User talk:A. B./December 2023

Afd agendas

I do have a problem with editors who put a mighty effort into getting articles deleted in a particular area for which they seem to have utter contempt. If someone makes a large number of drive-by nominations without showing any interest in trying to improve the articles first, that is surely unbalanced, especially when the deletions are then celebrated, like a row of animal heads fixed to a wall. Very few professions are deemed by WP to make people inherently notable. If I were trying to get large numbers of pages about opera singers deleted, with the argument that opera singers are "not inherently notable", I hope that would seem laughable. In this case, as in many others, there is no proper assessment of the sources, and then fellow-travellers have piled in to support deletion who show no sign of having looked at them (except to snipe at sources that do not go to notability, which is again unbalanced). In theory, the closing admin or non-admin should not be led astray by a clack, but most are. As a content-creator, my humble opinion is that the WP AfD process is not fit for purpose. Moonraker (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

90+% of AfD decisions boil down to reliable secondary sources and the notability guidelines. If you can find the appropriate sources, you can usually stop a deletion.

If you’re not getting AfD outcomes that you like because the sources are only primary (such as the UK Foreign Office or the US State Department), then the problem is not with AfD, it’s with the guidelines.

In my limited experience, the majority of ambassadors don’t get sufficient press coverage of themselves to meet notability requirements. Obviously there are exceptions for major posts but neither the UK high commissioner to Botswana nor the Canadian ambassador to Kuwait are likely to get an article.

You’ll have to get the WP:BIO guideline amended to change our ambassadorial coverage.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

G11

Hi - I’d like to explain my tagging rationale, and why I reverted you. I can see that all the sandboxes link into one another, and are all relating to the same, non-notable person (a "Yommy Lee Money Banky"). As such, I am of the impression that this all ties in to a wide-scale attempt at self-promotion. However, I'm starting to suspect that these sandboxes form a large hoax of some sort, given I cannot find any evidence of this person existing, there are no sources in any of the sandboxes, and the only website linked to in a few of them is simply "official.com". Patient Zero^talk 04:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m about to go offline for awhile. I just left you a note on your talk page as you were leaving yours here.

I don’t see a compelling need to delete all these user space pages. There’s certainly no need to rush.

Regards —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given these were hoaxes, I personally do see a compelling need to remove them; indeed, that’s why ”speedy” deletion exists - in order to quickly remove harmful, disruptive or nonsensical pages (there are also other criteria, but these are the “big” ones that come to mind) without the need for an AfD. Regarding there being no rush - I use a semi-automated tool to tag pages, so I appreciate that my edits can generally come across as being rapid in nature, however when it comes to removing content like this, the sooner the better, in my view (and I think it’s safe to say this is the view of the wider community too, given there haven’t been any attempts to abolish the speedy deletion system). Patient Zero^talk 04:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Sunnya343 (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You removed deletion tag

Hello @A. B. you recently removed deletion tag from Communist Party of India (Marxist) campaign for the 2024 Indian general election saying remove CSD G4 tag - looks like multiple refs are dated after the close of the AfD, so this can't be the same article here Revision as of 07:16, 18 December 2023. You could have contacted me atleast once. Anyways the previous deletion discussion was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist Party of India (Marxist) campaign for the next Indian general election which means the article was Communist Party of India (Marxist) campaign for the next Indian general election. Now this article is Communist Party of India (Marxist) campaign for the 2024 Indian general election. There is just one change in title of the article that is next is replaced with 2024 which is not a rocket science to understand as the Next Indian general election too is 2024 Indian general election. This new article was created by XYZ 250706 who is the only one to have voted to keep that article in that discussion. That was deleted on 29 January and this was created on 22 March. Are you now able to understand now that both the articles are same and cover same topic? If yes then please restore the tag or if you want to know more then ask me here only I will tell you. ShaanSengupta^Talk 08:37, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's very simple, Shaan Sengupta. Here's our policy:

Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion § G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion:

- "This applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, and pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies."

Have you looked at the copy of the article that was deleted and compared it to the version you tagged for deletion? I don't see how you could compare the deleted article to the current article unless you're an administrator; non-admins like you and I can't see deleted articles.

As I noted previously, it's very clear the current article is not exactly the same as the old article since there's text in the new article that's supported by references published after the 29 January 2023 AfD closure.

As a result, the tag had to be removed per our policy. There's no discretion allowed for CSD-G4 deletions.

Also, the CSD-G4 process cannot be used if "pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies.". The old article was deleted due to lack of notability; based on the new refs, it appears the subject now meets our notability requirements.

If you still feel this article should be deleted, you are free to use the Articles for Deletion process.

I hope this is helpful. Regards, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 09:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bot Task Idea

Hey @A. B., I had an idea for a bot task and wanted to get your feedback before I went and made a submission. I was thinking about the shared ip templates on IP editors talk pages that gave me a minor headache awhile back. What are your thoughts on adding one of the shared ip edu templates to the IP talk pages tied to educational institutions. I figure it wouldn't be that much work but I wanted to make sure that this would be something useful and not just a solution looking for a problem. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea but how would your bot know which IPs are tied to which educational institutions without running a whois, traceroute and or geolocate on every IP?

When I was an admin faced with blocking an IP for vandalism, it helped to know if it was associated with a school. If it was, then I'd block for as long an interval as possible since these were vandalism-only IPs. Otherwise, I was more cautious about block lengths.

This is just a guess but I'd say I tagged at least 1000 schools to save subsequent admins the hassle of figuring out who owned the IP.

I'm not an admin anymore, so I don't know whether current admins would still find this helpful. (I was automatically desysopped for inactivity during my 10-year editing break). --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Single-purpose editor, बिनोद थारू|बिनोद थारू (“Binod Tharu”)

Executive Summary
Thanks for weighing in on the AfD of my entire user page and an associated sandbox there. You wrote that you are busy but still took the time to participate and speak your mind, and for that I am grateful.

~~Is there a way to snowball the AfD on my user pages? I shouldn’t let it weigh on my mind, but I have a lot of material there and I can’t help but feel like it’s something hanging over my head.~~?

In my opinion, the aggressiveness of बिनोद थारू|बिनोद थारू (“Binod Tharu”) and his willingness to wikilawyer to evade revealing his true goals—but still achieve those goals—is disruptive to the project and is the paradigm example of a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account.

Details
On my AfD, he criticized my omission in my sandbox-based article of KK monopole [1], D1 or D5 branes, or even brane itself. However, given Tharu’s user contributions history (User contributions for बिनोद थारू) he lacks any interest in science-related subjects so it is highly doubtful he would recognize the difference between a D5 brane and a PTFE membrane. It’s far more likely he just cherry picked those buzzwords off the {{string theory}} infobox at the top of the article.

I actually had another editor take over the Fuzzball (string theory) article because I had too much tangential material in the article. That’s why I moved to my sandbox; to work on it there. And then here comes Tharu trying to get my user page deleted by ostensibly targeting the sandbox which I had linked to from my user page. And his reasoning? He resorted to the argument that I had too little tangential (entirely off-topic) material in my sandbox.

Given Tharu’s history of nominating AfDs on pro-Israeli articles, like All-woman Israeli tank crew fight (2023) and anti-Russian articles like Death of Anatoly Klyan, it’s become clear to me that he resorts to any convenient tactic he stumbles across to achieve his goal of simply eliminating content that offends his sensibilities and world view. For instance, he posted “Academic paper and book source possibility of misuse” on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, where he wrote as follows:

Academic paper and book source possibility of misuse
Journal paper and books are not a reliable source because the book publisher does not correct scientific mistakes rather mostly grammatical. academic papers are not reliable because the peer reviewers only reviews the experiment's integrity not whatever explanation or small talk is in the introduction and conclusion. yet this is what is always cited out of them (since the experiment is a primary source).

In a way, I agree with part of his sentiment about books; I’ve seen wikipedians completely fake a book citation (actually four in a row) purporting that they all said something when the books, in fact, said nothing of the sort. But still, the proper remedy to citing to books lies in improving the method of citing them.

What is unique about my user page is I practiced the art of writing engaging narratives (I’m an engineer and authoring isn’t really in my DNA) by telling of my son’s experiences in BUD/S (Navy SEAL training). I’ve got some patriotic stuff there. It never dawned on me at the time I was writing it that one day people from far corners of the planet who don’t embrace the concept of “The proper response to bad speech is better speech,” would one-day engage in wikilawyering to expunge the expression of thought with which they disagree. In order that he could expunge from existence my primary user page (the one with the account of my son at BUD/S), he took aim at one of my sandboxes where I was working on an abstruse scientific concept beyond his grasp. That is so disruptive.

Greg L (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greg L, I can't judge whether that editor is a returning nuisance, but technical evidence does not suggest any foul play. Drmies (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Greg L (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think बिनोद थारू|बिनोद थारू’s edits were misguided, not malevolent. Hopefully, he’ll take folks’ advice and avoid initiating CSDs, AfDs, and PRODS until he make a few 1000 more edits. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

~ ~ ~ Merry Christmas! ~ ~ ~

Hello A. B.: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:05, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you. The same to you and yours! --02:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC) A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

बिनोद थारू using redirects to delete information to get around PRODs

A. B., I noticed you had reverted a redirect बिनोद थारू created. There were two other articles he did that to that you should know about. Both amounted to pure & simple deletion of content because the articles he redirected to mentioned nothing from the ones he redirected. Please see User_talk:Liz#Only eleven hours later for details. Greg L (talk) 06:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the message you put on Binod's page. His editing is creating real problems and I appreciate what you've done. I'm traveling but hope to contribute to your messaging as well.

I have a hard time understanding what "makes him tick". What brings him to Wikipedia? What's his motivation? I'm not saying he has any malevolent intentions- just that I'm puzzled by his behaviour.

I saw someone left him a message about gay men freezing their eggs. That's a real puzzler.—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Binod made yet another redirect, Live Lounge Special: Difference between revisions, redirecting the article to BBC Radio 1, which only mentions “Live Lounge” with links to the article but doesn’t cover “Live Lounge” like the 6,357-byte article does. Once again, this leaves readers with the situation where they click on a blue link, only to be taken to the same article they’re on.
He did this, again, after I alerted him here on his talk page to the negative consequences of redirects like that.
Binod’s motives are quite clear and we needn’t pretend that we don’t fathom the curious manner by which Binod is trying to wash the feet of the orphans. He wrote here on the discussion thread “Previous account(s)” on his talk page (in response to User:Liz) that his first article got deleted in an AfD. Binod’s edit history and the remainder of his response to Liz makes it perfectly clear that he’s now exacting revenge on en.Wikipedia and is constantly trying different tactics to evade the directions of you and Liz to accomplish his ends. AGF in this case is like catching some guy in a bar after he spit in your beer as you were looking away, only to find he next tries dipping his finger in your beer after spitting on his finger. It would be foolish to think he’s going to respect you and your beer the third and fourth time—and the 100th time.
I propose it is time to give him a three-month-long block (along with the associated I.P. address) in hopes he will learn to add value to the Hindi version of Wikipedia. Maybe he will come off his block with a resolve to improve en.Wikipedia instead of trying to tear it down. Greg L (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support you. I wondered if maybe his MfD of your user page was some sort of "payback" for your opposition to one of his attempted deletions. That said, some of his PRODs and AfDs have seemed reasonable to me.

Ultimately, whatever motivates Binod, we have to think about what's best for the project. His current activity is unsustainable for Wikipedia's content and community.

I find the personalities and interactions on Wikipedia fascinating in a way, but only at a distance. This really is the island of misfit toys.

What do you think the next step should be? ANI? —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My first interaction with Binod was his AfD on my user page; that AfD was not the result of prior dealings. I quickly looked at his contributions history and could immediately see it wasn’t just rotten luck. There was a clear pattern to what he was doing, it was purposeful, and was intentionally disruptive to the entire project.
Binod has had more-than-enough warnings that what he is doing is disruptive. The fact that 10–20 percent of his edits prove to be worthwhile can be chalked up to just shooting into a barrel and getting lucky; it doesn’t make up for the 80–90 percent that wears everyone down and makes them feel like they’re a retailer in a crime-ridden city and should just call it quits. Further disruption from him beyond this point would be clear evidence that he A) is disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point and B) is immune to peer pressure (as evidenced by dismissive wikilawyering like this).
I’d wait at least three more days to see if Binod continues to initiate any form of deletion of content (initiating AfDs, PRODs, or Redirects without ensuring the content is first transferred). If so, an ANI is in order, which I propose to be a sufficiently long time-out to allow him to discover life outside of en.Wikipedia. Greg L (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While you were writing the above message, I posted what I meant to be friendly advice on User:बिनोद थारू’s talk page. He deleted it as ”misinformation” 3 minutes later. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the unsourced statement of saying "the majority of your edits have no merit", as it could mislead potential watchers towards ganging up against me. If you make a post that is sourced or that circumvents saying such a thing then I will respond. Here is the link to the relevant talk page guideline WP:OWNTALK. बिनोद थारू (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Binod, this is specifically what I wrote to you:
”Some of your PRODs and AfDs have merit but too many don’t. If you don’t have a success ratio of at least 80%, you should not be initiating deletions.”

I stand by this comment and a statistical analysis will bear this out. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you only had posted "the success ratio is greater than 80%" I would've not hidden the comment. Saying "the majority of your edits have no merit" circumvents the possibility of some of those being vexatiously reverted or voted against, for example by someone tracking down my page after an argument. बिनोद थारू (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your quote above is incorrect; this is my entire post:
”बिनोद थारू, please slow down and reflect on what administrators and other editors are telling you, both here and in deletion discussions. I detect frustration and, increasingly, exasperation with your work here on Wikipedia, particularly with regards to deletion. Some of your PRODs and AfDs have merit but too many don’t. If you don’t have a success ratio of at least 80%, you should not be initiating deletions. Normally only more experienced editors initiate deletions.”

“Some of your comments and edit summaries are also grating on your colleagues’ nerves as they’re informing you.”

“If you continue on your present course, I expect one of these other exasperated editors will probably report you at WP:ANI within the next week.”

I hope you will take these comments to heart. I sense trouble brewing. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you want me to stop making deletion discussions because I am not an experienced editor? बिनोद थारू (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting: Special:MobileDiff/1192670804 —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

he will learn to add value to the Hindi version of Wikipedia

I am pretty sure this violates a rule against racial prejudice. बिनोद थारू (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh… desist with your wikilawywering. Race has nothing to do with your disruption. Disruption has everything to do with your disruption. If you’re referring to my suggestion that you should be blocked from en.Wikipedia in hopes that you would focus constructively on the Hindi-language version of Wikipedia, maybe that was a pipe dream of mine. If someone—anyone anywhere—can provide evidence that you are disruptive there too, then I’d be more than happy to help them deal with your disruption at other versions of Wikipedia. Please state for the record what accounts you edit under at the Hindi version of Wikipedia and any other-language version of Wikipedia so we can see whether this pattern of yours is more widespread than is so-far evidenced. Greg L (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, for what it’s worth, a large majority of our South Asian editors only edit here on our project. The English Wikipedia draws more readers and editors in South Asia than any of the South Asian Wikipedias. Binod may not have accounts elsewhere. Another editor has suggested he’s previously edited here under another account (due to the “precocity” of his editing) but I have no opinion on that. I just want to see him work more collegially with the rest of us but now doubt that will happen based on my interaction with him a few minutes ago. I don’t think he realized I was possibly his last friend here.—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In that proves to be the case, A. B. (that Binod is only interested in en.Wikipedia), a time-out from en.Wikipedia may give Binod an opportunity to discover interests beyond his computer monitor. The community doesn’t care what he does so long as it doesn’t entail disrupting Wikipedias anywhere. He has had more-than-enough warnings from admins and, as evidenced by his deletion of your caution on his talk page (with a snarky response that amounted to “where’s your evidence?”), he seems dead-set on continuing on his current path, which won’t end well. Greg L (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]