User talk:Johnuniq/Archive 27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 ← Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30

Pauley Perrette on ANI

I asked this question on the ANI thread, but didn't get a response (I believe you had signed off for the night). Could you take a moment and give it a look-see, please? Thanks! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:09 on January 23, 2020 (UTC)

I looked at that and did not see what I could add, but I'll look again. Johnuniq (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
That's all I ask. Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:24 on January 24, 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
I'd like to thank you for responding to 13 requests and dealing with the backlog at WP:RFPP yesterday. Clovermoss (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
@Clovermoss: Thanks! Johnuniq (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Message for Manchesterunited1234

I'm sorry, i forgot to sign messages, :(, thank you, Manchesterunited1234, January 29, 2020. 21:28 (CEST)

I replied at your talk. Johnuniq (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

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

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
  • The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

  • Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
  • When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [1]

Arbitration

  • Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Kobe Perez protection

Thanks for protecting this article. But I'm not sure what you mean "try to engage the IP" on the talk page. I believe there were three different IPs (maybe more) changing "soccer" to "football" in January. I have no idea if this was the same individual, and have doubts that an IP would go reading the talk page without some specific prompting. I have always supported mandatory registration when the proposal comes up, due to issues like this. Maybe an edit filter would help? It already displays the BLP notice when editing; perhaps {{American English}} would help or another more specific soccer/football one? MB 04:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@MB: This relates to my WP:RFPP comment at permalink re an IP changing "soccer" to "football" at Kobe Perez.
FYI the same issue in a different country became very heated—see result. I forget how I came to observe that old battle (sport is outside my area) but the combatants had to be peeled off one-by-one because some soccer fans believe that term is belittling, and they fought to change it to "football" because FIFA.
By engage, I meant that we are supposed to follow the WP:AGF playbook. Since an IP is assumed to be a newbie, and given that there may not be a consensus discussion that can be linked to, a new section at the article talk should be created. That would politely outline the issue and would point out that the article, like many others, has used "soccer" for a long time, and that the style of an existing article should not be changed without good reason and clear consensus on the talk page. When the IP is reverted in the future, you would use an edit summary like "revert to consensus version, please see [[Talk:Kobe Perez#Soccer]]" (replacing "Soccer" with the appropriate title). If the IP starts discussing, the normal dispute resolution procedures would apply. If not, requesting page protection would be easier because there would be a clear case of disruption without engagement on talk. Johnuniq (talk) 05:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm a bit skeptical that these IP editors would look at the history/edit summaries, but I agree this would be best AGF practice. Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. MB 17:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Cluj-Napoca unprotection

Thus far, the results have been lackluster. - Biruitorul Talk 06:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Biruitorul: OK, I semi-protected it (edit + move) for a year. See you in 2021! Johnuniq (talk) 06:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Wtij100.7

Would you mind having a word with this editor if they edit again? They are making edits such as these to the WTIJ-LP page, with a clear COI. I have warned regarding the COI, but they made another edit removing "negative" information from the page. I posted a message to their talk page. Since I am at 2RR myself, I am handing this off to an admin, hoping you can help. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:54 on February 5, 2020 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: Groan, I added it to my watchlist but I might not notice future edits. The user might have a sort-of point in that the waffle about "Silence and return" might be reduced to a sentence in History because there's not much point in a mini-article having a significant portion devoted to a bad time. Johnuniq (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: That part I honestly can't help, no matter how much they'd like me to. :) When four seperate sources (actually there were more, but I limited it to the four to not over do it) all covered the same thing (including the FCC), it was worthy of inclusion here. I understand how the section could be reduced to a sentence, but the chain of events is shown as it happened. With that and with the sources, it becomes the few sentences that it is, detailing the chain of events. I do notice that one of the sources (the Facebook page) is no longer active. I will look and see if something else is available to take it's place. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:51 on February 6, 2020 (UTC)

Conv

Sorry about that, I didn't know it should be cvt. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Keith-264: No problem, I'm just doing trivial cleaning. I noticed your name in the history of several of the articles. Thanks for all your great content building! Johnuniq (talk) 09:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

FYI (please a−splain)

preachy ate chew 8r'

This is related to my fix of an edit at Jim Jones. If you search the resulting page for "Lua error" (or easier, search this permalink), you will see three errors due to the edit changing numbers inside a template. If you want to know why I made a certain edit, it might be simpler to ask rather than post the above. Johnuniq (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Traci Lords

Traci Lords was born in the year 1970 Christy Canyon was born in the year 1968 Traci Lords first legal adult movie was done in the year 1988 it was titled Traci I Love you that is why I changed the date of her birth and you should know she was very good at removing he actual likeness from the internet just like Tori Welles was. I am sorry if I put this in the wrong area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunderstrike70 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@Thunderstrike70: Is this about Traci Lords? An IP made a few edits there (diff) on 5 June 2019 and I reverted the edits soon after. The edits changed the birth date from 1968|5|7 to 1970,5,7 which broke the template. They also changed the place of birth from Steubenville, Ohio to Steupidville, Ohio which is why I did not spend much time wondering whether anything in the edits should be retained. If there is a reliable source specifying the birth date for Traci Lords you could add it to the article with the correct date. Questions can be asked at WP:Teahouse or reply here. Johnuniq (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Sanction overturn

Hello Johnuniq, I overturned your sanction placed on Rusf10 per consensus at AN. I've logged it at WP:AELOG, is there anything else I'm supposed to do? --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@qedk: Thanks, I was thinking of doing that myself. I believe you have done all that is needed. I believe we don't update the WP:AE archive. Johnuniq (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Kobe Perez

Do you remember this article, disruptive changing of soccer to football? You protected it for about two weeks. Same change made again today immediately after protection expired. MB 05:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@MB: Yes, I remember. Actually, I have protected it twice. This round involves 71.9.198.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) in a soccer/football battle. Protection should not be used to favor one side in a dispute so, sorry, but I'm not going to do more until my suggestions at #Kobe Perez protection above are followed. We are obliged to assume the IP believes they are saving the world with their great edits and experienced editors need to do a little more. So, please post a polite message inviting discussion and put some reason for why the article should not be changed as the IP is doing. Link to that in the next revert, then ping me if the IP resumes without discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 05:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Left another message on the IP talk page and explained in edit summary that they must discuss, but both were ignored again. "footballer" was put back several hours after my revert. MB 16:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@MB: Please humor me. Put a new section at Talk:Kobe Perez with heading "Soccer" and wikitext: 

The first sentence of the article states that Kobe Perez plays for [[Union Omaha]] ("Soccer Club") in [[USL League One]] ("a professional men's soccer league"). Because the player and the organizations are American, [[MOS:TIES]] means that the game is called soccer and this article should describe Perez as a soccer player. That should not be changed without discussion. ~~~~

Revert the IP with edit summary "please see [[Talk:Kobe Perez#Soccer]]". If the IP reverts you I will take action. Your message at User talk:71.9.198.21#February 2020 hid the message after a templated warning which is not what I meant. Johnuniq (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, I did it this way also, which gave the same result, again after just three hours. By the way, I have no real interest in this article or most sports coverage - I just noticed edit-warring by others and tried to stop it. It seems strange that this IP has only edited this article, about an American soccer player, and is adamant about calling him a footballer! MB 03:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
@MB: Yes, I know it's frustrating and thank you for looking after the article. I protected it for a week and put a warning at the IP's talk that I will issue blocks if the edit is repeated without consensus. Please let me know of any further problems. Johnuniq (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
FYI, the same IP did it again (how is that possible after your applied protection)? A different IP reverted and Materialscientist blocked for three months. MB 06:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
@MB: Brain failure I'm afraid. I move protected it instead of edit protected. I fixed the protection now although it is probably redundant given the block. Johnuniq (talk) 07:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
It's back to "footballer" again. The protection just expired and the article was changed back (the protection was not redundant as this time it was done by a different IP). MB 14:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
@MB: We get a life sentence at Wikipedia I'm afraid. I protected for three months. Johnuniq (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

McCann

Sorry to revert you on the Maddy McCann article, but I looked at the links and knowing some of the context from coverage in Private Eye I was worried about some of the conspiracy theories, often targeting living people (e.g. the person dusting the windowsill for prints). This entire article is about four times the size it should be, the whole thing has a massive case of Missing White Woman syndrome. Tragic but in the end really rather mundane. Guy (help!) 23:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Guy: No problem, I'll inspect Disappearance of Madeleine McCann at some later time and think about it more. It's true that in the scheme of things, who cares about one child more or less ("Missing White Woman syndrome") but OTOH there is a lot of concern about policing methods and problems that can arise when people are trying to have a holiday. I think a topic like this is where Wikipedia can provide a good service with key information and if certain photos are not available for upload, linking to them is reasonable. The article provides key info about some of the theories swirling around, and that is good. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of K Money for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article K Money is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K Money until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Tsirelson's page

I have made edit to the page, based on Tsirelson's own talk page and private information. I am not sure how to handle this better - I am not an experienced wikipedian, and the whole topic is very sad. On the one hand there may never exist an actual public confirmation (except for memorial conferences in a year or two), on the other hand it is silly to pretend that he is alive. Please advise. 132.76.61.51 (talk) 07:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

This refers to recent edits at Boris Tsirelson. I requested help at WT:WikiProject Mathematics#Boris Tsirelson. Citing a user's post on a talk page is not acceptable as a reference but this is a very sad situation where normality does not apply. I will wait. Johnuniq (talk) 08:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

In the mean time, another person reverted my edit back. I wrote that person too, and am not sure how to proceed. I certainly am not interested in starting a cycle of going back and forth between two versions. 132.76.61.51 (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The potential harm of waiting to add this material to Wikipedia until proper sources exist is 0. --JBL (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
@132.76.61.51: You should leave the article alone now. Trying to change it again will just result in your IP being blocked or the article being protected so you cannot edit it. Wikipedia must rely on reliable sources even if it means the article is out-of-date. Johnuniq (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Will wait then. 132.76.61.51 (talk) 07:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

There is now this: https://en-exact-sciences.tau.ac.il/math/Tsirelsonborisen. I also notified Izno. If both of you are OK, I will edit the page accordingly. Please advise. 132.76.61.51 (talk) 06:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

That is a reliable source. Please add the information and someone will fix any format problems. The reference page should be archived. Again, someone will look after that. Johnuniq (talk) 07:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Apologies

Hi Johnuniq, sorry I reverted your edit here, I don't know how I did it, as I don't usually even visit that page - I must have fumbled the keyboard somehow - how embarrassing! Thankfully, David Eppstein reverted my unintended change, and I got a notification. Sorry again and all the best. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@DeFacto: No problem! Johnuniq (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Advice on RfC proposal

Hi there. Last November you gave me advice here. Today I had push-back to this edit from an experienced editor. Regarding an RfC, I feel the question asked here would be appropriate: "Are city rankings published by magazines, newspapers, etc. appropriate/encyclopedic?". Your input would be appreciated. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: Lol, I was going to give you a link to a search of ANI archives to demonstrate that the editor who reverted you won't be easy to budge, but I see your user name in several of the hits so you are very familiar with the situation. My honest advice would be to forget about it because any discussion on whether "Trussville has been recognized as one of the most livable cities in the state and country. It was named one of the ten best towns in Alabama for young families" should be removed from its article (diff) would be swamped with ILIKEIT commentary from people with no knowledge of whether the refs are anything more than routine puff pieces and with little interest in improving the article. The problem is that the text sounds exciting and informative (that's what puff pieces are designed to do) and removing it appears unkind. That is my cynical opinion, namely that a campaign to remove that stuff would be a waste of time. However I might be wrong, particularly given the support for removal shown in the March 2015 discussion you linked to. If I were participating in an RfC on the topic I would want more detail than the question posed above including links to at least two examples of the kind of rankings that might be removed. An RfC question has to be short but I imagine (see the March 2015 discussion) that some rankings might be worthwhile and your question suggests that everything looking like a ranking should be removed. A second sentence describing the particular kinds of sources that would be removed would be helpful, and a couple of diffs of such text being removed for examples. If there are known sources for rankings that should be retained, they should be named. Johnuniq (talk) 02:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. In the meantime a lively discussion about this has started at Talk:Edison, New Jersey after another editor reverted the pushback. I'm going to join the discussion and elicit input/support for an RfC (and maybe the wording too). What do you think? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 11:34, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm glad it's being handled but it's way outside my area of interest. My last word is that you should tread carefully given the wall of previous ANI reports about similar clashes. Forget about the past and try to see the situation from the other point of view: why should interesting and reliably sourced text be removed from articles? Focus any discussion or RfC on that. Johnuniq (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Please log ECP of Bangladesh Liberation War

Per the terms of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan#Enforcement_log, please log your ECP of Bangladesh Liberation War at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log#India-Pakistan. Thanks. Buffs (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Buffs: Done, thanks. I was aware ECP was automatically logged at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection which made me forget about the AE log. Johnuniq (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
No prob! Buffs (talk) 16:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Chris Langan Bio

Your help and understanding is appreciated. We have been dealing with this particular quite prolific individual for two years now on social media platforms across the Internet (including YouTube, Facebook and Patreon) and it is indeed frustrating. Will I be able to vote on the proposal on the Admins noticeboard or is that just for admins? Can the page be protected again? The option of holding edits from suspect accounts would seem to be reasonable for now.

I am hoping the page can be protected until the men with the butterfly nets catches this guy or he gets a job, whichever comes first. The user in question is indeed the SPA xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx. So please check and take appropriate action. We traced the IP to his address. I have read the policy on outing and I hope that this is sufficiently obscure.

I've seen you guys are on it so I'm laying back and moving on. Thanks again. DrL (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@DrL: Wikipedia is a strange place with strange procedures. Actually, people with plenty of experience here know that the procedures are very well thought-through and logical, but that is hard to grasp when not so experienced. You must stop hinting about other users. We call that outing and it is one of two or three things that will instantly lead to an indefinite block without warning. In your case, you have been warned (see your recent block) which means the standard for what is a hint about another user is even lower. I understand what you are saying but please never mention it again except in an email to the Arbitration Committee. I'm not linking to how to do that because you should not think about the pursuing any case at the moment. Bear in mind that even if another editor were banned, hinting about any personal information regarding them, or how to find such personal information, is still outing and will lead to an indefinite block.
If there is still a significant problem in six months, you could get advice about the next step. However, the current discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Christopher Langan shows that something will be done and there won't be any problems in the short term. If it makes you feel any better, incidents like this have been going on for hundreds of years and anyone from the newsgroup days knows to fast-forward when seeing rants from those who dedicate their lives to battle.
To answer your question about whether you can vote, in theory the answer is yes. However, I suggest you do not because frankly the opinions of the participants on what should happen will be ignored and showing restraint is a positive. Johnuniq (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
@DrL: I see you got the official advice on article talk that you were welcome to comment at WP:AN and have done so. That's fine. Leave it. Johnuniq (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Johnny - I do have a wicked sense of humor and it gets the best of me sometimes. Your advice is well heeded but if I make a mistake (I will try my best to stay within the letter of the rules - I don't want to risk a ban) pls just ban me (DrL) and not my IP. There is another person in my house who is not aware of the situation as of yet (he's focused very heavily on meeting a deadline for a physics paper). If he catches wind of what's going on, he may wish to weigh in on the talk page. I need to keep that option clear for him although my goal is to improve the situation by working with the admins so he won't even need to know about it.
PS I have not revealed my first name (although I declared my IRL relationship for clarity so the admins understand the situation) and would appreciate it if attempts at further outing me were redacted as well. I appreciate your advice and understanding and I realize you guys have tough jobs here. Thanks! ~ DrL (talk) 19:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
I fixed the indents if you would like to check how that is done. You will not be blocked or banned if you stick to discussing article content based on reliable sources, and provided such discussions are reasonable. That means do not mention other users (just mention content they may have recommended), and comment infrequently and calmly. At Wikipedia, and on the internet in general, it is probably best to not mention personal information such as who is doing what in your house. If you see someone unnecessarily mentioning personal information such as your first name, feel free to mention it here. Johnuniq (talk) 23:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, for your advice Johnuniq - it does pay off to show restraint and I'm doing my best. Please note that there is one particularly defamatory paragraph (Controversial views) and I made suggested ameliorations to three sentences because each went beyond the content of the cited article violating NPOV and OR, IMO. Pls review the three sections in the talk page concerning that para (Controversial Views)and let me know if my arguments are clear and justify the edits that I suggest. (Btw, I apologize for mixing you up with another editor (Johnnyiu) and calling you Johnny - I know how annoying that can be if you don't use that variant. PS if "that" user crops back up I will let you know - his IP is the 90.xxx one.) TIA ~ DrL (talk) 07:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
@DrL: You must stop giving hints about personal information concerning other editors, even if those editors are indefinitely blocked. An IP address is considered personal information and should not be discussed except by editors entrusted for that sort of thing at special noticeboards. Apart from the policy (to not mention such things), there is the pragmatic aspect—what good does it do to mention it? If the IP never edits, a mention is a waste of time. If the IP performs a good edit, no one is going to care. If the IP performs a bad edit, you might like to mention the bad edit but do not mention who you think the IP is.
I have no interest in the topic and am not going to get involved. My only concern is to keep off-wiki battles off wiki—people can fight each other on the internet if that gives them satisfaction, but they can't do it here. I will say that ameliorating Christopher Langan#Controversial views might be difficult but I'll leave that for the slow going of Talk:Christopher Langan and WP:BLPN. Johnuniq (talk) 08:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020

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

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
  • A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

  • Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Thankyou, your article of Female Genital Mutilation in India is very informative, i came to know about this for the first time. Thanks for creation of the Article 👍 Zoglophie (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Zoglophie: Thank you. The article (Female genital mutilation in India) probably needs updating as there are sure to have been developments in the last year. Johnuniq (talk) 01:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Ryan Newman move protection

I just saw your question about Ryan Newman (racing driver) on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection from two weeks ago. I did not mean to move-protect the article. I rarely do page-protections. If you have not already fixed my mistake, could you do so or teach me how? Thanks!  ★  Bigr Tex 04:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

This relates to WP:RFPP 19 February 2020. If you want to fix the issue, you would visit Ryan Newman (racing driver) and click "change protection" at the top (it would show "protect" if there were currently no protection). Then find the Move settings and click "Allow all users". At the bottom, put an edit summary such as "not needed" in "Other/additional reason". Or, if you want, I'm happy to do it. Johnuniq (talk) 05:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested Edits

I have added 16 requested edits to the young blood transfusion talk page. Would you please make these edits, or respond on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.6.209.89 (talk) 07:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

This is at Talk:Young blood transfusion. Please don't spam the same request to multiple places. Johnuniq (talk) 07:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Unintentional revert

Sorry about that; tried to click on “diff”, and got “rollback”. Oops. Will avoid looking at diffs from a tablet in the future. Tarl N. (discuss) 01:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

No problem, I've done that. Johnuniq (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Block evasion

Hello. After you blocked Brockhold, a new account Heinznutter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was created. It is a DUCK, e.g. [2], [3]. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Hrodvarsson: I agree that is a problem. However I'm inexperienced in DUCK blocks and despite the fact that I looked at several of their other edits I am not blocking at the moment. See my comments at User talk:Heinznutter#Collaboration. I will follow-up to see if a block is warranted. Please alert me if matters progress but I don't notice. Johnuniq (talk) 04:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Update: I have indefinitely blocked Heinznutter (talk · contribs). Johnuniq (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.

The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org

For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas3 (talk) 05:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

PainMan situation

Hi!

Several things here:

I am confused! You reference a PainMan section on this Arbitration page but I can't find myself anywhere on it.

Second, I've mostly been using the mobile app (Android). So I was expecting any notifications to show up there. This does not appear to functioning properly. So I didn't see any of these Arbitration thingies until I just opened wikipedia in my laptop browser.

So I'd very much appreciate what's going on! I was in a bit of tussle with some jackhole who thinks he can block me for "incivility." I have not been uncivil to this guy. He's clearly never been on actual social media if thinks that I am.

My position on the use of Irish words for common institutions - it's ridiculous. No one outside of Ireland, and maybe the BBC, uses them. It is confusing for the average reader and forces them to look something up that they would not have to do if the correct English term is used.

I don't see any reason to back down on this. 'After all the official title of Angela Merkel is Bundeskanzler and no one in English is going to refer to her as that. So there is no reason to use Taisioche" when Prime Minister is clearly the correct term.

But I am curious as to what the procedures are. Why there is no "PainMan Section", etc, etc.

Thanks!

PainMan (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@PainMan: This relates to User talk:PainMan#Arbitration enforcement notification where I wrote "Please comment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#PainMan and respond to the evidence that has been presented." I wrote that on 29 February 2020 and events have moved forward since then. Clicking that link now shows no PainMan section because it has been archived. Near the top of that page, entering "PainMan" in the Search archives box shows the closed discussion is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive262#PainMan. You were editing rather than responding and the result is the indefinite topic ban shown in the notification at the bottom of your talk. Many topics at Wikipedia have been significantly disrupted and have been placed under discretionary sanctions for fast administrative resolutions. According to the topic ban, you should not give your opinions on the topic at any page on Wikipedia. Bureaucracy is amusing and quaint, but sometimes necessary. The choice is not whether to back down or not, it is whether to be blocked or not. The appeals mechanism is shown on your talk but you should not think about trying that for several months. Johnuniq (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

So, let me understand this. Once the Great Johununiq makes a decision there is no appeal, no recourse at all.

When exactly did Jimbo Wales make you Shogun of Wikipedia? I'm genuinely curious.

So, the upshot is this - Wikipedia's administrative procedures do not apply to PainMan. And if he tried to appeal Johununiq's Imperial Ukase, he will be banned?

Wow, dude. Wow.

All this crap just because I annoyed a Page Commando!

I see where I rate in Wikipedia - nowhere.

PainMan (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@PainMan The archived WP:AE report (link above) shows that I was one of six administrators who offered the same view, and one of the others issued the topic ban. The discretionary sanctions regime may be puzzling if this is your first experience with it, however a moment's thought shows that something like it must exist at Wikipedia. There are dozens of highly contentious topics from evolution to Trump where disagreements cannot be resolved with pious debates over policy etc. In some areas, the activists on both sides would battle forever unless something like discretionary sanctions were applied. At any rate, whether that is a satisfying explanation or not, the fact is that WP:TROUBLES has been tightly controlled since 2007 and your approach was inappropriate.
There is a case below (search for "phab:T240889" and click that link) where a shifting IP has been disruptive over an extended period and where they have ignored talk page messages. Apparently they are unable to see a notification about the messages which is a horrifying situation but one that the WMF and developers seem happy to embrace (I have had to block the IP). Perhaps using the Android mobile app also does not display notifications—if true, another jaw-dropping example of WMF incompetence. Unfortunately there is nothing we at Wikipedia can do about that and I assure you that the standard Wikipedia's administrative procedures do apply to PainMan, and the same result would have occurred with anyone given the situation.
The topic-ban notice on your talk includes the method for an appeal but please do not start that until you can calmly see the situation from both sides—what would you advise admins to do when bickering and edit warring erupts in a topic under discretionary sanctions? You replied at User talk:PainMan#Discretionary sanctions and 1RR notification on 25 February 2020—the notification might look like stumbling bureaucracy but brushing off such things may have consequences. Johnuniq (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

David Blodwell

Would you please check the recent edit at the above article which you created. The problematic IP gave no reason for the change but it is more plausible than the original. Johnuniq (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Amended as asked
Ordained 1448, became dean 1455 Bashereyre (talk) 10:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I responded at your talk. Johnuniq (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Reminder re MOS:TOPRESENT

Reminder re a shifting IP who repeatedly changes text like "2007–present" to "2007–" (example).

Johnuniq (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Please unprotect Alison Singer

Your semi protection of Alison Singer has protected it's creator from scrutiny of his POV pushing. The woman is not notable as the sources are trivial mentions only, promotional or are of questionable reliability. The article's creator has a long history of creating articles to promote those who oppose the positive side of Autism. He should have been indefinitely blocked sometime ago for this. I have in the meantime placed edit requests on the talk page of the article - the blog on Word Press is absolutely not allowed as a source. It would be easier though if the article would be unprotected so I can do it myself. 2001:8003:5022:5E01:19B3:D90E:D4F4:B09C (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

As I just mentioned at Talk:Alison Singer, you must not make accusations concerning other editors anywhere other than at a suitable noticeboard such as WP:ANI. You might also consider how it looks when an IP opposing Alison Singer accuses its creator of POV pushing. I protected Alison Singer following a protection request at permalink. There is no deadline and it would be better to progress slowly by following the links I provided at article talk to have the issues properly assessed. Johnuniq (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Blocked a /64 regarding the autism dispute

Hello Johnuniq. Please see Special:Contributions/2001:8003:5022:5E01:0:0:0:0/64, where I issued a 48-hour block for IP-hopping disruption. The blocked range includes the IP who left the last post on your talk page. When I closed the AN3 case, I was still not sure what to do about the IP, since wide-scale IP hoppers are a challenge, but maybe it's not so difficult after all. This editor, if he is a committed activist, is going to keep showing up as a reverter on autism-related articles so they will keep making themselves known. This will keep revealing their new IP ranges. I'm glad that you may be taking an ongoing interest in this case since you asked Ylevental to notify you directly of further problems. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Thanks, I'll be happy to investigate and handle any problems that are mentioned to me, and I'm sure you're right that it won't be a big deal. Johnuniq (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Ylevental is the problem here. I have restored the 3RR report with the evidence that he is the one who should be restricted and not me. There is a lot more going here with Ylevental than you realise and I repeat what I said above in the previous section - he should have been indefinitely blocked a long time ago for his POV pushing and now his blatant COI is also an issue. The two go together and he is promoting people he knows - and has confessed to in some instances. This is a big deal as Ylevental has done considerable damage to Wikipedia, and not just in the autism area either as his behaviour towards Bernie Sanders is a testament to (see also what I said on the 3RR reversion). 2001:8003:5022:5E01:9979:3345:83BB:CBFD (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not available for battles and people who make attacks on other editors are blocked. Do not repeat these problems. See User talk:2001:8003:5022:5E01:9979:3345:83BB:CBFD. Johnuniq (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I've renewed the block of the same /64 range for two weeks. There is ongoing disruption on autism-related articles and a pursuit of User:Ylevental. EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll have to act more swiftly in the future. Johnuniq (talk) 02:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

RFPP thank you

Just wanted to say a quick thank you for helping reduce the backlog over at WP:RFPP. -- LuK3 (Talk) 02:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@LuK3: Thanks, I should get there more often. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

14 hrs ago

y did u change it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B118:7AEC:A5D8:7576:2324:1244 (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Change what? Johnuniq (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Ubinas

Hi, you recently protected the article Ubinas for a month, but it was yesterday's WP:TFA. As the page is no longer on the main page protection is unrequired for that long. If you could unprotect it, it would be better. Thanks. © Tbhotch™ (en-3). 03:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@Tbhotch: I forget how I came to that page, I think I was following a vandal. Then I saw the million dubious edits it was getting and looking at its protection showed it had been protected before. I failed to notice that it was TFA Protector Bot that did the earlier protection. Thanks for drawing this to my attention; I have unprotected. Johnuniq (talk) 04:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Ranjit Singh

Thank you for protecting page but can you also revert the changes back to it's original content. You can pick my, HaughtonBrit last version or Alivardi's. Also seems like Iseefire1001 is using multiple accounts for editing. If you look at page Battle of Saragarhi, it was same user and ip vandalizing page there as well. HaughtonBrit (talk) 02:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@HaughtonBrit: I made you autoconfirmed so you can edit the article yourself. I see you made quite a few edits in a short time—good. I did not notice any copyright violation problems but please be aware that any text (I'm particularly thinking of plot summaries) must be written by the editor and must not be a close paraphrase of any source. Copyright violations are taken very seriously here and I am just alerting you of that fact. Also, the plot summaries were possibly a little too long and detailed. On another issue, please use very bland edit summaries that focus on article content (why is your change an improvement?), not on whether another editor (that includes IPs) is edit warring or whatever. Excited edit summaries only encourage vandals. Johnuniq (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Got it. I will keep in mind. Appreciate it. HaughtonBrit (talk) 02:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Creating Lua module

Where should I create a Lua module? User pages? Ryan (talk) 12:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Ryan, the best place for "playing around" with modules is in a subpage of the Module:Sandbox; the Module space is the only one where coding in Lua works as expected. Primefac (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...
autonomy / mastery / purpose
... you were recipient
no. 2170 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Time flies, thanks Gerda! Johnuniq (talk) 08:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Apology

I whole heartedly request you to unblock "theabbie", It's causing lots of problems to me and other people using the IP address, I assure you any of the mistakes I committed earlier would not repeat, I am really really sorry to not abide to community ethics, the permanent block is not allowing me to even appeal for apology, Please please unblock me, I assure you if the mistakes repeat you can delete my account without warning but please unblock me Codrcrew (talk) 08:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

No. See the two messages dated 4 March 2020 at User talk:Theabbie. The first of those is an unbelievable claim in an unblock appeal, and the second is a decline with an offer of a method to have the block removed. I don't know what is meant by "not allowing me to even appeal" as User talk:Theabbie can be edited. If other editors are using the IP address they can appeal on their talk pages. Johnuniq (talk) 09:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Codcrew is an obvious, indeed self-admitted, block-evading sock. I have blocked it. Bishonen | tålk 09:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC).

Maximus Ongkili

Hello, actually there is disagreement about the period date from 30 March 2004 – 18 March 2008 of National Unity in the infobox. I hope you can help to put protection for 1 month. Best Wishes NikoUMS (talk) 07:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@NikoUMS: Please explain at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Maximus Ongkili (where I have added another comment), not here. Johnuniq (talk) 09:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020

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

Guideline and policy news

  • There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Closing a thread at ANI?

Please see WP:ANI#A876, where we both commented. There have not been any more comments in the thread since 1 April, but there is no sign that A876 intends to reflect on the advice given. (He has continued to make small stylistic changes all the while, though he hasn't changed the MOS any further). It seems to me that either you or I could write up a closing comment on the ANI thread with an appropriate note of concern. I suspect I might agree with whatever you write. Do you wish to attempt it? The person who opened the thread was User:Deacon Vorbis. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I closed it with a strong warning, perhaps stronger than would normally occur. If you think I misstated the case, please let me know or adjust as you think best. Johnuniq (talk) 05:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Looks good. Your message appears correct to me. EdJohnston (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

view names

i need help seeing my choices — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B10C:7CA7:EC13:8B53:51C5:7877 (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Please say what you are talking about, for example by copy/pasting the name of an article or a talk page. I assume this relates to the equally obscure #14 hrs ago above. Johnuniq (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Stanley Kubrick infobox

Just curious. Since there are 311,000 infoboxes on Wikipedia articles, what makes the Stanley Kubrick article an exception to having one? There is no consensus in the discussion, just an arbitrary decision. Truthanado (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Please ask at WP:Teahouse what page should be used to discuss an edit to an article. You might also ask them what an "edit notice" is and how you can see it. Johnuniq (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

IP making disruptive/unsourced edit very similar to older edits made by other IPs

Hello. Earlier (around April 6th) an IP (62.19.189.174) was making unsourced edits to several dna haplogroup pages (See here: [[4]]) which are/were not supported by the sources (changing divergence dates and proposed places of origin for no apparent reason against sources and ignoring my notes) without explanations, including at this page [[5]]. See page histories: here [[6]], here [[7]], here [[8]], and here [[9]]. Soon before, another IP (87.16.124.190 [[10]], their edit history here: [[11]]) had made a similar edit here [[12]] which closely resembled an edit of the more recent IP (here: [[13]]) which I had also reverted with notes explaining why it was incorrect. Both IPs also seemed to be located in the same country (according to the Geolocate feature) and seemed likely to be socks of each other (I posted at the ANI page on the 6th regarding that and your responded). Now, another IP (62.19.175.135), which I suspect could be yet another sock puppet of the first two, has begun made one of the same (or very similar) edits to the Haplogroup D-CTS3946 page. See here: [[14]], which I reverted (but which they might reinstate). (This new IP, like the other two, also appears, according to Geolocate, to be based in Italy.) I am messaging you here because you mentioned the last time that if similar edits occurred I should notify you. Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: That's a lot of links! I looked at a couple. Is the following correct:
I have left a comment at User talk:62.19.175.135. Please reply here to confirm my understanding. After that, post again next time you see activity and I will start blocking. However, a situation like this is difficult as they seem to have a wide range of IPs and are not active for long. Johnuniq (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
The ANI case you linked did concern the first two IPs. And yes the third IP is the one that is currently/recently active (about which I am now posting). The others do not seem to have edited recently, but the third/recently active one seems to be a likely sock of the other two. Skllagyook (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it's obviously the same person. However no blocks have occurred so the term "socking" is not really appropriate. Thanks for looking after these articles, and I will pursue the case but it has to be done slowly. Johnuniq (talk) 03:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I see you are right that "sock" would not be the appropriate term in this case (since, as I understand, IP sometimes change - though some seem to stay the same for a while) and since there have been no blocks (I will chance the title of this topic/section accordingly.). Thank you for your response and attention. Skllagyook (talk) 03:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: Would you be able to check some editing I just noticed? An ANI report concerns recent edits at Canaan and Canaan (son of Ham). One edit (diff) involves haplogroups and the editor who made that edit has also made changes at various haplogroup articles (contribs). The Canaan changes have been reverted but would you please check the others. Are they ok? Johnuniq (talk) 09:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The Canaan additions do/did indeed seem to be out of place, and I will watch those pages. I will also check out the others when I can. Skllagyook (talk) 09:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 10:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

For the record, these accounts have been indefinitely blocked as socks:

Johnuniq (talk) 01:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Another IP, 62.19.174.0, (presumably the same person as the others) is back yet again making disruptive edits to several haplogroup pages including this page[[15]]. (See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/62.19.174.0 for their contributions.) They will not listen to my edit notes and show no willingness to discuss. Can something be done? Thank you again. Skllagyook (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Also, I reviewed and reverted some of HansFuller's edits on one of the haplogroup pages ([[16]]) which I found to be badly (sometimes quite inaccurately) sourced. Skllagyook (talk) 23:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I added this IP to the list above and will block them after posting this. Johnuniq (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Johnuniq, I just wanted to let you and Skllagyook know about some related discussions and blocks. The vandalism from 62.19.* goes back at least a year.

I just reverted some of the same vandalism by 62.19.217.171 (talk). It's just outside the 62.19.128.0/18 range that's currently blocked, and it geolocates a fair distance from Florence - maybe they're traveling? Probably not worth doing anything more about it for now, but if it continues, maybe the blocked range could be adjusted. Btw., I'm not sure if you suspected that the named accounts above (Aterian, etc.) are the same person as this or not, but it doesn't look like it. This one never uses edit summaries, and it's just pure vandalism, not some kind of POV editing. --IamNotU (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@IamNotU: That's only two edits at the moment. There are a couple of other unrelated people using the next range Special:Contributions/62.19.128.0/17 so I'll wait for now. Please let me know if anything further happens and I will block. Johnuniq (talk) 01:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Sure, that's what I thought - I wasn't asking for a block, just wanted to coordinate with you both so we're not duplicating efforts in the future. I can also mention it to Berean Hunter if necessary, but at the moment it isn't... --IamNotU (talk) 08:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Shadow banning

Come on guy, it's obvious the article is biased. Others have also pointed that out and asked for the opposing view to be represented (section 14 on the talk page). "Political commentary?" You're insane. The article itself has political commentary. There's no counter-view represented, despite it being requested by multiple users. Rather than throwing away valid criticism, you could instead better waste your time by adding the appropriate counter-view to the article. To make it not biased. Since Wikipedia isn't supposed to be biased. You should know this.

The only reason I did not do so myself was because it would get called "vandalism" no matter what I wrote, how many sources I added, or what view it supported. So again, you're either supporting your own bias by censoring valid criticism, or you want to improve the article and remove the bias.

"Talk pages are places where actionable proposals to improve the article can be made. "

I did so. From the article (emphasis mine): "By partly concealing, or making a user's contributions invisible or less prominent to other members of the service, the hope may be that in the absence of reactions to their comments, the problematic or otherwise out-of-favour user will become bored or frustrated and leave the site, and that spammers and trolls will not create new accounts."

My critique: "This very statement alone automatic assumes the ones being banned are committing "negative" acts and deserve it. Clearly, in the writer's mind, those who have the power to ban never misuse it. Mistakes never happen. Give me a break."

There's nothing invalid here. It is implicit in the text that those who are shadowbanned deserve it, despite it being contested as with the "censorship of conservatives" topic that was going around months ago (and is even mentioned later on in the article). If it was always true that those who were banned deserved it, then no case could be made that specific individuals were wrongfully targeted. That's obvious. To deny it is lunacy. The wording should be changed to better reflect that 1. it is possible for people to be wrongly targeted (because it is, and has happened) and 2. that there is contention that it has happened.

Secondly, from the article: """Shadow banning" became popularized in 2018 as a conspiracy theory" This label is a loaded term and lacks impartiality. But you already know that. Yes, clearly it a "conspiracy theory" despite several social media heads being questioned about it before Congress. Since you seem to be unware of that, here's some videos, of the Congressmen and women, themselves, speaking on the matter, to social media executives, during multiple Senate Judiciary Committees

Here we have Senator Ted Cruz, on 3 occassions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzF7nBmwPso https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlfV6ldIbjI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9333qDPGCjA

Here we have Senator Hawley questioning multiple executives: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yzIYZbS8b8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny_X6nDDu0I

And here's a general montage from a news source you'll probably consider valid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOwKeNRWTWE

Please do not tell me that words spoken by elected U.S. Senators, during Senate hearings, posted to their own verified pages, do not count as "reliable sources."

All I am asking is that the article be improved to remove bias. If the bias is going to be there, then my criticism is valid, and my comments should be on the Talk page, a place for discussing such things and how to improve the article. Which I've done. If you feel that is ban worthy, then go right ahead. I don't care. But that does NOT prove me wrong, nor does it make the article unbiased. As an administrator level editior, you should want to improve the article, and you should want to remove the obvious bias. The fact that you're sitting here bickering with me over it instead of doing it is quite telling. Again, I would do so myself except it would never be accepted no matter what I wrote, how I stated it, or how many sources I cited. You know this. 2601:247:4203:CC0:0:0:0:733 (talk) 09:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Shadow banning is a new phenomenon and is a response to unhelpful advocacy and trolling since the internet arose. Naturally people have different views when those posting certain material are shadow banned, and naturally there are not decades of research on the topic. As mentioned on your talk, all you need is an actionable proposal that is short and digestible (if it's long and ranty, people will ignore it). The proposal should be to change certain specified text in the article because just saying it needs less bias might be a great idea, but that's meaningless until precise suggestions are made. Youtube is not a suitable source for article like this, although that's not certain until a concrete proposal with a specific source is made. Ask at WP:Teahouse for opinions on whether your post at Talk:Shadow banning was helpful, and ask at WP:RSN whether proposed text would be supported by a particular reference. Johnuniq (talk) 09:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Just how disingenuous can you be? It's not my concern that you personally find it too long to be worth reading. That doesn't invalidate it either. And that's twice now, once on the talk page, and here, where I have laid out what specific terms should be changed because they are loaded. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see those particular word choices have specific negative connotations and are not impartial (section 14 backs this). Ironically, "out-of-favour" was a really great word choice because it didn't imply any reason why the subject would be "out of favor."

You're not citing Youtube. You're citing a speech by a United States Senator as posted on his verified Youtube page, the content of which is an excerpt of a stream that was broadcast by several news agencies. Next you'll tell me we can't cite quotations from MLK's "I Have A Dream" speech, or information that was stated in a Behind the Scenes feature on a movie's blu-ray release. It's public record. It's by an official representative of the government. On their official page. Broadcast online by news agencies. The specific examples that they mention have also been reported on. You're basically pulling the "Wikipedia is not a source" crap that people do, despite Wikipedia usually having several sources at the bottom of the page. Furthermore, the final video in my list is from Washington Post, which you surely consider to be a valid news source. If you don't, then I have no idea why they would be cited anywhere on Wikipedia.

This is a really pathetic rebuttal. We've gone from "no reason given" for why my points don't matter, to "too many parenthesis", to not "quoting a short piece from the article and saying what reliable source indicates that text is a problem" (despite me doing so) to "it was too long, so people won't read it" and "oh btw these perfectly legitimate sources (i.e. valid) aren't valid." It's pretty laughable that an administrator level editor does nothing but move the goal posts. No wonder everyone considers you people a joke.2601:247:4203:CC0:0:0:0:733 (talk) 06:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but I stopped reading the above after the first paragraph. Volunteers are not required to examine tracts to determine what content lies therein. If you want to make a point, make it in the first paragraph. There is no need to set the scene with observations about other people or the logic of their unwillingness to read large posts. The central point concerns whether a particular article is biased. Your first paragraph of any post related to that should be to identify some text in the article that is biased, with a reason based on reliable sources. That should be done at the article talk page. If you do that, you might not get agreement, but you won't have your message removed. Stick to discussing article content. Words on other things are wasted. Johnuniq (talk) 06:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Thomas Dillon, 4th Viscount Dillon

Dear Johnuniq. Thank you very much for fixing my wrong use of the "age" template in the article Thomas Dillon, 4th Viscount Dillon. Among others I did not even know that the template accepts dates in non-numerical form. The non-numerical dates are probably more practical in the context of the Timeline tables that I use in biographies. These timeline tables have been criticised for not being encyclopedic, but I believe that Wikipedia is still too booklike and should take better advantage of the possibilities of the software it is. I suppose you agree. Johannes Schade (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Johannes Schade: {{age}} has only been able to do that since May 2018 when it was switched to use Module:Age. Thanks for maintaining articles like that one, and yes, the timeline is good. Some would argue about that but people will argue about anything... Johnuniq (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks!Johannes Schade (talk) 06:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

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

Administrator changes

removed Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

readded Callanecc

Oversight changes

readded HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Computer network

As an admin, do you deal with unstoppable warring editors in computer network? Kbrose (talk) 00:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kbrose and Zac67: OMG please slow down! I know the computer and network pages don't get much love and misguided edits cause a lot of frustration, but it's really unwise to edit war, especially with a newbie. I left them a message at their talk but I can't block one side in an edit war. I can offer sanctimonious thoughts on how to proceed, and have added that article to my watchlist. The situation will take some time to resolve and might even need an RfC given that I see a comment at Talk:Computer network#Telecommunications / edit warring dated 15 November 2019! If there are any further problems, point them out at article talk. I'll probably notice and do what I can, especially if any copyvio occurs. If I don't respond in a day or two, ping me. I will have to stay uninvolved regarding the content. Johnuniq (talk) 01:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
In contrast to the editor with which I am at war, I have listed many sources - both to this fragment in the article itself, and additional ones on the discussion page. However, despite the sources that completely develop doubts, the opponent still pushes his opinion with no source. The point is that he wants to include computer networks as part of telecommunications, while computer networks belong to computing and ICT. This is not a new problem, but fortunately all classification systems, authoritative controls and scientific journals confirm that computer networks are treated alongside telecommunications networks, not as a subset of them. Unfortunately, the person who forces their opinion is completely blind to this despite the fact that I cited these sources. Editing history shows that this user (and his colleague or probably multi-account) has repeatedly blocked edits that corrected his vision. Regards,Et4y (talk) 02:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, but there is no need to post the same message here and at your talk. Johnuniq (talk) 03:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Your welcome template

Regarding your comment at ANI here, you may want to check out {{Welcome-retro}} and {{Welcome-anon-retro}}. If you forget, they're listed at WP:WT. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 07:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Thanks, I'll look at the alternatives again. This relates to me mentioning that I switched to use User:Johnuniq/Welcome as a welcome after {{welcome}} was given the comic-book treatment. I looked at some possibilities (I forget if that included your links) but I decided that if I was going to make a change I may as well do something I liked. Many alternatives have too many links. They also include low-value links. Further, the people I'm inclined to welcome are unlikely to value links to Wikipedia:Adventure. Johnuniq (talk) 07:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I fully understand; I did the same thing. Mostly I copied previous text, not knowing anything about Adventure for example, and hey—it's a wiki, so go update them if you want. I'm also looking into some alternatives; I'm working on a translation/adaptation of fr:Modèle:Bienvenue IP which I really like (see also more like that), and if you find one in another WP in any of my languages, I'd be happy to translate it. Or actually, since all the links have to be adapted anyway, and culturally I wouldn't port one too literally, if you find one in a style you like, it's sufficient to look at it through machine translation to get the gist of it, and then just copy the structure and style, and add your own text. If you prefer, would be happy to collaborate, if you find one you like. Mathglot (talk) 08:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Never say never but I'm very happy with my version! I'm a simple person who thinks a welcome is good, but who favors simplicity and utility. The sort of person I want to attract doesn't need glitz, and in fact might find it off-putting. If you want my thoughts on the matter at a discussion somewhere, please ping me. However, I'm pretty confident that my requirements would not align with the group working on the welcome templates at the moment. Johnuniq (talk) 09:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates#RfC on welcome template standardisation

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates#RfC on welcome template standardisation. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw that page linked from somewhere earlier. I don't like the direction that {{welcome}} has taken (see the section just above this) and all I could do at the RfC would be to moan. Johnuniq (talk) 09:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia protection

Hi. Thanks for your work on an RfC. I recently put 3 months of EC protection on the article due to a concern about sockpuppets and meatpuppets. Feel free to adjust if you disagree. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Thanks, a very good idea. I got caught up working on a module in the last week and somehow missed what was going on but I'm trying to get it back on track. Johnuniq (talk) 00:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Concerning Romartus Imperator

User:Romartus Imperator, whom you have suggested to block, is still relentlessly attempting to chase after me and the Uncyclopedia article, reporting me for 3RR, and attempting to hide a comment I made on the fact that another IP with no edits does their first edit on the RfC in support of .ca with the same excuses as BFDIBebble. Do you mind expediting the process and blocking him? His violations are flagrant and he probably won't stop until he's formally banned from Wikipedia, as if he is a sockpuppet, he is evading the block placed on User:BFDIBebble. KevTYD (wake up) 22:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@KevTYD: I'll think about the issue later but at the moment you should take the advice given, namely do not comment about other users. At any rate, everyone can see what the IP is. The point at the moment, however, is to gather arguments in favor of each position, and that should be allowed to run its course without commentary about contributors. Johnuniq (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Alright. As you may have noticed, I was getting frustrated at all those sockpuppetry attempts. I'll cease commenting on others like that. KevTYD (wake up) 23:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I should have added WP:DFTT, and particularly when the topic is something like Uncyclopedia, trolls are skilful. Johnuniq (talk) 23:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
I support KevTYD's request to block this 'Romartus Imperator' user here. Romartus is my long active name on uncyclopedia (and now on both uncyclopedia.ca and uncyclopedia.co. I use Gepid here, though I initially registered as Romartus on wikipedia but lost the password. That Romartus account has been inactive for at least 13 years. --Gepid (talk) 08:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry it's frustrating but things progress slowly here, although that will change if disruption occurs. Trolling from outsiders is common at Wikipedia. I suggest focusing attention on preparing for the RfC at Talk:Uncyclopedia. Thanks for your useful comment there. People should also think about exactly what text should be used if "two URLs" is the outcome. Johnuniq (talk) 09:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Clarification

Hey Jognuniq,

I'm a bit confused by this: [17]

The discussion has no relation to article content but is an administrative issue regarding the behaviour of some users. In particular I am one of the accused. I am now banned from participating in discussions that regard me and not content in any way? Surely that's not what you meant?

Thanks for the clarification.

-- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 09:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: The discussion is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ufology sprawling edit war which should be focused on an edit war regarding ufology. Your topic ban is for "all pages and discussions related to UFOs and ufology, broadly construed" (appealable in three months). The appeal mechanism is explained in the notice. You are continuing to post in the ANI discussion, allbeit along the lines of "The fact [that] user counts are stagnating is an obvious sign of failure and decline." ANI is not the place for posting thoughts about that, and such posts are obviously a reaction to the prior discussion which concerns ufology. I know it's tough, but the topic ban is now in effect and you have to stop posting there. If anyone continues to discuss you, it might be ok to offer a brief comment but it would have to be a very clear response regarding you. I doubt that anyone will continue discussing you, and I would be happy to have that stopped so feel free to notify me if you notice it. By the way, user counts are stagnating because all the easy articles have been developed to a reasonable standard and the only way forward now is slow, hard grind on encyclopedic topics. The alternative of opening up the doors for fringe-pushing advocates really would be the end of Wikipedia because it is easier to be an anti-science activist pushing fruitcake ideas than it is to be a serious editor working from detailed study of reliable sources. The fringe-pushers would drive away good editors and Wikipedia would be overrun with original research advocating the ever-expanding universe of fringe ideas. Finally, I saw mention of User:Abd in that discussion. In case you are not aware, some editors have been so toxic that they are not only banned by the community, but they are also subject to a global ban placed by the Wikimedia Foundation. Abd is one of 56 notables listed here. Johnuniq (talk) 09:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
It seems extreme that I'm not allowed to participate in an administrative discussion regarding me. The ban is unrelated to that process (the discretionary sanctions have been applied by one admin) but others have discussed my general actions regarding that specific incident and I think I have a right to defend myself. Or not?
In any case, I think the discussion has moved on from me and to the other users (or at least it should since I have been "served"). So I don't think my participation will be needed anymore. I will do as you say and only reply to direct requests addressed to me or topics exclusively regarding me. There is no risk that I edit topics regarding Ufology or anything else. I am done editing Wikipedia (outside of my defence in this matter) for a while (see discussion below).
Final note: I have no idea of who User:Abd is. I guess he is the publisher of the external blog I linked? I'll admit I merely stumbled across it and just had a quick read as I was shocked to find content of the sort. I probably should have done more due diligence but I don't think it changes in any way my assessment of the user in question. Two wrongs don't make a right.


Changing topic, and since you are an admin, I will explain my views on the declining user counts as I think Wiki is whistling past the graveyard here unfortunately.
all the easy articles have been developed to a reasonable standard: this is absolutely not a justification. The amount of information produced by the human race is growing exponentially. An encyclopaedia's trajectory will inevitably follow this trend (despite WP:EVERYTHING). Think of the amount of research and books being published EVERYDAY. Wikipedia's number of articles also keeps increasing. So if the number of editors per article decreases there will be no more adequate verification and the dream of Wikipedia as an open encyclopaedia editable by all will be dead. (see: [18]) You (and other editors/admins that have repeated the same thoughts) are unconsciously going against the funding principles of Wikipedia and advocating for something like Encyclopedia Britannica but with more editors and mostly unpaid amateurs. That doesn't sound like a very good idea to me. It is not (or should not be) what Wikipedia is. Are we just trying to get an Encyclopedia up with a cheap workforce? If this is what we are going towards I'm out.
You may be blind to this as you work on en.wiki. I'm italian. it.wiki is basically dead. I have stopped editing there as there just isn't any point in doing so anymore. The number of editors is so low that nothing verifiable will remain on those pages. Few edits are even verified for obvious vandalism anymore. It's a mess and it's very sad. See here: https://it.wikiscan.org Stagnation of users = death. The only hope that remains is for en.wiki at this point. And I'm afraid it's chances aren't high at this rate.
The fact that I have been labeled a fringe-pusher demonstrates that the system is failing. I am anything but. My contributions are always sourced and verifiable. I am an engineer and entrepreneur. I normally work with aerospace articles and aeronautic propulsion. I just edited some pages regarding UFOs for a couple of months and tried to keep my cool when editors started edit wars with their unsourced opinions. If this is the kind of editor which the project doesn't need and sanctions in order to protect their (clearly culpable) elite: boy the project is toast and I'm doubly out.
If I am wrong and you are aware of information that would ease those crucial doubts in this project please point them out. I love what Wikipedia stands for and would love to be proven wrong and see it prosper. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 12:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
(talk page gnome) It seems extreme that I'm not allowed to participate in an administrative discussion regarding me about you, yes, but not about the ufology topic, of course... About Wikipedia, it's doing good as well as the finances of the foundation and it has more exposition than ever since Google includes it in search results. Various social networks have also depended on it in response to their ideological bubble and minsinformation promotion problems. There are plenty of reasons why Wikipedia shouldn't be considered a reliable source (especially for Wikipedia itself per WP:CIRCULAR and WP:USERGEN) but most agree it's a good starting reference point while expecting the reader to use common sense and criticial thinking (with cited sources there not only for verification but to allow further research). As Johnuniq wrote, many topics are already covered and that doesn't magically vanish. Wikipedia also attempts to embrace diversity but that doesn't mean supporting the promotion of views contradicting science, or even of scientific but novel ideas. Research papers belong in journals, for instance (WP:NOT). Since I don't have the time to start looking for related media articles, here are some lists of articles about Wikipedia, some about the ridiculous, but also some praising its efforts to remain credible. 1 2 3 etc. —PaleoNeonate – 04:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I just got around to responding and your comment covers what I think. I have not investigated the UFO background and do not know what led to Gtoffoletto's topic ban—I'm only going on what I saw at ANI where I commented that Gtoffoletto should not contribute further. As mentioned above, there is an appeal mechanism but my advice would be to first wait for the specified three months. No one knows the future of Wikipedia but there is a tremendous and growing pressure for it to allow more content that would violate WP:5P. I want Wikipedia to continue maintaining articles that at least should be based on what is known, not what advocates believe. The only way to establish what is known is the scientific method, and that method concludes that Bigfoot and UFOs and spoon bending and many other things have mundane explanations. Johnuniq (talk) 05:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you both for the discussion.
@PaleoNeonate:Wikipedia also attempts to embrace diversity but that doesn't mean supporting the promotion of views contradicting science, or even of scientific but novel ideas. I absolutely agree. I am totally against the promotion of views of any kind on Wikipedia. That's not Wiki's role. That's what I believe the other users are doing in the case reported on AN/I.
Problem 1: I have not investigated the UFO background and do not know what led to Gtoffoletto's topic ban—I'm only going on what I saw at ANI this is exactly the problem here. I worry the admins involved did exactly the same as their reconstruction is too far from the reality of the facts at hand to be the result of a serious investigation. Is this how justice should be served? I understand why this happens, nobody has time to waste following a boring and dumb case such as this one. How many lunatics have been reported to AN/I? However this extreme bias results in what we are seeing here. Saves time 90% of the time. Damages the project in the remaining 10% perhaps irreparably. I'm clearly not talking about me here. But the long term trend of how justice is handled. It shouldn't be about time. It should be about doing what's right. The report should probably last longer (even months, as long as it is "right"). While the investigation is ongoing the users reported should probably have temporary bans if admins think it is appropriate. The tools at wiki's disposal are just insufficient right now to guarantee a fair process and break all the rules that have been considered necessary for justice since Roman law.
Problem 2: I want Wikipedia to continue maintaining articles that at least should be based on what is known, not what advocates believe. once again this is exactly what I am advocating for and the reason behind my contrasts with the other users reported. They have very strong beliefs. In the Science-Fringe spectrum those beliefs fall in the extreme side of "science". When I say extreme, I mean dogma, which is not science and is just as dangerous. (Ever heard of the discovery of Helicobacter pylori#History? It's a fun little story against dogma worth reading). Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. But Wikipedia should not be the place where they spread those opinions. I have been attempting to rid the pages they are filling with their unsourced opinions for months. They don't like this very much and edit war. The edit war is reported. But admins don't read the discussions. They just see "fringe lunatic" and ban me with no investigation whatsoever. I just fall more towards science than dogma. Once again, this is not about me. This trend is leading to the natural selection of editors that are aligned to the extreme "dogma" views and not editors that know how to edit the encyclopedia using sources. Just look at the fringe noticeboard. What the hell is that place!? It sounds like a locker room not like an editorial board (as it should). Anything passes with those users since they are "fighting for science". They can write whatever they want in any article and make insane crusades. This is extremely dangerous. Science is about evidence and verifiable sources. Wikipedia is based on a belief in science. And therefore is also based on evidence and verifiable sources. Not opinions (whatever they may be).
Those two crucial and fundamental problems that I have now experienced first hand are systemic issues here. And are the reason I have lost faith in this project. Nothing I have seen gives me hope we will fix this anytime soon. The incentives are currently for those trends to continue and spread like a virus. And once those beliefs are at admin level there may not be a way of going back. (a bit like a 51% attack) -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 13:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I'll stop engaging about this because it doesn't lead anywhere constructive. It doesn't matter (and is normal) for a mainstream encyclopedia to not be "cutting-edge". Wikipedia processes are also not a court of law and WP:FREESPEECH, although an essay, is pretty good. The above also includes conspiracy theories (i.e. cabal of pseudoskeptics), exaggerations and metaphysical arguments we've all read before (i.e. what's dogmatic or not)... —PaleoNeonate – 14:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
We have heard all this before, including about helicobacter. The fact that what-is-known according to science can change is another reason to prefer science. However, Wikipedia has to wait for science (through its flawed and lengthy process) to reach new conclusions. Wikipedia has to follow reliable sources, not lead them with interesting new ideas. Re problem 1: You miss the point that there is an appeals process which I have mentioned twice—that's why I don't have to spend time double-checking every decision made at ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm hesitant to contribute here, but I just want to reinforce the helicobacter thing (and the general point about the possibility that scientific consensus, or dogma or whatever we want to call it, can be wrong). Before the helicobacter discovery, it would still have been correct for an encyclopedia to present the scientific consensus even if that consensus later turned out to be wrong. That's because encyclopedia writers simply can't know whether a scientific consensus will turn out to be right or wrong, and presenting the current balance is the only valid thing they can do. Taking any other stance and presenting a different balance from the consensus is taking an editorial stance, and that's not what an encyclopedia should do. All science is presented with the implicit proviso that scientific understanding can be wrong and can change - but science changes first, then an encyclopedia echoes the change afterwards. If anyone contributing to Wikipedia thinks they know better than current science and wants to present a different balance to current science - then go be a scientist and change it that way, don't try to change it by being an encyclopedia writer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Hey @Boing! said Zebedee: this is an excellent point and makes it clear to me that I am being misunderstood here (I should work on improving my communication at this point). I absolutely agree with what you and the others such as PaleoNeonate say. We are all saying the same thing and I am very glad. This is a mainstream encyclopedia. It should not be beyond the current knowledge of science, and that is exactly what I am arguing for: total adherence by Wikipedia to the published sources in mainstream science.
This is not what is happening in the AN/I case unfortunately. The "dogma" I refer to is NOT by the scientific community. The scientific community often addresses its own blind spots with some of the more fringe topics and its relationship to them.
The dogma I refer to is being perpetuated by users that do not adhere to the scientific sources and publish their opinions without proper verification. Other editors assume this is what science says without properly verifying those claims and vetting the contributions of those users. And here we are.
Science is very clear. The sources are very clear. We are allowing opinions into the Encyclopedia which are not in line with the sources because many editors superficially like them. This is problematic.
Regarding an appeal: I know wikipedia is not a court of justice. But it should strive for justice shouldn't it? I think admins shouldn't "second" a decision if they have not properly reviewed the case. This is very wrong and might damage the project. Saying "I have not reviewed the case but approve X's decision because he/she is usually right" is very different from "I agree with X's decision". Am I the only one who thinks this? Why should I expect an appeal to treat me with any less superficiality than what I have currently witnessed? -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 09:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
If you are referring to me, I did not say anything remotely like that. I merely pointed out what a topic ban means and I do not recall offering any opinion on the validity or otherwise of the topic ban. Can you identify a comment somewhere (quote some of the text and link to it if not on this page) that says anything like your suggest? If you cannot identify such a comment, there is a serious problem. Johnuniq (talk) 09:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: Finding the diff is a bit long. But I quote from AN/I: Thanks Bishonen. I'm glad to have missed this but FWIW I endorse that action. Johnuniq (talk) 00:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Other admins have chimed in in a similar fashion but I don't know if they have reviewed the case as well. For sure they did not provide any DIFFs documenting my "Too much pro-WP:FRINGE promotion, to say the least". -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 10:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well, that's really just saying there are differences of opinion over what counts as the current scientific balance as presented in reliable sources, over which sources are the most reliable, and how clear the sources are. That will always be the case in any project that involves more than one person, and "My approach is science, yours is dogma" is not contructive and won't get you anywhere (I can guarantee that). When making these decisions, we can only go on community consensus. What else would you suggest, put Gtoffoletto in charge? ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
@Boing! said Zebedee: Absolutely not. Not me nor anyone else certainly. However if you review the discussion I always provide sources. The other party... not so much. I challenge you to find a single diff by me that is unsourced if you have a lot of time to waste :) There will always be some margin of opinions regarding sources etc. That's how wikipedia works. But that will be minor differences if we always cite sources and it is fine to disagree and discuss about that. Those discussions were NOT about this. And even if they were: are we saying that users should be topic banned for discussing about sources and expressing opinions against consensus during a vote? Obviously not. However in those discussions: no sources were provided despite several requests and WP:RS contradicting those opinions were ignored. Nobody has reviewed those discussions. So nobody is saying this. Hence: I think it was a grave miscarriage of justice and makes me loose faith in the whole project (are all admin decisions taken so superficially?). Why should I waste my time appealing if this is how justice is handled? I think admins should be doing a better job. Several participated in that discussion and not ONE provided evidence or properly reviewed the case. Several admins have clear COI in the decision and the others just snowballed their decisions without verifying it. This is not good for the long term prospect of this Encyclopaedia. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 10:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I was just looking through ANI where I noticed I had written "I endorse that action" three days ago. If that is what you are referring to, I only write stuff like that if I have checked some of the edits and independently agree with the action taken. I don't recall what I saw but I would have reviewed at least one article history and talk page. At any I don't "second" a decision without review. Johnuniq (talk) 10:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, ever since Wikipedia was started, we've had a steady stream of people who can't get their own way and blame admins for not doing their job properly, and complain that the whole project is flawed and that Wikipedia has no future. Honestly, we've had that from day one, we really have. Yet here we are, with more than 6 millions articles, and the top go-to source for billions of web searches every day. Yes, obviously a big failure. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
PS: I have examined some of the things that led to your topic ban, after having read the whole of the WP:AN discussion. But I can't really discuss any details here as that would be drawing you into violating your ban - I'll just say that I disagree with your assessment of the various admins' treatment of the issue. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: I posted another comment above at the same time as my comment here. Sorry if the edit caused confusion. Let's keep a unified thread here maybe. Your words were: Thanks Bishonen. I'm glad to have missed this but FWIW I endorse that action. Johnuniq (talk) 00:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC) and you stated here: I have not investigated the UFO background and do not know what led to Gtoffoletto's topic ban—I'm only going on what I saw at ANI. There are no DIFFs posted about my work on that discussion as far as I can see (one accusing me of WP:BLUDGEON which I agree with wholeheartedly. I admit I have this tendency. I talk a lot.). So I'm not sure what you reviewed, but it may be a mistake? I assumed you were just seconding the (overwhelming, sadly) consensus by other admins that I should be topic banned (but no evidence was provided to support their views as far as I can tell). -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 10:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
@Boing! said Zebedee: thanks for taking the time and for being mindful of my ban. I think it is a problem if I cannot even see the evidence of my wrong doing here. It isn't clear to me what I "did wrong" so how could I improve in the future? Are those diffs in the discussion at AN/I and I am just missing them? Are those what Johnuniq saw and I'm just not seeing them? Is reviewing my work a topic ban violation? All very confusing here. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 10:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
It might seem unfair, but I can't answer those questions without getting quite deeply into the whole subject. Any review of your ban would necessarily involve re-examining the same subject matter, and I believe that could only happen as part of the topic ban appeals process. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
It would be inappropriate to draw you back into the topic, but you may want to read again previous comments from jps (and mine because I remember contesting some edits and commenting about them). As well as the ones on FTN threads. Failure to understand and pursued activism is what ultimately lead to the topic ban... Even better would be to move on and edit on other topics. —PaleoNeonate – 13:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I still don't see the evidence on that AN/I thread that admins have apparently used to endorse my topic ban. Which I think is a huge issue here. And I'm sorry but that's a bit vague PaleoNeonate. I've done hundreds of edits. I don't remember any kind of strong contention with you at any point. In any case, "Failure to understand and pursued activism": understand what and activism towards what exactly? I often edit articles covered by WP:MEDRS such as ([19]). As you can see a substantial portion of that page (just an example) has been written by me. Despite MEDRS, the much more sensitive topic and the thousands of editors working on that page I have never been reverted there by anyone. Let alone been accused of edit warring. Why have those issues come up only in this area with those specific users? If I was really a "PRO FRINGE" editor allowing me to edit medical articles would be crazy -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 01:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Johnuniq sorry for being a pain in the ass here and not letting this drop. But I think WP:ADMINACCT is important. Mistakes happen. We all make them. If you think this was one of them would you strikethrough your endorsement on the AN/I thread? If it wasn't would you explain so that it is clear to me in the future? Thanks. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 18:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

P.s. I confirm there are no diffs in that discussion regarding me. They all refer to the other users who have not been sanctioned or discussed at all. The only documented accusation regarding me is about WP:BLUDGEON (which I agree with). So I confirm I have not investigated the UFO background and do not know what led to Gtoffoletto's topic ban—I'm only going on what I saw at ANI would mean you based your endorsement exclusively on undocumented accusations or on conflating diffs not regarding me. Thank you. And once again. Sorry for being a pain in the ass. I'm just trying be treated justly here. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 18:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

A quick look at your contribs suggests you have done little since 3 May 2020 apart from edit/comment in the UFO area, with a focus on asking about your topic ban since it was enacted on 10 May 2020. I have worked in a variety of areas in that time, including a small amount at plwiki. Accordingly, it is natural that there is an imbalance in the degree of interest we each take in this section on my talk. I was very focused when answering your initial question but frankly have not paid much attention since. Since that first reply, I have only skimmed what's happened here and my additional replies were not made with my full attention since I had already answered the original question.
At the ANI section (permalink), I made a total of two comments:
  • 11 May 2020: Thanks Bishonen. I'm glad to have missed this but FWIW I endorse that action.
  • 12 May 2020: You have been topic banned from all pages and discussions related to UFOs. This discussion is related to UFOs. Please do not post here again. You will need to find another website to express your thoughts.
You started on this talk page by asking about my second comment and I gave a very reasonable and considered answer to that. Nearly a day later I made a second edit here to reply to PaleoNeonate, thanking them for their post which I agreed with. I unfortunately added "I have not investigated the UFO background and do not know what led to Gtoffoletto's topic ban". What I had in mind is that I have not examined the details of the disagreements that have occurred, and have not checked what the sources said. Regarding my "endorse" comment at ANI, above I wrote 'I was just looking through ANI where I noticed I had written "I endorse that action" three days ago. If that is what you are referring to, I only write stuff like that if I have checked some of the edits and independently agree with the action taken. I don't recall what I saw but I would have reviewed at least one article history and talk page. At any [rate] I don't "second" a decision without review.' I can see there is room to be puzzled about an apparent difference in my two comments above but it is explicable by the fact that I have not focused on this issue. I do not remember what I reviewed when scanning ANI a week ago on 11 May 2020, but I am sure that my above "if I have checked some of the edits" comment would be correct. That is, I would have looked at least one article history and talk page before endorsing. As I have mentioned more than once above, the topic ban has an appeal process which would be the way to get independent review. I see that your talk has a detailed analysis of points considered for the topic ban. I am not motivated to add to that analysis, and since I have not taken any administrative action, WP:ADMINACCT is not applicable. Johnuniq (talk) 03:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
You have abundantly satisfied my concerns. I thank you for your thought out and clear response. FWIW you are the first admin give clear explanations in this whole affair. I respect you for it and thank you sincerely. Regarding my recent contributions: I've edited many pages in the past but as you know this affair has made me loose faith in the project. So I'm out of the encyclopaedia entirely. Thanks again and keep up the good work. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 18:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Sydney

Either at ANI or on my talkpage (I can't remember which and I couldn't be bothered looking!) somebody took issue with me saying that just as it looks like we're going somewhere the discussion will cease and it will all start again in a few months. I just thought I'd note that the first part seems to have happened, which you can see yourself. This is the reason for mine, and I suspect HiLo48's frustration at the response to the ANI report. Ashton 29 is blocked, but at my suggestion he has posted his thoughts about image selection on his talk page. It will be interesting to see if anyone else posts anything soon. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: Right now I am trying to evaluate what should happen next. I may post something soon, but definitely within 24 hours. This reply is fairly long as I am treating it as a draft for my thoughts. It's too hard to see what people are recommending at the moment, and I suggest everyone should now nominate one or two images they want considered at an RfC without any commentary. Then we can add up the votes and if it shows, say, six or fewer nominations, that we consider an RfC to select among those candidates. There could be a clause regarding the future, for example, by talking about how proposals for improvements could be made. I think that would be messy and it would better for the RfC to propose a moratorium on discussion for at least six months. It's not possible for an RfC to rule out a change in even a week but I am confident that something like six months would work in the sense that if a change were made which led to a revert/revert cycle, the changer could be persuaded to self-revert or make their case at ANI. If there are too many nominations to be reasonably considered in an RfC, another approach might be needed, such as an initial RfC to choose between single image and montage. The nominations discussion I'm contemplating should be over within a week, with an RfC to start very soon after. Johnuniq (talk) 07:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I was hoping that people would comment on the images I listed as they all were proposed at some stage and one is the current image. I think some people are still having a hard time understanding that it has noting to do with having a single image or a montage and that it is just about what is an acceptable image for Sydney. I do agree with what you've written. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I have just worked that out while examining the discussion. It's been dormant a while and I think it's time to move forward. I'm not going to post a dogmatic proposal and further discussion will occur. Johnuniq (talk) 07:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

WT CREEP

Just a heads-up about WT:WT#Discussion on welcome template standardisation. Relevant background is at this closed Rfc in the section just above it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added that to my watchlist and might add a grumpy comment if it develops. Johnuniq (talk) 00:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Image options...

Can you please clarify if choice is restricted to one of the 7 listed, or we are open to other choices? I'm happy either way. Is this something you want to clarify on the page? Up to you. :) --Merbabu (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Merbabu: I didn't want to burden the RfC with a bunch of instructions and I hoped "See #RfC notes above" would do. That includes "any suggestions can be considered" with a suggestion that more would not be desirable. The talk page has been available for people to add recommendations for a couple of weeks. If you are asking whether you can add a proposal, I would say why didn't you do it before!? Also, there are seven items and adding more (as detailed on the talk page) just causes confusion. However, if you are asking whether others can add proposals, don't worry about it because anyone sufficiently interested to read the talk page can find my comments such as "form a faction and work out a preferred candidate". If you want to spend the next year arguing about images, add proposals. If you want to get the matter settled with an image you can live with, pick one of the seven. If others want to split their faction's vote with yet more proposals, let them. Johnuniq (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Isn't this canvassing?

I just discovered this and this. Note especially the comments on Cjhard's talk page. Cement4802 hasn't notified anyone else, only these two who support his POV. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Wow, I saw the one on Ashton 29's page. Been watching there in the hope that he can sort out how to get back to good editing after his block. Hadn't seen the "invitation" on Cjhard's talk page. Not too happy about the personal attacks from both of them. It's hardly accurate either. HiLo48 (talk) 05:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it's pretty bad. I left a warning but won't take further action at the moment as it's just low-level misunderstanding that will not be repeated without consequences in the next couple of months at least. Johnuniq (talk) 07:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

"Misrepresentation of sources"

You know, I somehow don't much expect the user who complained about misrepresentation of sources to edit again any time soon. They've been here for nearly five years with 338 edits, so that's the pattern. I'll try to keep an eye on them, but it's hard when people are that ... sparse. I've e-mailed them, but I don't expect much from that either. Bishonen | tålk 08:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC).

OK, well at least I got a jab in. What is sure is that others will be back to fight the good fight. As a hint for myself, this relates to WP:AE. Hey I like your sparse yet evocative sig! Johnuniq (talk) 10:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
There's a long reply from the user now. Maybe I'll have the energy to engage with it tomorrow. Going to bed now. Bishonen | tålk 21:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC).
I replied. Will have to wait for next time. Johnuniq (talk) 00:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, John. Bishonen | tålk 08:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC).

Re: righting great wrongs

Hi John. I don't see how linking to Wikisource counts as "righting great wrongs" in the first place, especially since it was material we were already linking to without any apparent controversy on a different article, but thanks for chiming in. -- Kendrick7talk 23:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kendrick7: We are not stupid and we assume you are not stupid, so everyone knows what was happening. It's simple: any repeat will lead to an indefinite block. Johnuniq (talk) 23:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I hate to disappoint you, but I really can't read people's minds. -- Kendrick7talk 00:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
One interpretation of your approach would be to think that I was being led to a situation where I either had to withdraw my promise of an indefinite block or reproduce your link which has been removed. Sorry to disappoint you but Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and I will act and you can appeal and we will see how the community reacts. Please drop it. Use another website to gain publicity for your cause. Johnuniq (talk) 01:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Look, I don't have a cause. Although I didn't actually create Randal Howard Paul's Wikisource page, it was simply a placeholder until recently. I did create Wikisource:Author:Willard Mitt Romney, I created Wikisource:Author:Donald John Trump, etc. I add works of theirs to our sister project not because I particularly agree with their politics, but simply because many of their works, unlike almost everything else post-1925, are in the public domain as works of the U.S. Federal Government, and, since their contemporary works tend to be on the world wide web, they are "easy gets". Sometimes such works are going to contain contentious information, but I can't possibly survey even a small percentage of the 130,000 active Wikipedians over here to make sure no one is butthurt about something these public figures have said or written in a public domain work which I otherwise believe is historically noteworthy. Trying to "right a great wrong" by not linking to them here isn't going to make such works go away. But, rest assured, having been informed that such butthurt is widespread around here on this particular topic, I have no intention of relinking to those particular works by Rand Paul, or any other remixes thereof, here ever again. But if Trump says something contentious in his next speech (likely), and the speech seems historically significant (marginal likelihood at best), I'll probably add it to Wikisource, and quite possibly link to it here, and if you then feel the need to shoot the messenger, we'll just have to deal with that then. -- Kendrick7talk 16:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi John. Sorry about that accidental rollback. Can I trouble you to remove my rollback perm? The script or whatever it was that kept it off mobile stopped working and my fingers are too fat to have this button on my screen, and I have no need for it anyway. Thank you. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 00:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

No problem about the accident: stuff happens to us all. I removed rollback but of course it will be restored whenever you want it back. Johnuniq (talk) 02:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks again! Cheers, Levivich [dubious – discuss] 04:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
@Levivich and Johnuniq: There's an option in Preferences - Gadgets to require confirmation before performing rollback on mobile devices. That may be a better fix for the problem. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
RexxS, yeah, for reasons I don't understand, that just stopped working for me one day a month or so ago. I tried changing browsers, uninstalling scripts I had, etc., no avail. But I use rollback so infrequently, it's easier not to have it at all than to spend more time trying to debug the gadget. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 02:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Tendentious editing at Pedophilia

See this talk page discussion, the article history, and this on my talk page. User is promising to edit war and promoting a fringe POV. This is a "gender-related dispute or controversy" and the user was notified of DS in February. Crossroads -talk- 07:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

please see the Pedophilia talk page, also I have not broken the three revert rule. Crossroads has actively engaged in vandalism without reaching a consensus. He removed the entire demography section and all well sourced contents, and he did not even reply on the talk page where the Demography section was agreed on. I am pretty sure you are not allowed to accuse an editor of WP:EW unless the three revert rule is broken (undoing my own edit doesnt count), nor remove an entire section + all sourced contents without explaining why on talk page. I am not allowed to add back the section until 24 hours, please judge the revision history yourself. Respected Person (talk) 07:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't doubt you but I don't have all the details at the moment that would allow me to take action based on discretionary sanctions. I know WP:ARBGG has very wide reach, but I'm not confident about the fine print. See Talk:Pedophilia#Protected. Johnuniq (talk) 07:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Can you please at least add back the demography section, removing an entire section filled with valid statistics and reliable research work doesn't seem like a good thing at all. I can make semi protect edits but I will not without your permission. You can check the removed part yourself, there is no valid reason at all why it was removed. Just let me know if I am allowed to add it back or not, and sorry to disturb you regarding this matter. Respected Person (talk) 07:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
@Respected Person: As I wrote at talk, I will only edit the article if a discussion at the talk page agrees a particular should be made, and if it is significant. Due to the edit warring, the article cannot edited except by an administrator acting on a request from article talk. Johnuniq (talk) 08:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Dawkins

I understand but political views does not do it justice, some of the comments are controversies and not political views. I can not understand why you would want to cover up controversial views about rape.

Even then what about the critisisms that have been clearly laid out there rather then in a single paragraph — Preceding unsigned comment added by Permareperwiki1664 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Please post comments related to an article on the article talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 05:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I have now, please reply so we can address what is an incredibly important issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Permareperwiki1664 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Deep learning super sampling article

Hello Johnuniq, User talk:62.248.185.87 do not seem to change his behavior for the moment (I just read his lengthy answer in the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard), but he will maybe reconsider his views in a few days, he or she seems to be a very angry person in general! Thanks for what you did though! Hervegirod (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

This relates to 62.248.185.87 (talk · contribs), edits at Deep learning super sampling and discussion at Talk:Deep learning super sampling. I replied to the IP at the ANI section to say I will look at the problem and monitor the discussion at article talk. Please notify me if I forget or if the problem erupts. Johnuniq (talk) 01:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I looked at the history and see it is a very new article with these statistics:

Edits to Deep learning super sampling (created on 5 April 2020):

1 41.102.217.100
6 62.248.185.87
1 CrazyBoy826
1 David O. Johnson
65 Hervegirod
1 Hohum
1 Pamputt
7 Smeagol 17

Edits to Talk:Deep learning super sampling:

18 62.248.185.87
1 CrazyBoy826
28 Hervegirod
4 Pikavoom

Johnuniq (talk) 03:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm using this section to track the issue and have edited the above to reflect the fact that the article title now uses standard case: "Deep learning super sampling". Johnuniq (talk) 07:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello again, the editor is still removing text for which he is not happy without any reason except his own point of view. Here for example is an edit from User:Dicklyon which he reverted because "Control did not ship with an early version of super sampling. Super sampling is decades old technology": diff. He clearly thinks he has the truth on this matter and don't accept any edit which is not exactly his own point of view. But for this example Control shipped with DLSS, it's what tons of sources say. I find his behavior here really toxic. Hervegirod (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@Hervegirod: I don't want to do anything at the moment. I added a couple of comments regarding facts at article talk and am watching the article. If a couple of editors said the tag should be removed, and it was removed, and the IP re-added it against consensus, I would either protect the article or block them after a warning. However, there is enough waffle that makes it hard to see any consensus regarding the tag. The fact that the tag is so silly only emphasizes that there should be a consensus to remove it, yet I don't see one. I mentioned the article here. The wording at GeForce 20 series#Architecture might help. Patience might be needed. Johnuniq (talk) 07:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello, my problem is not with the article mainly, but more generally with this editor's attitude. Personally I will not edit anything in this article anymore because I know it will end in endless recriminations. And I will also stop posting anything in the Talk page now too because of the same reason (the last post I added in the Talk page went nowhere). I suspect that other editors who have tried to improve the article in the past have stopped to try for the same reason. Hervegirod (talk) 12:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

This feels strange to me

To Johnuniq - I am replying your message to me [20]. I feel if you take a longer look you'll find that Alexis is the editor who has a problem with Zaarthas, (not me). Zaathras & I are friendly to each other. As far as I know, I am not arguing with any editor who takes a different view regarding American politics than me. I have never talked to Alexis about American politics, ever. In fact, I had never even heard of Alexis until after Alexis got Zaathras a 6 month topic ban, and then Alexis went to Zaathras' talk page and "pinged" me a message (here [21]). I thought that was strange that Alexis went to Zaathras' talk page to ping me, but I did reply back. After that, Alexis went to the ANI page and "pinged" me 2 messages there (here [22] & here [23]). Prior to Alexis pinging me I had never heard of or spoken to Alexis on any talk page. I like to assume good faith with Alexis but I have no idea what Alexis is up to and whatever it is, it does not feel good to me, in fact, it feels very strange to me and I want absolutely no part of it. I will steer-clear of Alexis. Anyway, I just wanted to clear that up with you and tell thank you for the other advice you gave me. It does sound like very good advice & will do my best to keep it in mind. BetsyRMadison (talk) 04:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

This relates to an ANI section. My suggestion at ANI was that side discussions (those unrelated to developing content) are a waste of time. I saw who was friendly with whom although I did not examine the details regarding the discussion between you and the other editor. People who have spent a fair bit of time here know that disputes are very common and most people avoid them. Johnuniq (talk) 05:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020

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

Administrator changes

added CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth
removed Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

removed SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Open Media Foundation

I am creating this section with relevant links and a comment posted above that I am moving to here.

After checking edits at the article in March 2020 (and repeated by a new user after the above request for protection was declined), I have semi-protected the article for a month. Johnuniq (talk) 01:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment moved from above.
Can you provide any guidance for a layperson who very much would like to keep the off-wiki battles off wiki in regards to the Open Media Foundation article? If you look at the citations and the claims for the anonymous edits in March 2020, you will see that the conclusions drawn in the article are not at all based or substantiated in the citations. This individual has looked for every opportunity on the internet to defame me and the nonprofit I run, and most have blocked him, but we didn't see his wikipedia edits for months. I am happy to stay out of it, or even have the article deleted entirely, but I hope there are policies on wikipedia that prevent the sort of libelous misuse of Wikipedia he has been repeating since March. (Apologies, this should probably be a new subject/topic on your talk page, but it relates to this issue and your statement of wanting to keep off-wiki battles off of wikipedia. Deproduction (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
In your denial of protection, you mention a lack of specificity in the request and the lack of recent edits and activity on the page. As you suggested, I started a new section on the talk page and referenced the group of edits from March 2020 which were only recently reverted, so you're right that the request was not in relation to any recent activity on the page, but to edits made in March 2020. I believe those edits speak for themselves if reviewed, including accusations of sexual harassment with the only citation being an article I wrote and video I recorded about MeToo which in no way substantiate the claims made in the article. He also references "abusive management style" with the only citation being a libelous review he published himself on glassdoor. There are also references to an audit, but the citations (and nothing in reality) substantiate the conclusions he wrote in the article.
As you can see from my contribs and talk page, I'm not entirely familiar with the protocols and policies on Wikipedia, but I have always tried to productively contribute, donate, and support the effort, and I have faith that the policies and community of Wikipedia have tools and protocols to address this situation fairly Deproduction (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@Deproduction: With the clue that the problematic edits were in March, I found them and saw that there was (and is) a problem. Articles are not protected for long periods but new users will be unable to edit that article for a month. Given the enthusiasm we can expect repeats later. The only way to handle that is to watch for them and report issues using Wikipedia's procedures. You can post here again, or call my attention from another talk page by adding {{ping|Johnuniq}} (similar to what I did at the beginning of this comment). The noticeboard concerned with claims of edits that unduly attack living people is WP:BLPN. That is the noticeboard for the WP:BLP (biographies of living people) policy.
It makes no sense at Wikipedia to talk about defamation and so on—many articles discuss truly bad people and say truly bad things about them. Also, bear in mind the no legal threats policy—you haven't made anything like a legal threat but at noticeboards, some clueless onlookers can be distracted by terms like "defamation". The point here is not whether material is defamatory. Instead, we ask if it is reliably sourced and due. Fully understanding that takes time, which is why the WP:BLPN noticeboard is useful. The issue does look like a feud being imported to the article and that is often strongly resisted. However, if the facts are reliably sourced and due, some form of them may end up in the article. From the little I saw, I would say the sources are not reliable and the matter is undue, although more investigation would be required to work out if that is fully correct. An auditor is paid to find problems and it would be a rare auditor's report which didn't mention matters that could be improved. A public review site is definitely not reliable. The article is about an organization and is not the place to highlight claims of problems with its ED. I'm mentioning that to show the kinds of arguments that carry weight at Wikipedia.
Looking at the article shows that it contains a lot of flowery language that will have to be removed in due course. For example, "provides the means necessary for people to create, edit, and share their visions across various media platforms" is content-free market-speak and not suitable for an encyclopedic article. If OMF does anything, what it does should be mentioned. I will watch the article and may add thoughts there when needed. Johnuniq (talk) 02:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I agree with your criticisms of the article. Of course, that's another topic. Thanks for looking deeper into this issue. I'll look deeper at the relevant policies. Deproduction (talk) 04:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

India national football team

I think the protection was not placed properly. Can you please check. Drat8sub (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Drat8sub: I believe it is set correctly. Visiting India national football team and clicking "Page information" in the left sidebar shows that edits "Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access (10:36, 9 September 2020)". See WP:AUTOCONFIRMED. However, any account with 10 edits and four days age is autoconfirmed and so can edit. If you are referring to the discussion at User talk:Drat8sub#Indian national football team, please continue with a patient explanation. If needed, ping me ({{ping|Johuniq}}) from article talk. Johnuniq (talk) 23:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
No, it's fine, it was not showing initially. And the user understood where he was doing wrong. He totally misunderstood the structure of a national team article. Anyway I just want to bring your notice to Mohun Bagan A.C. article where the Ext.confirmed protection is expired, and the reason for which I asked is that a meeting was going to happen and final announcement regarding the club's official status will be there. But the meeting is yet to be held and so that announcement, so again the article will be suseptible to vandalism if it's kept unprotected. If you can place a 2 weeks extended protection, it would be good for the article. Or shall I place another request at the RRP, let me know. Drat8sub (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
You're talking about the template which shows the lock on the top-right of the article. That does not affect whether the article is protected or not. Re Mohun Bagan A.C., we have to wait for a few instances of vandalism or otherwise blatantly bad edits before protecting again. Johnuniq (talk) 01:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I got it. Regarding MB's page, as I was expecting (seeing the war on rumours going on in social media regarding the clubs), it has started, with a personal attack too. So, I think the protection is necessary, and I am expecting the club's announcement will be around 20-25th...so place the time accordingly. And I will take care of the ip at AIV. Drat8sub (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
OK, because you've put an explanation on talk, I semi-protected it for a month. Johnuniq (talk) 03:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

fyi

PLS SEE Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Introduction page.--Moxy 🍁 11:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Module:NUMBEROF a model

Hi John, I just wanted to say it was good working with you on this project (hopefully no more {{Wikipedia rank by size}} type surprises). For a long time I had wanted to do something with Commons Tabular Data and this turned into that experiment. It was a lot more work than expected syncing with other wikis due to permission and language barriers but that was a learning experience also, and now we have a reliable system for others to copy. Your Lua code looks superior to what I would have done and that was the key piece, certainly the work to develop the sub-module method. It is not the first time that was ever done but there are only a handful of other templates doing anything like it so it is a model by example. The possibilities seem endless how this tech might be applied since a bot could gather data from any external source for display by a template. Since none of this is well documented I created User:GreenC/software/tabular and thought about linking it in c:Extension:JsonConfig/Tabular and/or c:Help:Tabular_Data like in the see also or somewhere. First wanted to see if you are OK with that and/or had any other suggestions or changes. -- GreenC 14:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your response

Hi, Johnuniq. Thank you for responding to my latest comment on Talk:Christopher_Langan. I'm the subject of that longstanding Wikipedia biography article, and I'd appreciate a bit of help. I was going to post this to the Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team, but then noticed your attention to the matter.

Please note the following sequence of events on the page Talk:Simulation_hypothesis.

1. In good faith, I suggested improvements to the article "Simulation Hypothesis", suggesting an "Applications" section featuring a 1989 paper that has been linked from Wikipedia for years (along with supporting links and information concerning events which occurred in 2006 and have been sporadically repeated on this site for the last 15 years). My proposed additions are valid and relevant. In compliance with Wikipedia policy, I'm trying to avoid any hint of COI, and as Wikipedia directs, I've simply made suggestions on the talk page.

2. On June 11-12, 2020, two users, "Gary 90.208.134.158" and "Nigerian chess player", entered Talk:Simulation Hypothesis and begin objecting in what seemed an authoritative tone. However, these users had recently been blocked for editorial misbehavior in a Wikipedia biography on me before being inexplicably unblocked. (They were ejected 2-3 years ago from a Facebook Group I run for trolling me there, and they have stalked me and aggressively specialized in my case ever since, on Facebook and elsewhere.)

3. I briefly responded in 6/12/2020, refuting the initial complaint by "Gary".

4. "Gary" inserted an irrelevant link, and a user calling herself "Roxy the elfin dog" quickly inserted a snide comment and a flippant query about citations.

5. Without responding to anyone in particular, I briefly described the situation with these users and requested that further responses be confined to matters of relevance to the article.

6. Roxy the dog threatened to block me without further warning.

7. "Gary" and "Nigerian chess player" escalated, making it clear that they view the talk page as a "debate" forum and that they intended to "mop the floor with" me.

8. I refuted their objections, explaining that they were confused about the Simulation Hypothesis. ("Gary" had explicitly contradicted the first line of the article, demonstrating that he hadn't even read the article and has no idea what it is about. "Gary" and "Nigerian chess player" thereby "lost the debate" in which they had tried to entrap me as I tried to make constructive suggestions.)

9. Without consulting me, Roxy the dog concealed my refutation of the trolls' objections in a green bar which reads "Nothing to see here. (squabble between members of a facebook group.) See WP:NOT. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 08:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)", thus deliberately and misleadingly making it appear that "Gary's" last objection has not been answered.

10. A user calling himself "Beyond My Ken" followed up with several tenuous and arguably irrelevant objections. (This user has edited my biography and its talk page as well, editing alongside "Gary" and "Nigerian chess player".)

11. I tried to respond to these objections only to learn that I had been blocked. The message reads as follows: "You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia due to an autoblock affecting your IP address." The autoblock appears to be due to someone in a nearby town being blocked: "This is because someone using this internet address or shared proxy server was blocked. The ability of all users on this IP address to edit pages has been automatically suspended to prevent abuse by the blocked party. Innocent users are sometimes caught in an autoblock. It may be the case that you have done nothing wrong."

12. Today I was able to post my response to "Beyond My Ken" on Talk:Simulation_hypothesis. I believe it conforms to your suggestions.

It appears to me that I am being concertedly interfered with by these users. In my experience, certain people at Wikipedia are in the habit of using it to interact directly with - and mock, harass, and/or torment - public figures with whom they disagree. For going on two decades, I've been one of those people, and this is what I think is presently happening (again). Thank you for any assistance you can render. Chris Langan (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Chris Langan: The two users mentioned in point 2 above are not a problem. If either writes anything looking like an insult, they will be blocked for escalating periods with an indefinite block occurring quite quickly if the nonsense continues. That will also apply to any new editors who attempt to use Wikipedia for insults. The policy basis for that is no personal attacks but the more fundamental reason is that Wikipedia is not available for flame wars, and particularly not when they are imported from off-wiki websites. If a problem occurs, please attract my attention as I wrote in diff at Talk:Christopher Langan.
Roxy the dog and Beyond My Ken are extremely knowledgable and experienced editors. Please examine anything they write with great care and work on the basis that they are correct. It is standard procedure to hide (aka collapse) off-topic arguments. An article talk page is available for discussing actionable proposals to improve the article—anything else, including excessive repetition, should be removed or hidden. By the way, that should be left for experienced editors who are not involved in the particular argument.
I do not want to get involved in the debate at Talk:Simulation hypothesis. However, please bear in mind that a very large amount of material has been written by a large number of people about the topic for many years and it is quite understandable that there would be resistance to adding yet more material from yet another source. Johnuniq (talk) 23:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Very well then. Of course I'm willing to tell you of any further problems with the two trolls. Thank you for your concern.
As for Roxy the dog and Beyond My Ken, I'm willing to credit them with (usually) being good editors. However, Roxy the dog, far from making a substantive comment, merely dropped an oblique insult and then concealed a large chunk of material that was not entirely "off-topic". And as for Beyond My Ken, although I've "examined [what he has written] with great care", I'm having difficulty "working on the basis that he is correct". That's because he isn't, as I've shown in my response. The fact is that I've been in this field for over 30 years, and in all likelihood understand it much better than the typical Wikipedia editor and/or administrator.
I agree that "a very large amount of material has been written by a large number of people about the topic for many years and it is quite understandable that there would be resistance to adding yet more material from yet another source." However, the issue here is that although I have clear priority on some material that is particularly relevant, Wikipedia "cancel culture" has been discriminating against it on false pretenses - for example, that the author is an "intelligent design creationist / fringe theorist" whose relevant work can be neglected for any reason whatsoever, no matter how absurd. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and in claiming to provide accurate surveys of any given field, incurs an obligation not to exclude relevant and longstanding material that has been linked for years from one or more of its own pages.
Thanks for your cordial and well-written response, and have a nice day. Chris Langan (talk) 00:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
@Chris Langan: Regarding other editors, I must very clearly explain that you must not bait anyone. While a term such as "trolls" may be defensible on logical grounds, it is unacceptable at Wikipedia. If you make a denigrating remark about your opponents, they will feel obliged to reply in kind, and arguments will spiral out of control. I am willing to block anyone who, after a warning, uses insulting language. However, that principle applies to everyone, including you. Do not use anything that might be regarded as insulting language here. The rule at Wikipedia is comment on content, not contributors.
Regarding the content issue, you have to accept that the content proposed for Simulation hypothesis is controversial. The Wikipedian way would be to find third-party independent reliable sources (WP:SECONDARY) that have written about the topic. I am not going to do more than offer that thought. Johnuniq (talk) 03:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding semi-protection

You semi-protected a page i. Seemingly record time without allowing others’ input. I would love to report your suspicious behaviour. I wonder if you will reply here as quickly?49.180.153.15 (talk) 07:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I protected Criticism of Twelver Shia Islam because there is a section at the bottom of its talk page which offers an opinion on the edit. Please make your case there (on article talk) rather than in edit summaries while edit warring. Johnuniq (talk) 07:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Evolutionary Synthesis

Hi John. Am working on Evolutionary Synthesis and getting the entry right. Problem is that the entry on Extended Synthesis has errors too (eg. dates, etc). Am working on Encyclopedia entry for Evolutionary Synthesis so will find a way of connecting entries. Thanks for the help! Evol SynthesisEvolutionary Synthesis (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I replied at your talk. Johnuniq (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Johnuniq

Can I talk to you personally? It’s so important for me. SRKian Reza (talk) 10:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I replied at User talk:SRKian Reza. Please comment there. Johnuniq (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Please could you help?

Hi Johnuniq. Congratulations on becoming an administrator! Please could see this diff. You will probably remember the editor concerned who is in a 2-way IBAN dating from 20 June 2018. Please could you help? Mathsci (talk) 04:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mathsci: Welcome back. I have looked at the background (the two-way indefinite iban is listed at restrictions) and looked at recent edits (38 articles edited by both parties in recent weeks) and reminded myself what WP:IBAN says (generally allowed to edit same articles/talk so long as they avoid each other and no interaction). The community is getting more hard-nosed about disputes and I have a feeling that more investigation might give the impression that too much interaction has occurred already (for example, the coy sections at Talk:Ach Gott, wie manches Herzeleid). I can't remember exactly what I've done in the past but I suspect it would make me WP:INVOLVED so unilateral action by me would not be an option. I'll try to keep up with what is going on and offer strong thoughts if I think it would help. However, ultimately this sort of clash has to be handled by the community which might look for an easy solution and which would not involve understanding the underlying content disagreements. I advise extreme caution and think that it would be very desirable for both parties to work on different articles because I don't see any way joint editing can work. By the way, you might check your email preferences. Johnuniq (talk) 07:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for this response. (Note that I had changed my email preference for wikipedia: I received your mail.) As far as editing this article goes, I found out that there were errors and misconceptions in several articles that will need to be sorted out. They start with (a) info on the Lochamer Liederbuch, (b) references for biographical details of Elisabeth Cruciger and (c) the forewords of cantatas BWV 96, BWV 3, etc, in the recent editions of Carus Verlag. Parts of the wikipedia article Chorale cantata (Bach), radically rewritten in April 2016,[24] have created sourcing problems and some confusion. It is easy to sort out, but requires slow and patient work. Mathsci (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Your work improving articles is appreciated but I don't see how it can be successful without support from others who understand the topic. If you want something easy to work on, why not have a look at race and intelligence which needs some TLC. :) Johnuniq (talk) 07:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Race and intelligence? That article has always been unstable (see the arbcom case, its review, the multiple cases of sock/meatpuppetry up to May 2013, the off-wiki rants against Roger Davies on wikipediocracy, etc). The article History of the race and intelligence controversy, which I started in April 2010 on the suggestion of Slrubenstein, has mostly been stable after September 2010. However, it has become unstable quite recently: that is not a good sign for wikipedia.
On the other hand, there are a significant number of references—some in German—on Luther and the Reformation that can be used for the article Elisabeth Cruciger. Mathsci (talk) 12:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed today another IBAN problem. This time the article 18th-century prints of Bach's four-part chorales was created in February 2020 using material copy-pasted from content and images created by me in Talk:An Wasserflüssen Babylon. I had originally made the English translation and paraphrase as part of the article An Wasserflüssen Babylon; it was subsequently transferred to Talk:An Wasserflüssen Babylon. Mathsci (talk) 14:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Note, the WP:IBAN has been broken by the OP with edit-warring and an attempt to place use-in signs on a section. See [25][26][27]. I restored my original content while permitting his new content. I have added that new content with an essay tag. Mathsci (talk) 07:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

LISTGAP reminder

Quick reminder for you and any talk-page stalkers: Please don't change the initial list marker types (colons, asterisks or hash signs) when replying. In a discussion, do checkY this best practice: 

* Support.  I like this idea.  [[User:Example]] 
** Question:  What do you like about it?  [[User:Example 2]]

or checkY this acceptable practice: 

* Support.  I like this idea.  [[User:Example]] 
*: Question:  What do you like about it?  [[User:Example 2]]

but ☒N don't do this (switch type from bullet list to description list): 

* Support.  I like this idea.  [[User:Example]] 
:* Question:  What do you like about it?  [[User:Example 2]]

Changing the initial (leftmost) list markers makes bad HTML and noise for people who are using screen readers. The rightmost one is the marker that you get to choose. The first ones should match the previous line's markers exactly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for protecting the talk on the Richard K. Morgan article from trolling. Ian Korman (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2020

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Rn

Template:Rn has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Beland (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Sydney short description

Hello, I am noticing a string of sock puppetry here on Sydney. I first noticed this back in May when Jozamba changed the short description from "most populous city in Australia" to "city in Australia". The user has made it clear that his main justification behind this is that "short descriptions should be as short as possible", but as been told by other editors that it is a very weak reason. Even after being blocked, this user still seems to persist, with other accounts such as Bosanga and just today, 2601:192:8800:c0c0:382e:4664:351b:21be. WP:EVASION seems to be at play here and this guy clearly has no regard to Wikipedia policies and input from other editors. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 01:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

These users have edited the short description at Sydney recently, against consensus. I thought there was also an IPv4 user but I can't find it.
I agree it's likely there is a connection between these users but, apart from at Sydney, the disruption does not appear to rise to justifying a DUCK block. For example, Athens is well-watched, yet no one has reverted a recent edit there. Let me know of anything further and I might take action. Johnuniq (talk) 03:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Jozamba still seems to completely ignore WP:BRD and the fact that community collaboration is required in order to edit Wikipedia, with his revert he made just a couple minutes ago to Sydney's short description. I think an another block might be needed (perhaps an indef) in order to gain his attention. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 23:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
@Nkon21: After considering the matter, I agree that an indef is required and have blocked. Johnuniq (talk) 03:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
If you happen to decide to block his socks, block his IP under 2601:192:8800:C0C0::/64 - I see by looking at the wider IP, that he's doing these edits under a bunch of different IPs in that prefix. He's been on my watchlist since his 7th edit back in 2017. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 04:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
That really does look like them. The IP's last edit was 19 July 2020 so I won't do anything at the moment. Please let me know if it becomes active again. Johnuniq (talk) 10:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Mazhabi Sikh

Hi, any chance of reinstating protection at Mazhabi Sikh. You last added it on 10 July but the anons keep coming back. - Sitush (talk) 06:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and perhaps Chuhra, too. Disruption at this pair of articles tends to happen simultaneously. - Sitush (talk) 06:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Done. I got these. El_C 06:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

unsubtleties, or, SMDH

concur. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020

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

Administrator changes

added Red Phoenix
readded Euryalus • SQL
removed Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

readded GB fan
removed Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Johnuniq/Archive_27&oldid=1045700906"