User talk:Johnuniq/Archive 31

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25 ← Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33

Disruptive IP editing at Musical theatre

The IP(s) is back at Musical theatre edit warring over the Oxford comma. Would you kindly semi-protect the article for whatever period you think is appropriate? All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

That's awkward because I tried to investigate how I could block the person behind that IP but the range appears to be enormous. They seem to be disrupting many similar articles including this ludicrous diff which changed "theatre" to "theater" at West End theatre. I ended up semi-protecting Musical theatre for a month, while noting that it was first protected in March 2018, for the same reason (edit war over commas). Johnuniq (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, this person(s) was also disrupting several other articles (including trying to change the spelling of theatre), but I think most of them have been semi-protected. They seem to be able to switch IPs without limit. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2022

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

Guideline and policy news

  • Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The functionaries email list (functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Conflict of interest, policy, and enforcement

Hey Johnuniq. How exactly does enforcement of sanctions for blatant COI violations work? From reading your reply on RP2006's talk page (no-pinging as GeneralNotability also nopinged at COIN), it seems as though it relies on the honour system. You ask an editor if they have a COI, they say yes or no. If yes, they should avoid the article(s) where they have a COI. If no, then nothing happens.

That works fine in a world where everyone is truthful all the time, but what happens when an editor is not being truthful? Ie, you have an editor who has a COI but refuses for disclose it? In this situation, does the case need to proceed to arb-com or can it be raised at AN or ANI? Obviously I'm aware of WP:AGF but even good faith has limits.

More specifically, in the case of RP, we have a a functionary who says they have received credible evidence that RP has been making one or more COI edits. Is it up to that functionary to open an arb-com case? While I recognise that @GeneralNotability: has left that open for discussion at COIN, there is as has been rightly pointed out a potential larger issue with multiple COI editors across the GSoW group. In your view as an admin, how should that be addressed? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: Wikipedia has three existential threats: COI POV pushing; paid editing; agenda-driven POV pushing by enthusiasts (nationalism, sexuality, etc.). There is no good way to handle any of them. I have further commented at User talk:Rp2006#On Hill where I address the COI point. Before that, I was responding to the highly inappropriate questioning ("do you have a relationship (personal friendship or otherwise) with her?").
Usually a COI issue involves bad edits where a contributor is here (that's jargon per WP:NOTHERE) to promote something such as a person, a product, or an idea. We notice the problem because they edit inappropriately and add bad content. For cases like that, a COI might be assumed or supported with evidence, but if the editor is blocked, it is essentially because they are pushing inappropriate content and the COI issue is icing on the cake which justifies an indefinite block whereas in other cases a series of escalating blocks or topic bans might be tried.
The case we are discussing is tricky because I haven't seen evidence of the accused's edits being bad—in fact, several diffs I looked at some weeks ago showed desirable changes. If that is the case, what is the actual problem? I'm not saying there is not a problem, I'm asserting that there is too much emphasis on moral outrage and not enough focus on what needs to be fixed. I suppose I'll have to drop in at WP:COIN and see what's going on now but it is disheartening to see so much twaddle. Johnuniq (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

User Geoff3Cae continuous category organisation MOS breaches

Hello @Johnuniq:, apologies for bothering you, but per the advice resulting from this dicussion on the admin noticeboard last month, I'm afraid I feel I have little choice but to report that Geoff3Cae (talk · contribs) has resumed the previous behaviour that is in breach of MOS:CATORDER. Here are some examples from 3rd January: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6. Previously you issued a warning to the user, though I appreciate that was a result of the now closed admin noticeboard incident. Is follow-up and/or further action now necessary? MunsterFan2011 (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@MunsterFan2011: Thanks for reporting but I am one of those whose mind goes blank when anyone mentions categories. I read MOS:CATORDER and User talk:Geoff3Cae#Category organisation and understand that the fundamental problem is a lack of communication regardless of who is right or wrong. However, to clarify the situation for me, would you please correct those six articles linked above (Berrick Barnes + Arthur Lambourn + Horace Nunn + Bob McMaster + Matt To'omua + Alec Boswell Timms) using an edit summary like "per [[MOS:CATORDER]]", then say "Done" here and I'll act. Sorry to drag this out. Johnuniq (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Johnuniq: thanks for getting back to me so quickly and for your response, per your advice I have corrected the six articles linked above with an edit summary of "Reverting per [[MOS:CATORDER]]" for each, so that action is complete. Thanks again. Kind regards, MunsterFan2011 (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
@MunsterFan2011: See User talk:Geoff3Cae#Blocked. By the way, there is no need to ping someone on their own talk. Johnuniq (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Johnuniq, many thanks for your quick response and action. Kind regards, MunsterFan2011 (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits to analysis articles and dabs

Good day.

On Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Edit war started, D.Lazard has continued his dispute about the English language, where he has a profiency of (en-2).

DL is continuing to edit war. This time he decided to stalk me to a disambiguation page Hilbert algebra created by User:R.e.b. around 2008 in conjunction with me. Without explanation, beyong bludgeoning, he has attempted to destabilize the 2 concerned articles commutation theorem and Tomita–Takesaki theory. His edit history shows zero expertise in the area (von Neumann algebras). He has twice tried to replace the dab with a sub-stub with no content and no WP:RS. He has made belittling comments on the two articles, where again he has no expertise. He added "a sort of von Neumann algebra", as his short summary. The summary was accurate and completely clueless. He was completely aware that should only be done with consensus and should not happen if it created controversy. That part of operator algebras is very technically difficult; only in very special cases can it be simplified. DL's edits were made in extremely bad faith. On the talk page he describes both articles as very poor. But that seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKETHAT; without provocation, he has tried pick a fight. The topic of von Neumann algebras, my specialty, is something I usually avoid. I wrote commutation theorem only on the suggestion of R.e.b., a friend and a star wikipedian on WikiProject Mathematics. It could be that D.Lazard will work out who R.e.b. is; at any rate, he left wikipedia because of mathematical trolling.

user:D.Lazard has continued stalking my edits, now to the articles commutation theorem and Tomita–Takesaki theory. He has continued edit-warring without consensus to create a sub-stub in an area where he has no expertise. Johnuniq, looking at interactions between D.Lazard and Mathsci might explain D.Lazard's disruptive edits.

Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mathsci: There is a disagreement at Inner product space and Hilbert algebra with reports here and WT:WPM. My strong advice is to find a way of reducing drama. If that means abandoning certain articles, so be it. You have done an enormous amount of high quality work in at least three completely different and important topic areas that I am aware of, but unfortunately something goes wrong and you end up in long-term feuds with perpetual bickering (this case concerns another long-term feud). As it happens, I prefer "that is either the field of real numbers" over "that is either the field of the real numbers", but the issue is not sufficiently important to warrant drama. How do you think it will end? One of you will be vanquished either by choosing to move on or by administrative action. Induction suggests you would not like the result. I fully endorse JBL's comment at WT:WPM: "It would be difficult to overstate how inappropriate and useless the linking to WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE is in the present context -- find some less inflammatory way to make your point." You must find a way of focusing on content and never referring to other editors. However, in this case that can no longer happen as the nature of a long-term feud is that constructive interaction is not possible. Wikipedia will survive temporary imperfections but you may not. Johnuniq (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Fortunately another editor has already written[1] In English "the field of the real numbers" is totally awkward sounding; the "the" in the middle is bad. But in this context the whole "the field of the" was redundant anyway, so I removed it. Mathsci (talk) 09:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocking My Account

Johnuniq I see your an Administrator for Wikipedia for 14 years and you Blocked my account from January to March 7. I'm just starting to use Wikipedia and is hard for me to use the site. I could have corrected any mistakes if you reached out to me in my messages or talk page.

I have corrected all Block Issues on my User Page. Can you restore my account please. Thanks. My Wikepedia User name: ThePresidentoftheWorld ThePresidentoftheworld (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@ThePresidentoftheworld:, I'm just someone who watches Johnuniq's talk page, but ... you aren't blocked. If you were, you wouldn't be able to post here. You've never been blocked. As far as I can see, John hasn't interacted with you at all. The account User:ThePresidentoftheWorld (note capitalization) you mention doesn't even exist, so I assume it was a typo and that you don't have another account. Is it possible you saw a block message while logged out, and there is a rangeblock on unregistered users on an IP range you're editing on? If you're not seeing the block message anymore, there's no problem. If you are, please follow the instructions in the block message. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I said it before My Account is being targeted. I'm going stop editing in your Wikipedia. I'm done contributing, but please leave my User Page alone so my people can find me on Wikipedia. Thanks ThePresidentoftheworld (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Can we talk please?

I would really appreciate it if we could talk. Even more so if we could not have a public discussion. Sgerbic (talk) 07:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I am the one that trains everyone on my team. If I have trained them incorrectly then I am to blame. I am responsible. Sgerbic (talk) 07:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
The threads have gotten ugly - people are calling each other bad things, this is ugly and I am the reason for all this infighting. I'm seeing long-time great editors that I might sometimes butt heads with go after and threaten other long-time great editors that I have sometimes butted heads with threaten to report each other and to have people blocked and on and on. Every couple months this gets quiet and then then it bubbles up again and every time it is ugly. Work isn't getting done, people are distracted and grudges are being moved from thread to thread. People are accusing each other of being GSoW editors, and some of the people I've never heard of before, rumors start and reputations are harmed. This can not go on. I will not out my team. What @Johnuniq do you want from me? How can I end this so we can stop this drama? Sgerbic (talk) 07:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
This relates to the storm at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Rp2006 where people are objecting to edits by members of GSoW (Guerilla Skeptics on Wikipedia, I think). I think many of the objections are overblown but they need to be considered carefully and adjustments made. I suggest reducing drama (I always suggest that!). That is, no one being accused should react by poking their accusers. Instead, ask questions—maybe they have a point and following their advice would give a good outcome that would stick. In principle, the idea of adding more rational content is great. The trick is to avoid anything looking like self-promotion. I'm happy to give an opinion on specific issues if wanted. Johnuniq (talk) 08:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Would you kindly waste a little time at my talkpage?

Hi, John. I wanted the carousel image at the top of my talkpage to change when the viewer wants it to, so I borrowed Bishapod's "purge page" button which RexxS (this user misses RexxS) kindly made for me. However, it would probably look better centered above or maybe below the image itself. Would you be kind and make it so? And also, if possible, make the text on the button less fat. I don't understand the code, naturally. Bishonen | tålk 04:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC).

@Bishonen: My understanding of the code is unfortunately limited but I had a stab (diff). I'm hoping that someone with HTML/table skills will correct any problems. I'll try the "purge" under the image soon. Johnuniq (talk) 06:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
It works perfectly and brought up these manul kittens. Thank you very much! Bishonen | tålk 08:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC).

OUTING concern

At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_BilledMammal, there is a table of edits which BilledMammal attributes to members of GSoW, including their user names. Can you please advise whether this sort of outing is acceptable, and if not what can be done about it?--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: It looks like all the links are for edits at enwiki and I don't see any hints about real-life information. If that's true, there is no outing issue. Possibly there is the same link in the list that has been aired before, namely where an editor adds some text with a reference, and the reference was written by a named person that we could guess is the editor. I don't see such a link (but I only tried a few), and so long as there is no suggestion that readers of the link should see a connection, such links would be ok. It would be outing if the purpose of a link is to allow the reader to reach a conclusion about someone's identity, particularly if the link is accompanied with text containing hints. But in a list of diffs about editors adding links to Skeptic Inquirer, it's ok. It's only outing if personal information is revealed and where that information has not been disclosed by the editor at this Wikipedia. If you have a more specific problem in mind, please use email to spell it out. You could email me or perhaps better, Arbcom. To email the latter, see User:Arbitration Committee. Johnuniq (talk) 08:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: Thanks for such a prompt reply. It seems I mis-understood the limits of outing. I didn't think individual identities were being compromised, but I know that previous attempts by a different editor to compile a list of which editors belonged to GSoW were stopped and at the time it was described as outing (publishing the "personal information" that they belong to GSoW). Perhaps that was the wrong word, or perhaps the concept was mis-applied. Anyway, I know better now - thank you.--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
That was probably the case I referred to above where someone posted a diff of an editor adding a reference, and the someone gave a strong hint that by looking at the author of the reference we could work out that the editor was the author. That (connecting an editor with off-wiki personal information, whether accurately or not) is WP:OUTING. Johnuniq (talk) 09:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: No, I was thinking of a few weeks ago, where either A. C. Santacruz or ScottishFinnishRadish (I can't recall which, but I think it was one of these two) created a user sub-page for the project of listing all GSoW members. It has all been deleted now because of the complaints about outing, so I'm afraid I can't see the details of it any more - pretty lame, I know.
Found it - No, I was thinking of in November, where A. C. Santacruz set up a page User:A. C. Santacruz/Research/GSoW for the project of listing all GSoW members. It was deleted on 4 November because of the complaints about outing. But if you say the current situation is okay, then I accept that and I don't want to waste your time with history. Thanks. --Gronk Oz (talk) 12:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


Desroches Noblecourt

I'm back from a library where I could read Mrs Desroches Noblecourt's last book, hoping, since the title is Le secret des découvertes (The secret of discoveries), that she would speak of her outstanding insight, a real breakthrough, about the Ten Commandments, saying that they refer to the time of pyramids. But no; the only place where she gave that formidable information was that interview to Le Figaro magazine. The reference to Le Figaro magazine has been accepted by wikipedia France and Italy. It was rejected by wikipedia English and German. This is appalling; an encyclopedia cannot reject an interview of such an Egyptologist as Desroches Noblecourt on the motive that Le Figaro magazine would not be reliable. That argument can only be presented by hypocrite Zionists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.175.32.124 (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of List of conflicts by duration for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of conflicts by duration, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of conflicts by duration until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China

Can you protect this article?

The recent edit warring is the result of the promotion of a CCP-controlled primary research that is being used for spreading potential misinformationand censoring mainstream facts. Also see Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#COVID pandemic in China. TolWol56 (talk) 04:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I fully protected it until the situation becomes clearer concerning what should occur and perhaps what level of protection should apply once full protection is removed. Johnuniq (talk) 06:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:CITEVAR

User:Rlink2 is making hundreds (thousands?) of edits purporting to fill bare refs, but actually, they are simply converting citation styles in violation of WP:CITEVAR. I saw them do it at some FA articles! I saw that you engaged previously about this on their Talk page. Is there a way to undo all of such edits? All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: Unfortunately not. At least I think they have received the message and they will be stopped if it continues. Johnuniq (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it does seem so. I think people ought to have to apply to be approved to use high speed tools to edit massive numbers of articles for specific purposes; perhaps to show beforehand that they understand the consequences of what they are doing, and that it will be non-controversial. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
That would be too obvious. However, see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval#Rlink2 Bot 2. Johnuniq (talk) 03:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Ah. How interesting. I just write content. I am not sure that all of this technical stuff that people do with tools and bots is a net plus. In this case, the bot was vetted, and yet, in the hands of this enthusiastic person who doesn't, I think, have a good understanding of bibliographic citations, it turned out to make a huge mess. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
No, not yet vetted. That bot request is not yet approved. That is, the recent edits we saw were done by the user, not the bot. It's a great way to increase your edit count! Johnuniq (talk) 05:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I guess that's something. The user has offered to roll back the edits that were in violation of WP:CITEVAR, so that is very kind of them. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Skepticism and coordinated editing 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/Skepticism and coordinated editing. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Evidence. Please note: per Arbitration Policy, ArbCom is accepting private evidence by email. If in doubt, please email and ArbCom can advise you whether evidence should be public or private. Please add your evidence by January 31, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. You may unsubscribe from further updates by removing your name from the case notification list.

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Request for my account and name edits on wiki

My name is sentongo haruna i am a businessman i have existed in the list is udganda richest for ove 5 fives before yesterdsy when you removed me ,i kindly seek your assistence here becouse i am ready to go through any scrunitive measure you would want me to to provide yoy with to put ke back on that list, i am a buinessman and i am not a puppet like i habe been described . 41.210.159.95 (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

This refers to diff by the globally locked Sentongo Haruna (talk · contribs). Apart from the obvious sockpuppetry problem, an edit adding a red link will not be accepted, see WP:WTAF. Johnuniq (talk) 06:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

sentongo haruna account / list of ugandans by networth

Please we are kindly requesting for requirements from yourself including any information in detail required for this person (sentongo haruna) to be added i am willing to provide you the administrator, /senior editor ( johnuniq ) with all necessary information because this person deserves a chance to be part of history as to te fact Wikipedia is asafe history time capsule or may be you could guide us on how to edit and do it properly as to the limits set by this page and yourself .

Please we shall be glad if reply . Tompetert (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

IP edit warrior -- Hydrogen vehicle

This IP has been edit warring to add this trivia to the Hydrogen vehicle article. The source describes a test vehicle that has not been commercialized and almost certainly never will be: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hydrogen_vehicle&curid=188545&diff=1066739911&oldid=1066666651 I have asked the editor to take it to the Talk page, but they just keep re-adding the statement. What should I do?-- Ssilvers (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

My standard advice would be to put a polite note on article talk making the point above and saying that a one-off event means the statement is WP:UNDUE. Then put a polite note on the IP's talk asking for their comments at [link to section]. I'm watching for a while and will take action if the edit is repeated without consensus after that. Johnuniq (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Done. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
The IP is continuing to edit war, and also responded on the Talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I've warned the IP and will probably notice any escalation. Johnuniq (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Misclicking?

Hey! I noticed that at WP:RFPP, you replied saying you "fully protected" 2 pages, when really you only semi-protected. I'm assuming you accidentally clicked the button saying it was fully protected since the pages are definitely not fully protected. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf: Groan, it looks like I stuffed up a few of those by copying the wrong template. Johnuniq (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
It's alright. I just saw that you said you fully protected them but when I checked the page I could still edit. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 23:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Storm598

Hi:

Thanks for your closure of my report on AN/I about this editor. Just FYI, prior to their AmPol ban, they made similar complaints about their personal state of health and similar promises about scaling back on their editing, none of which they ever upheld -- they always came back to continue editing in the same manner. I have no doubt this pattern will continue, and I'll let you know when it does.

Best,

Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing earlier issues but I know what you mean as it is a common theme at ANI. It's another hope for the best... case. Johnuniq (talk) 02:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Trying to get this user to calm down

Could you take a look at the ongoing discussions at User talk:Xoltered. My attempts to get this user to calm down, and to see that I would like to keep the problems out of the drama boards, seem to be having the opposite effect. My desire is genuine, and my message to you is my attempt to go the last mile in that regard. At the same time, what is supposed to be WP:BRD is instead turning out to be WP:BRRD, it seems, and the user continues to insist that they are in the right. The user has not done a particularly good job with WP:NPA or WP:SUMMARYNO either, and continues to see my genuine desire to keep it off of WP:AE as a "threat". But my biggest core concern here is the user's repeatedly hostile reaction to my attempts to get him or her to act in a collaborative way, even though we seem to have vastly different ideas about the articles where we interact.

Furthermore, I'm not sure there is anything I could be doing better at my end. If there is, I would appreciate being helped to see what it might be. Thanks. Adoring nanny (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Adoring nanny: OK but it will have to wait for a couple of hours as I have to go elsewhere. Meanwhile, please remind me where I saw this previously. Johnuniq (talk) 04:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
No problem. I'm going to bed shortly. I'm not aware of you having seen this previously. I'm attempting to follow up on the brief discussion here [2] I noticed that you answered at least one COVID-related ae and therefore figured you would be as good as any of a person to go to in regard to the suggestion there. If you are the wrong person, you can let me know that, too. Adoring nanny (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
One last thing. I am specifically not requesting any sanctions at this time. Adoring nanny (talk) 04:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
@Adoring nanny: I'm back earlier than anticipated and I see a comment to a page on my watchlist that reminded me that I saw this at a noticeboard which led to Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China#Article protected. I'll decline to participate at this stage because the situation is a little more complex than first appears. The lead at Chinese government response to COVID-19 has contained the wikitext "China is one of a small number of countries that have pursued an [[Zero-COVID|elimination strategy]]" for a significant period. That makes the edit in question (which changed the weasel "took various actions" to "has pursued a Zero-COVID strategy") defensible. The edit summary including "don't edit war" might not match wording at WP:BRD but it is a reasonable position—there should be a reason to revert an edit and "lower-priority than China's pattern of information hiding" (edit summary in previous edit) might not be suitable. I know that dealing with this kind of article is very frustrating but best behavior has to work on both sides so I suggest an article talk page section to discuss the issue. Perhaps someone else would support your removal by reverting themselves. Otherwise, I would leave it for a discussion and ignore the secondary issue regarding whether BRD was properly followed. Johnuniq (talk) 06:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it looks like I need to come back again. I have been discussing WP:NPA and error-correction issues on the user's talk page. The user continues to not accept[3] that he or she needs to strike a WP:NPA violation, as well as multiple spurious assertions that I have a topic ban. I do agree that both of these are relatively mild, and striking would be a sufficient cure. Would you take another look. Again, per WP:DONTBITE, I am not yet requesting sanctions against the user, whom I view as genuinely clueless in multiple respects. I do get it that it is difficult to hear something, no matter how clearly stated, when it is coming from someone (in this case, me) one considers an opponent. My hope is that hearing it from an admin may improve matters. See also USER TALK:Xoltered. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Adoring nanny. Yes I agree that this user is being overly hostile and not doing a great job in these contentious spaces. I agree with you they are definitely a newcomer, and we should not BITE them too soon... I agree with your argument that they are definitely edging away from the path of collaborative editing. Overall, I think the advice for them will be best received from users like me, who agree with them in spirit but not in practice. I think this is very similar to past episodes where I have tried to offer you or others advice and it was rejected because we disagreed ideologically. I will try my best to tamper their inclination towards inflammatory comments moving forwards, whenever possible. And I would urge you to just collapse threads on talk pages that edge towards editor behavior. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Terrific User:Shibbolethink, thank you very much for coming here. That is likely at least as good as if Johnuniq does so. The "other user" I mentioned on the talk page in question was in fact you. My praise for how you handled that particular post from me was genuine. I hope you can get Xoltered to learn to behave in a similar manner. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry for offering useless advice but there really is no benefit from pursuing issues such as whether BRD was properly followed or whether a personal comment crossed over to a personal attack which should be struck. It's best to focus on article content and not care about side issues. If wanted, make one comment to point out that WP:BRD and WP:NPA should be followed but let the other editor's response speak for itself—it's permanently recorded in history and onlookers don't care about bickering that is unrelated to actionable proposals regarding article content. If an edit is contentious, it will need to be calmly discussed and ultimately resolved with an RfC. If disruption rises to a noticeboard the editors who spent their time discussing article content will shine. Johnuniq (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Not useless. Both you and User:Shibbolethink said more or less the same thing. Which probably means it is right. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

TPA

Since you're currently active, can you revoke TPA on 172.58.227.4? I'd rather not draw attention to this one on a noticeboard. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 03:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) (apologies for stepping in here Johnuniq) @Suffusion of Yellow: I've revoked TPA on that specific IP and deleted the page -- TNT (talk • she/her) 04:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks both! Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
  • The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Hatnote?

Does this article need a hatnote? Note that the 2013 Broadway version has a section in this article already, called Broadway with a "main" heading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinderella_(Rodgers_and_Hammerstein_musical) -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

There are a million Cinderellas and listing selected items at the top of Cinderella (Rodgers and Hammerstein musical) would not be useful. I would try the approach at Cinderella and use something like the following:
{{short description|1957 musical by Rodgers and Hammerstein}}
{{about|the 1957 Rodgers and Hammerstein musical||Cinderella (disambiguation)}}
A case could be made for just retaining the 2013 Broadway version if the disambiguation page was felt to be too generic. I agree that listing other productions, particularly planned productions, is not viable in a hatnote. Johnuniq (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
I would just retain the 2013 version, since it is the only musical article that could be confused with the original R&H musical and uses the R&H songs. But one could argue that no hatnote is needed, since the 2013 version is already described in its own section of the R&H musical's page, and there is a cross-ref to it.  ?? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
I have no idea. There are several specialists who work with these things but I'm not sure where they hang out. Talk of {{about}}? However, on a practical level, you'll never get away with no hatnote because gnomes (whether reasonable or not) will forever look for places they can add a template. That's why I though the dab page despite its forbidding length and uncertain relevance: the dab page can be justified whereas no hatnote would give arguments. Johnuniq (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
OK. I added a "short description", and I think the current hatnote is OK for now. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Can you take a look?

On a page you recently protected [4], the same user is again adding disruptive, POV edits [5], [6]. Please take a look at it and thank you for your help so far. Aleena98 (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I have had a look but there are some complications. We're supposed to gently explain to new users how things work but they haven't had any messages. Also, they only need one more edit to become auto-confirmed meaning that semi-protection won't be enough. I don't have the energy at the moment to do more (I'm looking at some stuff unrelated to Wikipedia) but might look again. Johnuniq (talk) 02:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Maddie Ziegler

Can you please protect the page against renewed IP edit warring (re: Oxford comma, in violation of MOS:VAR)? -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Done. I wonder what that's all about. Johnuniq (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
It's been going on, off and on, for years, along with the ongoing battle over what words to use to describe Ziegler in the Lead sentence. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

IP date format issue

They are back again tonight. this edit show them again breaking a date in a maintenance template by making it Month, Year (adding the comma). Using another IP in the same range, so they likely have missed all prior messages. MB 01:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I blocked the /64 for a week. See User talk:2600:1004:B104:29C2:A01D:3215:4019:3311. I know I did something about this recently but I have no idea where the issue was reported. Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
It was Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1090#IP not following MOS:DATES and before that, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1088#IP adding wrong date formats. I left a warning at User talk:2600:1004:B16D:8867:E527:CDA3:49B0:621, almost a month ago - three weeks before your warning. MB 03:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Another comma in a month/year, but different IP range. Still, the comma addition, the time of day, and the topic all indicate it's likely the same person. MB 04:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I blocked for a week. I'd like to track recent IPs so am noting that I have left messages at User talk:2600:1004:B104:29C2:A01D:3215:4019:3311 and User talk:174.212.98.103. Johnuniq (talk) 04:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Back today with 2600:1004:B114:5E9B:7581:95A1:A10C:A8F7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) breaking more templates and leaving threats at Talk:Ulster and Delaware Railroad (reverted, see edit history). MB 01:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
I left a message at User talk:2600:1004:B114:5E9B:7581:95A1:A10C:A8F7 saying I won't take action atm due to another admin issuing a partial block. Keep me informed. Johnuniq (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I haven't seen more of this until today. They have edited 16 articles from 174.212.111.201 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Well, at least it appears to be the same person based on editing style and subject matter. I looked only the four most recently edited articles. They certainly add a lot of commas, some of which are improvements. In Starrucca Viaduct, there is a "month, year" construct again (in a template which kicked out an error which is what alerted me), and a hyphen in "locally-quarried" (which AWB removed). In Moodna Viaduct, another comma between month and year and a whole sentence in parentheses - which doesn't seem best to me but I haven't checked the MOS on that one. In Graham Line, they changed comma to a colon, which I believe is discouraged by the MOS or is at least in general considered poor writing. Also a hyphen in "less-populated". The strangest thing is in Susquehanna station, where "along {{convert|8|acres|ha}}" became "on an 8-acre site. {{convert|8|acres|ha}}". On an 8-acre site is probably more correct, but they just ignored the convert template or didn't understand what it does (although it is used many times elsewhere in that article).

This is all pretty minor stuff, but it's still a time sink to have to follow someone around and make corrections. I haven't gone to their TP because last time, they changed IPs every day and when you finally got their attention they said would stop the month, year thing, but here they are again doing it. MB 03:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@MB: What a pain! However, I looked at several edits and they are good so there's not much that can be done. I left them a comment about commas. Johnuniq (talk) 06:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Convert module

Just want to give you a quick thanks for the convert module. I can only imagine how much work it took, but I think your efforts were well worth it. It's an excellent tool. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Re your message on the other talk page, no problem, I just wanted to clarify. Johnuniq (talk) 06:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC question

Hi there. Last fall you gave me some good advice about the RfC process. I'm hoping you can help me again. At Talk:British Columbia#Additional languages in the lead again? there has been a lot of discussion about adding a French translation to the first sentence, but no consensus. I personally find the translations distracting, and sometimes find three or more languages translated in the first sentence of an article. Do you feel an RfC would be appropriate here? Ideally, I would like MOS:LEADLANG expanded to say that government policies about bilingualism do not mean every Wikipedia article about the region needs a translation in the first line. Thank you again. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Is the issue only this edit which added lang-fr and lang-hur names in the first sentence? I understand that there is a problem with a lot of articles where the first sentence is packed with waffle such as non-English names and specialist pronunciations, but if it was only French I would advise dropping the objection. According to someone's comment, it's been there for years and it is reasonable for a French name to be shown for a Canadian province regardless of how many French speakers live there. However, you are correct that if people want to pursue the matter the current method is failing and it is time for an RfC. The question would offer three choices (perhaps four if really needed, but no more than that). It would look something like this:
Which of the following should be the first sentence in the lead?
  1. British Columbia (BC) is the westernmost province of Canada ....
  2. British Columbia (BC) (French: Colombie-Britannique) is the westernmost province of Canada ....
  3. British Columbia (BC) (French: Colombie-Britannique | Halkomelem: S'ólh Téméxw) is the westernmost province of Canada ....
The MOS people would say that the issue needs to be settled on article talk. Johnuniq (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your advice. I just noticed another edit war at the BC article over the translation. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I replied to your question in Talk:Debito Arudou but got deleted

Hey, just wanna let you know I replied to your question in Talk:Debito Arudou but the User VQuakr delete my reply because he think it's "defamatory". Tired to deal with those power-hungry smug users again so I am not gonna put up a fight or some kind since my previous experience told me it's pointless. You can check the history to see my answer.--Someone97816 (talk) 09:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

OK, I saw the reply before it was removed. We're not supposed to give negative opinions about living people. Johnuniq (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Just my honest answer and the truth. I understand this might not be appropriate in the hindsight but that guy did not calmly inform me, but threaten to ban me or whatever. These kind of hostility I encountered many times in Wiki. The so call "Assume good faith" has became a joke at this point. This is not personal attack on you, just my rant--Someone97816 (talk) 06:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

2A02:587:DC43:3900:5D33:BFD0:6D9A:DD0A

Hello,

back in December, you have partially blocked 2A02:587:DC43:3900:5D33:BFD0:6D9A:DD0A (talk · contribs); this IP is currently being abused by the indefinitely blocked editor Zerolandteam385 (talk · contribs) aka the lorry vandal who seems to really love editing anything Bedford vehicles-related. Could you do me a favour and also block this IP from editing Bedford? Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 13:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

That's done up to June but only individual articles can be blocked so Bedford RL + Bedford TL + Bedford Vehicles were added. Johnuniq (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Skepticism and coordinated editing proposed decision posted

The proposed decision in the Skepticism and coordinated editing has been posted. Please review the proposed decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Sockpuppets at Goldbach's conjecture

On January 12, you protected Goldbach's conjecture against a disruptive edit war by IP sockpuppets. They are here again, just after the expiration of the protection. D.Lazard (talk) 09:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I protected for three months and blocked Special:Contributions/2001:B011:9820:5787:0:0:0:0/64 for a week. It's obviously an LTA of some kind but I should know the name of the original account if there was one, or a link to a discussion about the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Here are the IP and accounts that have been used for adding the unwanted section "Goldbach number" to Goldbach's conjecture (in order of use, most recent first; blocked are struck))
36.234.71.40
2001:b011:9820:5787:fdb3:8085:31bf:f642
2402:7500:92e:33c6:1c6:e407:198f:84f4
211.75.214.38
1.165.151.106
61.224.151.214
若葉彩欣奈
奪瞳妖乂百目鬼
125.227.77.253
2402:7500:918:6643:448a:4c4a:abb3:64ad
49.217.198.170
220.132.54.182
210.242.153.203
61.224.59.3
211.23.210.36
210.242.153.201
210.242.153.202
The Chinese accounts appear to be sockpuppets of WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Xayahrainie43, which is also a LTA case. I do not know what could or should with this list. D.Lazard (talk) 11:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
OK, thanks, that will help in the future. Let me know if you see activity. Johnuniq (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

LTA advice

Re your RfPP advice, I would like to reply that, as I have mentioned on the talkpage, the discussion is not about the lead, but about the OR inserted by one particular sock account (which extended beyond the lead). The title is an accurate and concise summary of the purpose of the discussion, which I believe is evident in reading the discussion. It is not a pointy title, nor is it aimed at the LTA. (I do not go out of the way to annoy LTAs, however by the same measure I do not see any value in accommodating them.) It is somewhat dispiriting to see another lie promoted by the LTA being picked up on. They have a long habit of good faith baiting, an unfortunate structural weakness of en.wiki. That said I am not aiming this at you, and I do appreciate the protection. One of the more effective tools on hand, although one that I usually aim to avoid for talkpages. Best, CMD (talk) 05:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not doubting the accuracy of your heading, and thanks for your work in repelling nonsense, and of course I don't think your aim is to annoy LTAs. I'm talking about tactics. Our objective is to get LTAs to go away. That means boring them as much as possible with stone-faced and brief responses. It also means not inflaming their passion. If their edits need to be discussed, I recommend commenting as if discussing Jimbo Himself (if it's necessary to deviate from WP:DENY). I have seen examples where an LTA resigned themselves to moving away from Wikipedia once they understood that their efforts would be reverted, and after they lost the desire to fight to defend their pride. Regarding this LTA, if you need assistance feel free to contact me. For future reference, this concerns an RFPP report archived here. Johnuniq (talk) 05:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I certainly agree with that argument, and rarely deviate from simple reverts. What I am concerned with here is that such a change in the header is inaccurate, and thus not great for others who may be looking at the header/TOC. There may be a better header, but it is not "Lead". Thank you for the offer, happily SPI has been getting better at dealing with things. My current procedural pondering is the value of reporting proxy IPs to AIV, as the response seems to vary on a per-admin basis. Best, CMD (talk) 06:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Regarding your offer of assistance, if you have time I would be grateful if you were able to revdel the versions of my talkpage this month from IPs or blocked accounts that have not been revdelled already, in addition to [7][8][9][10]. Best, CMD (talk) 02:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@CMD: Please check what I did and let me know if there is a problem. Johnuniq (talk) 02:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. If you could also do the four I specifically linked above, that would complete the old stuff. As for the new stuff, probably worth revdelling at some point but no hurry. I see the rolling one-week protection is back again. CMD (talk) 03:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
OK, I missed that. Now done. Johnuniq (talk) 03:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Helping me appeal this ban

Hi, I would like for you to help me appeal this ban. The reasons for my ban were ridiculous and reeked of hypocrisy. I'm willing to make corrections in my approach but I must call a spade a spade. Krao212 (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not a good approach, and I see that this account has now been indeffed. Johnuniq (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Tota negi at NPOVN

Hi Johnuniq. You reverted a post at WP:NPOVN by an editor named Oppanina with this edit. It appears that a new account under the name of Tota negi made essentially the same post about an hour after you reverted Oppanina. The account was also created about an hour after you had blocked Oppanina. Seems like a case of WP:DUCK to me. The only reason I noticed this was because I had NPOVN on my watchlist from for a different discussion, but it seems to be related to what's going on at Talk:Flag of Malaysia‎. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

OK, I blocked them. I'm not sure why the original account was blocked. Johnuniq (talk) 02:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look at this. The original account Yukiaika3 was blocked on February 24 by Bbb23, most likely because of this stuff. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing closed

An arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  • Rp2006 (talk · contribs) is warned against a battleground mentality and further incivility.
  • Rp2006 is indefinitely topic banned from edits related to living people associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
  • A. C. Santacruz (talk · contribs) is reminded to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
  • Roxy the dog (talk · contribs) is warned to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
  • GSoW is advised that a presence on English Wikipedia, perhaps as its own WikiProject or as a task force of WikiProject Skepticism, will create more transparency and lessen some of the kinds of suspicion and conflict that preceded this case. It could also provide a place for the GSoW to get community feedback about its training which would increase its effectiveness.
  • Editors are reminded that discretionary sanctions for biographies of living people have been authorized since 2014. Editors named in this decision shall be considered aware of these discretionary sanctions under awareness criterion 1.

For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing closed

Nomination for deletion of Template:Val/sandboxlua

Template:Val/sandboxlua has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Why the venom?

Capitalization

John, your call for an indef topic ban based on a flimsy unsupported complaint is way over the top. There's no evidence that I have abused JWB (no complaints, even), and no evidence that I ignore consensus in capitalization. We followed WP:BRD on the case in dispute (downcasing table row heading "Win–Loss" to sentence case "Win–loss") after Sportsfan77777 reverted a few of my bold fixes. Fyunck joined in and reverted more. We discussed at the project page. Nobody besides them thought the caps made sense there; 5 of us said just follow MOS:CAPS. So maybe I should have waited longer before resuming the fixes, but that's hardly an offence worthy of an indef topic ban. I've done probably about 25,000 case-fixing edits in the last couple of months. This is the only one that got any pushback. I've gotten quite a few thanks for my edits. My efforts here generally move Wikipedia toward more consistency with our style guidelines. I ask that you retract your proposal. Dicklyon (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

NYB rarely comments at drama boards and it's a shame that you misunderstood his post as being related to a grudge. His comment and your reply can be seen by searching for "I agree 100% with the comment by Johnuniq above" at ANI (permalink).
The benefit of forcing good editors to write topic jargon in lower case is that articles become more consistent and Incorrect English is prohibited. The downside is the disruption caused when good editors either grind their teeth and try to ignore the nonsense, or actively oppose the irresistible force. Good editors provide an enormous benefit for the encyclopedia and irritating them is not helpful. Regarding consistency, one article might say "April 1, 2012" while another says "1 April 2012", not to mention color/colour, elevator/lift, etc. Given those inconsistencies, prohibiting title case for jargon is a very minor victory.
For the record, I have supported your work in the past (support unblock, December 2015 + support use of rollback, October 2011) but no longer. The community easily handles vandals and trolls but has no mechanism for dealing with those who use their talents to relentlessly grind down opponents. Johnuniq (talk) 06:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
If you'll review the discussions I've engaged in at tennis, you should see that "relentlessly grind down opponents" is a completely unfair and inaccurate characterization of my admittedly persistent efforts to fix style errors across Wikipedia. The objections there to my work are unfounded, even if they do come from good editors. This is hardly the kind of dispute that should call for any kind of ban or block. Dicklyon (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
"Style errors" is a phrase that is concerning in itself. Style choices are not errors, and the MOS is a set of suggestions, not a policy. If editors have worked hard to create a useful article, it is incredibly annoying for self-righteous users who know little about the topic (and have not done any of the research) to come along and impose their idea of "correct style". I think that sort of thing is a clear net negative for the encyclopedia. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Good point. I generally "fix" things without having to call them errors. But this work is a net positive for the encyclopedia, in my opinion. I'll keep in mind that there's another point of view on that. Now retract your suggestion for an indef topic ban, as that's just absurd and mean, not supportable by any sense. Dicklyon (talk) 05:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
The good point is from Ssilvers. Johnuniq (talk) 05:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I got mixed up. Interpret my comments as intended, not as written. Dicklyon (talk) 06:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it seems to me that this dispute (and many others like it) comes from a fundamental misunderstanding by the highly experienced Dicklyon about the major differences between policies and guidelines, and the very real fact that certain details about the "Manual of Style" guideline are not yet broadly accepted with consensus throughout the encyclopedia. A guideline like the Manual of Style is a basis for discussion to possibly establish a clearcut and unambiguous consensus that certain and specific mass changes in, for example, the tennis and cricket topic areas have been widely and unambiguously approved by editors working in that topic area. If that consensus has been unambiguously achieved, then mass editing has been approved to implement such changes. Mass editing to ram and jam through such edits without crystal clear consensus from involved editors is clearly disruptive. Mass editing against the objections of editors who have legitimate objections but lack the technical skills of an editor like Dicklyon is clearly disruptive and will not be permitted. Dicklyon, you have the fundamental obligation to obtain crystal clear consensus for any type of challenged mass changes that you propose to make, and you are simply not permitted to ram and jam through such mass changes without obtaining clearcut consensus. Again, the MOS is not holy writ. Have I been clear enough for you? I have really tried to be clear. Cullen328 (talk) 05:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
The MOS guidelines are widely accepted and generally prevail in discussions. When some corner of WP has these kinds of style errors, we generally just fix them, and seldom get any pushback. But every now and then... If there are any mass changes I made that you think were controversial, or were "rammed/jammed through" against opposition, please point them out. I don't think there are any. Dicklyon (talk) 06:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
There is a confounding factor that I'd better mention before the UCoC is mandated. When someone energetically promotes the idea of standardizing infoboxes or dashes etc., there are always less talented people who notice the excitement and who declare that obviously standardization is good. That can make it appear that a consensus has formed, or at least, that the original proponent has support. That can lead to a situation where the hangers-on outnumber the small group of editors who maintain articles within a certain topic area. That allows someone like Dicklyon to automate changes in hundreds of articles against the wishes of the editors who actually work in that area ("work" as in develop the articles based on a large amount of topic familiarity and study of sources—wikignoming is not work). That is the disruption that would be stamped out if I were Jimbo. Pissing on good editors because you've managed to whip up some enthusiasm among passers-by (and possibly a minority of the good editors) is the most damaging action that can be taken at Wikipedia. This is where WP:OWN is mentioned. That entirely misses the point. We're talking about making trivial style changes (see "elevator/lift" above for how actual standardization is not going to occur) that irritate people who develop and maintain content. It's just a bad idea. Johnuniq (talk) 06:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Is this just hypothetical, or do you have an example of where less-talented hangers-on have influenced a discussion that helped me make large-scale changes against the wishes a project? I'm not aware of anything that could be an example of that. Even without the hangers-on things, are there any examples of me making large-scale changes against the expressed wishes of a project? I am not aware of any. Dicklyon (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I am a tennis editor. I have watched this saga unfold on the tennis project page and have not commented thus far. I have no opinion either way on this utterly trivial Sentence case issue. Many tennis editors have not commented either. But I felt I had to say something about the reaction to this issue. I do not think in principle @Dicklyon: handled this well. However, these are some of the remarks made by Johnuniq on this thread and the admin notice board that I feel I must respond to. "Good editors either grind their teeth and try to ignore the nonsense, or actively oppose the irresistible force." "I support an indefinite topic ban for Dicklyon to prevent changing the case of letters and to prevent the discussion of changing the case of letters. A harmonious community is the most important asset we have." Firstly, I haven't found wikipedia a particularly harmonious place at the best of times, so to paint a picture of a harmonious environment being ruined by Dicklyon changing the sentence case on many articles is not an accurate description. Secondly, I just can not believe that such trivial style fixes can cause such strong emotions. Banning someone for changing Win-Loss to Win-loss? In the words of John McEnroe "you can not be serious!" There are editors operating on wikipedia putting deliberately wrong information on a daily basis, some with little interest in the subject causing mischief and others with knowledge of the subject who are pursuing a biased agenda to promote particular players. I do not know enough about Dicklyon to comment on his entire editing activity, but on this one issue, it seems to me he has acted out of a genuine motivation to implement a style change across different subjects, even if he has gone about it the wrong way. Even if I did have a preference against what Dicklyon has done (I have no preference either way), any irritation I would feel would be extremely small indeed, as I would have a sense of proportion and weigh his actions up against all the much worse actions of other editors that happen on a daily basis. Whether a style fix like this should be implemented across all subjects or whether local consensus should be upheld is not something I have enough knowledge on to comment (such matters do not interest me). However, I do feel that if it is decided not to implement Dicklyon's style changes on the tennis pages, then Dicklyon should change all the pages he altered back to their original state and I would like him to reassure the tennis editors that he will do this (this may help to calm some of the anger felt by editors towards him). A pertinent point was made that it has taken editors a lot longer to change the pages back than it did for Dicklyon to make the changes originally. An absurd amount of time has been wasted by editors already, both in reverting Dicklyon's edits and commenting on the admin thread about banning him. There must be more productive ways for editors to spend their time on wikipedia than this and there are much bigger issues to get angry about! Tennishistory1877 (talk) 11:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

A wide variety of people edit Wikipedia. Some of them are emotionless and carry on their work without ever becoming heated, even when faced with opposition. Others react differently. It is a fact of life that when people are irritated by something substantive such as what they regard as edits that degrade an article, they become prone to snap over trivial issues. Irritation due to people with different opinions on issues is inevitable but most people can handle that even if stressed. It's when something trivial comes along that they burst because, as they see it, substantive issues might require stress but why should they also be needled over nonsense? I'm not saying this is a logical or correct moral position—just that it's a fact of life. At any rate, long experience of Wikipedia's dark corners shows that as well as fighting over issues like whether my nation is better than yours, people also fight over trivia. The point is that one person might like "Blue Finch" while someone else likes "blue finch" (diff). The Blue Finch person might regard that as the final straw. I can't quickly find the most ridiculous battle that I recall (date formats and/or whether they should be linked ... actually the UK units one was pretty good too) but here are a couple that I could quickly find: title capitalisation and diacritics and infoboxes. Johnuniq (talk) 04:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Tennis edits

Regarding people posting incorrect information, you might like to link to a couple of articles where I can see the history and article talk page. If "deliberately wrong information" could be demonstrated, the perpetrators would be quickly blocked. The trick is to not show links to interminable arguments or even links regarding other people. Instead, there would need to be a focus on the information and proof that it is wrong. Johnuniq (talk) 04:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but it is a question of priorities of what is important. I am not saying Dicklyon is right, but there are far more important things to get irritated by. There is a tennis editor on wikipedia who has made so many factual errors on wikipedia I have lost count of them all. I have corrected him many times. Some of his errors are pure incompetence, but many are deliberate bias to favour his favourite player Lew Hoad. He is absolutely relentless and so argumentative and has ground me down over 2 years now. I was a regular tennis editor in 2020 and 2021, but since the start of 2022 I have become mainly a part time editor, because I feel I have done most of the editing I want to do. However, I feel I can never leave wikipedia entirely because this editor's edits constantly need to be checked for accuracy. Although this editor has improved his editing and is better than he was, the wrong information continues. Sometimes he edits a bit at a time adding bloat to the Hoad page, where a single edit may not seem that much on its own, but taken along with other edits, it vastly increases the page length and adds no more relevant information. He seems to view events in tennis history as an opportunity to put a biased spin on them, often twisting remarks to insert bias and sometimes to the point of putting down right lies onto wikipedia. He has knowledge of the subject, which means he is sometimes not viewed in the same way as a troll, but he is responsible for more inaccurate information on pre-open era tennis history pages than any other editor by far. Without me correcting his errors and reducing his bloat and promotion, some pages (the Hoad page in particular) would look vastly different from how they do now. Some examples of this editor's wrong information:
Most recent example, February this year. The latest event which he tried to put a false spin on was a month ago. He knows full well that before 1968, amateurs and professionals played two separate circuits. By the mid 1960s, top amateurs were sometimes paid "under the table". However, the latest thing he was trying to promote is that these amateurs (the term often used for these players is "shamateurs") were "registered professionals". This is a lie and he knows it is a lie. We all know that payments were made under the table to top amateurs, but the circuit was still officially the amateur circuit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ramanathan_Krishnan&diff=1069712971&oldid=1069711567
His absurd defense on the talk page in the section on Registered professional designation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ramanathan_Krishnan
Now we come to Lew Hoad. This editor is obsessed with Lew Hoad to a level I have never seen with any other fanatic of any other player. This page has been a battleground ever since he first showed up on it. At one time I even obtained a temporary lock on the page because of the issues he caused on the page. At one point over a year ago, the editor did agree to stop editing on the page, but he just couldn't keep away. He edits this page almost daily. Many of these edits nowadays are fairly pointless, rearranging material. But over the past two years, he has put a lot of wrong information on the page and much deliberate bias, as well as increasing the page length unnecessarily with bloat, regularly removed by myself and other editors.
The last major issue on there October 2021. Pro slam doubles. He made errors that needed correction. He says Hoad held the record. He didn't. This is just one of his edits around this time on pro slam doubles that was corrected. An example of how every edit of his has to be checked, which is very tiresome.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lew_Hoad&type=revision&diff=1050254225&oldid=1049581272
So many rows on this page, sometimes over one line, sometimes over entire paragraphs. All the information he inserted trying to promote Hoad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lew_Hoad&type=revision&diff=1027592506&oldid=1027591899
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lew_Hoad&type=revision&diff=1027590821&oldid=1027553614
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lew_Hoad&type=revision&diff=1027590821&oldid=1027546157
No measuring equipment used to measure serve, so information removed. Endless back and forth: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lew_Hoad&diff=1014442354&oldid=1014442268
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lew_Hoad&diff=1009467909&oldid=1009467042
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lew_Hoad&type=revision&diff=982815046&oldid=982499457
"You're continued violations of WP:NPOV on the Lew Hoad, such as this edit, are disruptive and need to stop." A comment from another editor on the disruptive editor's talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tennisedu
One often repeated lie of his repeated endlessly on wikipedia pages was the World Pro championship was not called the US Pro. Debunked by me here in the US Pro / World Pro section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pancho_Gonzales
I could go on and on. Every wrong claim from this editor requires endless debate and justification until he stops relentlessly putting it onto wikipedia pages.
Tennishistory1877 (talk) 13:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to weigh in too on the disruptive editing highlighted by tennishistory1877, concerning the Lew Hoad pages. It's also my view that the editor in question consistently violates NPOV and, as you can see, he's been warned about this many times on his user page, the Lew Hoad page, and related pages.
Most damaging, in my view, is the editor's persistence in arguing even when he does not have consensus or is opposed by everyone else in the discussion. This has damaged discussion and has done more than anything to keep me personally away from these pages (though I still watch them).
Those are general issues, but I can give you specific examples. After I had been away from these pages for some months, the editor in question unilaterally removed my edits concerning prize money won by Lew Hoad: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lew_Hoad&diff=1025593530&oldid=1025591618
This resulted in perhaps our longest and most volatile row, after I restored my edits and we all disputed the editor's new prize money figures, which of course were inflated in Hoad's favor. He tried, for example, to claim that Hoad was the first tennis player to reach $1 million in career earnings, and not Rod Laver, who is famously known for that distinction. The editor was told by all others in the discussion that he was misinterpreting one source and that all other sources on the issue contradicted him, but the edit war continued.
He even took it at one point to Rod Laver's page, which is another pattern I've observed here: when the group of editors finally get agreement from this editor on something, he then goes to other pages to make edits to show us that we need to be "consistent". In this case, we got an agreement to remove the bloated material about prize money that the editor had accumulated on the Lew Hoad page over the years, eg., Hoad had made X.00 dollars in career earnings as of June 16, 1958, then Y.00 dollars as of Sept. 14, 1959 -- that type of thing (see also https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lew_Hoad&diff=1026366408&oldid=1026365478). We agreed that what we called mid-career earnings totals should be removed. It never occurred to us that Laver's $1 million milestone in career earnings -- one of the signal events in pro tennis history, and an undisputed one -- should then be removed from Rod Laver's page, but the editor in question did precisely that, going to that page and removing it because it was, technically, a mid-career earnings total: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rod_Laver&diff=1027909785&oldid=1027874339
So, removing genuine bloat from Hoad's page required an editing war, and it then required protecting genuinely basic and good material from Rod Laver's page.
He received a warning from one of our editors (not tennishistory1877 or myself) for that particular edit.
Another example of just how deep the POV runs here: the editor put on Lew Hoad's page that Hoad made $140,000 in just six months in 1957 (you can find that figure in, for example, this revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lew_Hoad&diff=1026366408&oldid=1026365478). Again he misused one source, in contradiction to all other sources (Hoad's actual earnings were only $33,600!), and his figure was one of many that had to be removed, but only after other editors repeated themselves to the breaking point.
There is, as tennishistory1877 indicated, so much more that could be said here. I've restricted myself to the subtopic of prize money, but these edit wars have been endless on every topic that even remotely concerns Lew Hoad, and they've been going on now for about four years.Krosero (talk) 16:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I'll have a look at this and will notify the other editor in due course. Unfortunately there is far too much detail and background in the above. The background is good and I understand that it can be difficult to provide a summary of a long-term situation. However, the claim is that incorrect information has been placed in articles, repeatedly. The best way to demonstrate that would be to post three diffs (no more!) to show different examples of really incorrect information. Each diff would be accompanied with a brief statement saying what the diff shows (the incorrect information) and what the correct information is. There would also be a link to where other editors joined a discussion and agreed that the diff shows incorrect information. That would ideally be at WT:WikiProject Tennis so it is clear that interested editors had an opportunity to give an opinion. The only mention I can find is very reasonable—see May 2020.
I see that Ramanathan Krishnan and a source are very similar—one is a copyright violation of the other. If I get a chance I'll see if there are any archives of the source and try to determine which page copied from the other.
Don't do any more now—there is no need to post here again until I have added a comment about what I think should happen. Johnuniq (talk) 06:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Re the copyvio I mentioned above, I have found some key signs that the source (thankyouindianarmy.com) is a copy of the Wikipedia article (18 November 2020) so no action regarding that is required. Johnuniq (talk) 08:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
I have nothing personal against the editor himself, but I do have a lot of issues with his editing on wikipedia. Three different examples of bad editing by this editor along with proof. Lets go for three examples mentioned already. On the tennis project page we may debate changes in style of articles, changes in emphasis, matters of judgment of what to include and what not to include. There is no debate on the the three things I am listing here, two are gigantic lies and the other is the removal of a significant landmark achievement and the editor knows what he is doing. He has consistently refused to bring the matter to the tennis project page when his edits were reverted. His edits require constantly monitoring, an exhausting and odious task.
Example one, a recent example. Listing amateurs as professionals. A very large and deliberate error. We all know the amateur system was corrupt and that amateurs were paid "under the table", but the official façade presented to the world were that they were amateurs. Every reputable source will state that before April 1968 the Grand Slams such as Wimbledon and the US Open were amateur tournaments.
Wrong information inserted by the editor:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ramanathan_Krishnan&diff=1069727869&oldid=1069712971
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ramanathan_Krishnan&diff=1069709959&oldid=1069708569
A small sample of sources (there are many more) that show his edits are baloney:
"professional players, who had been barred for more than 40 years from playing on the sport's greatest stages" https://www.atptour.com/en/news/atp-heritage-open-tennis-laver-rosewall-cox-1968-bournemouth
History of Wimbledon page "Prize money was first awarded in 1968, the year that professional players were allowed to compete in the Championships for the first time." https://www.pledgesports.org/2020/04/the-history-of-wimbledon/
https://www.wnewsj.com/sports/local-sports-1/48580/with-the-us-open-underway-a-look-at-end-of-shamateur-tennis
1968 "For the first time, professional players were allowed to compete in the Grand Slam tournaments" https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/44495146
Ramanathan Krishnan was an amateur until open tennis arrived in 1968. He entered Wimbledon (an amateur tournament until 1968) in 1967: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Wimbledon_Championships_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_singles
Example two: Removing Laver's $1 million prize money. A landmark achievement in the sport. (Also the editor added incorrect prize money for Hoad on the Hoad page, as krosero states).
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rod_Laver&diff=1027909785&oldid=1027874339
Proof this $1 million statement is widely accepted and is noted on Laver's Hall of fame profile:
https://www.tennisfame.com/hall-of-famers/inductees/rod-laver Tennis Hall of Fame website: "Laver was the first to exceed $1 million dollars on tour"
Example three: Changing US Pro name (an event that Lew Hoad never won). Editor already knew when he made these edits that Jack March's World Pro event was referred to as US Pro in many sources, because he had already read Kramer's autobiography, Gonzales' autobiography and McCauley's book (the US Pro was a prominent event on the pro circuit, often listed as one of the three "pro majors". Attempts not to list it as US Pro are attempts to downgrade the event's status.) I was not active on wikipedia during the main period when he was changing the US Pro name (something he kept doing). I stopped him for good on this with a long list of citations shown below.
Editor changes the tournament name from US Pro:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_number_1_ranked_male_tennis_players&diff=947951129&oldid=947950591
Another editor reverts his edits. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_number_1_ranked_male_tennis_players&diff=948019524&oldid=947951309
Additional contemporary sources provided by me on a talk thread that proves event was called the US Pro championship:
Corpus Christi Caller Times, 12 March 1953 https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/24128017
The Philadelphia Inquirer, 4 April 1953 https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/172173553
The Tampa Tribune, 11 April 1953 https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/327692427
The Philadelphia Inquirer, 20 December 1953 https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/177721805
The Philadelphia Inquirer, 27 December 1953 https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/177683048
The Times (Shreveport) 16 February 1956 https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/211499925
Star Press (Muncie) 18 March 1957 https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/251855716
In his autobiography, Man with a racket (published in 1959), Gonzales makes several references to the US Pro being held at Cleveland, including the following
"I had blown the U. S. National Professional Championships to Segura in 1952, but took the title the next year beating Don Budge" page 111
Tennishistory1877 (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
That's not exactly what I had in mind when I wrote "there is no need to post here again until ...". I'm caught up elsewhere but will look at this in a day or two. If I haven't said anything within 7 days, that means I've forgotten in which case, please post briefly to remind me. Johnuniq (talk) 06:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
For anyone interested, I've been doing some stuff at bnwiki but am now ready to look at the above. Expect more in a day or two. Johnuniq (talk) 03:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@Tennishistory1877: I've looked at a couple of points and I can see that there is a problem that has to be fixed. However, your comments above are long and rambling and are not helpful for someone without detailed knowledge of tennis history. I asked for evidence regarding "deliberately wrong information". Perhaps there is some above but, for example, what is your first link for Lew Hoad supposed to show? I have spent a couple of minutes staring at the diff but cannot see your point. Is that "wrong information"? How would I know that? The current article seems to agree with the text added in that diff, although it has been rearranged. I agree that repeatedly promoting Lew Hoad would be a misuse of Wikipedia and the time of other editors. However, that is a much lesser sin than introducing "deliberately wrong information".

Regarding Ramanathan Krishnan becoming a registered professional "Even before Open tennis arrived", that would be injection of a personal point of view, albeit a defensible view. It is definitely wrong for an editor to contradict reliable sources. The correct way to handle problems like that is to gently discuss the issue on article talk. If that does not resolve the situation, WP:DR must be followed which would end up with an WP:RFC—that is the only way a content dispute like that can be settled. An administrator cannot declare that one side of an argument is correct and that therefore the other side should be sanctioned. What can happen is that a community discussion (perhaps less than an RFC but a discussion involving more than just a small number of the usual suspects) might decide on a certain outcome. Then an admin could require any dissenters to drop the matter or start an RFC themselves. I don't see such a discussion (long arguments between the participants don't count—it's opinions from independent editors that matter). I can help frame the wording of an RFC.

Regarding "changes the tournament name from US Pro", the current article (World number 1 ranked male tennis players) contains "Gonzales beat Segura in U.S. Pro or Cleveland World Pro (billed title)" which, if true, makes the diff showing a change from "U.S. Pro" to "Cleveland World Pro" defensible. Perhaps someone with very detailed knowledge of the topic would recognize these issues as being distortions but I have not seen any "deliberately wrong information".

The way to proceed might be to forget the past because no one wants to wade through old arguments with old and unclear diffs. Instead, let me know about any new problems but please remember that any dispute where both sides are attacking each other will not end well for the participants. If you want me to look at a disagreement, I will want to see people focusing on article content. An article talk page should not have complaints about other editors. Please see the excellent advice from Fyunck(click) at User talk:Tennisedu#Editor dispute must stop. Seeking advice at WT:WikiProject Tennis would be desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 06:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

My comments have to be long in order for me to explain the problem and also include sources to show that the information is wrong. The change in the page link you quoted shows that he wrote the word record when it wasn't a record. "I agree that repeatedly promoting Lew Hoad would be a misuse of Wikipedia and the time of other editors." Myself and krosero have listed countless examples of him doing this and warnings placed on his page, not just from myself but other editors as well (I have lost count of the number of reversions of his edits quoting NPOV as a reason). The Lew Hoad page was locked because of the issues on this page. Your defense to this argument seems to be that you haven't got a clue about tennis history so can't be bothered to look at the evidence properly. The "advice" of editor fyunck was disputed on my talk page by myself and krosero. I do not want to re-hash the issues between myself and fyunck and get sidetracked. I watch some wikipedia tennis history talk pages (as well as sometimes commenting on them) and there is quite often bad feeling between editors, this is not unusual (the Dicklyon incident which started this thread was just one example, one of many). What is unusual is an editor so persistently pursuing an agenda promoting one player. The Ramanathan Krishnan edits were "an editor contradicting reliable sources" which you describe as "definitely wrong". He altered the page not once but twice, then did not post about it at the tennis project page, despite me saying he should on the article talk page (he knew he wouldn't get consensus on the tennis project page for his wrong information to be added). But he still wasted a considerable amount of my time arguing about it on the article talk page after his bid to insert the information had failed. The US Pro was for several years both the World Pro and the US Pro, but the US Pro was often considered one of the three major titles, so removing it demotes its status and he already knew this was opposed by all other editors. I have never disputed that the event was billed as the World Pro and no one should dispute that it was also the US Pro, both are universally recognized facts. The Rod Laver $1 million statement removal is clear bias and he was warned as such on his talk page (not by me). The other examples show other instances of his biased editing. As recently as yesterday I made a spelling correction to one line he had put on a page. This was not a deliberate error, but an example of how his edits need to be checked for accuracy (and sometimes corrections made). And important to say that I have nothing personal against the editor himself. I am sure if I met him I would get on fine with him, but his wikipedia editing requires constant monitoring, which another editor described as untenable. The only thing that matters to me is the accuracy of wikipedia tennis history pages and I am tired with the amount of time I spend on correcting wrong information from one editor. I no longer wish to edit on wikipedia, but am forced to in order to defend the accuracy of pages I care about. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
What is all this about? There is a lot of vague complaining here, but if there is a specific point, there is nothing preventing an editor from fixing it. These points have already been discussed sufficiently and I believe were resolved some time ago. What is the fuss all about now that these issues are resolved? It is time to turn the page and move on.Tennisedu (talk) 04:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Your opinion

John, in the course of searching for an answer, I saw that you have been involved with discussions concerning the topic I've been researching. I don't really want to start a noticeboard discussion atm, so let me ask your opinion: is it permissible to add an external link to a free source of a copyrighted film to the WP page of that film? Specifically I tried to add the Internet Archive link of the film Let It Be to the Wikipedia article, but it was reverted twice with no edit summary. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Tom! It's been a while but I'm glad to hear from you again. The issue is this edit at Let It Be (1970 film) which added an external link for what is apparently a copy of the film at archive.org. If I thought it would do any good I would tell your reverter that Wikipedia is not a place for jerks to hang out. Who knows what thought process, if any, went through their head. However, I would be wary about adding that link. The policy is WP:COPYLINK which says that recently created works (which might mean anything in the last century) are probably copyrighted and there should not be a link to a copy of the work. The way to get a more definitive ruling would be to ask at the noticeboard, WP:ELN. I can do that if you want but unless you have some evidence about a lack of copyright for this film I don't think it would be productive. Johnuniq (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Main page image for the featured article

Hi John. I noticed just by chance that the main page of WP today has a featured article on Bach's Cantata No. 1, BWV 1, for which I contributed the lede image. The caption in the main page states that the manuscript was handwritten by Bach, which is incorrect. In the article, the caption states that the manuscript is by a copyist of Bach, Johann Andreas Kuhnau, not by Bach. The error was made by Gerda Arendt. Could you or another administrator devise some remedy to correct things if possible (e.g. by removing the caption)? I know that in the past editors have tried to change the main page and that has often not been a great idea. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 04:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mathsci: I removed "in Bach's handwriting" and reported the issue at WP:ERRORS for any further suggestions or a remedy. Johnuniq (talk) 06:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks very much for that — a very good solution! Mathsci (talk) 08:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Help!

Hello, Johnuniq,

Last night, I received rather frantic talk page requests to expand the block for the range of Special:Contributions/2A02:587:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 because of some rampant vandalism going on. I'm not experienced with range blocks but I honored the request because I could see the vandalism was continuing unabated. You originally gave this range partial blocks from a few pages.

Well, now I have a talk page message saying that I blocked IPs from much of the country of Greece, preventing them from editing Wikipedia! I tried to revert my block to go back to your original, partial page block but have been unsuccessful and just receive error messages. Can you help me correct my blunder? And if you have advice on what I SHOULD have done in this situation when a partial page block wasn't stopping the vandalism spree, I'm all ears. Thanks for any help you can provide. Liz Read! Talk! 01:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: I'm not sure but it looks like it is not possible to simply restore the block settings to how I had it. It would have to be done again from scratch. Looking at the block log for Special:Contributions/2A02:587:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 shows that at 23:09, 23 February 2022 I did a partial block for "pages Adèle Exarchopoulos, Blind Channel, John Stamos, Bedford RL, Bedford TL and Bedford Vehicles with an expiration time of 01:51, 6 June 2022 (anon. only)". To restore that, someone would have to go to the change block page and click Partial (not Sitewide) and enter the following names as shown below under "Pages":
Adèle Exarchopoulos
Blind Channel
John Stamos
Bedford RL
Bedford TL
Bedford Vehicles
The only advice I have is that if doing a sitewide block for a large range, it is normal to not enable "Block account creation" (blocking an IPv6 /64 would not be large range).
I'm not the right person to offer sympathy to affected IPs when blocking a large range. IMHO, tolerating nonsense because that would be "logical, and harmonized with Wikipedia's policies" is damaging to the community. I haven't examined more than a couple of recent edits from the range, but I see no reason to remove the block. The IP complaining on your talk may care to identify some recent valuable edits as evidence that the block should be shortened or removed. Making unexplained and unsourced changes to numbers in sports articles is not valuable. Blocking until 6 June 2022 is possibly a bit long and you might reduce that to one month from now. I would say "good work!". Johnuniq (talk) 02:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Three years!

- look and listen today --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, and good work at Olga Bezsmertna. Let's hope it's not too much longer before others study "voice at the Kyiv Conservatory". Johnuniq (talk) 09:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

apologies

I am extremely sorry for all this drama. I am not mad at bishonen and I'm not trying to get anyone in trouble. I have no intention of taking up other editors valuable time, or even taking this to ani or whatever...none of that interests me, but it just feels like that is what is happening to me because now an editor is accusing me of doing those exact things on bishonen's talk page and I feel helpless. I truly love wiki, and many of the editors there, but it's very hard to feel safe using it right now. I have had previous traumatic experiences that resulted from online interactions. I have had to file police reports and even restraining orders. I have been stalked and so has my partner. I know what gaslighting feels like, and it makes you very paranoid. I just need a break. when I'm ready I'll come back. Please do not punish anyone. I just need some time to figure out if I can feel safe again doing what i enjoy. thanks and again I'm very sorry. DN (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi DN. I don't know what you have been editing recently, nor do I know what the fuss is about. However I have seen your good work in the past. There is no problem with your post at Bishonen's talk and there is no need to apologize. I'm just sorry that you have been stressed. My comment was to say that the best way for the issue to end would be for everyone to stop talking about it. I'm sure there won't be any further problems. Of course there will be further arguments about the underlying article content. By the way, if you don't want pings from a particular user for a while, you can "mute" them by adding their user name under notifications at your preferences (see link at top-right of any page). Johnuniq (talk) 03:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
thank you. DN (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
I have had enough time to step back and breath. I am still in need of administrative advice on how to deal with my concerns in a constructive way that does not take up valuable time and does not end with any punitive or otherwise "dramatic" result. Thanks, and sorry for crashing your page again. DN (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
As you know, there is no good way to have an intractable dispute move forward. However if you want an opinion on something, feel free to leave a link here although I'll take a while before looking. Johnuniq (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for trying to understand my predicament. If you would prefer diffs I will consider it, but it makes me feel uncomfortable because I truly am not interested in AE or ANI or any of that nonsense. I know it's not my job to keep anyone out of trouble but myself, and I'd like to keep it that way. I realize you need to avoid wasting your limited and valuable time with content disputes, and I wouldn't be here if I felt like it wasn't closer to policy issues. Let me think about it. If there is any way I can avoid getting dragged into arbitration, and without getting in trouble for not saying anything, that would be great. Cheers. DN (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
I suspect that whatever the issue is, it will be another of the intractable problems that boils down to the fact that different people have different views. That means there's not much I can do. However, just one diff would enable me to get an idea of what's going on, even if I don't do anything. Johnuniq (talk) 03:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
In that case I would really like to stop getting dragged into the 7+ year old argument at Southern Strategy [11]. I have tried to remain impartial and asked for new evidence to support the desired change, but I think some editors might be carrying a WP:STICK. If I am acting improperly, or if my logic is flawed, please let me know. Otherwise I will just refer to the archives on this matter moving forward. Thanks again. DN (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Johnuniq Here we go again [12]...DN (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
I will not be making any more comments or arguments there today because I'm feeling triggered and I need to step away. DN (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't know if Snooganssnoogans is having an issue as well, but their edit summary seemed...strange [13]. I honestly didn't see it until after I pinged them on SS and decided to go check out their TP. I honestly hope it's nothing. DN (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
I decided to take a more blunt approach [14]. I don't like having to be abrasive, but I don't know how else to get across that I'm kinda done there. DN (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The issue concerns "The scholarly consensus is that racial conservatism was critical in the post-Civil Rights Act realignment of the Republican and Democratic parties." in the lead at Southern strategy. That text has been present in many revisions going back a year. I didn't work out when it was added but it seems to have been near the beginning of 2021, after January. There are vague discussions regarding scholars in archives, but "scholarly consensus" does not occur in the last two archives which go back to 2017. A related 2015 discussion is at Talk:Southern strategy/Archive 3. There are no mentions of "scholarly consensus" in section titles or edit summaries in the history of the talk page since 2015, apart from the current Talk:Southern strategy#Scholarly consensus. It's obvious that a significant group of editors will object to the wording in question, while another significant group will support it. The current discussion is necessary but pointless because participants will never shift their positions. The only mechanism for resolution would be a tedious WP:RFC. I have no idea regarding what scholarly consensus may exist, but I do know that such strong wording for a political topic would be hard to justify in an RfC. Of course if gold-plated sources make such assertions, the text can be justified, but it is rare for "scholarly consensus" to be declared on any topic, let alone something connected with politics. Consider Climate change which has to be content with "There is a near-complete scientific consensus" and Shakespeare authorship question which says "Despite the scholarly consensus, [some contrarians have other views]." Regarding editor behavior, it looks like the participants tick all the boxes for a topic under discretionary sanctions. It may be that some are stonewalling, but they are doing it with comments focused on the topic while making reasonable points. That's why I suggest that an RfC is the only way forward. I know that "consensus" does not mean "without objection" but it is still my opinion that extraordinarily good and multiple sources would be needed to justify the wording otherwise it's just one scholar declaring that their side is correct. That view may be correct but such text would be hard to maintain at Wikipedia. Sorry to bear bad news, but that's my opinion at the moment. To repeat, I have no idea about the accuracy of the assertion—I'm justreporting how I think it would play out at Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 07:50, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

So you don't see a WP:STICK or WP:IDHT issue? I feel confident the archive has already covered the content dispute, my concern is that there are editors out there driving me, and possibly others, f'ing crazy...Their motive and agenda are not really a concern I feel is in my wheel-house, I thought it was your wheel-house. DN (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
The editor I'm talking to just changed the lead without consensus. I was the one that stopped the edit war....Why am I doing all the work here? DN (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Isn't this article under some discretionary sanction warning rule or something? I'm going to step away, and reconsider this situation. DN (talk) 09:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm not saying there is no stonewalling (STICK/IDHT), I'm just saying how I think the issue would work here. Look how many kooks there are in real life, particularly among political commentators. Given anyone can edit, it is inevitable that there will be people who oppose "scholarly consensus" and that means discussions will look like the one currently occurring. That's an unfortunate reality. Re discretionary sanctions, yes, DS applies and edit warring is not permitted. However, it is impossible for there to be an edit war involving one person. That makes enforcement awkward and there have been no substantive edits at Southern strategy for over a week. Johnuniq (talk) 09:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
I completely empathize with the plight of Wikipedia officers such as yourself. There are way to few of you and I'm pretty sure there is no pay, which brings about and even deeper issue. Then there are the kooks etc. which quite frankly may be getting paid to be "kooks". It's untenable. Ideals do not pay the bills. You are likely completely underfunded and outgunned. It is wrong, and I will say that, because it is the truth. I will not ask anything further from you, only that you stay true to yourself and protect what you love, and what loves you back. Talk to you again someday. "Don't panic and always have a towel." DN (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

LTA

Please help and look at this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dusty8686; this LTA's disruption has increased rapidly in the past few days and it now involves a username w/ a threat to an admin (luckily blocked but other accounts need blocks and the only other active admin at AIV is just letting them off with warnings). Thanks. wizzito | say hello! 00:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Wizzito: I checked each of the user names and IPs mentioned at that SPI and they are either indeffed or their last edit was five days ago (apart from a small number of inconsequential edits from a big range). Sorry, but would you please monitor the situation and alert me with a diff if there is a new edit that I can either easily see is from a sock (because of the history at that article showing similar problems), or also provide a brief explanation of how I should work out that an indef is justified. Johnuniq (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
  • When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Cinderella

A user called TravBrady moved/renamed all the articles about musicals named Cinderella to date names instead of composer/author names. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TravBrady This strikes me as a bad idea. Unlike films, we generally do NOT name musicals by year, since a musical can be written in one year, published in another, have a concept album in another, have a tryout in another, premiere in a major market in another, be broadcast in another, and then be revived over and over, with the most important production not necessarily being the original production. Can we undo these moves so that the reason for the naming is clear for future editors? -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

It seems this involves two articles:
Listing Cinderella articles suggests that names like Cinderella (1899 film) and Cinderella (2013 Broadway production) are commonly used, although I take your point about the difference regarding film titles. It's easy to reverse page moves, particularly when there are only two of them, but I think a brief discussion on one of the talk pages should occur first. I'll watch both pages for a short period and can help with a discussion and/or move. Johnuniq (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I opened Talk page discussions at both articles. Yes, I have no problem with naming the 1899 film article according to Film project standard. However the 2013 article is unique because it is a version of the Rodgers and Hammerstein score with a new book, and it was hard to name it any other way. Other musicals adaptations of the Cinderella story should not be named according to the year of the premiere. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Feel free to wade into the discussion. I don't seem to have been very persuasive. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
There was support to restore the original titles so I moved the two articles back. Johnuniq (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

  1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
  2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

IP over Avian Carriers RfC

Hello, just letting you know I closed the RfC at Talk:IP over Avian Carriers#RfC on image of a dead pigeon, so you may wish to at some point unprotect the page or implement the result of the discussion. Endwise (talk) 05:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Endwise: Thanks, I have unprotected the article but will leave the implementation for the moment. Johnuniq (talk) 05:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism-only account

What should be done about this vandalism account? User:209.106.86.121 -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  • Ssilvers, it's not an account, and it's not vandalism-only. Sorry. The last four edits (over a two-month period) were vandalism: I wish I understood what happened at Afro-textured hair. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Increasing DYK count

I'm not sure why the last comment was needed. I don't even keep track of my DYKs. SL93 (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

This relates to a snarky comment I made at DYK talk (permalink). Sorry, I'm not normally so aggressive but was concerned about the situation and wanted to strongly support the content creator. Thank you for resolving the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

S201050066'S topic ban

Hi @Johnuniq:, I wanted to get in touch with your regarding S201050066 topic ban from COVID-19-related topics. Having interacted with S201050066, I think they are well-meaning and passionate but accept that he is unwilling to collaborate or play by the rules here. Their edit warring and aggressive behaviour over the past day has not been helpful. I think that they have potential to do good such as adding daily case reports to the Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario and Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Quebec articles. They need guidance. Personally, I hope deep down that they can change and become a useful contributor to Wikipedia. I have personally reached out to S201050066 to offer an olive branch. I have offered to help them. Would you be willing to consider lifting the topic ban on S201050066 if they show contrition and a willingness to mend their ways? Andykatib 10:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure your intentions were noble here, Andykatib, but following this edit I've extended their block to indefinite, without talk page access. They will need to convince one of the UTRS admins that they can edit constructively before they will be permitted to edit about any subject at all, let alone covid. Girth Summit (blether) 18:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Girth Summit and Johnuniq, having read S201050066, I now realize that I was deeply naive and mistaken about wanting to give them a second chance. It is now clear that S20105066 has no remorse let alone any intentions of playing the rules. As long as they remain defiant and unwilling to see the error of their errors, I think S201050066 has no place editing on Wikipedia. I think the indefinite ban is thus justified. Will be more careful next time when interacting with such users as S201050066. Andykatib (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for trying. Johnuniq (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Need help

Sorry for asking some silly question, again. But, can the user change the comment at the revision? I'm very so clumsy to give commentary about this one

(talk) 13:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Dedhert.Jr: That is an edit summary (WP:EDSUM) and it cannot be changed. An administrator can hide an edit summary if, for example, it is offensive, but mistakes are forever I'm afraid. The good news is that everyone makes mistakes and they are unimportant. Johnuniq (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

MOS:GID and Deadnaming

An IP continues to deadname a trans person here. Note that they are using more than one IP and making lots of edits. What should be done? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I protected the article for three months and will watch for a while. Johnuniq (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Need help about Heptadecagon

Hello, can you help me with this case? Lastly, I had already fixed it in my sandbox. However, I didn't see any commentary or changes on this page. Maybe you can give a commentary or suggestion, cause I'm afraid about what act did I do in this contribution, and it's my first time editing all of the content on that page. Regards, Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC) {{ping}} me

@Dedhert.Jr: I'm not sure what you are asking. In general, the best approach is to ask at the wikiproject, which you did at WT:WikiProject Mathematics#Need to fix Heptadecagon?. Perhaps you meant to link that in your above comment? I agree that large animations are distracting. I have seen articles where a fixed and reasonably sized image is displayed with a caption that includes a link to the full animation. I don't think I can offer much help at Heptadecagon. Your sandbox is very different from the article and I do not understand the point of "A polygon has 119 diagonal side." A red link should not be necessary, and where did 119 come from? Johnuniq (talk) 06:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
@Johnuniq What I meant is I want to replace the content of my sandbox to the Heptadecagon, however I'm afraid that someone will revert my edit. Also, about the red link, it's just a mistype (it has to be Diagonal side my bad). And about "where did 119 come from", it's come from the number of diagonal of -gon formula, that is . If one take (which means 17-gon a.k.a heptadecagon), the formula gives that it has 119 diagonal sides. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 09:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
If there is a mistype (typo), it should be fixed. My questions were somewhat rhetorical. What I mean is that in an article about a polygon with 17 edges, it is not clear what 119 has to do with the topic. Rather than "a polygon", you might mean "a heptadecagon". I think you will have to try it and see but my feeling is that a large edit is likely to concern someone and that might lead to your edit being reverted. That is normal and it can then be discussed on article talk. Johnuniq (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Need help to add reference

Hello, @Johnuniq, I just need your help with this one. So, I found the missing citation about this sentence in this article:

The words block and chain were used separately in Satoshi Nakamoto's original paper, but were eventually popularized as a single word, blockchain, by 2016.

And I found this citation as well. However, I never used the HTML code (or something). Regards, Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Are you asking how to write the wikitext for a reference? If so, the first point to note is that it would be ok to simply add
<ref>[https:correct-URL-goes-here Title-of-book page-number]</ref>
Someone will format it correctly eventually. If your aim is to do the formatting, a good procedure is to search the wikitext of the article to find an example of how it is done there, then carefully edit it. There is an example at Blockchain#Sidechains with wikitext that I have arranged on several lines here to make it readable (I also removed some unusual punctuation):
A sidechain is a designation for a blockchain ledger that runs in parallel to a primary blockchain.<ref>
{{Cite book
|last=Siraj Raval
|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fvywDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA22
|title=Decentralized Applications: Harnessing Bitcoin's Blockchain Technology
|date=18 July 2016
|publisher=O'Reilly Media, Inc.
|isbn=978-1-4919-2452-5
|page=22
}}</ref>
From your URL, all that is needed is the id and pg, which gives
|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=uVbjDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA6
Johnuniq (talk) 23:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
@Johnuniq I still didn't understand how to write it by wikitext, but I usually lend some sandbox in other Wikipedia, and so I added that one. Also, can you help me to check it? Cause I added more references for uncited sentences in that page. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 04:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
I checked it and it looked good. You might like to see the small adjustment I made. Johnuniq (talk) 07:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

RFC question

Hi there. Last February you gave me some advise on how to proceed with an RfC. If you have a moment, can I get your opinion at Talk:Ely, Minnesota#Ely Wolf Center? I feel a bit like Henry Fonda on 12 Angry Men. Would this be a humiliating waste of time at an RfC? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: That's quite a long section. My skim of it suggests that four people support inclusion of material regarding a wolf center and a bear center with only one (Magnolia677) wanting removal. The issue is that (apparently) the two centers are technically not in Ely, Minnesota but are nearby. You are, of course, totally correct that the argument of the main proponent (that tourism is important for the city's welfare) is bogus and I can understand that it's hard to let such mistaken views pass. However, three others seem to be good editors and while the wording could be toned down I suggest retaining the information with no RfC. Johnuniq (talk) 03:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you again for your input. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Could you remove the link

Could you remove the link I posted? You can oversight it if you wish?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Epiphyllumlover: Thanks for striking but let's leave it at that for now. My point is that on-wiki activity should do as little as possible regarding the off-wiki harassment. I just blocked a trolling IP for three months, but apart from that kind of response, the sooner we drop the matter the better. Johnuniq (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
  • The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Rp2006's AE

Regarding your comment, Would someone please clarify what the problem is. Respectfully....you've denied all along that there ever was a problem with the Guerilla Skeptics. Before it went to ArbCom, you were in the AN/I thread demanding people to explain this to you. Geogene (talk) 02:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

This discussion should be kept at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Rp2006 but at no stage have I demanded anything. Johnuniq (talk) 05:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
It is here, because it's about your conduct related to GSoW-related issues. Geogene (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Now, here are a couple of diffs (there are many more) of you participating in the GSoW ArbCom case, tendentiously supporting the Guerilla Skeptics. [15], [16]. Are you sure you're Uninvolved in that AE, because you've been defending them all along. Geogene (talk) 06:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
And here's a diff where you state your pre-existing opinion that GSoW is not here to promote themselves [17], which is directly relevant to the AE case you're participating in as an "uninvolved" admin. Geogene (talk) 06:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't see how the opinions expressed in those comments are a problem regarding WP:INVOLVED. By the way, it's a bit much to describe me as "tendentiously supporting" anything. If you were concerned about whether I am INVOLVED regarding the current AE request, and given that I can't see it, I believe the procedure would be to express the concern at that page and ask for comments from uninvolved editors. I'm not sure, but WP:ARCA might also be available ... I would need to study the paperwork to decide on that. Johnuniq (talk) 07:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
No, from past experience I wasn't expecting you to agree with me on that. You also will not agree with me on this: I think you're the primary reason why normal dispute resolution processes failed in the GSoW case. From those AN/I and COIN threads, I have the impression that you were acting as both a "lawyer" for GSoW and judge at the same time, and this is the main reason it ended up at ArbCom. Geogene (talk) 07:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

ref=none

I am working on an article being reviewed for GA promotion. The reviewer insisted that the parameter |ref=none be added to all the book cites. I don't see that it makes any difference. Are you familiar with it? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

No. I believe I encountered discussions about the issue but have never seen it. A search ("Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation" "ref=none") suggests that people with a certain script installed see the warning, for example Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 181#Harv warning with no harv. Johnuniq (talk) 23:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
We don't use Harvard referencing in the article, but I added the |ref=none parameter, since the reviewer demanded it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand it, but the title of the link is "Harv warning with no harv" so it appears the situation is common (the search finds dozens of them). Apparently people are using a script that is confused. Johnuniq (talk) 04:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal

Hi, I am writing to appeal my topic ban. I have been advised by another administrator that I can appeal to you directly as the enforcing administrator. It has now been over a year since the topic ban was originally enacted, and upon the advice of others, I believe this is an appropriate timeframe to wait before appealing. I understand why I was topic banned and have learnt from this experience. I hereby promise to adhere to the appropriate policy guidelines. I believe I have been a productive editor since then, creating several new articles. I would like to be able to edit BLP articles, mainly for the purpose of copy editing, by improving grammar, formatting, structure and referencing. So I am writing here to ask that you lift the sanctions on my account please.--TrottieTrue (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@TrottieTrue: That looks reasonable and I am removing the sanction based on this appeal. As I recall, part of the original problem was reluctance to seriously consider advice from an IP. Please ask questions when seeing objections in the future and keep an open mind that there might be a problem. For the record, the BLP topic ban resulted from WP:AE permalink and was notified at talk permalink and noted in the 2021 log. Johnuniq (talk) 04:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
@Johnuniq:, many thanks, much appreciated. I presume you mean an IP address unregistered editor, in which case I think I know what you are referring to. I will take on board what you have said. TrottieTrue (talk) 12:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Your help is needed

Hi,the user:historyofiran is a fake account ,because in his user page he wrote he is from iran and but if you look at his talk page many people told him you can not speak persian,he is a fake acount spreads wrong information,we had a disscussion about an article about iran,he never accepted his flase claims,he claims he is iranian but he can not understand persian scripts,pleaese block him. Samurai747 (talk) 15:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Hey HistoryofIran, any idea who this is or what it's about? Johnuniq (talk) 07:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I've no idea tbh. Sorry for him bothering you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Actually, now I know who it is. This is a sock of indeffed user User:Pazyryk5644, since the info at their userpages is more or the less same. Pazyryk5644 is in turn a sock of 5644Khorasani, who got indeffed for being WP:NOTHERE after I reported him. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

He can not even undrestand persian scripts for gods sake,What kind of iranian are you??not able to read your offical language Samurai747 (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Followup

Thanks for protecting the page on Claire Danes, but as you may have also observed the problem is certainly a bigger one and that is mainly with the editor SquareInARoundHole, who is ridiculously misrepresenting sources, falsifying the policies and bludgeoning the whole talk page after having written 52% of the text in the talk page. And by calling me "disingenuous",[18] while himself relying entirely on his WP:OR and falsifications, I am confident this user is not inclined to be collaborative at all. This is happening after a DS alert,[19] and various calls to stop this behavior including a friendly reminder on his talk page which he recognized.[20]

I don't think editors will discuss any "dispute" when they know there is a person who is watching out to bludgeon any opposing response by writing walls of texts involving already refuted falsifications. This is a serious case of WP:CIR.

I believe a topic ban on this user from this particular article and its talk page is entirely warranted. Would you like me to provide diffs of policy violations here? The case is so obvious that it does not really need an ARE. Thanks. GenuineArt (talk) 04:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@GenuineArt: I don't see any substantive response to my comment at Talk:Claire Danes#Dispute and full protection. May I ask you whether there are any independent reliable sources that have commented on the significance of the issue to Claire Danes. Johnuniq (talk) 07:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
The question has been answered by other users, and the response from SquareInAroundHole is fraught with so many WP:DE issues that it validates my complaint above. He cites "WP:TERTIARY" and "WP:BLPGOSSIP" but does not know what it means. He cites Eonline.com link (published before resolution) for claiming that "those tertiary sources doesn't change what Kim Atienza, the councilor who authored the resolution", but ignores the fact that this Eonline.com article pre-dates all those 3 sources (none "tertiary") provided by TolWol56[21] and the Eonline.com article was published when Filipinos were "now considering banning all her movies", i.e. days before discussion of the resolution and months and years before the aftermath discussed by the sources from TolWol56.
Frankly, this one response from SquareInAroundHole alone certifies my complaint that this user "is ridiculously misrepresenting sources, falsifying the policies and bludgeoning the whole talk page". This could be the result of his poor grasp of the English language since he also claims that he is "not white" and thus his editing can't be called "whitewashing".[22] This WP:CIR together with intact POV pushing makes it impossible to deal with him. GenuineArt (talk) 03:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
You can't seriously think that reply is a response to my question. Why would you post that here? It's typical of bullshit disputes that people brush off genuine questions with claims that it's all been answered, but why post a bunch of whining links with none to answer my question? Johnuniq (talk) 04:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes you asked me to comment the significance of the issue, and I said this has been "answered by other users" on talk page who provided 3 sources[23] to detail how reliable sources discussed the significance of the incident on the subject. If I were to answer this question, I would do some digging because my view was only that the incident is notable because of the coverage it continues to receive over its escalation and the ban over movies and entry of Danes from the region. But after I saw the comments on the talk page I assumed it has been answered, for example, one of cited source discusses the significance of the entire incident on her perception about interview process and writers, how it "forced her to confront exactly the issues she set out to dramatize in Brokedown Palace", and it cites her own statement to verify them.
Reason why I posted the message above is because I want to address the ongoing disruption on this article and talk page. I have seen you at ARE and I think you can understand my concern. GenuineArt (talk) 06:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Nevertheless, the actress was officially decreed to be persona non grata, banning her past and future films from Manila's movie screens. This exact sentence from the source you are providing is a version of the events I softly support including, if it's included at all. I'm not misrepresenting anything by making it clear that I support what the secondary sources say without any contentious claims. That is not WP:OR.
No sources say she took a break because of the incident. Danes herself states she took a planned break to attend Yale.[24][25]. (and from the Flaunt piece: "I was 18 years old and I had no life. I needed to backtrack a little bit and that was my priority"... With that in mind, Danes bailed out of Hollywood for the academic life in New Haven.
The irony here is that Danes' real life adventures of late have forced her to confront exactly the issues she set out to dramatize in Brokedown Palace. Her work has consistently displayed a poise and grace beyond her years, but when you strip away the makeup and put the lights back in the truck, Danes is just another smart young woman trying to figure out her place in the world. Again, this does not say that the incident forced her to confront these things. The article discusses her "real life adventures as of late": With that in mind, Danes bailed out of Hollywood for the academic life in New Haven. For this child of SOHO and Santa Monica, suburban Yale offered a bit of a culture shock. & One stabilizing effect on Danes' life has been her long-term relationship with Australian indie-pop tunesmith Ben Lee. Danes recently accompanied her guitar-slinging beau on tour across America, sleeping in grungy Motel 6s and seeing the world from the back of a Buick. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 00:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Resolved
 – SquareInARoundHole has been site banned. GenuineArt (talk) 12:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Karine Jean-Pierre

Edit warring has continued by autoconfirmed editors. I think this page might need ECP. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

ArbEnf applies. It's a NOTHERE situation. I don't know why this was tolerated even before the BLPN notice was posted. --Hipal (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
An WP:UNINVOLVED admin (re: not me, but maybe Johnuniq) could apply discretionary sanctions based on post-1992 US politics and BLP. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Karine Jean-Pierre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm sensitive about people coatracking negativity in BLPs but to my naive mind (I don't follow daily politics and don't really know what this is about) it looks like an issue that has to be resolved with an RfC. The text is 23 words close to the end of the article (not the usual stuffing of the lead). If there were some kind of denial I might fully protect the article and justify removing the material per BLP until an RfC concluded but I don't see that. I don't think WP:ECP would help solve the edit war. This is at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Is Karine Jean-Pierre a conspiracy theorist? but that issue seems moot since the article has no mention of "conspiracy". I will quickly apply WP:ECP if it would help prevent further embellishment of the current text but I don't see how admin action can be justified at the moment. Happy to have that explained. Johnuniq (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
As we now have another previously uninvolved editor, who has yet to make any comments on the article talk page, [26] joining the edit-warring against multiple policies, perhaps HOUNDING? [27]. We need something. --Hipal (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
They are not hounding anyone: they saw the issue somewhere and joined in. I suppose I'll have to full protect if there is yet another revert cycle but my situation is as outlined above, namely I just don't get it because the negativity looks very minor to my naive eye and not at all like the lead-stuffing coatracking that normally occurs in political articles. That is, I can't see how to justify any admin action other than full protection to insist on an RfC focused on the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Yoruba Topics

User:Doug Weller began an editing war over a WikiProjectYoruba related topic.

And the point I was alluding was that the proper channel was to use the talk page to discuss those things. Instead, he began to pick hairs and misconstrue what was being said. Otelemuyen (talk) 08:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense. Your account was created in January 2011 but you are not an experienced editor (50 edits since January 2018) and you should ask questions, not provide lectures. It is common for edits to be reverted and you should discuss your proposal on article talk rather than posting messages at four user talk pages. Johnuniq (talk) 08:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
In any case clearly not an edit war on my part. Doug Weller talk 09:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

THANK YOU

  1. Otelemuyen (talk) Otelemuyen (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

About our discussion on the PBS talk page concerning its status as a TV network...

So, as far as starting an RfC on the PBS talk page to determine a community consensus concerning PBS's status as a TV network...

What about, for now, launching an RfC on the PBS talk page with the simple & direct question "Should the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) be considered a TV network?". Now, the thing is, not really sure if the question for the RfC should include a reference that the website for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) states PBS is owned by its member stations.

And, once that RfC is launched, I would then go on the talk pages for the editors (SMcCandlish, Huggums537, Mrschimpf, and NMasiha) that helped the RfC on the talk page for "List of United States over-the-air television networks" gain a consensus, and invite them to join in the discussion for this RfC, since those 4 seem to believe that PBS should be considered a TV network.

Then, as soon as it becomes apparent that a community consensus has been achieved through the RfC on the PBS talk page, the first sentence in the article's lede, as well as the opening paragraph for the "Operations" section for the PBS article, can be re-worded to reflect said community consensus.

Now, as far as re-wording not just the first sentence of the article's lede, but also the first paragraph under "Operations", that can probably be figured out after a community consensus has been reached.

Looking forward to hearing your viewpoint/opinion on my suggestion. 2600:1700:C960:2270:5541:D297:6D67:AEBE (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

This should be more brief and at the article talk page (Talk:PBS). Trying to communicate with a non-responsive, shifting IP wastes a lot of time. For example, I see no response at Talk:PBS where I wrote "please review User talk:2600:1700:C960:2270:94A6:8FE6:3787:1A0D where I explained...". An RfC will never decide anything unless it focuses on specific wording in the article, and as I tried to explain at talk, piling more original research on the existing original research in the article will not help. Reliable sources are needed. Find them and everything will follow. Do not respond here. Put any further (brief!) comments at article talk. Johnuniq (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Bashi Channel

Persistent vandalism of an IP address user at Bashi Channel history Maybe the article can be semi-protected again for maybe one month at least? Thank you. Mekeni (talk) 11:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

It's some kind of nationalist battle. Three months semi. Johnuniq (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Awakening (Jackie Evancho album)

There is lots of vandalism/edit warring at the article by an IP. Can you either block the IP or semi-protect the page? Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't have the energy to investigate the IP but protected for three days due to the edit warring. Johnuniq (talk) 06:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2022).

Technical news

  • user_global_editcount is a new variable that can be used in abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users. (T130439)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Happy Third Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing Johnuniq a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 14:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2022).

Administrator changes

readded Valereee
removed Anthony Appleyard (deceased) • Capitalistroadster • Samsara

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
  • An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.

Technical news

  • The Wikimania 2022 Hackathon will take place virtually from 11 August to 14 August.
  • Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
  • Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
  • Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Distinguish tag

Is this a proper/helpful use of a Distinguish tag?: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Evett&type=revision&diff=1103831034&oldid=1090001243 -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I suppose that's a matter of opinion but I reverted that as I can't see the point. Many names have some similarity to another name. The next step might be at article talk. Johnuniq (talk) 07:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Review

Well; let me conclude it briefly, even after they were blocked for 31 hours by RegentsPark, they continue to rant me as a castiest, cleaning their toilet and this all..,, As per Wikipedia:Blocking policy/Personal attacks; If someone make personal attacks while being blocked; quite obviously their block time should be increased. Here; diff (toilet slur), diff (disrespecting a scholar again), [28] (still ranting me castiest) At last they are even misusing their talk page access now; diff after your decline. Thanks for the response and please take a action regarding repeated personal remarks even during block (as shown in diff) and misuse of talk page. Bit lengthy but a decent context was required. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 05:51, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Appologies for anything wrong on my part but constant pinging to harass me (even after block) really took me out of my zone. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 05:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

@User:Packer&Tracker: Take this as an opportunity to show which of you is mature enough to walk away from bickering. Since my unblock decline, the other editor has (unwisely) pinged you and repeated their screed. Have you never used the internet before? People are like that. Just leave them alone until something new comes up. If it bothers you, go to your preferences and add their user name under "Muted users" in Notifications. And take their talk page off your watchlist. Johnuniq (talk) 07:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: I concur with you; it's much better to leave such users alone untill they do something disruptive again on main articles. Their repeated ping & continous verbals even during block time period just made me though that this rule:
::Being blocked does not reset the attack counter. Thus, if a user is blocked under this proposal and makes an additional personal attack within 6 days (one week less maximum blocking period) of the block expiring, they may be immediately rebloc'ed ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 10:02, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: Just look at how they are still making up accusations to call me castiest (still); by adding a diff to their own rant, claiming that I belite a particular profession
diff (I never named any profession)
This is indeed not constructive; but I take your word, and avoid them and muted them indeed. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 10:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Revert

Hello @Johnuniq, it is good to see you again. I hopefully can ask more about the system of Wikipedia, and luckily I have one. So, I was reverting one of the articles, Angry Birds (video game), in which unnecessary content is added, and you can see my revert here. This is my first time, however, so I have to be more cautious, and I request you to recheck it. Regards, Dedhert.Jr (talk) 08:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

@Dedhert.Jr: That's a good revert. There are no definitive rules about material like that, but that kind of detail is too fandom for an encyclopedia, in my opinion. In particular, there were no references so a revert edit summary mentioning "unsourced" is all that's needed. You might check what else the IP has been doing lately: Special:Contributions/103.216.56.28. Johnuniq (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
@Johnuniq I already see what the IP has been doing, and the IP has been blocked. Probably the IP made something known as "disruptive edit". You can correct me if I'm wrong. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:BADSAND

@Johnuniq I am truly sorry for asking twice in a day, since I have several questions regarding the sandbox. According to WP:BADSAND, a user is not allowed to create one's sandbox, which contains non-free copyrighted or defamatory material, personal attacks/harassment, or writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. So, if these things are not allowed, what about one's creating a sandbox in order to practice one's ability to make an article, or template (for example, {{User:Dedhert.Jr/Header}}), which has usage to decorate own's page)?

One more thing before I am closing my questioning. Does Wikipedia actually explain for limited sandboxes that user creates? Regards, Dedhert.Jr (talk) 10:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

The general rule is that everything done at Wikipedia, on any page, should ultimately contribute to building the encyclopedia. That means, for example, that using any page to attack someone or something is not permitted because it would be a misuse of the page (apart from being an obviously bad idea). Similarly, violating copyright is not permitted and is not desirable due to legal concerns. However, encouraging community members in the goal of benefiting the encyclopedia is considered to be useful. Therefore, a limited number of user subpages such as User:Dedhert.Jr/Header are fine so long as they are not used, for example, to promote entities unrelated to Wikipedia. That is, spam is not permitted. Some decoration is fine so long as it is not the main focus of an editor. By the way, if I'm not around, these questions can be asked at WP:Teahouse. If you had a more "how do I do some technical thing?" question, you would ask at WP:HELPDESK. Johnuniq (talk) 11:11, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for explanation. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 11:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

A little help

Hello Johnuniq, sorry to bother again. But can you delete my sandbox User:Dedhert.Jr/Sandbox and redirect it to User:Dedhert.Jr/sandbox, as I didn't notice at the capital? Regards, Dedhert.Jr (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I moved Sandbox to sandbox without a redirect at Sandbox. There are still links to Sandbox on User:Dedhert.Jr and User talk:Dedhert.Jr and User:Dedhert.Jr/Header for you to fix. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Nightscream

I've created a page with links to where I know this editing pattern has been extended or discussed. I've invited others to update this as it progresses. ~Kvng (talk) 14:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@Kvng: Thanks but the issue is delicate and protocols must be closely followed. Sorry to provide a lecture rather than help, but there are some points that need attention. Per WP:POLEMIC, it is not possible to keep a page commenting on other editors for more than a couple of weeks. Such a page is temporarily ok on the understanding that it is preparation for a report at a noticeboard like WP:ANI. Once a report is made, or after a reasonable time with no report, the page will be deleted. Another issue is that a good edit summary must be used when reverting non-vandalism (as defined at WP:VAND—essentially vandalism is adding "poop" to articles). That is particularly important when reverting someone who is following policy. You saw what happened at WP:AN3 archive. Just as Nightscream should be collaborating with others, it is important that others are attempting to engage in a civil manner. When this blows up as it would if an ANI report is made or if I perform a block, everyone's behavior will be closely examined. Onlookers will quickly jump on any blemishes and may take a superficial path. Johnuniq (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Nightscream seems to be proud of this work so I don't see why identifying the extent of it should be a problem. I've labeled it a controversial editing pattern and I think that's a fair and non-incendiary description. I put this up because you mentioned somewhere that you were going to review this pattern and was trying to be helpful. If you're not up for it, hopefully someone else is and this will be helpful for them. I'm not up for it; I'm here to work on content not for battle. If you request I delete User:Kvng/Nightscream, I will do so.
I've used disruptive and links to talk page discussions in my revert comments. I have not called any of this vandalism in edit comments or elsewhere. You might be confusing me with someone else.
I do understand this is likely to get messier. I have tried to be careful. If I have made any slips, that's just me being human and I should be able to live with the consequences of that. ~Kvng (talk) 14:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I was thinking of this edit. I thought there was another but I can't see it. Anyway, it's a difficult issue where we all agree on the fundamentals (references are required) but disagree on how to get there. Johnuniq (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
There's no edit comment there but I did this 2 minutes later to explain. ~Kvng (talk) 02:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
OK but every detail will count when the issue is examined. I know it's a pain, but an edit summary should say why an edit is reverted. Some people (not you) say things like "revert disruption" but that is not adequate because an edit summary should say why the edit improves the article. A reason to revert would, for example, be that consensus is that sourcing the well-known material is best done with the text in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 02:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).

Guideline and policy news

  • A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
  • An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
  • The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
  • Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Requesting a look @ my ARE submission

Greetings @Johnuniq

While writing my just submitted Statement by Bookku I had not read your comment @ WP:ARE. Requesting to look into my statement (incl my reply to admin RegentsPark @ my user talk page).

As of now I do not see specific need to add my reply result related comments. I also do not know whether I would be expected/ allowed to add my reply to result related comments. Pl. let me know if you want to have any more clarification from my side.


Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 04:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bookku: Posting on the talk pages of people who have commented at WP:AE is generally not a good idea. It particularly should not be needed for an administrator who has commented in the admin section since naturally they should review comments more recent than their own. There is no need to reply to this comment. I'm just letting you know what generally happens. People respond to comments from other people all the time: try looking at some of the other reports, if necessary in the archive. The procedure is to respond in your own section (usually with "*" as the first character) and ping the person you are responding to, if wanted. Your signature is unnecessarily bloated as are your comments. Have a look at how other people in different topics exchange views. They rarely greet each other and there is often little text that could be removed without changing the meaning of their response. Johnuniq (talk) 05:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

"showing criminal intent" sidebar

Amazing world. Never thought I'd see self-incrimination on a Wiki-talk page. Weird, huh? 😆 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: I know I've seen "criminal intent" recently ... uh oh, I posted that six hours ago (diff). Your link was very interesting, thanks. I don't do WP:Discord or Roblox for that matter and have a lot of catching up to do. Johnuniq (talk) 10:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Johnuniq/Archive_31&oldid=1112238407"