User:DGG/Archive 164 Sep. 2020
Administrators' newsletter – September 2020
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).
:Eddie891
Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero
CheckUser changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
- A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors
must
orshould
use the articles for creation process. - A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.
Arbitration
- A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2020 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
- An open request for comment asks whether active Arbitrators may serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or Ombudsman commission.
}}
UPE
[edit]I'm probably missing something blindingly obvious, but what is 'ck'? Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 10:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- my abbreviation for check--that the article will be need checking for references , in this case for the awards, for if they can be verified he is notable , . I should ideally have done then and there, but I'm trying to work as fast a possible to screen all the G13s about to be deleted at 6 months to se what I can rescue--generally out of a page of 200 , and ignoring the ones in sports and popular culture where I know too little to judge, I can rescue 3 or 4, and mark another 3 or 4 for checking later. I'm experimenting with various ways of marking them.
- But yes, this time I was a little too cryptic. DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oh dear, should have been able to work that out! I think that one is a possible save but have not got around to looking more closely. Sports though... much easier! Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 10:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Added a couple of refs to the honours section; not necessarily very good ones. Could not find anything for thr other items and 'Fellow Royal Chemistry Society' may not carry the kudos it might be thought it would, judging by their website. Best. Eagleash (talk) 22:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
This AfD has not actually been created yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi DGG, can you undelete this article? I had reviewed the content before its deletion and it appeared appropriate for mainspace in my opinion. Note that blocking of a user is not a listed reason among Wikipedia:Deletion policy (although I am aware that this seems to have become practice). SFB 18:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- It is literally listed as a policy under WP:CSD#G5. Praxidicae (talk) 18:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- the article is also, as would be expected from an undeclared paid editor , considerably more promotional than others in the same category. DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Praxidicae: The rules have been applied without considering the context. CSD G5 is to be used in the case of site-banned editors. The context for that action is described as follows:
- "Editors are site-banned only as a last resort, usually for extreme or very persistent problems that have not been resolved by lesser sanctions".
- That doesn't describe the situation here, as the issue is not extreme or persistent, nor have lesser sanctions been used previously. The issue applied to two articles, with little discussion before a site ban was applied. This indicates that the site ban was inappropriate, thus the application of speedy deletion for that user's edits was also inappropriate. Having reviewed the article, the issue of promotional tone could have been resolved by amendment of perhaps two or three sentences. As for the statement of undisclosed paid editing – this is not mentioned at all on either user page or the sockpuppet investigation. If it is confirmed that the user has engaged in undeclared paid editing then please add this to the user page for clarity. Thanks SFB 23:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- Who said they were site banned, did you read WP:G5? If you don't like the TOU, take it up with the Foundation, not me. Praxidicae (talk) 02:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Praxidicae: The rules have been applied without considering the context. CSD G5 is to be used in the case of site-banned editors. The context for that action is described as follows:
- the article is also, as would be expected from an undeclared paid editor , considerably more promotional than others in the same category. DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day!
[edit]
Have a very happy first edit anniversary!
From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Gig Performer
[edit]Hi DGG,
You have reviewed my article about Gig Perfofmer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gig_Performer
I'm sorry to hear you rejected it. Another Wikipedia reviewer Timtrent and I put some effort to review my draft together, section by section, sentence by sentence and improve it (for which I'm very, very grateful to Timtrent - he's a really kind person). I'm sorry to hear that these few sentences still look like an advertisement; I created this draft based on similar applications like Mainstage or GuitarRig. I wanted to keep that style, short and informative.
Timtrent and I also reviewed my references so they meet Wikipedia reliability standards, and the corrected version seemed OK to both of us. I was hoping that someone will review my draft and accept it.
Can you please take another look on this draft and give me suggestions what else to do so it finally gets approved? This is my first Wikipedia article, and I really want to to anything to improve it so it finally gets accepted. Thank you very much for your feedback.
--Npudar (talk) 12:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Looking at it, TT had you remove one ref, and clean up the presentation of others, but none were added , so I don't see how it could have increased the reliable referencing. The best thing you can do is find and add another substantial 3rd party source. But since it's a little out of my field I will simply remove my review, and it will get reviewed by someone else. DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- :DGG, thank you very much! I have just added one more reliable 3rd party reference from a journal, 08/2020. Is there anything else Ineed to do so my short article gets accepted? Thank you for your feedback, and best regards,
--Npudar (talk) 12:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
[edit]
|
The Civility Barnstar |
| You know what this is about; Thank you for being civil and understanding even when I got a bit heated. AviationFreak💬 20:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC) |
indiexpo Draft page
[edit]Hi DGG,
I am not in the staff of indiexpo company. It is a community that helps indie game developers and I am a young game developer. I am totally new on wikipedia. I started creating that page because I see other pages on wikipedia about gamejolt and itch (platforms similar to indiexpo) and I was thinking that it was a good idea to start with a page about it. Just it. I contacted few time ago the staff of the website for more news to add but it is not a press release (you can check on internet, it is totally new). And I see that also other fans of this services were editing it. I hope to be clear! If you have any questions, I am here!
Thanks again, and happy editing!
MarcoOPPO ( talk ) 16:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
September 2020 (UTC)
I think actually it's expendable. Perhaps hoax, or fun spillover from minecraft (one of the editors mentioned that was their basis for writing this, and other of their edits suggest they are mostly just playing around). I can't read the Russian ref, but the other refs the two tag-team editors keep using do not even support its existence. DMacks (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- since I can read Russian , a little, slowly, I'm going to get out the dictionary tomorrow and see, and search udner the Russian title. But you;re probably right, because I did think I would have recognized it, an I didn't? Maybe I should learn Minecraft--it seems to be useful around here. DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- It's not on the standard lists of stations (even the one they linked) or maps I've seen. The map these editors used seems to be just a low-res and possibly hand-annotated copy of the commons file that did not originally list it. Sigh. DMacks (talk) 05:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Sir, thanks for your comments, how should I modify this article ? I need to cite other reliable sources? Would Reuters /news report be considered a reliable source?
It would be very appreciated if you could let me know your advice on further improvement.F09200920 (talk) 01:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
F09200920 (talk) 01:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Since this is your only contribution, and since it is written in the format of a press release, it is reasonable to ask whether you are a connected contributor, in which case you must declare the connection. Please see our rules on Conflict of Interest If you are writing this for pay or as a staff member of the organization, see also WP:PAID for the necessary disclosures. I will be glad to explain further as soon as you infrom me that you have provided the necessary information DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Draft:Innovecs
[edit]Please have a look at Draft:Innovecs — each sentence has a reference to an independent RS --Perohanych (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- That draft does not even bother to tell the reader what the company does, other than two IT buzzwords. Sad. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Cullen328: IT service are not two IT buzzwords. Almost 1000 people in the company design, plan, deliver, operate and control information technology services offered to their customers (see IT service management article). --Perohanych (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Perohanych, no, those are buzzwords that convey nothing of value to the reader of an encyclopedia article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Cullen328: IT service are not two IT buzzwords. Almost 1000 people in the company design, plan, deliver, operate and control information technology services offered to their customers (see IT service management article). --Perohanych (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- reviewed and declined: No acceptable references, only placement on lists and directories, and a promotional interview by the founder on rdo.com, a purely promotional and therefore unreliable web site. You need references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements site.
- I am totally puzzled that as a long-term WPedian active on the uk-WP, you regard these references as acceptable.---not just acceptable for notability , but for any purpose at all. DGG ( talk ) 11:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- @DGG: rdo.com ? What do you mean? There are no any references to rdo.com
- As for BRDO https://en.brdo.com.ua/ — this is a team of independent experts. They prepared an Analytical report on the Ukrainian IT industry They prepared this report together with two other independent organizations — ForBis and IT-Ukraine.
- Do you really consider links to Inc. (magazine) and their Inc. 500 and Inc. 5000 lists as not acceptable for Wikipedia? --Perohanych (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- The Inc item is just a directory listing
- Yes, I consider inclusion in the inc lists as entirely promotional .
- Did you read the piece on Brdo..com--it is just a platform for the founder to say whatever he pleases. Such interviews are never acceptable in WP -- they once were, 12 years ago, but now the. rule is WP:NCORP, a much stricter requirement.
- The role of a reviewer is not to decide if a article is acceptable, but to decide whether the community is likely to find it acceptable at an AfD discussion. We do this by results of AfD discussions, and knowing the effective guidelines as they are applied, and can therefore predict what is likely to happen. My prediction is that it has less than a 50% chance of passing AfD with the current sourcing. How would it help if I approved the article and it then, as expected , got deleted.? It would be much better to try to improve it first. Of course I, like any individual, might be wrong. That's why I do not make the final decision. You can try to improve it and submit it again; someone else will review. DGG ( talk ) 17:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- OK, Thank you, I'll work on it. It seems that the Ukrainian Wikipedia lags behind WP-EN by 12 years :) --Perohanych (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Deletion of 2020 Bengaluru Drugs raids
[edit]The event is not notable as a drug raid, but because of its alleged connections to several Kannada film stars and other VIPs (including politician's children). If it was just a normal drug bust, I would agree with deleting it, but it has connections beyond this that are important. Just look up "Sandalwood drugs" on Google and you will see multiple news articles (from Deccan Herald, Indian Expresss) covering a single story over a period of time. It would meet the criteria for notability. C1MM (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Then write an article that sufficiently shows the notability , DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your message. Could you please point me to the sentences you found objectionable? The pages citing his character toward the end? Or is there more? Should there be more cites? I saw that I had not cited the Wikipedia page for Dr. David C. Sabiston, who hired him and whose Wikipedia page cites his responsibility for integrating Duke Surgery. Grateful for your help.Oeakwari (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Oeakwari (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC) Since this is your only contribution, and since it is written in the format of a press release, it is reasonable to ask whether you are a connected contributor, in which case you must declare the connection. Please see our rules on Conflict of Interest If you are writing this for pay or as a staff member of the organization, see also WP:PAID for the necessary disclosures. I will review it as soon as you infrom me that you have provided the necessary information DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)`
Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
[edit]
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Cyberpunk 2077 on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 40
[edit]
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 40, July – August 2020
- New partnerships
- Al Manhal
- Ancestry
- RILM
- #1Lib1Ref May 2020 report
- AfLIA hires a Wikipedian-in-Residence
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Tag
[edit]Hello, regarding the tag on List of cyberattacks on U.S. schools 2020, I saw that you suggested reorganizing by geographic region. can you go to the article and take a look at the chart I started and see of that will be a good organization? Thanks DGG. Lightburst (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Lightburst. I had in mind something much simpler-- I suggest alphabetizing by state. Consider whether you're going to include a few selected ones only, or everything you can find ( in which caseI think there might be some objection to that on the basis of NOT DIRECTORY. The usual basis of selection is having a separate WP article. You should state the basis of selection you are using.
- Alabama
- Alabama cities, listed alphabeticaly
- Alaska
- Alaska cities, listed alphabetically
- Alabama
I suggest that until the table gets much fuller, we'd only need headings for the states. And if you really wanted to do everything, you;d need to divide into separate articles,
I consider tables a nuisance, making the article much more spread out on the screen and harder to read; and sortable tables shouldn't be used unless they're necessary to avoid having multiple table, to anticipate actual likely user interest, not just because we can. (I'm only talking about desktop--I would imagine they would be much worse on the phone ,but I've never used it for WP)
Hope this helps. DGG ( talk ) 15:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Deletion discussions
[edit]Either the Twinkle deletion process is broken, or you've missed a step in a couple of recent nominations for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 11, and between the entries for Miller, California and Sheep Springs, California you've added two redlinks which need to be created with a deletion rationale.-gadfium 04:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Incomplete AfD nominations
[edit]Hi DGG. It looks like you started AfD nominations for Blackball Museum of Working Class History and Angélique Gérard, but didn't create the actual discussion pages. I've reverted everything for the moment, so there's a clean slate if you want to start again. I hope that's okay - all the best, ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 09:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
[edit]Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Merging on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Curzon family is back
[edit]Hello DGG, any idea if any of the articles created by user Mineraltimer are notable? and is there a violation of wp:sock? You nominated House of Roper-Curzon last year and Mineraltimer created it under House of Curzon and House of Roper (now in draft). It sounds like the user is only here to promote this family. GSS 💬 05:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi DGG, in your rationale for declining an AfC submission, you stated that it was not adequately supported by reliable sources and that a link to the original scientific paper that describes it is required before resubmitting. Both of these premises however would be incorrect.
- ) The WoRMS database is the most comprehensive and authoritative tertiary source available for the world's marine species. It is the project standard for these articles and is deemed sufficient for the many thousands of articles that use it as their sole source.
- ) Requesting the original scientific paper might be useful to support specific features of the organism in question as described by their original authors, but not the classification and current validity of the species. Frankly, if we relied on primary sources such as the original descriptions to attest to the correct classification, we would soon have a giant taxonomic mess as there is usually more than one taxonomic classification scheme and the original description is often no longer the currently accepted one.
Given this, could you please reconsider this AfC submission? Thanks, Loopy30 (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- I agree it should give the WoRMS reference. It should also give the original. I've been a biology librarian most of my career, and I understand about changes of names and changes of the position of species and general within the taxonomy. I'm aware: I'm not a specialist. WoRMS , of course, does refer to the original and one could argue that it is good enough. But the general practice in WP is to also give the primary source when it is available. I don't however want to start a general discussion on something like this when there are so many contentious matters in progress that much more profoundly afffect the entire project, in some of which I have been for years deeply involved. And I at any rate know better than to argue with specialists based on general principles. I've accepted as is. DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
A Journey to Kathmandu (book)
[edit]Hi, You recently moved A Journey to Kathmandu (book) to draftspace. The article is a stub and has 2 external references that explains the importance of this book to the history of India and Nepal during the British Raj. Ofcourse google will not help to find references for such books which is very old and the media reluctant to provide sufficient attention. Before starting the article i had thought to write it inside Laurence Oliphant (author) but given the importance of book in the context of Nepal, I started the independent article. As you know live article attracts more potential and knowlegable authors. Could you recommend on the improvement? Note that the book itself is a reference for many other books and articles e.g. 1,2, 3, 4 5. nirmal (talk) 10:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- the best course for some thing like this is to cover it in the article on the author, and make a redirect to it. People will find it every bit as well. Of your refs, I can't see no 1, and no . 2 is an article about the person that mentions the book. Ref 3 is the online text of the book itself. Hopw much of ref 1 covers it? Is the chapter largely about the book, or does it just mention it among other books? DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Agree. I blanked the article, put the redirect and moved to main space. Please check book section of Laurence Oliphant (author). nirmal (talk) 06:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- the best course for some thing like this is to cover it in the article on the author, and make a redirect to it. People will find it every bit as well. Of your refs, I can't see no 1, and no . 2 is an article about the person that mentions the book. Ref 3 is the online text of the book itself. Hopw much of ref 1 covers it? Is the chapter largely about the book, or does it just mention it among other books? DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
A brownie for you!
[edit]
|
I wish more people thought like you. I feel like you understand what Wikipedia's true intentions were and over the years people have been making up their own rules in order to feel a sense of entitlement. I would appreciate if you could look at my draft of the short web series "Becoming Jiff". Thank you. Drwho92 (talk) 06:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC) |
Rejected Article
[edit]Hi, I'm wanting advice on an article I am trying to publish which you rejected: Draft:Robin Friend . You stated that it's "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." I have had a look at the notability page and also the specific part of what constitutes a "creative professional" and I personally still don't see why it was rejected. Please could you shed some light on why you deemed Robon Friend not notable enough. Thanks.
- No works in the permanent collection of major museums and no references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements/ OI note that I am the 4th of 4 reviews who all thought that this. would be unlikely to be accepted at afd, which is the criterion for passing AFC DGG ( talk ) 09:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
So to your first point, Robin Friend has work in the permeant collection of the Martin Parr Foundation. Martin Parr started this up to collect and preserve “significant photographic works” focused on the British Isles. In terms of reliable sources and press releases, to name a few, but I have referenced It’s Nice That, British Journal of Photography, The Guardian, Cultural Bulletin, Huck. All of these are very well recognised and established and have written extensive articles on Friend. And to your final point, this is the first time I’m hearing of anything to do with the notability of Robin Friend as a reason for the article being declined, the previous times were for lack of references. As a final point to back up Robin Friend's notability, he has shown work in numerous solo and group exhibitions worldwide.
- I shall admit I never heard of the martin parr collection, and looking at the article on Parr, it seems a personal collection open to the public, not a major museum. But even really major personal collections can count, so I will check further. At any rate I should have declined, not rejected; I was influenced by the several previous declines. So I have reverted my review; I will think further, and if still in doubt leave it for another reviewer. DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for reconsidering and taking back your rejection. What happens now? Do I need to do anyhting or do I just wait for it to be reviewed again?
Diet Doctor at Articles for Creation
[edit]Recently, you rejected a draft page at Articles for Creation about Diet Doctor [1]. I'd really be interested in hearing if you have any more feedback as to why the page wasn’t accepted or any tips for how I can improve it. I really didn’t think the content was an advert – it even contains some criticisms – and the cited sources explain the website is one of the largest keto websites there is. The template decline merely provides a series of generic rationales for declining. AnnaHecht1993 (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- WP rule WP:NCORP requires references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements . I don't think any of the sources given here qualified. It awas as much a comment on notability as of advertisement--I probably should have used both tags. DGG ( talk ) 23:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Update
[edit]Hi,
Thanks for taking the time to review the page. I actually wrote it myself. My father also has a Wikipedia page and he asked for consistency that I use the same format as his published page and just change the information and make it specific for me. This is his link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_RibacoffHarleybella0714 (talk) 13:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC) Harleybella0714 (talk) 04:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- WP still surprises me-- this is the first such instance I have encountered of this particular pattern. I will look at both pages tomorrow. But to start with, see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the article on Daniel Ribacoff also seems extremely promotional. that is not unusual--there are many hundred thousand articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or remove. The least we can do is not add to them. I will look further at both. DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
A question - conflict with admin Awilley
[edit]Hello David. I am in a rather unusual situation, and the admin that I'm in a conversation with recommended that I seek your opinion on it. I recently was part of a brief back-and-forth on Tucker Carlson, in which a different editor added some material (sourced), a user named Springee deleted it, and as I felt the reversion was without cause, I re-added the material. Springee continued to delete the material - I never violated 3RR, but when I researched Springee's past, I noticed that every single time anyone added anything that could be construed as negative about Tucker Carlson, he would delete it - often citing WP:BLP, even if material was well-sourced. I pointed this out on the talk page, which was the improper place to do it (I know that now) but I really didn't think it was that crazy at the time. Nonetheless, after Springee was reported for his behavior (by a different editor, I might add), the admin reviewing it, User:Awilley, decided to give Springee a "voluntary" self-1RR sanction - ie, Springee would promise to limit themselves to 1 revert per day for the next 6 months on articles related to American Politics (it turns out Springee has been deleting things on right-wing figures' and organizations' articles for a while and with great frequency). If Springee refused, Awilley would give him a formal 1RR anyway. Seems odd to me but okay, I'm not that invested in it.
Here's the problem: Awilley also decided to "offer" me the same deal, which strikes me a little like saying, "Hey I'm letting you quit this job, but if you refuse, I'm firing you". Keep in mind these things: nobody reported me for any bad behavior, I never violated 3RR, I'm the one who finally started an RfC on the issue to try and resolve the edit war, and this is really the only American Politics page I have edited in any substantial capacity recently - I was previously involved in an edit war with a sock-puppet (now blocked) on the same article. Meantime, Springee has been indiscriminately removing negative-light info from numerous right-wing articles for a while. One of the things Awilley didn't like was my calling attention to Springee's behavior on the article talk page, and while I see now that I was wrong to put it in that forum, I also believe that may have led to, or at least contributed to, someone else reporting his behavior in the first place, which is why Awilley even noticed it.
My issue with Awilley is that I feel I'm being handed the same sanction as a user whose conduct was an order of magnitude worse than my mistakes, which I assure you were born of not being that familiar with policy and the edit wars that seem to accompany American Politics pages. Springee is clearly far more experienced, but all I have learned from him is that apparently one can skirt 3RR right up to the limit and get away with it, just by quoting lots and lots of Wikipedia policies that may or may not be relevant to the situation at hand, exhausting other users until they give up. I now regret ever lifting my head up enough to point it out, because now I have Awilley looking to sanction me. As I told him, I don't necessarily feel this 1RR sanction is that big a deal - but to give me the same exact punishment as the guy who's causing all of the problems, and not looking to make Wikipedia better (he's clearly here just to defend right-wingers), is not fair. The vast majority of my editing has nothing to do with politics.
Anyway, when I voiced my concerns about this, he basically said "You'll find I can do whatever I want" but suggested you as a possible third-party to look at it. I hope you have time for this. Thank you. JimKaatFan (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- The advice he gave you was, more exactly "The admin who I think is most likely to tell you what you want to hear is User:DGG, who has been most critical of my methods in the past." He gave honest advice: that sentence accurately describes the situation. I have no way as an individual of dealing with this, and based on long experience I see no reason to think any advice I might give directly is likely to be helpful. The only way of proceeding is to go to AE, and in the very likely event you get no satisfaction at AE, to arb com.
- If you go to AE, I will support your position, and a few others will also, but it will be an unpleasant battle and as you recognise yourself, disproportionate to any possible likely gain. If it ends up at arbcom while I am still there I shall have to recuse myself, and the result will be similar. It's only fair for me to warn you that, before I joined arbcom, I always advised people never to go there, for I had never seen anyone come out the better for it. Now that I have been on that committee for 5 of the last 6 years, I am all the more convinced of my earlier advice.
- What is necessary is not to deal with any particular admin as an individual, but to end completely the use of Discretionary sanctions. DS is not arb policy, but an arb com procedure, and we at arb com could end it with a simple motion. (the community could also change arb com policy to disallow it, but that is a very complicated and lengthy matter indeed) I've been urging the committee to do this for some time. (see WP: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Pseudoscience} ) Discretionary Sanctions gives any one of the 500 active admins who cares to act, quite inordinate power, and it's only to be expected that some, out of that 500, will be inclined to misuse it. The purpose of arb com is supposed to be to settle disputes, but the use of DS exacerbates them.
- There is however some effective practical advice I can certainly give you--advice I have given others, and a few WPedians have actually taken it. Get out of the topic field of American Politics, at least until 2021. Feelings of the majority of WPedians are so strong about the immediate situation in real life, that there's been a loss of perspective. By now, reasonable judgement cannot be expected. WP is not suited for advocacy. If it's advocacy you want, and I find that a perfectly rational desire, there are more suitable places. If it's true encyclopedic coverage you want, it's too early. If it's the immediate provision of accurate information for the benefit of the public., WP should be capable of it, but experience has made it quite clear that our method of working can not hold up in the middle of an emergency. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I am confused as to what is going on here. Did you delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rangapori because someone else made Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rangapori (2nd nomination)? The edit summary suggests it was deleted for being unambiguous advertising, which I guess applies to the article, not the discussion. Just looking for clarity. Cheers! BD2412 T 00:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Deletion of the Pileus area index article
[edit]Hi @DGG:, I noticed that you removed the deletion nomination for the article saying that the template "does not seem to apply". Would you mind taking another look at the talk page and letting me know what the best course of action is please?
I think it's pretty certain that the article was created by the person mentioned in it, it's an unfortunate situation but even if you ignore that, this term makes no sense. Why not just use a standard measurement for the area like mm². The article gives no indication as to the need for such a unit of measurement. As I mentioned on the talk page, after finding out about the circumstances around Asher I doubled down on my efforts to prove that this was a thing, but all it led to was more certainty that the article creator was Asher himself and a complete lack of evidence of this term being used anywhere else.
Please let me know if I've misunderstood the deletion policy. Any help would be much appreciated! Aluxosm (talk) 10:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- I have not looked to see if it used by other authors. That would be the next step to take. DGG ( talk ) 10:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- I already have, hence my conclusion in the deletion section of the talk page, why I put up that particular deletion template, and my comment above. I really wanted it to not be the case because of the circumstances but it's very clear that the term was made up by the creator of the article and the only reference to the term is the article. Should I have used a different deletion template? Aluxosm (talk) 12:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- I have not looked to see if it used by other authors. That would be the next step to take. DGG ( talk ) 10:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
What is your plan about Redsense Medical? You initially tagged it for A7 and G11, and then reverted those tags. You also then nominated it for AFD, and reverted that. I have declined Draft:Redsense Medical from draft as already existing, but I don't know whether we should redirect the draft to the article or expect the article to be deleted and leave the draft standing. What is your call? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- I ran into trouble when I wrote up the noms but didnt finish them till the next day, and the macro failed. I then tried to fix it, and got caught in a circle. My plan is to rewrite the noms, and place them immediately later today, or do it as a joint nom. Another thing to do of course, is boldly merge, but I would then still want to afd the merged article.
- Your idea of moving them (both?) to draft might be ok also, except it will prolong the problem, and when the coi is that clear I think it better to get rid of them once and for all. . But before I do anything else, I want to check the med literature this evening. DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe I wasn't clear. I meant that, with a draft and an article, either the draft should be redirected to the article, or the article should be deleted and the draft left standing. If you think that the article should be deleted, because of conflict of interest and other reasons, then I will support the deletion. I expect however that if you also nominate the draft for deletion, some of the MFD regulars will want to Keep it. I know that DES will say that it might be notable, and will oppose deletion of drafts in general. What SmokeyJoe will say will vary from week to week. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- what I think might not be clear is our procedures . If the article gets deleted first, your reason for decline no longer holds, & that was my reason for listing both. I nominate for MfD if I think it should be deleted, unless I think no one else will support deletion. The question of how bad a draft should be before it gets deleted, just as you say, is much disputed among the few of us who are interested in this. Since it's a judgement call, and I can imagine no explicit guidelines that would make the decision easier, I know no way to resolve it except to continue to send drafts to MfD in the hope that a pattern will develop. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe I wasn't clear. I meant that, with a draft and an article, either the draft should be redirected to the article, or the article should be deleted and the draft left standing. If you think that the article should be deleted, because of conflict of interest and other reasons, then I will support the deletion. I expect however that if you also nominate the draft for deletion, some of the MFD regulars will want to Keep it. I know that DES will say that it might be notable, and will oppose deletion of drafts in general. What SmokeyJoe will say will vary from week to week. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Shaikha Al Maskari has been deleted by DGG
[edit]Hello DGG, you have deleted the page of Shaikha Al Maskari and mentioned it is an advertisement. Seriously? Her Excellency is an active philanthropist through her private foundation and in coordination with Emirates Red Crescent, she is internationally recognized for her humanitarian initiatives, particularly in the areas of children's and women's rights and through her relief efforts to end the refugee crisis.
I would appreciate if you can kindly have a look at the full article and restore it accordingly.
Thank you
Zulqarnain
- The article was deleted for being a promotional biography, which it certainly was. Wikipedia is not a place for promotion or advocacy of even the most worthy cause. The automatic deletion message says advertisement because that is the most common form, but this is interpreted hee to mean all forms of promotion or advocacy. The fundamental policy for this is WP:ADVOCACY. DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Olimex
[edit]Hello DDG. I've noticed that you set Olimex to being protected from creation due to copyright violations after a couple of incidents. That's understandable at the time, but it seems a bit odd now that it's effectively banned indefinitely due to something that happened over four years ago! I've created what I think is a reasonable initial article at Draft:Olimex. Would it be possible to remove the protection so it could be published? Note that I have absolutely no connection to Olimex and the new article draft contains no copied copyrighted text. Thanks - odg (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- I have removed the protection. But looking at your draft, I doubt that it acceptable: I have made a comment on the page explaining why, but I am not myself going to decline it. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)`
Typo I can't correct
[edit]Hello. I see on your user page: "If I've made a typo, just fix it--don't lecture me about it, for it won't do any good. Other people make typos too, and if I notice them, I fix them quietly." I would just fix the one at [2], where "based the votes" should apparently be "based on the votes", but it clearly says "No edits should be made to this page except by clerks or arbitrators" and so I'm hoping you can fix this quietly, thanks. Also, "where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available" should be "where comments and discussion from the voting phase are also available", and the slash before "Proposed decision" looks odd though I suppose it may have some reason for being there. –Roy McCoy (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- well, these are not my errors, but are apparently built into the template that is used; they appear in other cases also. I shall bring them to attention at the appropriate venue. DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. I didn't suppose it was your error, but I didn't know where to report it. So I clicked on all the case administrators and then went through the tabs till I stopped at you. May I ask you as an uninvolved administrator about something else? If so, please see [3], to which no one has replied and so I've been thinking of reposting the query at the Teahouse. Aside from canvassing, I have a few procedural questions in general regarding the matter concerned. If you look at my contributions in late August you will probably be able to surmise what this is. Thanks again. –Roy McCoy (talk) 00:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Speaking of appropriate venues, could you perhaps, in addition to the template problem, also bring the two WP:APPNOTE obscurities I mentioned (meaning of "any", how many too many) to the attention of whoever might appropriately resolve them? I don't want to post the same thing at both the Teahouse and the Village Pump, seeking advice at the one and questioning policy at the other. Actually I would prefer not to post it at all, but I do have the questions and don't want to do anything improperly at this point. Thank you. –Roy McCoy (talk) 00:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Someone else has answered my questions and I'm no longer particularly concerned with the policy, thanks. –Roy McCoy (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
User:Govvy
[edit]Hi DGG, just to let you know, you wrote to Govvy on his Userpage and not Talk. JMHamo (talk) 06:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Draft:Eran Elinav
[edit]Dear DGG!
As you approved lately my other article (Albert Rubin) I would like to suggest that you will look at my Draft:Eran Elinav, about a prized international immunologist and microbiota researcher (Paid-contribution). The article is waiting to be approved since 14 May 2020.
Thank you- Ovedc (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- It is permitted to edit for pay. But when you do, you should not expect volunteer editors to have to copyedit for style, or deal with missing sources. Learn the detailed rules--asking money for writing for a publication for which you do not know its style is not reasonable. Speaking for myself, I very much resent doing work on articles for which someone else is receiving money. And for paid work, asking any particular reviewer to review an article is not a good idea--my feeling is it makes us complicit in aiding your coi editing. Wait your turn in the queue. DGG ( talk ) 18:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing this Wikipedia page! I would like to point out that Tessie San Martin is the President and CEO of the U.S. office of a Billion dollar a year organization, impacting the lives of more than 20 million girls over the past decade. She leads the largest nonprofit in the state of Rhode Island. In this capacity, Tessie is a frequent speaker at events and is regularly quoted as an expert in the international development field in the media. She has made significant contributions to the field of modernizing U.S. government foreign assistance. Her counterparts include Carolyn Miles, CEO of Save the Children; Michelle Nunn, CEO of Care; and David Millibrand, CEO of the International Rescue Committee, all of whom have Wikipedia pages. I respectively ask that you reconsider Tessie’s relevance as a public figure.
Smtsmith (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- she might possibly be notable , but what you have written is a press release. Another reviewer declined it also. Since this is your only contribution, and since it is written in the format of a press release, it is reasonable to ask whether you are a connected contributor, in which case you must declare the connection. Please see our rules on Conflict of Interest If you are writing this for pay or as a staff member of the organization, see also WP:PAID for the necessary disclosures. I will comment on it further it as soon as you infrom me that you have provided the necessary information DGG ( talk ) 15:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I was tempted by 1Mb, but I'll settle for 500
[edit]Here is just a slightly humorous note to mention that this section is #500, and that your talk page is almost 1Mb in length. I couldn't find a justification for adding 14k more to the page, though, so I guess I'll have to only hold one of those records. Primefac (talk) 23:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- removed as little. It will take me a day or two to get everything back on the computer again. Since there is apparently such a thing as too many windows, I guess there might be such a thing as too long a talk p. ``.
FYI I took the G4 off this page and then cleaned it up a bit. She is clearly notable, having been a headliner at the Venice Biennale twice. I will add more sources in the coming days.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- OK. This is the sort of field where you know better than I. And for everything, I seem to have a current bias for removing promotionalism even at the cost of removing notability. It can be a tricky thing to adjust, and I can't reasonably insist on my own preferences since consensus here is uncertain and unstable. DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. Sourcing is not going to be terrific, but I think it will be enough. It is probably going to have to be significantly trimmed to take care of the promotion that you mention.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- @DGG: I have pretty much hit the wall on finding more sources. Were it to go to AfD at the moment I would likely say "On the one hand the sourcing is still quite poor-ish. On the other hand, she seems to meet our NARTIST criteria for having been in the Venice Biennale twice." Notability is right on the edge of a very thin fence here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- ThatMontrealIP, In ambiguous cases, sometimes the only fair thing to do is to take it to afd and let the community decide But you've cleaned it up so drastically that I do not see any reason to do that, as there are more substantial problems. All that you really need to do now is to watch it for re-addition of the spam. If you think it would help, ask me here for protection or semiprotection. DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Page protection: Rockstar (drink)
[edit]Hi David, can you protect the Rockstar page? It's been targeted by vandals. Thanks-KH-1 (talk) 10:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks
[edit]Thank you very much for your help. Bogdan Uleia (talk) 11:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
g11 and biographies
[edit]I like to message users when I delete their creations, and I use User:Deepfriedokra/g11 where needed. But I'm seeing more biographies G11 tagged, and I feel I need a fresh message or an adjustment of the current one. Would you mind commenting at User talk:Deepfriedokra/g11#Adjusting for biographies to help me help them? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Draft:John William Helton processing
[edit]Hi DGG,
It looks like there was en edit-conflict in the AFC flow for this article. User:Sulfurboy accepted it, moving it to mainspace John William Helton, and leaving a redirect at the Draft: original location. You tried to decline the draft, but wound up doing so on that redirect. Could you two come to an agreement on whether it should remain in mainspace or be sent back to draft (presumably with a reset six-month timer)? DMacks (talk) 09:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- DMacks, Defer to whatever DGG says. I'm currently inactive due to covid work demands. Plus, DGG has a better grasp of notability criterions. Cheers Sulfurboy (talk) 13:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Creating Article about Crowdera
[edit]Sir, I am an employee of the organization named Crowdera. It is a six year old crowdfunding platform. We have tried to create an article back in 2016 but due to not being aware of the policies of Wikipedia, the article violated several rules and was deleted. By this time, the company have become well known. There are a lot of references about the company in independent sources as Wikipedia policy says. So possibly the company is now notable against the yardstick of Wikipedia. If the previous creations have caused annoyance, I sincerely apologize for that and earnestly request you to kindly consider allowing the recreation of the article in present situation. I have a small draft with me which I have written at the time following all the guidelines of Wikipedia like neutral point of view, stating facts etc to best of my ability. I would request you if you kindly see the draft article. I have already disclosed the Conflict of Interest as I have a relationship with the organization. I am creating the draft in the name of Crowdera Crowdfunding (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Crowdera_Crowdfunding) as I can't create in the name of Crowdera. I will look forward to your valuable comment and kind consideration. Thank you for giving your valuable time - Nishant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindtheyellow (talk • contribs) 11:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindtheyellow (talk • contribs) 20:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
[edit]Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Inaccurate closure on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lido Learning
[edit]Hi DGG, A few hours after you did a G11 for this article, a non-admin has closed the AfD as "keep". I'm not sure if this matters, but maybe this needs to be fixed up so that the record correctly shows the outcome? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 09:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
DS
[edit]You talk a lot of sense about DS, but I have concerns about how you see us managing intractable long-term disputes without them. What would you do with, say, a chiropractor who constantly demands that we change the page on chiropractic to state that innate is real? Would you just send this to ANI as tendentious editing?
AE started out well but has become one of the most capricious processes we have. My personal view is that this is largely an artifact of the underlying weakness of Wikipedia: we have no robust mechanism for definitely resolving content disputes, so any substantial content dispute will escalate and roll around the various drama boards until the first person loses their temper and gets banned. DS was designed to stop this, which it kind of does, but in a distinctly heavy-handed way. Ten or fifteen years ago we wasted a lot more time with disruptive editors, but also dealt out a lot less summary justice to people with half a dozen edits (leaving aside obvious vandals).
In particular, I think dispute resolution practice hasn't yet taken on board the more nuanced approach we can take using partial blocks. Anyway. I can't make up my mind whether DS is fundamentally a shit-show or just an example of, as per Churchill, "the worst system apart from all those others which have from time to time been tried". Do you have an essay on "if not DS then what", as it were? Thanks. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Reply in process, but two preliminary points: I agree with you that the capability for partial blocks may provide the solution. But second, how to handle areas like parascience adds the additional complication that you and I represent-- a persisting disagreement between how we ought to deal with the topic area, although we both have the same view of the underlying reality. This is a difference that amounts to what I see as a challenge to the concept of NPOV, and in my mind , therefore to the entire basis of the encyclopedia. There can indeed be disruption that must be dealt with, but it can be hard to distinguish here between disruption and the fair presentation of a minority viewpoint. It will be easier here to deal with disruption in areas where there is no right or wrong, and good faith editors of knowledge and experience disagree and always will disagree about the actual facts and the interpretation, such as ethnic conflicts, and there is not and will never be a majority viewpoint. The possible justification for the use of DS I think always was here. Please wait a few days. because this is the sort of thing I do not like to formulate in one go at it. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne PR
[edit]Dear David,
I neutralized the tone regarding academic rankings for EPFL. Could you kindly let me know if there are additional points that could warrant the PR tag that you recently added on that page? I will try to work on that as soon as possible :)
With my gratitude and best regards,
BatYote. (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2020
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).
Administrator changes
- Ajpolino • LuK3
Jackmcbarn- Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM
There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely
1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created
.
- A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely
Technical news
- The filter log now provides links to view diffs of deleted revisions (phab:T261630).
Arbitration
- The 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place from September 27th to October 7th.
- Following a request for comment, sitting Committee members may not serve on either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee. The Arbitration Committee passed a motion implementing those results into their procedures.
Miscellaneous
- The Universal Code of Conduct draft is open for community review and comment until October 6th, 2020.
- Office actions may now be appealed to the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee.