User talk:Newslinger

Climate/Health/Science Feedback on RSPS list

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A late congrats to you and Snoogans...I suppose...

This looks like small version of what cartoonist and web developer John Cook and blogger Dana Nuccitelli et al went through to create the global warming or climate change "consensus" studies.

Re: "Most editors do not consider Climate Feedback a self-published source"

This determination was based on 3 "surveys" of Wikipedia editors (with 15 participants giving opinions). Mixed support opinions are assumed to count as full support, giving 87% (13 of 15) of editors support the consensus view. LOL

Oh the irony of EmVincent using Wikipedia pillars for A/B/C Feebacks, but also COI editing the Climate Feedback article.

Full support: Snooganssnoogans, Andromedean, Galobtter, Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants, MastCell, Ronz, Newslinger, Nblund: 9

Mixed: Obsidi, Daß Wölf, jps (?), ImTheIP: 4

No: PackMecEng, Peter Gulutzan: 2

Just argumentative: Hob Gadling

Note: The 4th discussion didn't really discuss Climate/Health/Science Feedback at all, although it's in the title. -- Yae4 (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're congratulating me. It is expected for minority views on scientific topics to receive reduced representation on Wikipedia (compared to the majority view), since that is the intended outcome of the due weight policy and the fringe theories guideline. If you would like to write more about topics contrary to the scientific consensus on climate change, a more suitable venue would be Conservapedia, which prioritizes minority views in this field. ​— Newslinger talk 02:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're joking. So we're even. -- Yae4 (talk) 05:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Seriously though, am I being told, here and elswhere, in essence: Wikipedia editors must be followers of climate alarm (or "reality" if you prefer), and go along with whitewashing articles of even a fact-check organization (i.e. only touching on "science") article like Climate/Health/Science Feedback, or they will be topic banned? If so, why not add this as an easily found, more explicit policy statement? -- Yae4 (talk) 11:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Yae4, butting in again, but that question is heading into tendentious territory. I am quite certain that nobody has told you that you have to be a follower of the Climate Reality Movement, and to be happy with the whitewashing of any article, to avoid a topic ban; I'm equally certain that you know perfectly well why that isn't written in policy. Newslinger has been very generous towards you with their time, I don't understand why you feel it necessary to badger them with pointed questions like this. You are far more likely to influence others' opinions by asking honest questions and responding in a friendly, collegiate manner, even when you disagree. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, I voted for Newslinger for admin and have expressed my appreciation for all their help and suggestions. Please don't take the question 100% literally, in isolation, but as trying to get at the essence of what I'm being told above here, and elsewhere, concisely. Fringe theories guideline does not address climate, but it is frequently referred to as though it does. How would you interpret what this (diff) tells me, from another admin, what not to say? And who to not be like - Heartland, or else. What I asked above is my interpretation of the suggestion of who to be like. If that's too direct or something, well, apologies. I'm not trying to be Pointy; I'm seriously trying to decide whether to give up on Wikipedia, or to attempt discussion of creating an explicit statement on climate in fringe theories guideline. -- Yae4 (talk) 13:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Yae4, my advice to you, when interacting with someone you disagree with, is to say exactly what you mean, as clearly and politely as you can. In a text-only environment populated by people from all over the world, nuance, humour, irony etc don't always come across properly. In response to your question about that diff, I read that as him saying that piping the phrase 'climate alarmist' to the Climate Reality Movement looks like you are pushing a particular POV. Again - just say what you mean, literally and clearly. If you're referring to the Climate Reality Movement, call them that. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, Thanks. Climate "reality" homepage says, "Join the millions using their voices and everyday choices to tackle the climate crisis." I will try to remember to refer to them as "climate crisis tacklers" in future, but "climate alarmist" is only slightly different, and takes one fewer word. Any comment on why fringe "theories" guideline doesn't cover climate head-on, or if it should? -- Yae4 (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Yae4, if you're referring to that specific group, you should probably just call them by their name. If you're referring more generally to other groups of people, you should ideally be specific and non-pejorative. If other people don't live up to that standard, don't sink to their level. As for the question on the fringe theories guideline, it's not something I've given any thought to, and I don't like giving half-baked opinions (which is not to say I never do it - I just try not to if I can avoid it!). I'll try to find time to read through the discussion, and if I find an opinion forming, I may decide to bake it properly and comment. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The Climate change denial article has been categorized under Category:Conspiracy theories or one of its subcategories for many years. As fringe theories include (but are not limited to) conspiracy theories, I think it's clear that the topic falls under the scope of the fringe theories guideline, even though the guideline does not mention it explicitly. — Newslinger talk 23:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Yae4, you can be whoever you want to be, and no policy or guideline on Wikipedia will tell you to change your stance on any topic. However, Wikipedia is limited in how it can present information in articles. While I have spent most of my time on ensuring verifiability through reliable sourcing, the other two core content policies (neutral point of view and no original research) are also highly important. The only way to include content that is not supported by these three policies is to effect a change off-wiki that causes reliable sources to report on the subject in the manner you desire. Of course, this is not always simple or possible. Please take a look at the explanatory supplement on righting great wrongs if you have not done so already, as it explains how "Wikipedia doesn't lead, we follow." — Newslinger talk 23:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger, I appreciate the guidance, and I'm trying to follow it; however, the actual applications at WP seem more questionable the deeper one digs. "Fringe theories" guideline was started early 2006.[1] Climate change denial was started in mid-late 2007.[2] Skeptical Science started blogging in 2007 (Coincidence?), and that article is an embarrassment of primary sourcing, but nobody has done or said anything (?, except some ignored commenters on the Talk page, since 2013). Environmental_Research_Letters, which published Cook and Nuccitelli's "most downloaded paper for that week" has zero sources; are they a "reliable source?" Parent company, IOP_Publishing article is a similar story. When the SKS article glowingly describes that "Best article of 2013" does it also point out, "Corrections were made to this article on 31 May 2013" or "Further corrections were made on 30 October 2013"?[3] Nope. The 3 pillars sound great in theory, but a claim of 97-100% consensus (on what exactly, isn't really clear) shouldn't be used to justify only really applying those core policies to a select subset of articles. In my experience, that is exactly what is done. BTW, I've seen the List_of_climate_scientists (notable ones); Are there sub-lists of "pro-alarm" or "anti-alarm" notable climate scientists? This category[4] doesn't do it, because the "D" brand is too broadly applied... Sorry to go on, and thanks again for all your suggestions and time. -- Yae4 (talk) 02:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger, I stumbled across the answer to my own question (Delete: ~36, Keep: ~19. Result: Delete.). It's likely I'll be topic banned, at least. Someone really ought to add a summary of wikipedia's official view of climate to Wikipedia:Fringe_theories, and make it more clear and obvious. Thanks again for all your wikipedia time. Looks like I'll be spending more of my time enjoying the warmth of spring and summer outdoors (duly distanced and masked, of course). -- Yae4 (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Yae4, WP:AE § Yae4 is still pending, and even if the discussion is not decided in your favor, you are able to appeal a topic ban after editing constructively in other areas (e.g. free and open-source software) for a period of time, usually six months. Areas covered by discretionary sanctions are significantly more difficult to participate in than other areas, but there are plenty of topics that remain available to you should you wish to return to editing in the future.

Wikipedia doesn't have an "official view" on any subject unrelated to the encyclopedia itself, and article contents are based solely on a proportional representation of reliable sources. Article content may change significantly when new information surfaces. From some of our discussions, I get the impression that your style of editing involves gathering sources to support a predetermined view (e.g. that /e/ does a disservice to the FOSS community, and that the scientific consensus on climate change is exaggerated). While that is the standard way to write an essay, thesis, or dissertation, it's not particularly compatible with the neutral point of view policy. The ideal way to write an article is to start with a clean slate, examine the available reliable sources, and let the sources speak for themselves. Unfortunately, this tends to be more difficult for topics that one is interested in.

Thank you for all of the contributions you have made so far, and for collaborating with me on several articles. I hope you enjoy your time in the nice weather doing things that make you happy. You are certainly welcome back if you ever decide to return. Cheers. — Newslinger talk 11:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

It all sounds great in theory, but in practice things get messy. Re "Official view," I observed a (different) admin pushing political (and anti-religious) views all over WP. Call it what you want, but that being tolerated over many years time indicates those views are consistent with what I call "official views" from the top down. Re Neutrality, Everyone has their interests, and favorites. I respect your relative neutrality at eROM and Duval; however, compared with your editing at OmniROM and Resurrection Remix, which one you favor seems clear (no offense intended). I also note tolerance of a vague presentation of what microG actually does in terms of interacting with, versus "replacing" Google Play Services, and this vagueness also works in e's favor (and microG-Lineage's and others with microG). I find most existing articles, like e ROM and Duval particularly, have editor(s) who brought one side of the topic, but there are almost always other sides to the story. For articles I created, it's a matter of finding enough "good" sources to defend "notability," and you know which few got "attacked." Q.E.D. :D If there was controversy, my thumbrule was bring a positive thing and a negative thing from each source having both. WP could use metrics for balancing, but most of the WP "consensus" I've observed is just editors stating opinions, and somebody making a judgment call (which I call "popularity contests"). Anyway, thanks for the good wishes! -- Yae4 (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Resurrection Remix OS still does not meet the general notability guideline with the cited sources, and I suspect the article would be deleted if it were nominated at AfD. I did not nominate the article at AfD specifically to give you a chance to find additional sources. The OmniROM article was improved after you added additional sources, although I would not have added the International Business Times (RSP entry).

The /e/ (operating system) article also used to have poor sources before they were removed. While you did add policy-compliant content at times, the content you added about /e/ in multiple articles was frequently negative, and when viewed alongside the website you created were associated with that attacked specific editors on Wikipedia, was simply too much for me to ignore. You are free to create sites like ewwlo.xyz, but I strongly advise you to remove pages naming specific Wikipedia editors in conjunction with statements of intent such as "...has not yet been exposed and blocked. We at ewwlo will continue working to make that so", as they violate the policy on off-wiki attacks.

The "positive and negative" rule is not a particularly good fit for certain topics, as it introduces a false balance between majority and minority views. For any topic, if the majority of the coverage in reliable sources is positive, then the majority of the article should also be positive.​ — Newslinger talk 22:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Resurrection Remix: Apparently they don't have much of a PR department with "news" contacts creating sources, but they have several scholar hits, so who knows.

OMNIRom fact check: The IBTimes source has been in the article since published, November, 2013. From RSN discussions, IBTimes was considered a relatively reliable source until recently. This is another way the RSPS methodology is flawed - reliability varies with time (and author, editor, topic,...).

e rom fact check: Your involvement started the year before mine, around time of your participation in deletion discussion in December 2018.

"website you created..." fact check: Please retract this statement. While my username is mentioned at the webpage you linked at ewwlo.xyz, and the facts there look 97+% accurate, I do not have any control of the site. I hope the stated off-wiki stalking and (ridiculous) statements by user "1984brave new world" (probably aka Caliwing, Indidea, Dxxxx, etc.) is also a concern to you.

I understand the issue with positive/negative balance, but again, without metrics, a majority/minority balance isn't rigorous, so 50-50 is at least some kind of verifiable thumbrule. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

(Redacted)

Wikipedia is not the right place to resolve off-wiki disputes. Please use the conflict of interest noticeboard or the incidents noticeboard if there is specific on-wiki behavior that you would like the community to examine, and only if it clearly violates the policies and guidelines. — Newslinger talk 03:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Removed my comments as required Mnair69 (talk) 05:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Intro tutorial and screenreaders

Hi Newslinger! Re your comment here, would you know which of the tutorials is currently screenreader-compatible? If so, I'd be happy to mark them. Ideally, it would be good to ensure that the Help:Intro series is screenreader-compatible if it's not already. I'm not sure how difficult that would be, but I could certainly try. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sdkb, I don't actually know. My comment was to address Moxy's concern in the RfC, but I'm unfamiliar with screen readers and haven't personally verified the compatibility of any of the tutorials. I am aware that The Wikipedia Adventure is not mobile-friendly, but am not sure about whether it is usable with screen readers. — Newslinger talk 06:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

non domain blacklisting

The trick is as follows, either you use:

• Link/text requested to be blacklisted: play.google.com.sbdtube

if you want to blacklist a link only, or

• Regex requested to be blacklisted: \bplay\.google\.com.*sbdtube\b

to blacklist a specific regex. When you use a BLRequestLink or BLRequestRegex, it will ignore the domains in the {{LinkSummary}}s that may be there. So if you have more complex rules next to domains, you will have to put the domains also in a {{BLRequestLink}} so that it takes all of those. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Beetstra. I should have re-read the notice at WP:SBL § Proposed additions. Do you think it's worth listing the templates in the editnotice at Template:Editnotices/Page/MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist? — Newslinger talk 07:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Never hurts to be a bit explanatory there. I will try to have a look one of these days if I have time to write a bit about it. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

​I've copied the suggested templates from Template:Spam-blacklist proposed additions into Template:Editnotices/Page/MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Hopefully, this makes these templates more visible. — Newslinger talk 07:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

striking comments

Don't you find it kind of ridiculous striking so many comments? We don't normally do that across the board for blocked users. There is a user script that shows when a user is blocked with a strike-through of the name, should anyone want that information, it is available. -- GreenC 17:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi GreenC, JungerMan Chips Ahoy! is not just a blocked user. They are a blocked sockpuppet operated by a community-banned user with an extensive history of sockpuppetry and a long-term abuse page. Banned users are subject to WP:BANREVERT, although I prefer to strike comments instead of reverting them to retain the context of other editors' comments in discussions. Striking nullifies the weight of the sockpuppet's comments, and allows editors to properly re-evaluate the consensuses of the affected discussions. This is especially important for active discussions and discussions that affect the perennial sources list, but sockpuppetry interferes with consensus-building in all present and past discussions on any page.

Many editors, including all IP editors and most editors on mobile devices, do not have access to the "Strike out usernames that have been blocked" preference, and only a subset of logged-in editors with access to the preference choose to enable it. Further, most blocked editors are not banned, and only banned editors are subject to WP:BANREVERT, while the user preference only identifies blocked users. Striking the comments and adding a note make the situation unambiguous to all editors. — Newslinger talk 17:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems like a waste of time and its been spamming my watchlist. PackMecEng (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

All editors are free to spend their time as they please. I made a total of three edits to Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard within a span of 4 minutes, and am done with that page. — Newslinger talk 19:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Yup they certainly are though mass edits can be disruptive and it's bad practice to edit archives. I don't have a horse in the race though. PackMecEng (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The bad practice is creating dozens of sockpuppets over a span of 12 years. Nullifying these edits, which is supported by both the WP:BANREVERT and WP:BE policies, creates a disincentive against future sockpuppetry. Finally, I disagree that you "don't have a horse in the race", as I've noticed that JungerMan Chips Ahoy!'s opinions tend to coincide with yours in discussions that both of you have participated in. — Newslinger talk 19:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Ha, I gotta ask now. You think striking though all their comments is going to disincentivize them or anyone else from socking? Also yes, socking is worse than editing archives that does not mean you should be editing archives. I think it was JzG that recently got whacked for that at ANI. I'll try and find it soonish. PackMecEng (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC) I cannot find the discussion I was thinking and do not want to imply JzG did something wrong without it. PackMecEng (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, when a user creates sockpuppets to push a point of view, as NoCal100 did, nullifying their edits reduces the payoff of their efforts. WP:BANREVERT states, "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban", and WP:BE states, "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block". — Newslinger talk 20:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

As a checkuser I use WP:BANREVERT frequently and liberally, but I don't think I've ever gone into archives to modify them post block, at least not purposefully. I think you're taking this a step too far.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I am personally most concerned about the archives of the reliable sources noticeboard, as archived discussions still get indexed in the perennial sources list and this sockpuppet has been active since 2011. Do you have an opinion on these archives?​ — Newslinger talk 20:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

When you note that "archived discussions still get indexed" at WP:RSP, it looks like you're mainly the one doing the indexing? I don't see the concern being as pressing as you do. As you noted above, you can spend your time as you wish, but the editing of archives has generally been disapproved of by the community, so I wouldn't be surprised if other editors raise concerns.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I mean that the archived discussions are still factored into the sources' classifications on the list. Determining a classification involves assessing the consensus of each indexed discussion, and striking a banned sockpuppet's comments – in my view – transparently indicates that the comments are not factored into the classification for the benefit of any editor who wants to verify the classification.

With three editors expressing concerns here, I've stopped the striking and I'm going to ask the administrators' noticeboard for feedback. The feedback I receive will determine whether I revert any of the strikes and whether I continue striking comments inside or outside archives. — Newslinger talk 20:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion with can do something and should do something that we are disagreeing on here. PackMecEng (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The administrators' noticeboard discussion is at WP:AN § Striking comments from banned sockpuppets and modifying archived comments. — Newslinger talk 21:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Consistent with the results of the discussion, I've reverted the striking of the comments in archived and closed discussions, but retained the striking of the comments in all other discussions. — Newslinger talk 05:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

IP block

Just curious, was there a reason why this IP range block includes registered users as well? I had a user contact me about IPBE but I figure it might be easier to just remove that particular restriction. Primefac (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Primefac, I've removed the restriction. I had originally applied this restriction because a large number of IPs in this range had been used exclusively for spam in a coordinated way (see WP:SBL § Google Play Store listings for Android apps by "pub" (com.sbdtube) and WP:SBL § mimzo.net), and I wanted logged-in users to be examined in case this was a paid operation. I now realize this was a mistake because the level of spam was not high enough to warrant a hard block, and I've converted the range block into a soft block. In the future, I'll monitor the normal channels (WP:AIV, WP:UAA, WP:RSPAM, and WP:SBL) for spam, and refrain from hard-blocking IPv4 ranges and IPv6 ranges larger than /64 unless they are open proxies or subject to a much higher level of abuse. — Newslinger talk 05:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Primefac (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Interesting

[5] Doug Weller talk 19:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

​Very interesting. There's enough coverage to include the incident in the OpIndia article, but I'm going to wait and see how the situation develops. — Newslinger talk 03:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Doug Weller talk 12:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Sock?

User:Bigsundar possibly a NoCal sock? NickCT (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi NickCT, thanks for bringing this up. With only three edits on the account, it's hard to tell, but it's certainly a possibility. I would tag the comment with {{subst:spa}}, and file a sockpuppet investigation only if the account's future edits fit NoCal100's behavioral patterns. — Newslinger talk 13:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Tagged. Thanks for reviewing. NickCT (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of H:SANDBOX

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on H:SANDBOX requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. scope_creep^Talk 10:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Ad Fontes Media

On 21 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ad Fontes Media, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the founder of the media watchdog organization Ad Fontes Media has compared low-quality news sources to junk food? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ad Fontes Media. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Ad Fontes Media), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Salt substitute, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bitter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice

Hi Newslinger, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

OpIndia, again…

Och, OpIndia seems to be hell bent on dominating even Wikipedia, as can be seen (Redacted). Do you or anyone at Wikipedia have any plans or should we just ignore them? (I’m using Scottish words like "och" just for the sake of doing it) RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 17:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi RedBulbBlueBlood9911, thanks for the heads up. I don't think any action is necessary. OpIndia is already on the spam blacklist after the doxing incident that was discussed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 288 § OpIndia and Swarajya. I've also already blocked Soumyadipta.banerjee, the individual who facilitated the doxing (harassment) by providing the targeted editor's personal information to OpIndia. He admitted to engaging in undisclosed paid editing after the block, and I revised the block rationale to include that as a second reason.

On Wikipedia, our goal is to write comprehensive articles that are in accordance with the policies and guidelines. With that in mind, it's important to keep the OpIndia article up-to-date. I did a search, and it looks like two reliable sources published stories on OpIndia being pulled from several ad networks after they published an article with the headline "Since Halal is legal, non-Muslims have the right to advertise that they don't hire Muslims: Here is why". I'm going to add that into the article now. — Newslinger talk 17:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

​One last note: in the future, it's best not to provide a link to articles that contain an editor's personal information when the editor is not openly disclosing that information on Wikipedia, even if the link is slightly modified. If the article is critical, it would be found with a simple web search anyway. — Newslinger talk 18:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Noted (both). RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 02:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

OpIndia socks?

Hi Newslinger, doesn’t it seem odd that ever since OpIndia started its barrage against Wikipedia, at least 5 people have complained on Talk:OpIndia about the alleged bias against OpIndia already? Or is this normal for any controversial topic?

I’m listing each user here:

• Shubam2019 (started before OpIndia was banned, but continued discussion even after OI was banned)
  • Note: Rahul4931 and Rahul.of.m3 are also some possible socks who took part in the same discussion
  • Possible red flags: There are two journos at OI named Shubam, and one named Rahul. Shubam2019 has only 90 edits (25 in mainspace), while both Rahuls have only one or two each
  • My opinion: May be journos of OI
• IP 58.182.176.169
  • Time: 5:45 PM IST to 7:07 PM IST on 22 April
  • Location as per an IP tracking website: Singapore (that puts the time at 8:15 PM to 9:37 PM SST)
  • Possible red flags: Knows more complex policies like due weight, using OpIndia’s rhetoric, had the time to write all that he/she wrote
  • My opinion: There are two possibilities on whom this could be: either an OI journalist who travelled to Singapore for some reason or an OpIndia supporter
• Electranumera
  • Time: 3:57 PM IST on 7 June
  • Possible red flags: Only one edit, using the term "self goal" (I distinctly remember reading someone replying to OpIndia‘s tweet against Wikipedia on Twitter with this term)
  • My opinion: Either a journalist or a blind reader
• Levixius
  • Time of each post: 8:04 PM IST, 9:22 PM IST and 9:21 AM IST on 7 June
  • Possible red flags: Less than 100 edits when he/she claimed to "see dozens of violations of WP:NPOV" and that he’d/she’d start an NPOV dispute
  • My opinion: Probably just an editor with a misunderstanding, considering his/her other edits

And I’m listing each edit request on the talk page that clearly would benefit the news site here:

• 175.45.149.63 (Sydney) - The issue here is that the local time would be 12:24 AM if the editor was really in Sydney. This may be a VPN with the editor in India, where the local time would be 7:54 PM, 10 June
• Xcel 109 - only one edit at 1:03 PM, 21 May

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi RedBulbBlueBlood9911, these kinds of talk page comments are fairly common for articles which describe any well-known topic in a negative manner. The closest examples are Talk:Breitbart News and Talk:InfoWars. The only thing that distinguishes OpIndia from other unreliable sources is OpIndia's doxing. Their allegations of bias, on the other hand, are not particularly remarkable.

However, off-wiki canvassing has indeed attracted editors to Hindutva-related topics on Wikipedia. In addition to an editor of OpIndia's own Twitter request (archive), non-neutral editing guides (archive) have been posted in pro-Hindutva subreddits. The best way to counter off-wiki canvassing is to familiarize yourself with discretionary sanctions and request arbitration enforcement against bad-faith editing patterns. If you have evidence that an editor has a conflict of interest, the conflict of interest noticeboard would be the best way to address the issue if the evidence is on-wiki, while serious off-wiki evidence can be emailed to the Arbitration Committee. Sockpuppetry can be reported in sockpuppet investigations, but only if there is clear evidence linking two or more accounts (or IPs) together. I hope this helps. — Newslinger talk 09:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh great, I suppose this means there'll be an influx of people editing to "ReVeRsE wIkIpEdIa’S bIaS". So I suppose the most appropriate way to handle this will be just sitting back and watching until someone adds unsourced lies, am I right? Or is there any plan like an automated notification for any editor who starts off by editing India-related articles? RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 09:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

​There is no such notification option beyond what is available through your watchlist. I would continue to assume good faith of new contributors, and only request arbitration enforcement for clear violations of the policies and guidelines after giving sufficient warning. If a new editor follows the policies and guidelines, then no action is needed. — Newslinger talk 10:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay - RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 10:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

A suggestion

Hi again, Newslinger. I forgot to ask this yesterday (typical me) but maybe you could use a Template:FAQ to explain why OpIndia is not an accepted source, why its article is very negative and how Wikipedia’s neutrality policy works (in simple layman terms if possible, and keep it uncollapsed by default)? Of course, some people will act as of they didn’t see that but surely it may stop anyone receptive enough and reduce traffic and baseless complaints on the page… RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 03:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

​That's a great idea, and I'll add one in the next few days. Talk page message boxes are not visible on Wikipedia's mobile website or apps, but a notice would be better than nothing. — Newslinger talk 03:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

CU

User:HamiltonProject and user:ElKevbo need to be reviewed they are going against official documents to edit as they wish... possible vandalism 2603:9000:6504:12BD:E0EE:9B74:DED8:35A6 (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi there. Wikipedia articles are not allowed to include material copied and pasted from other websites beyond what is allowed under fair use, unless the content on the website is released under a free license. However, it is acceptable to paraphrase non-free content as long as the resulting text is not too similar to the original text. There is a discussion at WP:ANI § Edit warring and sockpuppetry to add copyrighted text to Columbia University about your edits on the Columbia University article. — Newslinger talk 05:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nextdoor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wired (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

fyi

PLS SEE Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Introduction page.--Moxy 🍁 11:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanks for responding to my message asking for help with Traefik! Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar, Kcmastrpc! I've shared some resources on your talk page that may be helpful for understanding Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Editing gets a lot easier once you become familiar with them. Cheers. — Newslinger talk 22:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Ryan-Mark Parsons Page Protection

Hello! I just wanted to find out more about the protection you applied on the page Ryan-Mark Parsons. The semi-protection expires shortly and I'm worried that it will continue to be vandalised because the subject is controversial and most of his media coverage is contentious. I feel there is a large risk that once the protection is removed, IP addresses will target the page once again. Would indefinite protection be necessary to mitigate the risk of this happening again? Thank you. JPA24 (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi JPA24, page protection is generally applied only when necessary, since Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. When handling protection requests, I typically try to determine how long the page has been disrupted and then apply protection equal to the length of the disruption. For example, the Ryan-Mark Parsons article had been disrupted for about 3 days, so that's how long I semi-protected it for. If the article continues to experience disruption, please submit another protection request. Indefinite protection is usually only applied if the page has sustained ongoing disruption for a very long length of time. I hope this helps. — Newslinger talk 08:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Very helpful :) JPA24 (talk) 13:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Thondimuthalum Driksakshiyum

Can you merge this page with its parent article. I have already intimated the matter with the list's creator, with no response. I think this can be directly moved per WP:MERGEINIT, and it is unlikely to be contested. 157.46.171.221 (talk) 07:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, the list of accolades is long enough that I'm not sure whether it should be merged into the Thondimuthalum Driksakshiyum article. I recommend adding a merge proposal to WP:MERGEREQ, which will allow more editors to express opinions on the merger. If there is consensus to merge the articles, an editor maintaining the proposed mergers page would then perform the merge for you. — Newslinger talk 08:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Fusion (student movement)

Hi, I only just noticed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fusion (student movement) (2nd nomination), which you closed as delete, after one other participant expressed support for the nomination.

An article on this topic had previously been kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fusion (student movement). Between those discussions, a new WP:SPA editor MHuski (talk · contribs) had almost completely replaced the content,[6] deleting all the history and citations which had given grounds for notability before.

As the closer of the second AfD, would you be willing to undelete the article and move it to draft space, where I might reinstate whatever old content remains of encyclopedic value? (As an admin I could do it myself, but am asking you as a courtesy and to avoid WP:OWN.) – Fayenatic London 20:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Hi Fayenatic london, thanks for volunteering to improve the content in the article. I've restored all of the article revisions to Draft:Fusion (student movement). Although the draft currently contains the most recent revision, the old revisions are still accessible from the page history. I hope this helps. — Newslinger talk 08:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The No Spam Barnstar
	For your block of User:Stefano Penna for UPE - I never would have thought that a botched image link could come back to bite someone so hard. Passengerpigeon (talk) 11:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar, Passengerpigeon! We actually had a similar problem last month in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 157 § Potentially an undisclosed paid editor account, but with botched Dropbox links. These red flags don't show up too often, but if you ever notice one in the future, please don't hesitate to file a report on the conflict of interest noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 11:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020

Hello Newslinger,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources

• A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
• Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
• A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
• Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

PySimpleGUI - Page

Hi there, I was wondering why you decline certain submissions? I'm working with the creator of the "PysimpleGUI" page that was created in 2018 and I found this note regarding its rejection.https://en.everybodywiki.com/PySimpleGUI<ref> <ref> 2018-12-25 T12:00:28Z "Declining submission: nn - Submission is about a topic not yet shown to meet general notability guidelines (be more specific if possible) (AFCH 0.9.1)" Can you explain what needs to be done to meet the general notability guidelines? I am not knowledgeable on wiki guidelines so your help would be much appreciated.Thanks so much. 18:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.175.99.82 (talk)

Hi there, I declined Draft:PySimpleGUI because it did not meet the general notability guideline, which is required to establish that a topic is notable enough to be covered on Wikipedia. To show notability, the draft needs to cite multiple independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the topic. The only source cited in the draft that would potentially count toward notability is the Opensource.com article, and the source is of borderline independence because the publication is owned by Red Hat. The other cited sources, which include directory listings, a forum post, and a blog post, are either primary sources or self-published sources, none of which count toward notability.

Draft:PySimpleGUI was deleted on 25 June 2019 because it had not been edited in six months. If you would like to continue working on the draft, please let me know and I will restore it for you. — Newslinger talk 23:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Stop gaslighting me

You're entitled to disagree, you're not entitled to your own facts, especially when what you are saying is contradicted in black and white right above where you are saying it. Just because nobody else here really cares, presumably because arguing that the Mail has been treatted unfairly is an unpopular opinion, doesn't make your behaviour any less right. Brian K Horton (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)