptive. You had ample opportunity to explain to me why you can be trusted with those permissions and that I've made a mistake, and all I've seen is a series of messages informing me that asking for permissions again will be seen as hat collecting and that a bot will stop you from doing something at the permissions page. You remain free to explain to me why you are sufficiently trustworthy to have your permissions reinstated. I am genuinely open to the possibility I've been unduly harsh on you. Nick (talk) 14:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nick, I can say that a year back when I did not have much editing experience I asked for multiple permission at a time. There people accused me of hat-collecting, which was true that time as I was never able to demonstrate the need and use of the tools, and lacked required experience
Since requests sometimes remain pending for long time, and I thought posting as an IP would be neutral as I felt it would be conflict of interest to ask at WP:AN (which I later after going WP:PROJSOCK I learnt that I was doing wrong and admitted my fault).Also, I misunderstood the IP editing as I found {{userbox ::::::::| border-c = #CCCCCC ::::::::| id = IP ::::::::| id-c = #CCCCCC ::::::::| info = This user strongly supports IP editing, even if he does not do so himself. ::::::::| info-c = white ::::::::}} at many userpages and thought its allowed.
You can check my contributions I have always used all the tools for betterment of Wikipedia project and will be using for good only. I have never misused my tools for any kind of gains till date. That,s all I can say. I applied for autopatrolled as I thought I can reduce the workload of NPP as I can feel myself patrolling new pages sine I translate a lot of notable articles from other Wikipedia. — Amkgp 💬 14:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Request for comments

I would like to invite admins and editors with whom I have worked closely or have interacted earlier during my 3+ years of editing. I kindly request for your valuable comments and a second opinion regarding whether I am subject to lack of WP:COMPETENCE, faith and trust here. Also, whether I should get back the removed permissions executed by Nick. Please let me allow to continue in this thread.

I know nothing about the background to this and the reasoning behind the removal of any advanced permissions, but am dismayed by the actions, which give the impression of being punitive rather than preventative. I have been associated with Amgkp at DYK, especially his activities in building prep sets, and have always found him to be helpful, reliable and competent. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A loss of trust is, arguably, always a kind of punishment by the previously-trusting group. Regarding permissions, I mostly deal with rollback, and could have argued for you to keep that permission – but it's still there. I'd say all of these usergroups, even extended confirmation, are based on trust. I trust you to deal with obvious vandalism correctly. And I wrote this before noticing that it was me who granted the permission in the first place. 🙂 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cwmhiraeth: I removed those permissions I considered directly relevant to the blocks for abusing multiple accounts and copyright violations. I left their rollback permission, as like ToBeFree, I do trust them to deal with obvious vandalism correctly, and their track record there is not in question. I'm perhaps being overly strict here and if I am, I do apologise, but I don't believe someone who has only just come off a block for abusing multiple accounts should hold permissions that do require an enhanced level of trust, when they have damaged or destroyed the trust they previously held to receive those permissions, nor do I believe someone who has previously been blocked for copyright violations should be handling media issues. If you believe they should have some or all of those permissions restored, I'm happy for you to do so though, as you're much more closely involved with them than I am. Nick (talk) 10:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nick Cwmhiraeth and ToBeFree, I would like to emphasize that I was not blocked for abusing multiple accounts. I was CU blocked because I posted a request at WP:AN without logging per WP:PROJSOCK. If I was a threat to editing I would have been stripped off all the rights, not selectively as you did. There was no concern from either Oshwah or TonyBallioni. Coming to copyvio block was done inappropriately. Firstly I was never warned and secondly for cases that detect 10-15% copyvio on Earwig copyvio tools. one liners and quoted text are generally allowed. For your information, I was unblocked within hours and the blocking admin has pinned As the blocking admin, I'm confident that Amkgp understands copyright and will not violate it in the future- and it would be inappropriate to bring the block into an unrelated dispute. Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI! 18:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC) in his/her talk page. See proof here — Amkgp 💬 12:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I use all of the tools regularly when I edit here. None of them were requested for showpiece by me. I don't understand when you say I do trust them to deal with obvious vandalism correctly and accuse me of untrusted user and has lost all trust and faith from the community! Well as far I know Rollback is the most sensitive tool and is given to trusted users only. I believe that removal of all the permissions was inappropriate that has enabled not get them back atleast for 6 months as one gets flagged by musikbot at WP:PERM when requested if the rights have been revoked. My only fault is that I was honest and clean in my actions. — Amkgp 💬 12:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nick also regarding media I never misused the tool. You can see the file mover request granted by Wugapodes and also see the discussion User_talk:Wugapodes/Archive_17#Permissions. Not only that it was reviewed by Alexis Jazz It was totally unfair from you side to remove most of the tools as I regularly use them. If you want I should not be editing or you did not like that I have so many hard earned permission. Do let me know. I would leave the space. Till then I will wait for others to share their opinion. — Amkgp 💬 12:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Schazjmd: since he/she was critical regarding my actions as pending changes reviewer as one can see here. Thank you. — Amkgp 💬 12:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I can understand the frustration, but the usual steps are "discuss with the administrator, ask for review at WP:AN/WP:ANI if unsatisfied". Canvassing a large number of potentially favorable users or involved administrators to the administrator's talk page is not part of this procedure. It is problematic because it creates an incorrectly biased impression of a protesting group against the administrator in a situation that requires neutral, uninvolved feedback. Please drop the stick or go to WP:AN. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ToBeFree, I am only asking editors who have reviewed, granted permission with links/proofs. I am not going any further tagging editors and currently going through a healthy discussion with the revoking admin. Sure, if I find the answers unsatisfactory I will look at the other options or retire from here. Thank you — Amkgp 💬 14:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Amkgp: I certainly don't wish for you to retire, but equally, I will not be blackmailed into restoring your user permissions. If I do restore your permissions, it will be after you have demonstrated an appropriate level of trust. Nick (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nick, Yes it is not blackmail, it was the feeling and I do not accuse anyone of the above statement. I have answered already above. — Amkgp 💬 14:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nick/Archive21&oldid=1011191574"