Jump to content

User talk:Jenks24/Archive 25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27→Archive 29

Indefinite full protection

Hi Jenks24! It's good to talk to you again. I hope things have been well for you :-). I'm messaging you here because I noticed that you set indefinite full protection on Feyli Lurs and Feyli Kurds back in November 2017 with "content dispute / edit warring" set as the reason. Did you mean to fully protect these pages indefinitely? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Oshwah. Thanks for your message about this. The indefinite protection was deliberate, but I was using it in the sense of 'no set time limit' rather than 'infinite'. Because it was a slow-moving edit war that seems to have lasted years I was hoping to achieve some sort of a result before unprotecting. Unfortunately the editors that seemed so keen to edit war have now largely disappeared and there has been only one comment on either talk page since I full protected. I've been thinking over what to do over the last couple of days but haven't come to any decision... I really thought there would be more input on the talk pages so I could hopefully evaluate some sort of consensus, but I have to admit that doesn't look likely now. If you have any opinion on the topic, either from an administrative or editorial standpoint, please do let me know. Jenks24 (talk) 09:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jenks24. I absolutely see what you mean here; the history of both articles show a clear edit war between two users and over a period of time. I typically use extended or full protection (whichever is lower and will do the job) to of course be fair to everyone involved and to put the breaks on everyone to stop the edit warring / content disputes... but I'll typically only do it if it involves many people and the dispute or edit warring is occurring at a high rate of speed. This way, I won't be potentially locking out innocent users from being able to edit the article if needed. What you did wasn't wrong at all; it's one of the different methods we have at our disposal to try and stop the disruption, and different situations call for different actions. It can be hard at times being in our position; if you're like me, I try to put the lock on the font gate to an article (if possible) rather than hit the block button on the editors involved and given the right situations. But there are other situations (like this one, in my opinion) that may call for the other. It's the curse that comes with the responsibility we have... spoiler alert: we'll always do the WRONG thing! :-P
In this exact situation, I would have held off from protection, left edit warring notices on each user's talk page, and proceeded with blocking if it continued despite the warnings being left (and after it's fair to assume that they're read them). This is a perfect example of users violating the spirit of the edit warring policy; remember that 3RR is simply a blight-line guideline to draw a clear line in the stand and help users see that crossing it will constitute edit warring and usually without question. I think it's safe to unprotect both articles and make sure that both users involved have been warned. If it continues, whelp... you'll know that the protection you applied clearly wasn't going to resolve the disruption but simply delay it. Otherwise, keeping these articles fully protected and because of only two editors edit warring over a lesser rate of speed... it's much harder to gauge when they should be unprotected (especially if they're not collaborating like they should). Hence, this is why I absolutely understand why you didn't set an expiration on the protection... but also feel that it's not the best method in this situation (in my opinion, of course).
Sorry if my response here was a complete novel here... haha. I just wanted to give you an in-depth response with my full level of thinking and reasoning here so that it'll (hopefully) give you a good amount of help -- I hope that it did. Cheers :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and for the record (randomly, lol): when it comes to articles that are under discretionary sanctions and under an edit war / content dispute, I'm much much less afraid to throw a gold lock on the front gate, and I'll hit that button no problem if things are getting out of control... even if it's maybe a little early. That's what discretionary sanctions allow us to do... make sure that the editing environment is collaborative. It's a good way (IMO) to be a hard reminder to everyone about discretionary sanctions and that disruption isn't gonna fly. It's either that, or we start whipping out sanctions... and that's... a lot of "paperwork" to fill out... ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS & Sibongile Ndashe

Not sure if you're still around, but can you take a look at the conversation on WP:ERRORS ? I think your edit to the DYK leaves the hook much more incoherent (why on earth would anyone be arrested for that?). "anti-gay" is backed up in... basically all of the sources, including people in favor of the law. It's not controversial to include, and I think the old wording is preferable. SnowFire (talk) 05:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted my edit, but to call it incoherent is bizarre. There are dozens of governments that imprison people for protesting against their laws and this seems to be what has happened in this case, regardless of whether the specific law was "anti-gay". Jenks24 (talk) 06:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I meant that almost no government harasses and arrests people who are strictly advocating for better medical treatment for disease XYZ. Maybe if the Christian Scientists ran a government? To me at least, "anti-gay" explains that the issue is not really medicine, and makes the hook make a lot more sense. That's my take at least. SnowFire (talk) 06:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Somehow missed responding to this... Fair enough opinion, looking back at it now I think you were correct. Jenks24 (talk) 08:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move

Hi. Can you close this discussion you relisted and carry out the move please? It isn't controversial to begin with. Szqecs (talk) 13:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit: This too please. Szqecs (talk) 13:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I relisted them because for the first several days these RMs were not listed correctly, they were stuck down in Wikipedia:Requested moves#Malformed requests. I should probably have explained this when relisting. In addition to that, because there are so many articles involved it is better in my opinion to have a longer discussion period than usual. It's a nightmare when you close an unattended discussion like that and carry out several dozen moves only for someone to object and you have to spend an hour of your life reverting everything. So to answer your question: sorry but no, I'll wait until they go through the listing again. I won't object if another admin chooses to close it 'early' though. Jenks24 (talk) 07:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
One question: I thought admins have tools to make a large number of moves easily? Szqecs (talk) 11:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Not really. Admins can move a lot of pages at once (up to 100) but only if they are all subpages of a single page. See Wikipedia:Moving a page#Automating multiple subpage moves. Usually this is used for talk page archives or in Wikipedia and Template space. But for the two RMs you've mentioned (and practically nearly every RM) the moves need to be done individually. Not to mention that there is also general post-move clean up that should be done, e.g. updating the lead sentence and any hatnotes, fixing double redirects, updating links in navboxes, etc. Jenks24 (talk) 11:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Is there anything that can be done.

This IP editor has been all over the Moscow Metro and has been disruptive at all levels. Warnings are pointless since the users IP changes constantly. The incivility has been across the board silly accusations [1] insults [2], attempts to disrupt legitimate content discussions [3] and then one of the more recent masterpieces [4]. There is a proper discussion taking place at Talk:Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya Line about renaming these lines. Yet, the IP has taken it upon himself to change the articles [5] himself without participating in the discussion. Could I revert the stuff, sure but we’ll just get into a revert war and I won’t play that because I’m the guy that will get blocked. If you tell me there is nothing you can do that’s fine. But I just want someone to say that there is nothing that can be done. TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) 23:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your summation – this person seems a lot more interested in being disruptive than actually contributing to the encyclopedia – but unfortunately I'm not sure I can be of much assistance because they change IPs so much. A rangeblock might be the way to go but that is outside my technical expertise. I see SMcCandlish has filed a SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/77.179.37.199 with the hope of having a rangeblock implemented. If that is technically possible I would definitely support that being done. BU Rob13, the IP is WP:NOTHERE and the disruption they are causing far outweighs any minor improvement they may have made. Jenks24 (talk) 09:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
@Jenks24: A range block is not possible given the wide nature of the ranges being used. The MediaWiki software only allows us to block up to /16 ranges (representing 65,025 IP addresses), but in order to fully get rid of this guy, we would need to block much more (at least a /13, which is 520,200 IP addresses). I declined to act at SPI because WP:SOCK is not (yet) being violated, but I offer no comment on whether the editor should be blocked. WP:ANI would be the venue. ~ Rob13Talk 12:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks anyway Rob. I really should figure out how rangeblocks work one of these days. Jenks24 (talk) 08:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Also, WP:NLT. Jenks24 (talk) 09:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Nothing whatsoever has been or is being done. It's been to ANI [6], ANEW [7], and SPI [8]. The ANI was closed by an involved non-admin (in good faith – Dicklyon thought the problem was resolved or would go away). The ANEW was closed basically because the ANI was closed (maybe my fault for referring ANEW to the ongoing ANI instead of doing a separate "full ANEW", but I'm mindful about forking rather than centralizing ongoing discussion), and the later SPI wasn't acted on because the responding admin there wasn't sure enough, despite the anon blatantly masquerading as different anons, referring to his/her previous IPs in the third person, and !voting twice in the same RfC. I'm at a loss for what to do other than open a WP:RFARB, yet the behavior is so obvious and so obviously blockworthy that the Arbs would wonder why an RfARB was being opened. The stuff I've diffed at these venues so far:

  • Move-warring, editwarring at WP:RM/TR, and abuse of RM/RM to request controversial moves as non-controversial, including after RfC was open about the matter.
  • RfC disruption by massive WP:BLUDGEON text-walling and effectively !voting 4 times (twice in Comments section, again by changing the RfC wording to reflect the anon's argument as fact, and again by dumping four sections of commentary into Comments section instead of the Extended_comments section, to just bury the RfC in one-person rehash – "proof by verbosity"; another editor tried to just remove it all, while I was trying to refactor it to the Extended_comments section and let other people have their say in peace).
  • Sockpuppetry by claiming to be multiple different anons. Can also diff some further instances of this since then – referring to previous posts by same anon as if they're other anons.
  • 3RR violation (at least 5 reverts, 4 to the exact same material against two other editors, and all in the same thread), including two after warning.
  • At least 68 WP:ASPERSIONS posts (false and actually disproved accusations that anon's opponents are lying about the anon or about what anon has said); that's in addition the accusations now being reported above by TastyPoutine.
  • Wikilaywerly WP:SANCTIONGAMING in regard to the above, in claiming that accusing others of lying without quite using the word lying doesn't constitute such an accusation.
  • Two effective legal threats (making claims to have been libeled, though it isn't actually possible to defame the anonymous, technically speaking – that arguably immaterial, since the anon things he/she has a legitimate legal argument)
  • Constant WP:ICANTHEARYOU behavior, recycling the same claims after they're already refuted by multiple parties – it's a behavior pattern of starting shit for the joy of fighting, i.e. WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:FORUM behavior, without any constructive purpose.
  • Has received at least 5 WP:DE warnings of various sorts, including two from admins (though it's hard to be certainty that any in user talk have been read, due to IP hopping, we know the ones in edit summaries an in VPPOL, etc., have been read)
  • Also, TastyPoutine at the ANI pointed to a month+ history of incivility and disruption in regard to page names; I wasn't even aware of this until well into this mess. Makes me wonder if WP:AC/DS can be applied (under WP:ARBATC, in a case where someone who should be subject to DS is changing IPs so fast they can't be certain to have received a {{Ds/Alert}}; I did leave one [9] at the most-recently-IDed IP address.
  • I also just noticed that the same anon went back to RM/TR today to move a bunch more Moscow metro station articles (already done, might be worth reversing might not) while a mass-move RM is ongoing about the rest of them – further move-warring and trying to WP:WIN by WP:FAITACCOMPLI, similar to what's being reported above by TastyPoutine.

Pinging previous admin respondents in the hope that one or another of youse takes this all seriously: BU Rob13. If necessary, I can copy this to a new ANI thread and re-diff it all with the details from the previous three noticeboard reports, though that may burn another hour or two, and I'd rather not. My general sense is that this isn't being acted on because the complaints haven't been centralized enough, not enough people have complained in the same space, and dealing with IP-hopping anons is a pain in the ass, plus a titles-disputes-are-boring feeling, which combines to an "I think I'll pass" result. Someone needs to not pass on this, please.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  10:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Back in 2014 there was a similar problem with NFTA articles. The ultimate solution was a 6-month "Allow only autoconfirmed users" protection for the entire Category:Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority and related areas. (By the time the block expired the vandal had presumable gone on the other things.) Useddenim (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Not sure that would do much here, since this is mostly move-warring via WP:RM/TR, followed by uncivil accusations and veiled legal threats on user and project-space talk pages. I'm not personally aware of any disruption by the anon in articles themselves, though I haven't gone looking, either.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  15:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

About a page you protected

I saw that you fully protected the page Feyli Kurds with no expiry time for edit warring, I find that a little extreme. So would 30/500 protect it, because I don't think that the Extended Confirmed group have been active in the edit war. Thanks! Felicia (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who like NationStates

Hey! Based on your edits to NationStates, I thought maybe you would be interested that I started a series of userboxes for the game. Feel free to add any or add your own!-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 06:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017).

Administrator changes

added Muboshgu
readded Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned
removed None

Bureaucrat changes

readded Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Move review for Substitution splice

An editor has asked for a Move review of Substitution splice. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Joortje1 (talk) 11:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)Joortje1

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
  • Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

  • A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).

Administrator changes

added Lourdes†
removed AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V
† Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

  • The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
  • Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
  • A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
  • A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news

  • CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
  • The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous

Obituaries

  • Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

request for reduction in protection

Hi, I don't know if you're still active or not, but I've requested that the full protection you applied to Feyli Kurds and Feyli Lurs be reduced at WP:RFPP. I'll also leave a post at WP:AN, as recommended by one of the admins who replied to my request there. Iffy★Chat -- 08:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Neutral notice

A move request regarding Deadline.com / Deadline Hollywood, an article whose talk page you have edited, is taking place at Talk:Deadline Hollywood#Requested move 11 March 2018. It is scheduled to end in seven days.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018).

Administrator changes

added 331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG
removed Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando

Guideline and policy news

  • Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
  • Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
  • The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
  • The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

Miscellaneous

  • A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
  • The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Chochopk • Coffee • Gryffindor • Jimp • Knowledge Seeker • Lankiveil • Peridon • Rjd0060

Guideline and policy news

  • The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
  • A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

Technical news

  • AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
  • When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
  • The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
  • There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
  • There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
  • It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration

  • A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Category:Governors of Nanyo listed at Categories for discussion

I have asked for a discussion to look at the possibility of moving the category Category:Governors of Nanyo to Category:Governors of the South Pacific Mandate. As you were involved in a similar discussion a few years ago at Talk:South Pacific Mandate#Requested move 19 October 2015, you may be interested in contributing to the category move discussion. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jenks24/Archive_25&oldid=853489465"