Jump to content

User talk:Johnuniq

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'll reply to messages here, unless requested otherwise.

Administrators' newsletter – July 2024

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2024).

Administrator changes

added
removed

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unanswered unblock request

[edit]

There’s an unblock request here that hasn’t been answered in two weeks. I won’t cast judgement on its validity but I think the user has a right to know whether they’ll be unblocked. Dronebogus (talk) 08:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dronebogus: After a fair bit of thought, I declined the request. Johnuniq (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continued edit warring during open discussion

[edit]

Even though one person was already blocked for edit-warring on this, two others continue: Richard D'Oyly Carte. Can you please return it to the status quo ante? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is an edit request there now that, I think, resolves the issue? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that but did nothing because I think there should be a bit more time to see if anyone else has an opinion. I'll look again a little later. Johnuniq (talk) 02:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

user:Smefs again

[edit]

The user is now baselessly accusing me of being a sock of some user they have a grudge against. This is sufficient evidence to demonstrate they are uninterested in actually getting unblocked. I think revoking their talk page rights is in order. Dronebogus (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dronebogus: The user is now unable to comment further at their talk so there is nothing further to do. However, for the future, please do not repeatedly comment at a blocked users talk unless invited. Very few people think they deserve to be blocked and it is expected that they will vent a bit. I know you were trying to help but it plainly was not doing any good. It's best to leave them alone and comment only if they ask for something specific and it appears that a reply might achieve something useful. Johnuniq (talk) 01:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tupac Page

[edit]

The Tupac page can now be edited by everyone; it wasn't like that before. Previously, only administrators and users with permission could edit it. This rule needs to be reinstated, or it will be edited every day Pier1999 (talk) 14:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This refers to Tupac Shakur where I don't think I have ever been involved. The above has been posted in a number of places and the article is now fully protected to prevent an edit war. Johnuniq (talk) 02:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diminishment icosahedron

[edit]

Hi. Excuse me, can you help me to delete the redirect article Diminishment icosahedron? It seems it is already has the name Diminished icosahedron. I really messed up. Many thanks. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 13:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dedhert.Jr: I wouldn't worry about it. The word "diminishment" appears in the article (Gyroelongated pentagonal pyramid) and the redirect Diminishment icosahedron is not a problem. I would delete it if it was misleading or something bad but the people at WP:RFD accept just about anything for redirects and this is a long way off that. Johnuniq (talk) 01:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid-fire disruptive editor

[edit]

Please look at User:BittersweetParadox's edit history. They make numerous rapid edits to add wikilinks to words like baseball and make other mischievous edits, such as the edit on July 16th to Lingua franca. They have been warned many, many times. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have warned and will watch. Johnuniq (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal calling my actions on Nguyễn Phú Trọng 'vandal ism'

[edit]

Hi. There is a vandal, whose name is Maeve Kessler, trying to revert constructive edits, including mine. can you block him for a while? thank you. 2601:646:8003:6B20:F0F5:240E:3682:771 (talk) 11:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, he already got blocked.
2601:646:8003:6B20:F0F5:240E:3682:771 (talk) 11:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mentoring and direction

[edit]

As you likely recall, I recently posted to WP:AN, escalating an issue that many other users explicitly said I was wrong to escalate to that venue and that they objected to my framing in many respects. There were additional complaints about my tone, skirting editing restrictions, etc. I appreciate that the issue at large just got out of control. Unfortunately, the issue in general has continued. As you noted at the time, "changing the style of anything in an article without good reason is very disruptive" and as soon as that conversation was closed at AN, the same user changed styles on an article where we discussed this years ago. I posted to his talk and he archived the thread without responding. Both my perspective and his behavior seem like they are not changing and for many reasons, escalating it to WP:AN is not the right idea and the user does not seem interested in discussing one-one one, so I will not be posting to his talk again as I have no interest in harassing someone who refuses to talk. (I also didn't ping him because I don't see value in that, but I respect if you want to notify him of the conversation.) What do you recommend I do here? I still think and it seems like you validated that changing styles unilaterally is disruptive, so is there something that I'm missing here? What should I be doing differently? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We've gone round and round and round in one-on-one discussions and you made the decision to withdraw your complaint due to the overwhelming majority of the responses from admins being unfavorable toward your argument, so I'm at an impasse as far as being able to engage with you (not that this is anything new). It was brought to my attention through that discourse (by User:Just Step Sideways) that the way you addressed me regarding the page I just went back and made edits to was inappropriate at the time and again, I only make changes under good reasons, and in this case it was to reflect a consistent style across the board as he already had multiple country albums release prior to that with the tracklisting template. CloversMallRat (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see this post where Johnuniq explicitly wrote, "If new examples of arbitrary style changes occur, please let me know." That is the only reason I wrote here, since I was solicited to do so. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CloversMallRat: As noted at WP:AN, Koavf has an interesting history and you might correctly assume that the discussion there did not support Koavf's position. However, the comments that I noticed were focusing on the extreme TLDR and background rather than the issue. I did see one comment along the lines of who cares but that is just wrong due to the amazing disruption that has occurred when people dedicate themselves to "fixing" various style issues—dates, spelling, colors, spacing, wiki syntax, and probably many more. The documentation at Template:Track listing specifically mentions MOS:VAR and that does not appear to have been added recently. I take your point that a good argument can be made for a consistent style between articles on a single artist. However, that argument has to be made somewhere central such as a relevant wikiproject. A positive consensus has to be shown before continuing a campaign. Is there any documentation or discussion supporting a continuation? Do you have any idea how many more of these articles need to be "fixed"? A dozen? A hundred? By discussion, I don't mean bickering with extreme indignation at a user or an article talk page. Has there been a calm wikiproject discussion on this issue? If not, and if you intend continuing, please start a discussion and let me know where it is. If wanted, link to here or AN, but do not mention other editors at a wikiproject. What is needed is a calm examination of the issue, not the background. Changing any further articles without such a discussion would be disruptive. Johnuniq (talk) 04:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RPPI for Across the River (etc)

[edit]

Hi, Many thanks for your recent assistance at WP:RPPI, much appreciated.

Any thoughts on how the broader NOTHERE issues in relation to that multiple IP address user might be resolved? I’m not sure that attempting to get further blocks like this one [1] is really going to work (although i don't think it would necessarily do any harm, given recent edits like this [2].

Any assistance gratefully received. Axad12 (talk) 05:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Axad12: I blocked Special:Contributions/151.71.102.0/24 for three months. Let me know what pops up next. Johnuniq (talk) 05:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged. I'll keep an eye on the situation. Axad12 (talk) 05:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your semi-protection of Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election

[edit]

Figured I should point out I had made a RPP for the page so you can mark it off. TrueCRaysball 💬|✏️ 05:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your report which is why I protected. I had to add it to the log and so was slow updating the request page. Johnuniq (talk) 05:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. We were fighting for our lives there. LMAO. Thanks for your help! TrueCRaysball 💬|✏️ 05:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3TOPE and WikiWork Factor

[edit]

Hi, @Johnuniq. I have asked this in WP:TEAHOUSE but it does not give responses from many users. Do you know where can I request to include the WP:3TOPE asssesment table to WikiWork Factor? The mismatched number of polyhedron articles in a table is already an old problem after it was created. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 11:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know very little about article assessment and won't be much help. A relevant mention is at Template talk:Articles by Quality and Importance#Unknown-importance articles not included in total. It looks like the system relies on categories and they can take a long time to update after changes occur. A category might update immediately or it might take several days or longer. If there were a specific problem (at [link], x should be y) I might be able to investigate. I found WikiWork at User:WP 1.0 bot/WikiWork with its FAQ. I agree with a comment at the Teahouse that it can be hard to get a wikiproject going and there is not much point persisting if only one person is involved. Small wikiprojects get created when people are enthusiastic but after a year or so, not much happens and people move on. If I need to ask for assistance with some topic, I prefer asking at a major top-level wikiproject with some activity rather than at a small project which in principle would be more pertinent. I don't know anything about WikiWork. By the way, there is no need to ping someone at their own talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 02:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, my apologies for pinging. It was my habit, and I learned my lesson. After all, it looks like the {{category class}} also have the same effect. I have no clue whether, I, the only person, can remain continue the activity of that project, instead of require some users to do. I wish I could update the project by changing it, although it will be drastic. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq blocked the entire Rogers cellular network from editing Wikipedia

[edit]

‪2605:8D80:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 is the range that this user has blocked. Even though the block expires in about 2 months, it's still problematic. (Either it's the Rogers cellular network, the DuckDuckGo web browser, or something else that I missed.) Over1BillionPagesOnWiki (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-fascism

[edit]

Hello, you have blocked the pages of Freedom and Direct Democracy and Our Homeland Movement. Both have concrete references and an armed consensus so that neo-fascism is mentioned in their infobox. But a user who arbitrarily removes referenced content, because he simply doesn't like it, has removed neo-fascism by arguing that the references don't mention it, which is completely false. So I wanted to ask you to please revert the edits of this disruptive user. Thank you. Democrático Slovak (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Democrático Slovak: An issue like this should be discussed on the article talk page. Editors should have been able to see the messages that I left. Johnuniq (talk) 00:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grace VanderWaal

[edit]

This Daniel Larson nonsense is back. New user:Fhfhdvevdgxgdbegobirhwv is edit warring to add this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grace_VanderWaal&diff=prev&oldid=1236817726 to VanderWaal's article. In case you don't remember, Larson is a YouTuber who is apparently obsessed with VanderWaal and has been stalking her for some years, claiming to be her "boyfriend". There is no evidence, other than his own social media posts, that she has ever met or communicated with him. I have tried to explain WP:BLP to this new editor. Would you please take a look? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Isabelle Belato who handled the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 23:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

[edit]

Email disabled on IPs?

[edit]

Just curious, since you've done it twice recently - does disabling email on anon. only blocked IPs even do anything?
Or are they just misclicks? – 2804:F1...0F:3702 (talk) 03:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it does nothing. A day or two ago I took a look at what other admins were doing after seeing some blocks for 31 hours(!). A couple I saw had disabled talk and email. I wondered if that was some script they were using or whether they knew something I didn't. I think probably not but it's easy to tick everything to disable it so that's what I've been doing lately. Johnuniq (talk) 03:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Admin's Barnstar
I wanted to give you this barnstar for your devotion to dealing with IP addresses used by that sick, fierce LTA, in real time! — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Johnuniq (talk) 09:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there so much disruption lately?

[edit]

For the past month or so, my watchlist has been a blizzard of revdels. Why do you think so much of this is going on at this time? Softlavender (talk) 23:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) It's one person, mostly. Everyone needs a hobby, I guess. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

[edit]

Hey, I hope you are doing well. I wanted to please ask for some advice regarding Charlie Suff. For the past few months various IPs (from the same range) have been changing the age, using Genes Reunited despite it not being 100% certain if it is the same person. They kept changing it in May and after I reverted it yesterday and I have told them about WP:BLPPRIMARY they still are not stopping. I initially requested protection for the page but I thought I would ask an admin beforehand, as it is stressing me out that they keep changing this as it is a BLP. I am sorry for disturbing your day. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DaniloDaysOfOurLives: I'll handle it but not until there is a good explanation on article talk. After that, please revert with a link to the section with the explanation. If it changes again, you can contact me. On talk, please include what the sources say that leads to the conclusion regarding the birth date. Often it seems best just to omit the birth date if the sourcing is dubious or based on inferences. At any rate, full details are needed on talk for now and for the future when the issue arises again. Johnuniq (talk) 03:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LTA

[edit]

Hi, Johnuniq. About that LTA user from South Korea who was disruptive at WP:BN, WP:AN and WP:ANI, I have a quick question: is an IP range block necessary? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was mentioned at ANI but I don't think anyone has properly investigated the range required or the side effects. If you have a suggestion, post it at ANI although only very useful comments should be added per WP:DENY. Johnuniq (talk) 04:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you blocking what seem to be very dynamic IPs for a year? Blocking for a day would make them hop just the same -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 08:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Guerillero: I was doing it for the normal short period, but then I saw very experienced admins blocking for a year. I also saw a couple of IPs which had been blocked for 48 hours or similar a few days prior to being reused. I saw an admin recently blocking for two years. Apparently the IPs are residential proxies which means anyone can get access to them and there is no way to anticipate whether they are proxies or to test them. My preference would be for the WMF to take ownership of the issue and for admins here to not have to do anything. On the one hand, a blocked IP might be prevented from useful contributions, but on the other, regular editors get dispirited when they see inadequate responses to blatant abuse. Johnuniq (talk) 09:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2024

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2024).

Administrator changes

readded Isabelle Belato
removed

Interface administrator changes

readded Izno

CheckUser changes

removed Barkeep49

Technical news

  • Global blocks may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may locally unblock when appropriate.
  • Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback

[edit]

Hi, I just wanted to say I really appreciated your feedback. (I had never even heard of WP:FAIT, for example). I was hoping to get some advice about what the best thing to do moving forward on this topic is, I do want to make changes to these articles, but I also really do not want to edit war. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Allan Nonymous: 6 minutes after this note saying you don't want to edit war, you [reverted to your preferred version yet again at 1. This is arguably beyond 3RR now. Polyamorph (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the edit in question. It was, frankly, a pretty silly moment of bad decision making for which I take full responsibility (and WP:TROUTs to the face) for. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet you're still removing content. This counts as a partial revert. Polyamorph (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, this relates to edits at number articles such as 1, with a correspondingly large discussion at WT:WikiProject Numbers#Help remove WP:CRUFT on number articles!. Mass editing without clear consensus in advance can often lead to disruption. Johnuniq (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ludogorets page

[edit]

Hey, per the instructions here, I'm reaching out. As you can see in the Ludogorets page history here, there have been more instances of new profiles and IPs doing the same changes - warned a couple of times, referred to the talk page, they're still at it. At this point I'm just getting a bit tired of yelling at a wall and reverting things non-stop - they've even started deleting the default instructions not to edit the roster, possibly to make their changes logical? No clue. As a side question, in the talk page we had a Team Manager for that football club reach out about updating the logo - tried to give some info as did other users, but I'm not sure if we misled him about how to go about the whole thing, if you want to chime in on that too. --Yupyuphello (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yupyuphello: I semi-protected the article but some of the contributors will soon be able to edit it anyway. If problems continue, I'll try to have word with them. You will see that I have replied at article talk regarding the logo (and at the user's talk). Johnuniq (talk) 02:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnuniq Thank you, I will monitor, there were sadly some unfortunate edits yet again due to a bad result in a game last evening. Should I proactively list any issues/accounts in a reply here every once in a while, or would that be annoying/not the proper way to report anybody continuing to abuse the article? --Yupyuphello (talk) 04:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yupyuphello: Please explain any reverts that are needed on article talk. If repeating yourself, just link to an earlier explanation. You might give a diff of a problematic edit which I can see, but just one or two (it's best to focus on a single issue). You can ping me from there if needed. If I don't respond in 24 hours or so, remind me here because I might have missed a ping. It doesn't matter, but FYI, a ping on a user talk page is not needed and doesn't work. Johnuniq (talk) 05:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw your edit summary: "Reverting another set of malicious changes". Please don't say that sort of thing in an edit summary because it won't help anything and it will count against you if the matter is ever at an admin noticeboard (see WP:VAND which boils down to saying that poop is vandalism but just about anything else is a good-faith although possibly mistaken edit). We can't know if someone is malicious. Just say something like "reverting mistaken edits, see talk". Johnuniq (talk) 05:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, will keep it in mind. And fair enough, will stop calling it malicious. Hopefully it will not be held against me, as the latest set of changes are literally people deleting players that performed badly in the last match and replacing the staff with a note in Bulgarian saying "RESIGN RESIGN RESIGN". Either way - thank you for the explanation and the assistance! --Yupyuphello (talk) 07:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, another IP seems to be at it again, twice now in the span of a few days, and at this point I'm a bit flabbergasted as to what to do, since there seems to be no easy way around this without another page protection of some sort. --Yupyuphello (talk) 10:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yupyuphello: Regarding the recent edits, do you know if the edits are wrong or merely unsourced (and unexplained)? If wrong, how is that known? A lot of these kind of articles are frequently changed by passers by with no sources and I'm pretty pessimistic about ever having them under control. I'm willing to protect for longer periods on an unsourced basis but I would like to know what you think we are dealing with. Johnuniq (talk) 10:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The changes are unsourced and/or wrong, depending on your views:
1. Simon Sluga is probably being removed by the IP, as he is no longer listed on Ludogorets' website and/or because Transfermarkt has him listed as a free agent (not a credible source in my view). There are no news articles about him being released, nor articles that he has joined a new club, thus he's in limbo in my view.
2. Raí Nascimento is the same - being removed probably because he is no longer on the team's website, yet listed as part of the team on Transfermarkt. No information about him being released and/or joining a new team, thus also in limbo.
3. Elisey Sarov is listed as a player both for the first team and the second team - he plays for the second team, but he is on the roster and was used in a few of the summer camp matches by the first squad, thus I see no reason to not list him, although he hasn't been on the bench or in a match so far this year. This one could be argued either way, but since he's still features on Ludogorets' website in both rosters after numerous updates/additions of new players, that's good enough for me personally.
For the first two I'd gladly change them once there are some tangible sources I can fall back to and include in the transfers' list for this period, otherwise they're probably just in what's proverbially known as contract hell - probably removed from the roster, as they're refusing to end their contracts. I will move Raí to the same spot as Sluga, but otherwise it's just a case of zero sources to go on, and I've tried to find some.
Per the above, I'd say unsourced changes, since any transfers also need to be sourced, as I have been doing here. Yupyuphello (talk) 10:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I semi-protected the article and posted an explanation on talk. Johnuniq (talk) 10:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Maltin protection

[edit]

Hello. Thank you for applying the three day semi-protection to Leonard Maltin. However upon a little investigation, different IPs have been repeatedly trying to make essentially the same (unsourced, opinionated) edit to the introduction since December 2023, eight months ago (diff here). I'm not super familiar with the protection process but potentially some sort of longer-term semi-protection may be called for? Thanks again for your assistance. StewdioMACK (talk) 12:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's just occurred to me that maybe I should have put this on the article's talk page and pinged you. If that would be the case, feel free to move this discussion there from your talk page. StewdioMACK (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@StewdioMACK: My semi-protection of three days is the first time protection has been applied to this article. Standard procedure is that responses to problems have to escalate. Let me know if it happens again and I'll act then. It would be best to start a new section at article talk with a diff of a recent edit to the article (a diff which would have probably been reverted). Add an explanation of why it was unsatisfactory, possibly mentioning WP:RS and WP:DUE and WP:BLP. Include a ping to me. If I don't respond in a day or two, post here. Johnuniq (talk) 23:09, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response, understood. StewdioMACK (talk) 04:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring IP

[edit]

Can anything be done to get this IP to go to the Talk page instead of Edit warring at this article? I have asked them to do so and left edit summaries explaining, but.... Perhaps semiprotection? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment at User talk:190.167.27.164. Per WP:SHORTDESC, the purpose of a short description is to disambiguate searches and adding "songwriter" to "singer" might not be needed. However, the IP should be at Talk:Morissette (singer) and I will watch for a while. Johnuniq (talk) 01:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For posterity, this relates to Talk:JD Vance#Remove the nonsense about the couch and the ANI report. A couple of editors (not Kcmastrpc) are requiring evidence that it would be contentious to edit JD Vance to add mention of fucking a couch. I asked at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Shitposts in biographies and another BLPN report is here. Johnuniq (talk) 05:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2024

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2024).

Administrator changes

removed Pppery

Interface administrator changes

removed Pppery

Oversighter changes

removed Wugapodes

CheckUser changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past.
  • A request for comment is open to discuss whether Notability (species) should be adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Yawn

[edit]

Many thanks for your quick response on this. I forgot to also request hiding of these revisions: [3], an apparent good faith error on the part of another editor. Thanks again. Wikishovel (talk) 10:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made a mess of that. I still don't know how those bad revision got into Talk:Yawn but I think I've got them all now. Johnuniq (talk) 10:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes looks good now, thanks very much. Wikishovel (talk) 10:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid-fire bogus tagbombing by user with less than 400 edits

[edit]

This user [4] is adding rapid-fire (75+ per day) bogus tags (like the utterly spurious "underlinked") to articles, apparently via scripts he has added to his account. I warned him on his usertalk [5] (his last tagging before my warning was on Aelbert Cuyp). I've reverted about 40 of them over the past 40 minutes, but it's an exhausting ritual (maybe 1% to 5% of his tags are merited) and I'm tired of it. Not sure of the best course of action, but definitely needs eyes and a block if it continues. Plus need more of the tagging reverted/rolled back. Any help appreciated. Softlavender (talk) 06:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message at their talk and will probably notice any further comments added there. Johnuniq (talk) 07:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. By the by, this rapid-fire 80-edits-per day MO is often standard behavior of someone trying to rapidly achieve EC status, so might take a look at his edits again once he hits 500. Softlavender (talk) 08:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Softlavender I will note that this is not an attempt to pad for EC status(if you wish to believe me on that), in fact looking into what EC provides I don't see much reason to shoot for it, except maybe Content Translation, but I'm not currently comfortable adding major content to pages like that. Akaibu (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The advice at Wikipedia:Teahouse#On tagging is good. In brief: improving articles is productive; tagging is not. Johnuniq (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Akaibu, you certainly do not seem to be here to build an encyclopedia. You're skating on pretty thin ice now that you are continuing to do what you were warned by multiple highly experienced editors plus an administrator not to do. Softlavender (talk) 05:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: That's still all he's doing. I've reverted most of the new ones now, as they were unwarranted. Softlavender (talk) 05:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 48 hours with explanation at User talk:Akaibu#Tags. Johnuniq (talk) 05:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Right before your block he was EDIT-WARRING over my reverts from today. Clearly this editor is not here to build an encyclopedia. Has the air of a possible LTA. Softlavender (talk) 05:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is probably an essay describing the high correlation between confidence and socking. Johnuniq (talk) 05:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continuous removal of sourced content

[edit]

Hi John, please take a look on Chittagonian language. A user keeps removing its content (even though those content has reliable sources) and keeps adding thier preferred version. The same user did same thing on bnwiki and we reverted their edits.

I reverted their edit twice here on enwiki & asked the user to stop but the user still doing it. I did not reverted their latest edit as I don't want to get involved in edit wars.

I think it would be better to restore the last good version until there is a consensus. Could you please help here? Thanks. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I left a warning at User talk:Yasarhossain07. Let me know if it continues but first try to engage with them in discussion on article talk. Johnuniq (talk) 02:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Brimelow page

[edit]

Consensus has been reached. Is it possible to remove protection? Cundebuff (talk) 03:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cundebuff: I do not understand because Talk:Peter Brimelow#Protected (added by me) is 5.5 hours after all other comments. Please do not reply here. Instead, comment in that section and quote a few words from the discussion that shows there is a consensus. Also, briefly outline what the consensus is. That is, what change, if any, is proposed? It should be on article talk so others can see it. Johnuniq (talk) 03:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thought it was to be requested here. Cundebuff (talk) 04:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Locked discussion in Big Pharma Conspiracy article

[edit]

Dear Johnuiq,

I have seen you have locked the editing of the discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Big_Pharma_conspiracy_theories#Article_is_deviating_from_the_origina_of_Big_Pharmy_and_classifies_everything_that_criticizes_%22the%22_Pharma_Industry

I provided sources a bit more into the discussion and we were in the middle of forming a census.

WP Not a forum does not exist in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not article, is the template outdated or was the section renamed?

I softly added a new section in the discussion/talk page of the article, as recommended by the template. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Big_Pharma_conspiracy_theories#RFC_/_Improvement_idea,_hatnote,_Big_Pharma_term_in_question,_better_definition_of_the_included_conspiracy_theories

It is shorter and contains all the necessary sources.

All the best HubertSchuf (talk) 10:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) HubertSchuf, Johnuniq provided a link explaining his reason for closing the section, namely WP:NOTFORUM. When people provide links, the idea is that you're supposed to click on them. Please try it (you can just as well click on the link as I give it here). It will take you to the "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion" section of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. The most relevant part in this context is the last sentence: "article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines)". Bishonen | tålk 10:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
PS, whoops, sorry, my css tend to obscure the top of my screen; I meant to say, WP:NOTFORUM takes you to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#not a forum. Bishonen | tålk 11:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
I understood what you meant. Your saying is correct. It leads one to the soapbox or promotional section. But that's why you can't find a "not a forum" section. There's just none. :D HubertSchuf (talk) 11:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being more precise regarding WP:What Wiki is not. As I was unable to find the "WP:NOTFORUM" section in there. A soapbox or means or promotion is something entirely different and from that perspective I understand that it appeared like I would want to convey my singular view on it. However, as it's clearly not the case I rewrote it and reposted it with more focus on my key points and the sources with respect to the improvement of the article (my solely focus). HubertSchuf (talk) 11:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Several people have suggested that there should be more collaboration and less commentary. Unless that happens soon, you are likely to be indefinitely blocked. Wikipedia relies on volunteers who do not have an unlimited supply of time to exchange opinions. Article talk pages are available to discuss actual proposals to improve an article. There can be a certain of blue-sky thought but almost 6000 words in one section with no particular outcome in sight is not sustainable (even the title is too long: Talk:Big Pharma conspiracy theories#Article is deviating from the origina of Big Pharmy and classifies everything that criticizes "the" Pharma Industry). Visiting WP:NOTFORUM shows Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#not a forum which works. Please think carefully before adding commentary to any page and decide whether it would be reasonable to expect others to respond. In particular, think about what outcome you have in mind. You need to either identify an outcome that would improve an article or find another website. Johnuniq (talk) 11:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply.
I had to repeat my central points with bullet points multiple times as the other party seemingly did not address the core points multiple times, and requested sources for the obvious or unreasonable.
The WP:Not A Forum link does not work, it's a dead link, as the section does not exist. The # uses HTML anchors and there must be a section with the id element and the same name to work. This is not given. Maybe it was different in the past.
I understand that the title was perceived as too long and the introductory text to the subsection in the talk/discussion page (the "topic").
I clearly thought and addressed what I want to be changed and why, that's literally in every of my comments. If it would be considered instead of being ignored then we would get to the expected outcome in a faster time.
The tone sounds like the opposite of being friendly or inviting. I was told to improve my tone, I did. As far as I know Wiki is a space where we work to improve or create those articles. Threatening to block me for suggesting improvements and contributing sounds very harsh. HubertSchuf (talk) 11:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The old topic's title length is 17 words. Of the new one 16.

"the medium length category [...] headlines between 12 and 17 words - is the standout. The average number of words that win is 14, as is the median [being the optima]"

— https://smartocto.com/blog/optimal-number-words-headline/
Statistically it is within the limits, so I wonder what is "too long". Another page says something about 50-60 characters as metric, of course I am with 115 a "bit" above it. HubertSchuf (talk) 11:37, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The topic intro was 489 words. 4,559 words were discussion, in which mostly I had to repeat what I want to change as I was asked what I want to change. My longest reply was 259 words, as I went slow and explained everything in good-faith. HubertSchuf (talk) 11:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review

[edit]

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A favor ...

[edit]

Could you longterm semi-protect Rory Cellan-Jones? Since September 2023 an IP-hopper or series of IPs has made this exact same deletion [6], even though it now has three citations, including Rory himself stating "I was born out of wedlock" in a 2021 Telegraph article he wrote [7]. The IP deletions are getting increasingly frequent; now 6 days between them. Softlavender (talk) 08:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Softlavender: Normally, sure, no problem. But I'm reluctant to stop removal of "born out of wedlock" in a BLP, particularly when a quick look failed to find any discussion on article talk or WP:BLPN archives. Is an RS asserting that had a significant effect on his life? The "was unacquainted with his father and Cellan Jones half-siblings until adulthood" might be assumed to be relevant as he mentioned that himself in ref 10 but I think some reflection on whether the "wedlock" stuff is really appropriate should occur. Johnuniq (talk) 09:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He wrote an entire book about it, and how deeply it affected his life and his mother's life: Ruskin Park: Sylvia, Me and the BBC (2023). I've read the book. He also wrote an article in The Telegraph about it and about the book: title and subtitle = "Clearing out my parents’ homes helped me piece together my missing past: My parents' love affair was a scandal that defined our lives. Only now, thanks to their belongings, have I learned what really happened". It's also the reason why he never even met his quite famous father (and half-siblings) until he was 23. If we remove that fact (it's a standard legal term, nothing more), then his never meeting his father until after university makes no sense. Also note that this was 1957, not the 21st century. I have not started a thread on the talkpage because there are three different IPs involved, I can't ping them, and what they are doing is straight-up vandalism and edit-warring. I will start a talkpage thread if you like. Softlavender (talk) 09:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Softlavender: Sorry to be a pain, but please put the above, paraphrased as if directed to passing editors, on article talk. I see a bunch of refs on the statement. If you know which said what, please quote a few words from one of them (or otherwise outline what it says) to support inclusion. Then I'm comfortable with protection. Johnuniq (talk) 09:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, that's not an unreasonable request. Done: Talk:Rory_Cellan-Jones#Born out of wedlock. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I semi-protected for a month. Let me know if it continues. Johnuniq (talk) 10:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that! However, since the IPs have done it four times in the past two months, that's not really "longterm" and I'm fairly doubtful it will help. They switch IPs every month, and have no trouble playing the long game. It is a start, though, so if you don't want to lengthen it now I will let you know when/if it starts back up. My problem is that when I take a wikibreak is often when they do this, so I missed the last deletion by 12 days, which is nearly two weeks the article stayed vandalized and confusing.... Softlavender (talk) 11:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the article has only been protected once before, and that was in April 2007 for five days. Protection is supposed to escalate when evidence of a need for further protection is available. That's what I meant by "Let me know if it continues". Johnuniq (talk) 11:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diff

[edit]

Please hide this personal attack. And consider reverting/blocking the IP. Ty. — Sadko (words are wind) 00:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want to delete that is written in the source? They will block you again like here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=1013108504#Request_concerning_Sadko 154.205.128.71 (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the edit summary, semi-protected Aleksandar Šapić and warned the IP to use ANI to comment about other editors. Johnuniq (talk) 01:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ty. kindly. — Sadko (words are wind) 12:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This does not mean that you bought an administrator and continue with the Serbian POV pushing for which you were blocked. And I see that you engaged another user from the Serbian Wikipedia, with whom you work together, to change what is written in the source. Do you think that one of the administrators does not know what you are doing?154.205.128.71 (talk) 13:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stick to discussing reliable sources on the article talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2024

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2024).

Administrator changes

added
removed

CheckUser changes

readded
removed

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppetry

[edit]

Sock puppetry is going on at All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam. The IP hopper switched to his account once you protected the page[8] but now he is back to edit warring with his IPs.[9] Dympies (talk) 10:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I semi-protected it for a month. They are right about at least one thing, namely the change to "October 2024" for when the date formats were checked, assuming they checked them. Please think about their other changes in case they are correct. At any rate, an explanation has to be given on article talk. Johnuniq (talk) 01:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple IPs used for same vandalism

[edit]

Please see this. Thanks for any help. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Johnuniq (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that person has used a lot of IPs. I only blocked the ranges that have been active in the last week or so. Let me know if they resurface. Johnuniq (talk) 22:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Will do. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warrior on multiple articles

[edit]

Just coming off a long block, User:197.87.143.164 made 5 reverts in the last day to Peter Pratt. They are also edit warring at other articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm feeling a bit wimpish and only left a warning. Let me know if 197.87.143.164 (talk · contribs) continues with problematic edits. Johnuniq (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP 51.235.176.151 user talk page abuse

[edit]

Hi Johnuniq, I think you might want to unplug talk page access for the IP address 51.235.176.151 that you blocked for 6 months earlier this month, as they are playing and mucking around with it, e.g. diff. One of their talk page edits actually transcluded another admin's user talk and then removed it, resulting in a "topic X has been archived or removed" notification being sent to me, which is what brought my attention to this. Thanks in advance, — AP 499D25 (talk) 08:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I removed the ability of 51.235.176.151 (talk · contribs) to edit their talk page while blocked. Johnuniq (talk) 08:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A small request

[edit]

Could you kindly do me a favor and conceal: 1 & 2.

The comments were initially intended to discourage me from making those edits; it's all water under the bridge now. I no longer have restrictions on any subject or area. Ty. — Sadko (words are wind) 12:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the two edit summaries and have asked at User talk:Miki Filigranski#Edit summaries that they not be repeated. However, to my mind, the situation is not totally clear and some kind of clarification might be required regarding whether the appeal process was appropriate. Johnuniq (talk) 23:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've chosen to appeal to the blocking admin, as it's one of the two options available to me or any user in situations like this. I made sure to read all the rules and guidelines beforehand. They took a reasonable amount of time before making their decision, and it's now been several months, all good. Thank you for taking action and being thorough. — Sadko (words are wind) 23:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UNIFIL

[edit]

Good day. Could you please unprotect the page or give me permission to edit the page United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon?

There is an updated number of UNIFIL troops deployed as of October 20, according to the source [10]. KujKuń (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied at User talk:KujKuń#Extended confirmed user. Johnuniq (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I only update the official source of the UNIFIL mission website run by the United Nations. So far, I have only updated the data on the website that is in the article. You can check the edit history. Sometimes, however, I have also updated on other sources, but I did it on official ones, especially on the subject of the Polish military contingent in Lebanon. KujKuń (talk) 09:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At your talk I made it clear what was needed for me to grant the EC right. I would be reluctant to do that for someone not able to follow what was said. Johnuniq (talk) 10:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This controversial page is about the UN mission page? KujKuń (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied at your talk. Johnuniq (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

[edit]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

IP edit warring

[edit]

Would you kindly semi-protect Les Misérables (musical)? There is a lot of IP edit warring going on. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Johnuniq (talk) 04:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Maybe they will come to the talk page, but that plot summary needs to be much shorter, not longer. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme violation of WP:AGF?

[edit]

Am I right that this was an extreme violation of WP:AGF? If so, would you kindly caution the user, Melchior? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COI editing is a difficult problem and some people get a bit over-the-top in their efforts to control it, as seen here. It seems to be under control. Johnuniq (talk) 01:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. They are on a vendetta to delete everything the COI person wrote, but they are throwing out the baby with the bath water. They sent a half dozen perfectly good articles to AfD, and they are threatening to delete or merge out three certainly notable arts organizations. And then they throw around accusations at anyone trying to save the content. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is very distressing. They threatened and badgered one editor who was working on the articles and forced him to withdraw from helping out. See this! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2024

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2024).

Administrator changes

readded
removed

CheckUser changes

removed Maxim

Oversighter changes

removed Maxim

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Johnuniq&oldid=1255140175"