Jump to content

User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 61

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55←Archive 59Archive 60Archive 61Archive 62Archive 63→Archive 65

You have made a mistake.

I clearly showed an edit was made without being a "neutral point of view" and you accused me of not treating that editor with "civility and respect". Terratian (talk) 03:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Terratian:You didn't clearly show anything (I don't expect anyone with so few editors to understand NPOV) and you wrote "Deleting my talk comments regarding Graham Hancock as being anything other than a Journalist is inaccurate, biased, and not researched." Of course that's not as bad as " Ian, once we can get you to stop practicing pseudo journalism and academia to review new evidence clearly contradicting old dominate theories with your authority to "edit" this page to exclude any reference to "pseudo" anything in regards to Hancocks reputable journalistic review of peer reviewed evidence and what that evidence might imply regarding human civilization prior to the last glacial maximum. Make the edit, or you are absolutely impervious to fact." If I'd seen that I'd have warned you earlier. Doug Weller talk 13:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I amediting wiki

Boy, i am editing wiki. Skeyerise cast a magic spell to figure it out after his ownership of chaos magic, also ridiculously spelled as chaos magick, was revealed by myself, roxy the cay Raxythecat (talk) 01:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) What is this, even? I'm so sorry, Doug. Really I am very, very sorry you have to deal with these things. It makes me never want to be an admin but also appreciate those who are even more. You wear the mop with dignity, my friend. --ARoseWolf 13:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

User you blocked is back

FYI, Editingwiki777 (talk · contribs) has reappeared as Raxythecat (talk · contribs). An SPI has been opened. Skyerise (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Skyerise: looks almost as though they wanted to be blocked. Thanks for the report, but I guess there's nothing left for me to do. Doug Weller talk 13:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, but since they confessed maybe they should be tagged as a sock? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Editingwiki777 Skyerise (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
@Skyerise: given the conclusion of the SPI that would be overriding the Admins involved in the SPI, and I don't see a reason to do that. Sorry. Doug Weller talk 13:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Actually, there was no conclusion. The checkuser was unrelated, but the SPI was just closed because the user was already blocked and the closer felt they didn't need to form a conclusion. Understandable but unfortunate, because it was most likely the same editor working from work or from a cafe or something. Skyerise (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Skyerise, speaking with my SPI clerk hat on, sometimes we don't tag. There are various reasons not to do so, but in this case it looks like there was not a definitive connection made. Admissions are sometimes dubious (there are LTAs who like to pretend to be different blocked users for the lolz), and there's also the question of how much time and effort a clerk/admin is willing to invest in making a positive connection between two users if they're both already blocked. I haven't looked into this case at all, but my advice would be that if an SPI is closed, and the users are blocked but not tagged, just leave it alone. Cheers Girth Summit (blether) 14:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

And back again as 107.202.75.102 (talk · contribs) Skyerise (talk) 05:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Megalithomania

Hello again Doug. Considering that you were familiar with it already (1, 2, 3), I thought I'd initially share it here in case it interests you. I found out yesterday that we have a number of articles that appear to cite it... A few days ago I saw a (questionable) video that stressed strange dates for some native artefacts, arguing often about "academia"'s different conclusions or it not mentioning what they don't want you to know. It then included what appeared to be forged objects, then confirmed my suspicion with things like an out-of-place "10 commandments stone". Finally, it ended as a travel agency advert. The advertized URL's TLD was .co.uk, but it may possibly be related? Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 00:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Wayne Mays is LDS and fringe for them. Ancient American Magazine is described at Frank Collin. Seriously fringe. Some of your hits are to megalithomania.com[1] a now dead website which I don't think is fringe but it isn't an RS. Christian O'Brien needs a cleanup by the way, too much emphasis on his fringe nonsense (added by a serial socking fringe editor). Doug Weller talk 15:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for confirming that they're not exactly the same site. I'll have a look at the BLP, —PaleoNeonate – 15:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
I finally looked at the article and did a little cleanup, —PaleoNeonate – 20:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Beauty of salvation

An insource search for the spam link they posted led me to this: User:Jimsorzo/Hank Kunneman —PaleoNeonate – 19:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. Bad article but he looks notable. Doug Weller talk 19:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Very possible, the sources in it didn't convince me and are suboptimal of course, —PaleoNeonate – 19:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Oh I completely agree, but a search suggested he may have had enough need coverage. Doug Weller talk 19:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I don't intend to work on this myself and it's stale, so I think that I'll forward it at BLPN for any interested person to move to draft or mainspace and improve, —PaleoNeonate – 20:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Done, —PaleoNeonate – 20:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 45

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 45, May – June 2021

  • Library design improvements continue
  • New partnerships
  • 1Lib1Ref update

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

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

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.

Technical news

  • Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Advice on ANI

Dear Doug, you may have seen that last week at ANI two editors (one of them me) proposed sanctions against MfactDr, after a period of him once more stepping way out of line with his disruptive POV editing. I think that at least I presented a good case that something needed to happen. In the beginning there was a little bit of back and forth between MfactDr and the two OPs, but beyond that nobody else contributed anything to that discussion, until the case died in the archives today. There wasn't even anyone telling me that my case was weak or badly presented or even frivolous - there was just no reaction (and certainly no action) at all. In terms of the matter that may be okay, as I can see that under the impression of being dragged to ANI MfactDr has calmed down significantly, has even taken steps to improve his behavior, such as archiving his talk page now instead of just deleting all the warnings. If he sticks to that for a while I will be quite happy. So my question to you is more what I can learn from this experience.

This was the first time I brought something to ANI, so maybe I'm disappointed about something that is actually quite normal - should I expect things to be ignored at ANI and contact administrators directly, as I have done in the past, sometimes approaching you or Cordless Larry? Whenever I did that, you usually acted swiftly. Presenting a case at ANI certainly took a lot more preparation, and I wasted a lot of time watching the ANI page for something to happen (and got sidetracked that way into another discussion). Or should I instead go directly to AE, because technically MfactDr violated the Horn-of-Africa DS? Or should I rather refrain from any attempts to get sanctions invoked against editors such as him or David S Gondaria, who is in every respect MfactDr's counterpart from a different ethnic perspective? Whatever advice you can give, I will take it to heart. LandLing 06:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Landroving Linguist: it's one of those subjects that few people are familiar with, and that's a major problem. Then it's a bit complex. You presented a good detailed case but on the other hand you were too frank with your opinions of other editors. Try to always take the high road on talk pages - that's help me a lot in the decades I've been on the internet arguing with fringe editors. Finally, if it's an area under discretionary sanctions and the editor has been warned, go to AE, you'll always get more attention there. Just make sure your case is good. I'm sorry I haven't participated but I've stepped back a little from Wikipedia to deal with real life, some routine stuff, some not so routine (I've been diagnosed as having early subtle symptoms of Parkinson's). Doug Weller talk 13:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Oh, that's a much more serious thing than your recent root-canal treatment - I have friends with the same diagnosis rather early in their lives, and from what I know about them, telling that you are somewhat distracted by this is going to be a severe understatement. I wish you all the strength you need in order to be able to deal with that situation! And I hope that you have a good support network in real life, which will make things a lot easier.
Thanks also for your advice. Yes, you are right about my tendency to chose the wrong words - I still need to learn that being sarcastic doesn't help to win people over to becoming good editors, and I need to work harder on resisting all temptations at being rude towards editors that do something annoying. For now I will walk away from the MfactDr case, hoping that he learns from this as much as I did. In similar situations I will next time try my luck at AE. Best wishes, and take care, LandLing 14:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Sorry to hear about your frustrating experience, Landroving Linguist - and about your health issues, Doug. LandLing, I'm not that active at AN/I but I sense that uninvolved editors might have been put off from engaging by the back-and-forth between Dawit S Gondaria and MfactDr following the former's initial report and then the wall of text that MfactDr posted in response to your post. When the dispute already seems complicated to uninvolved editors, then a blow-by-blow replaying of it at AN/I is likely to further discourage engagement, and sadly this often seems to happen in response to reports there. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Parkinson's

@Landroving Linguist and Cordless Larry: thanks. I'm lucky in that I've only recently started on my Parkinson's journey at 78, and am pretty healthy - walk 15,000 steps a day, do Pilates twice a week via YouTube with an expert who tailors it for me and my wife, etc. So I'm not terribly worried. Doug Weller talk 14:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Sorry to read this. I just turned 78 myself, but, so far, just the usual old age stuff. And here I was proud of my 12,000 steps a day! May the Parkinson's hold off and your health remain good! - Donald Albury
Sing your Song, Doug. It's the beautiful sound of your life. Look after yourself and keep moving as you are. Those steps and exercises will come in handy. I have full confidence in your ability and I agree that there is nothing to be worried about. That only zaps your energy. Know I am sending you positive thoughts and thanks for all you have done and continue to do when able.--ARoseWolf 19:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
@Donald Albury and ARoseWolf: Thanks. My Pilates is going to help and there are Parkinson's videos for vigorous aerobics and Parkinson's Pilates. I like the slogans "Nothing scares me, I've got Parkinson's" and "I've got Parkinson's but Parkinson's doesn't have me". Doug Weller talk 14:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
For some reason, those slogans remind me of something I was found of saying some 55 years ago when I was in the Army, "What are they going to do, send me to Vietnam?" - Donald Albury 17:27, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind the intrusion - I noticed the above on my watchlist. Doug, my hopes and prayers are with you. (Good on you for the 15000 steps a day by the way - you've got a couple of decades on me, but you're putting me to shame!) Girth Summit (blether) 17:55, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
I love those slogans. You'll do just fine. :) --ARoseWolf 13:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
@Girth Summit: thanks. Exercise is vital, particularly at the early state where I am. I'm optimistic. Doug Weller talk 14:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See [2] ♟♙ (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

whitewashing Pov Pushing IP Is Back. On Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation page

I saw what was happening they are back using a new Ip [3]. Seems like the page needs to be protected again.Starkid1979 (talk) 02:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Starkid1979: it doesn't qualify at the moment. I'm sure it's the same person but it's controllable right now, and that edit was 3 days ago. Doug Weller talk 08:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert for American politics

No more on my talk page thanks. Questions about the scope of

discretionary sanctions might be asked at WP:ARCA. Doug Weller talk 13:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi Doug, you posted this notice on my talkpage, however I haven't edited (or even thought about editing anything to do with AMerican politics for a long time (not since 2020 perhaps), just wondering what made you post this notice on my talkpage? Aeonx (talk) 09:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Aeonx: nonetheless, your userpage says "Lastly, as I am unable to fight the bias (without getting banned), I will state Wikipedia is PARTICULARLY bias on articles relating to current Politics of the United States of America which has extreme anti-conservative bias. Wikipedia should not be trusted for such content." That's an interest. Doug Weller talk 11:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Not sure sure what brought you to read my userpage (casual stalking?), and then interpret that as an interest to post the US Politics DS notification, but regardless it's not an interest, it's an opinion formed by observation. There's clear difference since its widely philipshopically accepted that one can have a disinterested opinion as I do. Aeonx (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just an excuse so you can pounce on an editor that doesn't share the Wikipedia administrator club preclusions for unconscious bias against certain aspects like selectively applying rules to those that challenge norms, overlooking WP:5P when it suits best.

If it were up to me, every Wikipedia admin should have to undertake annual unconscious bias training and testing, what is there left to provides confidence and assurance otherwise? Perhaps food for the thought. Aeonx (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Aeonx: this all sounds a bit paranoid. It's a standard alert - I've got several at the top of my talk page. Your definition of interest is different from the one we use, for us it's mentioning American Politics as well as editing about them. No one is going to pounce on you unless you revert to your old behaviour in the topic area. As for stalking, that's a crime, are you really accusing me of that? I looked at your userpage after seeing comments about your "watchlist", and that's well within what's allowed at WP:HOUND. Doug Weller talk 14:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
@Doug Weller, I didn't, and am not, "accusing" you of anything, I merely asked an innocent question, no need to take offense. When you say "different from the one WE use", is there somewhere where that definition is written in WP?
I also see you added the Gender Politics DS notification to my page too, again, not an area I am interested in. My edit and talkpage comments about Quinn (soccer) were about biological sex, and have nothing to do with the social construct of gender and gender issues; could you please share the definition for an "interest in gender issues" too whilst you are at it? I just want to be clear what is meant by these DS notifications. Aeonx (talk) 23:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
We get it, some people (all people?) do not like receiving discretionary sanctions notifications. However they are part of Wikipedia and your choice is to accept that and move on, or continue sealioning here until stopped. Johnuniq (talk) 23:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Do you get it though? Every time one of these discretionary sanction notifications is put on a talkpage, either the person ignores it or the person has the read through an additional range of policies and ARBCOM decisions to make sure they are not going to get banned from some obscure policy. Being an Australian, this comes to mind...[4]..., there are so many new rules you have to be a constantly active editor in policy space to have a hope to understand them! Every time you make a new rule or change the rules you should repeal an old one.
Now Doug Weller made the conscious choice to post the DS notification on my talkpage, and that notification quite clearly states if I have questions I should feel free to ask. I do have questions, many. Like for example, if my edit on Quinn (soccer) was about gender issues or not. Frankly, I don't think it was. I think it was about biology. So that's why I am asking the questions.
I do hope that Doug Weller as a supposedly responsible administrator would afford the courtesy to keep to his word. Aeonx (talk) 08:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
@Aeonx: yep, it was about gender. Of course, you could have read the link in the alert which says among other things "Gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender." Doug Weller talk 09:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
@Doug Weller, in my case, my comments: [5] and edit: [6] were NOT about gender. There were about whether Quinn's biological sex assigned at birth and deadname should be included in the article for historical encyclopaedic value. I consider biological sex independent from gender (as does Quinn, and as does Wikipedia).
Also my comments and edits were not about article title, pronoun usage, or any manner of referring to any individual known to be self-identifying as transgender (or any gender for that matter). So perhaps you can explain to me exactly how my edit and comments about biological sex assigned at birth were related to gender? Because I don't understand, and I certainly do not think they were about gender[7]. It might just be easier to admit you were wrong? Aeonx (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Aeonx, I think you're confused about the scope of the Gender and sexuality DS. Let me see if I can help explain. It includes discussions of biological sex AND discussions of gender, when said edits are made to an article about a transgender person. By that umbrella, Doug Weller has determined that your edits to Quinn (soccer) count. That is, according to the AC/DS regs, his call as an admin. If it ever comes up re: those specific edits at an ArbE case, you are free to argue that you do not believe your edits count, although I would advise you that such arguments are usually unsuccessful (see the "broadly construed" criteria). I urge you to edit responsibly, as all others must do in this fraught topic area! --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
@Shibbolethink, you are right I am confused by the scope of the DS, that's why I'm asking these questions. I am now ever more confused with your answer which doesn't seem to be rooted in the actual ARBCOM motion: [8]. So my next question is what make you think it applies to biological sex as well as gender and sexuality? Also I think my edits were responsible, is there something that makes you think otherwise? Aeonx (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Aeonx, the alert template very clearly says (emphasis mine): "This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date." --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Doug Weller, the other thing I would like to understand better is, without any clear definition (which I asked about earlier), how exactly is it determined by administrators and those implementing DS what is within the scope of the DS topics? They seem, rather,... subjective. Aeonx (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
"how exactly is it determined by administrators and those implementing DS what is within the scope of the DS topics?" The relevant section of the DS regulations give wide latitude to administrators to determine such things themselves, based on the topic ban criteria of breadth. AKA "broadly construed."--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
@Shibbolethink, the issue I then have is the scope is not defined (or rather only later broadly construed at a later time at the interpretation of administrator opinion).
How can I keep with the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Guidance for editors if I can not even determine what is in scope for the DS?
These zealous DS notifications basically in effect give licence to administrators to claim your edits breach any one of many obscure WP policies and use that as grounds to impose DS. Now I simply don't have the time, nor inclination to read and digest every single applicable policies and guidelines - there are far too many these days to keep up-to-date with, and most of them have not been properly reviewed by the long-term wikipedia community; so I would generally prefer to avoid editing in areas where these DS can come into play and not where the WP:5P and WP:AGF can be ignored at the whim of any administrator (most of whom were elected under more lenient circumstances many years ago, and none of which are trained by Wikipedia in understanding unconscious bias).
In my view it's only fair to either define the scope the DS or to tell editors exactly which articles and edits fall under them as/after they make them; or simply don't post DS notifications on people's talk pages, I feel like if you post a DS notification on another user's talk page, then you should accept the responsibility of ensuring that user also knows what is in scope of that DS notification and what isn't. Aeonx (talk) 04:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Aeonx, The talk pages of the relevant articles have notices on them telling you they are covered by DS. If you don't want to be subject to sanctions, you are free to avoid those articles, or just edit in line with the guidelines extra carefully on those articles. Personally, I haven't had any problems. In my experience, most editors still get plenty of warnings, even on DS violations. The bar is still quite high. I would remind you that it hasn't stopped you from making some pretty controversial edits in the COVID-19 area, which is also covered by DS. As an overall summary, you're disagreeing with the very structure of wikipedia, and I'm sorry, but there isn't much you as an individual can do about it. Consensus of the community is against you on this one. Good luck, I hope you figure out what you're looking for.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 04:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Favor

When you have time, could you read through User:Kansas Bear/Great Bullion Famine and give me your thoughts regarding flow, information, sectioning, sources, etc. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

My Sandbox

Help!!!!!!!! My sandbox is not working!!!!!!!! Saved by God's grace (talk) 10:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

User making personal attacks and questionable genetics edits

Hi Doug, can something be done about Kurgans r us, he's been making personal attacks [9], [10]. That's in addition to making what I take to be questionable edits on genetics related topics and edit-warring about them [11], [12], [13], [14]. Also his first edit [15] appears to be making an unsourced claim that the Ancient Egyptians came from Eurasia?--Ermenrich (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: sorry, didn't get to this in time, but I see they've been blocked. Good riddance. Doug Weller talk 10:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Ivan Moody

Turns out that user:OceanRockLegend is Moody's manger [16]. Still trying to get Hcm2021 (talk · contribs) to clarify his connection and why he was uploading an image as his own work when it wasn't. Meters (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Hcm2021 seems to be trying to do the right thing. Meters (talk) 20:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
This is all getting confusing. Three accounts? And this [17] Doug Weller talk 20:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Ah, should have read this before replying to that message. Who's the third account? Meters (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
@Meters: sorry, I misread your talk page. But should I block Hcm2021 from the article itself, allowing them to use the talk page? Doug Weller talk 13:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
I would say no. Hcm2021 uploaded an image (with an incorrect license) and added it to the article, apparently at the request of OceanRockLegend or someone else on Moody's management. A bit of newbie meatpuppetry, but he seems to be trying to do the right thing now and has now declared a COI. The management company is apparently in the process of providing proper permission for the image in question. OceanRockLegend, on the other hand, did not seem to be acting in good faith, and denied the COI more than once. Meters (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
@Meters: that's great. Doug Weller talk 18:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

New user

Hello Doug! Would you consider taking a look on the 'new' user here, using your tools if appropriate? I've a mind to take them to ANI (harassment [18] [19]; far-right POV-pushing [20] [21] [22]), but maybe you could save us some time? Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps this diff should make it very obvious who we are dealing with here. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Nevermind, user has already been blocked. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
@Apaugasma: sorry I missed this last night. I'm not usually online much after dinner my time, it's "us" time with my wife, generally watching tv. Doug Weller talk 19:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I suspected as much. Works much the same way over here between my partner and me. In fact, we're going to watch an episode of Outlander right now. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

This template must be substituted. -- Emperor of Oz's New Clothes (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2021

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

Administrator changes

readded Jake Wartenberg
removed Emperor • Viridian Bovary
renamed Ashleyyoursmile → Viridian Bovary

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Notices

Hi Doug, it took me awhile to figure out why I was getting so many alerts from my talk page all at once until I remember the Vandana Shiva article checks off all those boxes. I think for better, I haven't been in a situation until this year where I wasn't already technically WP:AWARE of the GMO DS since we had the first ArbCom case on that. That was a bit of welcome realization. That said, I noticed I was the only one who was getting all those templates, so did something catch your eye there? Thanks. KoA (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Could you not simply add those alerts to the other users' talk pages yourself? provided they have not already received them in the last 12 months? (check the system log that comes up with the edit filter alert) If they have, that would explain why they did not also recently receive alerts. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Also, keep in mind that these notices are informational and don't signify that you've done anything wrong. An admin might see the need to notify a particular user, but it does not follow that they will look for all users who need to be notified (in other words, you're not necessarily being singled out). We are, after all, a volunteer endeavor! --RegentsPark (comment) 19:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm well aware of that and am no stranger to DS alerts. It was the number of them at once that seemed like something was worth checking in here. KoA (talk) 23:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Ah, that's just my routine. It just seems sensible if I'm giving an alert to someone to make sure they've had all the applicable ones. I use {{Ds/aware}} although since giving an alert means I'm aware, it's probably redundant. Doug Weller talk 14:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

RevDelete request

Hello! User 103.25.248.251 performed an edit in which a Facebook profile link was put into the edit summary. Since WP:Spam was entered into the summary, the edit meets the criteria for a RevDelete, correct? I went ahead and reverted the edit and I'm here to request a deletion of the revision. This is my first encounter with vandalism in an edit summary so if my request is out of place or I'm mistaken, please let me know!

Thank you, RFZYNSPY talk 18:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I assumed that was the Facebook page of the ID and suppressed it as it was identifying information. Doug Weller talk 19:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Perfect, that deletion removed all the identifying info and nothing but the info. Thanks! RFZYNSPY talk 19:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Check on a problematic new user?

Hi Doug, if you're not too busy I wonder if you wouldn't mind taking a look at the contribution history of the new user Total random nerd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I'm reaching out to you since you thanked me for a partial walk-back I did to one of their edits: [23] My initial concern had to do with persistent ref spamming of a blog called fascinatingpolitics.com, but the overall purpose seems to be imposing their view of who is and isn't a "conservative", and re-categorizing accordingly, on as broad an array of bios as possible. I left a personalized note on their talk page [24] but was met with hostility [25] and an insistence that WP:IAR overrides all other concerns, including WP:NPA [26]. Not quite at the level of an ANI complaint yet, I think, but more eyes on this user's activities would be helpful. Many thanks for all you do, Generalrelative (talk) 20:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Reliable source?

This looks like a ?blog? Your thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Help needed!

Can you help me to move this article Naga people (Lanka) to Naga people (Sri Lanka) and List of major attacks attributed to the LTTE to List of notable attacks attributed to the LTTE Amritsvāraya (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Amritsvāraya there's an open move request for the fist, so clearly no. I see there's something with that name that you've Prodded, if that's deleted I guess it could be done. Doug Weller talk 16:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
I see the account above is blocked as a compromised account. Doug Weller talk 10:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 46

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 46, July – August 2021

  • Library design improvements deployed
  • New collections available in English and German
  • Wikimania presentation

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding editing the page "Hamid Gul"

Dear administrator Dough Weller,

greetings ! I am sorry for using abusive languages, but I did so when I was attacked by a Pakistani IP address(119.160.65.104 ) calling me a 'Hindu' Vandal. And now IP(203.135.44.86 ) is calling me Hindu extremist ! I consider this a severe act of using discriminatory language -- how this guy know that I am a Hindu ? Is being a Hindu a crime ? Isn't that discriminatory and disturbing ? I do not see provision for conveying grievence, otherwise I would have done so without wasting my time with such people. Please take stern action.

Well I suppose I provided adequate reference to the change I made. Politically speaking Kashmir has been an integral part of India, as the last king of Kashmir his majesty Hari Singh signed to acceed to India -- while Kashmir was experiencing unprecidented attack by Pakistani militia and regular army in 1948 (along with genocide of Hindus). I provided reference to the edit I made, but these guys abused me first.

Regards— Preceding unsigned comment added by AsVw3 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Protecting the Black People in Ancient Rome article

Dear Doug,

I am a classicist, deeply pained by the current discussions around racism in classics. I read the old "black people in ancient Rome" article and, boy, it was one of the most racist articles I'd read on this site. Several anachronistic misnomers, (ie. "sub-saharan african"), misquoting of sources (including Isaac and Snowden, Jr.), outright false information (re: denying the existence of racism in antiquity, denying the multiplicities of meaning for various terminologies), and deeply misleading (no discussion whatsoever about the complexity and malleability of Blackness as descriptive at that time). Reading the talk page made me choke on my coffee, it was full of aggressive racism in the discussions of craniometry (as if it were a valid divider for "North" vs. "Sub-Saharan" Africans) and the denial of polychromatism in the ancient world. I would like to get the article somehow protected, and although it is still in a limited state at the moment, I do not want it to continue being a source of white nationalist talking points that have so gripped the public understanding of the ancient Mediterranean for so long (which we are just now, in the last 50 years, growing cognizant of). Please advise as to my options in this respect, and how we might ensure that the next generation of classicists (in addition to lay people) will not continue to be misled by outdated racism in an article that (in my opinion) probably shouldn't exist. Instead, we should roll it up in something about "Diversity in ancient Rome" and have a more advanced discussion about the fluidity and complexity of applying modern notions to the past. But if we keep the current article about "Black people" specifically, there should be better writing in it (and frankly, better classics). Thank you for reading.

Best, Ali— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleet Admiral Ali (talk • contribs) 18:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Noticed a sockpuppet.

Hi buddy, You recently blocked Godwatch49. But he has now made another account and has again started vandalism on articles. His new ID (sockpuppet account) is Viratyuddh. For proof you can see the edit history of Arjuna and you might also check his contributions. Contributions of both the accounts are exactly same. Regards,WikiEdittalk HiWikiEdit (talk) 11:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@HiWikiEdit: thanks, confirmed and blocked. Doug Weller talk 12:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Doug Weller, Thank u so much. BTW u r fast. He edited my motice out but you saw it. Thanks again.WikiEdittalk HiWikiEdit (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

One more concern for you to address.

Hi Buddy, This time I am here to complain about Yashwantbhoj who is continuously vandalising Wikipedia. He is doing disruptive editing across pages without citing reliable sources. He has received many warnings on his talk page but he continues to ignore them and is not abiding with the rules. Please look into this matter and do what's best for Wikipedia. WikiEdittalk HiWikiEdit (talk) 12:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I've blocked HiWikiEdit as a blatant sock of EditWiki45 (talk · contribs). --Blablubbs (talk) 14:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
@Blablubbs: I knew something was bothering me... but I was just too busy. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Request for discussion

Good day. You left a very unsettling message on my Talk page but provided no details or background regarding the reason you had for leaving it. I take a great deal of pride in my work on Wikipedia and feel that I have been blessed to have a reputation as a hard-working editor who is always unbiased in their edits, and that articles are much improved when I have completed my edits on them. I believe this because of the feedback I have received from other editors. Never, in more than 11 years of editing here, has anyone ever accused me of anything untoward. I attempt in all my actions to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines to the letter. If you are going to leave embarrassing or provocative comments on a person's user page, you are compelled to give details and sources to support your position. If you leaves such items in your position as administrator and particularly if there is another editor or editors involved, then you are compelled to prove that you have considered all sides equally and have held all editors involved to the same accountability and process. Since I don't know why you posted what you did, my expectations of your behavior might not be covered in my examples, but I think you get the idea. I am sure we can work together to bring whatever issues you have with my editing to an agreeable solution. Please assume good faith, as that is the only way in which I conduct myself here. I do not believe your actions were personally motivated, since we don't know each other and I don't believe our paths have crossed before. I assume you are acting in what you believe to be good faith, but your comments on my page leave far more questions than you probably thought you answered. Even so, I thank you for your time and contributions to Wikipedia. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Just noting for other readers that my "message" was two standard DS alerts and an 3RR alert (mean simply to prevent the editor from inadvertently continuing to revert), with no personal comment. The other editor in the edit war had been given 3RR warnings before. Doug Weller talk 13:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
And, I request that readers understand that I have had an unblemished record for 11+ years of editing on Wikipedia and Avatar317 has had multiple edit-warring warnings and has been blocked for edit warring. Avatar317 was given no edit-warring notice despite having reverted my edits at least three times. Avatar317 having been cited before for edit warring is not a proper reason for overlooking still another case of edit warring. It appears Avatar317 gets away with edit warring often. Readers should also note that within the last year, this administrator, Doug Weller, had given Avatar317 a Barnstar Award despite Avatar317's troubled history on Wikipedia and then chose to overlook still another instance of edit warring. I accept that I should not have reverted three times, even though I provided ample discussion on Avatar317's page and detailed edit summaries that I thought would make a difference. I would also like readers to know that Avatar317 made no effort to explain his or her reversions outside of edit summaries. I think the reader should know that when I made efforts to communicate with Doug Weller that I was accused of not acting in good faith, even though I was always respectful and professional, and when I asked Doug Weller to treat both Avatar317 and myself in a fair and equal manner that my request was met with silence. Finally, I think readers should know that by the time Doug Weller left the warning on my Talk page, it was clear that, seeing that the situation with the article was becoming an edit war, I had already walked away and left Avatar317's (improper) edit as it stood to avoid any further appearance that I was participating in an edit war. I think as long as we are leaving information for the reader to know that we should provide all the information relevant in this case. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 23:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

MarydaleEd (talk) 01:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Pacific Navigation

I have rewritten the paragraph; however the previous addition could not be a copyright violation as the copyright in the article in a 1937 Australian publication has expired long ago (Copyright law of Australia), and in any event, the test for copyright infringement in Australia (and other jurisdictions) is the reproduction of a “substantial” amount of the previous work, which is not the same as paraphrasing a portion of the previous work, with a footnote that credits the source. (MozzazzoM (talk) 07:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC))

@MozzazzoM: I think you're right about the year. However, our policy does differ from Australia's and many others - we use the concept of "limited close paraphrasing as described at WP:Paraphrase. Doug Weller talk 14:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

I know my mom's advice, "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all", is good, but I don't always follow it, especially when users refuse to drop the stick. Thanks for your comments here, as they were well thought out without being condescending, which my response wouldn't have been! Here's hoping your advice is taken. (But I'm not holding my breath on that one!) BilCat (talk) 23:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Could you please handle this problem with this user?

This user, Special:Contributions/178.202.82.89, has vandalized the Femme Fatales (TV series) page twice. Here’s the proof:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Femme_Fatales_(TV_series)&type=revision&diff=1043298917&oldid=1042808998&diffmode=source https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Femme_Fatales_(TV_series)&type=revision&diff=1047329548&oldid=1043730081&diffmode=source

Could you please handle this problem with him and tell him not to vandalize the page a third time? Because if he does, he may start an edit war with me. AdamDeanHall (talk) 03:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2021

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
  • Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
  • The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.

Miscellaneous

  • Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
  • The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Block evading IP

Hi Doug,

I'm not certain of the correct location to bring this (if there was a registered account involved, I believe it would be SPI, but as there is not, I am unsure) so I thought the best place would be to bring it to the admin who blocked the user.

2A01:598:918A:4B91:1:1:8713:81E4 recently turned up at AUKUS, making some strange arguments that the article should be in French. Out of curiosity, I looked at their contributions, and they had made a few contributions to AUKUS in that direction, and one to a TV show called "Femme Fatales". This contribution continues an edit war involving the banned IP, here and here.

The banned IP was also heavily involved in editing AUKUS, which adds further evidence if it is needed.

BilledMammal (talk) 12:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Sorry to bother you again, but there may be another one, abet a little more confusing: They've taken the opposite position in Talk:AUKUS (Saying there is too much pro-France bias) but they've also commented in an RfC on the aforementioned TV show, holding the same position as the banned IP and referencing that IP's reverted edits. They also geolocate to very similar locations; the Hesse Region of Germany.
While the position switch in AUKUS is a little confusing, it could be explained as trolling, and the chance that a random IP with no previous activity would take interest in both AUKUS and an obscure TV show seems unlikely. Perhaps a page protection for AUKUS and Talk:AUKUS would be in order? BilledMammal (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I doubt they are the same user, Frankfurt is an important internet hub in Europe, and there are millions of people living in the region. 2A02:908:182:AF40:481B:4E0F:1E1:22D0 (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Note then above IP has only edited the same 2 articles, one making the same point (the TV series) one disagrreing (AUKUS) with the other IP. Now arguing the IP is not a sock.Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
I think all the former unitymedia/vodafone ips appear as being in frankfurt, as the network is terminated here. 2A02:908:182:AF40:D573:7A8B:F724:87D6 (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
MAybe, but read WP:NOTDUMB.Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Unitymedia also uses Carrier Grade NAT so thousands of customers could potentially share the same IP over their cable network.2A02:908:182:AF40:D573:7A8B:F724:87D6 (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
How come the IP immediately above never contributed anything before this discussion? Trigenibinion (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
In any case I've protected AUKUS for 3 weeks. Doug Weller talk 16:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
You may also need to protect the talk page, as we have a number of SPA IP's showing up that maybe socks.Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Probably a good idea the whole pro/anti-french/aukus thing is ridiculous. I expect it will die down once AUKUS is no longer in the news.2A02:908:182:AF40:D573:7A8B:F724:87D6 (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
I had previously requested it but it was denied (I was not the first one). I got an edit warring warning after reverting several IPs. Trigenibinion (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

DS reminder on R&I

Hi Doug. Dushan Jugum has just significantly modified the lede of the article R&I,[27] without any discussion at the article talk page or any attempt to seek consensus (cf notices on WP:ARBR&I, FAQs, RfCs, etc). Please could the standard DS notice be posted on Dushan Juqum's user talk page? Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 06:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. Johnuniq (talk) 08:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Interested?

There is an IP, making numerous questionable edits to Philip III of France, a GA article. I have reverted them twice, and one of their edits is clear WP:OR and source misrepresentation.[28]

RfA 2021 review update

Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.

The following had consensus support of participating editors:

  1. Corrosive RfA atmosphere
    The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.
  2. Level of scrutiny
    Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.
  3. Standards needed to pass keep rising
    It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.
  4. Too few candidates
    There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.
  5. "No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins

The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:

  1. Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere)
    Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.
  2. Admin permissions and unbundling
    There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.
  3. RfA should not be the only road to adminship
    Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.

Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.

There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Email

If you have tried to send me an email, I am not successfully receiving email now. Please wait until I say that the problem has been addressed. Thanks. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The problem has been resolved. It wasn't my Wikipedia account that had been hacked. At least, I don't think it was my Wikipedia account that was hacked. However, that is one of two passwords that I have changed. Thank you for the alert. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm not really aware of what happened, but in case this can be useful, it's very easy to spoof the origin of an email (and in this case it's not an indication that they have access to your pop3/imap/webmail account). The Received: headers give clues about the message path (if there's only one or none, it's also an indication that it did not go through regular routes) and tools like PGP/GNUPG signatures can ensure that the message was really sent by the intended originator, unless of course the private key was stolen as well. Unfortunately the latter is rarely used and is especially challenging with webmail providers without special browser software. However, those providers generally also insert clues in headers to indicate the origin. In doubt, you did well to change the password, of course... —PaleoNeonate – 09:45, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

DS label on Eric Zemmour talk page

@Doug Weller:Hello, I am contributing to this talk page and just saw that you added this label. Unless I am mistaken, I have not seen any discussion on gender on this talk page. Is there any specific purpose, or is it only a general purpose, as on any other wikipedia article? Thank you in advance, cheers, --Emigré55 (talk) 10:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Emigré55: both the article and its talk page are included in the sanction area. I didn't see anything on the talk page either, but Zemmour is becoming very newsworthy and of course controversial, so I thought it would be a good idea to add the DS. Doug Weller talk 12:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
@Doug Weller:Thank you for your quick explanation. He will for sure stay highly controversial at least until the end of presidential election in France (end of April 2022). May I ask further though why specifically DS on gender discussions?
Also, I think the semi protection which is on the main page should be extended until the end of the election, in order to better protect the page from vandalism, and I have asked your colleague who set it in september up what he thinks about it. cheers, --Emigré55 (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
I did not see anything wrong on the main page about gender either. did you?--Emigré55 (talk) 12:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
@Emigré55: see the section "Feminism and homosexuality". "Wrong" doesn't come into the equation. I agree about semi-protection. Doug Weller talk 12:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: If you want my opinion, I think that this paragraph is poorly written. But I have left it apart; it was/is, however at the time being, not my priority, as the article needed a lot of cleaning to make it pursuant to WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:BALANCE, etc...merely on facts and his description. And still needs a lot with respect to mainly his political ideas, and even more on social and economic issues. cheers, --Emigré55 (talk) 13:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Some code

Some code
 $.when(mw.loader.using('mediawiki.util'), $.ready).then(function(){
  if (mw.config.get('wgCanonicalSpecialPageName') === 'Watchlist'){
   mw.util.addPortletLink('p-namespaces', '/wiki/Special:CheckUserLog', 'CU Log', 'ca-culog', 'CheckUser log');
  }
 });

-- zzuuzz (talk) 11:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Revdelete Request

Hey there, would you be willing to revdelete an edit summary in accordance to revdel criterion 2? Here's the diff. Thanks! RFZYNSPY talk 16:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@RFZYNSPY: you were lucky I was at my desk! Done and IP blocked. Doug Weller talk 16:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Ha, thanks Doug! Always appreciated RFZYNSPY talk 16:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

why you warn me??

why did you warn me on my talk page? i did not make any disruptive edit. i removed a single, unsourced sentence, and said that It would be okay to be in if someone gave it a source. could you not find a source for your personal opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kewlkha (talk • contribs) 21:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

That was the second time you removed it. And you have now had 4 editors tell you it was sourced. Doug Weller talk 14:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

More vandalism from Eternal Father

Hello,

I have taken the liberty to message you because I see you as an administrator have had previous dealings with the above editor. This time, they have posted a non-existent article for B Class assessment. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Assessment#New_requests.

I posted a message on their Talk page rebuking them for vandalism. Given their prior history,you may want to take action.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Georgejdorner: they haven't edited for 17 months, so there's not much point doing anything. Sorry, for the slow response, I've had a bad week so haven't kept up. Doug Weller talk 19:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Creating a talk page archive

Dear Doug, I've read the instructions about how to ceate a talk page archive but my brain keeps going into spasm. Since you have had a lot of practice, I wonder if you'd be kind enough to create one for me and put into it all talk posts up to the end of May 2021. My apologies for being so feeble. Sweetpool50 (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sweetpool50: no, pardon me for being so slow. Look at Help:Archiving a talk page. If you tell me how you want the archive to work I'll do it. Not sure if it will be tomorrow though. Doug Weller talk 18:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
That's kind of you, Doug. I looked at the article you recommended and tried to shift items 1 - 70 to an archive titled Archive 1 but absolutely nothing happened when I hit Save Edit. That's basically what I'd like: an accessible archive and then talk starting with what is at present Item 71 on the Talk page (dated 10 May 2021). Speed is not of the essence; I've been dithering since the spring over the problem! Sweetpool50 (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA Reform 2021 Phase 2 has begun

Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.

There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Mail call

Hello, Doug Weller. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Dylan620 (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2021

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

Guideline and policy news

  • Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Advice

Could you read through this and give me your thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: sorry, I'm not going to have time. I really wish I did. Doug Weller talk 13:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) {u|Kansas Bear}}. I did read your draft, and it looks pretty good to me. The only think I would add is a link to the Age of Discovery page. You have to links to New World, and maybe the last one could link to "Age of Discovery" instead. What are your plans about it? Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 15:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
It is all good, Doug. You take care and stay safe.
Thanks warshy, I will do that when I get a chance. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Doug Weller. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Mathglot (talk) 04:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Doug, I just wanted to say thank you for calm and clear explanations both here and on twitter. I am thankful that the focus there seemed to have shifted off me personally to wikipedia more broadly. I'm guessing that might mean more new editing on the article as a result, so hopefully all here can follow your example and stay equally clear and calm in responding. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 07:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Under the radar, indeed

Kinda amazing that nobody caught Hatto's sock, back then. He wasn't actually creative in the name he gave it. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The Ethiopian socker....

Doug, what was his name again? Sometimes a nice guy, sometimes completely abusive? Wasn't he in the DC area? Drmies (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Ha, I was thinking of Middayexpress, but it was Hoeater. Maybe they're actually the same anyway. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: glad you found it, I did a search and found it but then noticed you had! Doug Weller talk 11:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Nation of Islam

Hi Doug, I tried to start an RfC on the Nation of Islam article. So far, you and one other person are the only ones to comment. Is there anything I should do to get more comments to close the RfC? Thanks, Gouncbeatduke (talk) 14:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Gouncbeatduke: See here. Doug Weller talk 14:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
@Gouncbeatduke See WP:APPNOTE. Try the wikiprojects mentioned at the top of the talkpage, for example. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 47

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 47, September – October 2021

  • On-wiki Wikipedia Library notification rolling out
  • Search tool deployed
  • New My Library design improvements

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!

Greetings,

It is already past the middle of the contest and we are really excited about the Months of African Contest 2021 achievements so far! We want to extend our sincere gratitude for the time and energy you have invested. If you have not yet participated in the contest, it is not too late to do it. Please list your username as a participant on the contest’s main page.

Please remember to list the articles you have improved or created on the article achievements' section of the contest page so they can be tracked. In order to win prizes, be sure to also list your article in the users by articles. Please note that your articles must be present in both the article achievement section on the main contest page, as well as on the Users By Articles page for you to qualify for a prize.

We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:

  • Overall winner
    • 1st - $500
    • 2nd - $200
    • 3rd - $100
  • Diversity winner - $100
  • Gender-gap filler - $100
  • Language Winners - up to $100*

Thank you once again for your valued participation! --Jamie Tubers (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

on fringe nonsense: gibberish

i dig what was said oh Doug Weller. We do not want to propagate Hate speech. Nonsense is another description exactly printed in word coming from the criterion chamber three of the book of one won where it was said: quote unquote you are talking foolish nonsense: Linking it to GIBBERISH was about cloaking the murder of Jab11111111116bar the genocide of the whole Arab race including Israel the killing of every man in the world by the 644Bot then dividing the earth into grub and stencils. That was Hiroshima, Nagasaki,the battle of Poitiers, the carol that we sing and made our desks in libraries. Merry Christmas. Pharaohs ascend at that solstice. Pharaoh is in paradise. Jena blessed are those in the fire and around the fire.88 337

Pharaoh worshiping the act at the Bot tomes of tomb city of all of this went to kill every twelfth son of Israel, Every first son 1117 'toI of Egypt killed to say: politely made a fellowship.aeiou: 'to the strongest357. TOYS ARE USSr. :the nutcracker suite. KIDS. Carnations.

Jean: We are always together in spirit and love. Time or space cannot change our everlasting love and relationship. Love always, DAD..6:43 2017.663 mundane .Jean Louise Dell'Aquila (talk) 15:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)JEAN LOUISE DELL'AQUILAe.669

I don't think a partial block of this user is enough, see [29]. –Austronesier (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Doug, I blocked the user as WP:NOTHERE. Hope that's okay with you and feel free to unblock/change block if you disagree. --RegentsPark (comment) 21:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

reply: Ravishankar edit

Hey Doug, appreciate the message and instructions. I have now added them back citing the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srihariramadas (talk • contribs) 07:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Ahmed88z

I'm reaching out because I see that you've advised this user about the I/P discretionary sanctions. If you have a moment, could you review their edits and edit requests on Talk:Yom Kippur War, as well as my talk page, and let me know if I need to go to AE, or of the disruption is enough to take action without going through that. Thanks for your time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Drmies took care of it. Sorry to bother you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
@ScottishFinnishRadish: no problem. Doug Weller talk 15:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Armenian Highlands

Good morning, there is a user who on articles with a geographical topic is changing the region of different geographical entities to "Armenian highlands". I suspect that theirs are POV edits. I have reverted one edit, but I don't want to change more because i don't want to end up with a discretionary sanctions banner on my talk page again. :-) Question: there is a guideline regarding geographical names in this region? Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Alessandro57: don't worry about DS alerts, they just mean follow the rules, be civil, pay attention to any special restrictions on the talk page. So far as I know there aren't any guidelines, although it is Armenian Highlands, not highlands. I did find these[30] so there are categories etc. Of course as always we need sources. Doug Weller talk 16:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, then I can put the banner by myself! :-)
I think I explained myself wrong. This user made edits like:
  • Lesser Caucasus -> Armenian Highlands;
  • Taurus -> Armenian Highlands;
  • Anatolia -> Armenian Highlands, etc.
Practically he has been changing the location of mountains, provinces, etc, in Anatolia, Iran, Caucasus, to "Armenian Highlands". There is an edit war between Armenians and rest of the world :-) about this denomination? Alex2006 (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
@Alessandro57: go to [WP:NPOVN]] perhaps. Also see {{Ds/aware}}. Doug Weller talk 11:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits to Talk:Race (human categorization)

Greetings. Please could the recently registered account Alan B. Samuels have an R&I standard DS notice be posted on their user talk page. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mathsci: done.Doug Weller talk 08:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

That is the real name of the Minoan Language!

This is the meaning 79.117.44.113 (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not trying to confuse the readers!

I've just tried to help if you are to disturbed by this you've must be mad at the all internet informations from which no one will know what is the true identity of the Minoan Language! 79.117.44.113 (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I didn't want to tell this but:

This argues are a blasfemy to their adress! 79.117.44.113 (talk) 17:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Mike9730

Thanks for blocking that spammer! Autarch (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Investigation - Tokyo Oz

Hi Doug Weller, you (and User:KrakatoaKatie) recently assisted with a Sockpuppet report:[31] I made recently, I believe there are a large number of other related sockpuppets which have been created which may be related, which you can see from this article's edit history: [32], many have a similar name and have only edited the article Jason Dasey. I actually think it is possible these accounts (including ones previously blocked) may be associated with several journalists working out of the same office. I wanted to ask if this is something you could look into further? or what would be the best approach to deal with this? Should I just open a new sockpuppet report?

Thanks, Aeonx (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

  • @Aeonx: The older accounts in that history are all stale; we only store CheckUser evidence for 90 days and those accounts are years old. If they return, we can investigate then, and you're welcome to add to the Tokyo Oz SPI in that event. I have no comment about where the blocked Tokyo Oz accounts are located or any other identifying characteristics. Please refer to the CheckUser policy for more information and the reasons behind my intentional vagueness. Katietalk 13:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Windover archaeology site

You keep saying they are Asian origin!! But you know this is not the case!!! Why not tell the truth please. 92.249.155.251 (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

What do the sources in the article say? And what sources say European DNA. Doug Weller talk 19:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I gave a reason for removing the text-Teertrevo

Hi! You left a message on my talk page which said this: “ You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Biblical cosmology. Doug Weller talk 19:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)” Well the thing is I did give a reason, I said that the verse (Revelation 7:1) was not referring to a flat earth, rather was saying that there was Angles all over the world. (The ‘four corners’ is a idiom). Please answer me on my talk page.
Thank you
-Teertrevo Teertrevo (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2021

The Signpost: 29 November 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Doug Weller. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 08:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

331dot (talk) 08:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

vandalism waning

thanks for letting me know i was getting used to editing sorry for the inconvenience — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcaz007 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi!

Hey I just want to let you know I am not trying to be enemies with you. I want the same thing with Wikipedia as you do, a free encyclopedia. If you feel like I’m being a bigot please let me know.Teertrevo (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Editing from behind a VPN/proxy

Hello, I'm contacting you as per WP:IPECPROXY because you are listed as a Checkuser. I use a VPN service to circumvent internet censorship in Russia. Usually, I turn it off to edit Wikipedia, but this is inconvenient, and makes it especially difficult to cite web sources that are blocked in Russia. My account is over a year old and in good standing. Is there any chance of having the block on VPN/proxy-editing removed for my account so that I can edit using a VPN? Many thanks, Akakievich (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@Akakievich: sometime I must find out how and when to do this, but I don't. Could you go ahead and email checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org please? Sorry for the delay, I've been busy. Doug Weller talk 17:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
No bother at all, will do. Thanks for your prompt reply! Akakievich (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Collapse request at J.K. Rowling Rfc

Hi Doug,

Not sure if the ongoing Rfc about J. K. Rowling's views on transgender-related topics is on your radar or not. It started 28 November, and is already very long. Being on a controversial topic, it's not surprising that the discussion has become heated in places, and there are already four portions of it that have been collapsed by various editors (not me), for good cause in my opinion, in order to keep the discussion on track.

There is another portion of the discussion that I believe should be collapsed, but as I am involved I don't think I should be the one to do it. It can be found in subsection #Response count. This subsection was initiated 21:52, 3 December 2021, and includes a table of editor names, and how many times each editor has contributed to the Rfc. As a result, one named editor has quit the Rfc, "and the entire topic area", in a huff. The rest of this subsection is about and among editors, and not about the Rfc topic. In my opinion, this subsection, or parts of it, richly deserves collapsing.

Can you have a look at the #Response count subsection of this Rfc, and see if you think any action should be taken? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot: sorry, I've looked at that and although I don't like the table, I'm not happy about doing anything right now. I'll look again tomorrow. Doug Weller talk 20:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Understood; thanks for checking. Mathglot (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2021

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

Administrator changes

removed A Train • Berean Hunter • Epbr123 • GermanJoe • Sanchom • Mysid

Technical news

  • Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
  • The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)

Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Duck?

I'm wondering if you think this new SPA's behavior looks like a duck for Mikemikev? To my far less experienced eye it seems to be, based not only on the unrelenting racialist POV-pushing but also the pattern of hectoring opposing editors on their user talk pages [33], [34], [35], [36]. Folks are currently spending time responding to this user's demands for attention and it seems to me like a waste. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Also makes the same claim that race being a social construct would be some fringe American view... —PaleoNeonate – 03:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
@Generalrelative and PaleoNeonate: looking into it. I've also consulted someone else. Doug Weller talk 15:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Blocked along with Absolute Plonker. Green Substance, Jumble Sale Hat and Bald Vegetarian are part of the same stable. Doug Weller talk 16:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks. Generalrelative (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Doug. Given the current time-wasting sock edits to talk pages covered by DS/R&I, might it not be time for admins/arbs to consider semi-protecting some of those talk pages again? The notice {{Trolling}} seems to have had the opposite effect. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 14:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that this is Mikemikev as well: [37]. Their contrib history begins with this comment at ArbCom yesterday: [38]. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 16:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: the name and the big duck going QuackQuack on his userpage were also clues. Same sock farm. Thanks, well spotted. Doug Weller talk 16:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

User canvassing editors to a RFC and making personal attacks

Hi,

There's an user canvassing or attempting to canvass editors to an RFC, see Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#The Wall Street Journal. The RFC is here.

The problem, as I see it, is the non-neutral message and the selection of audience, notifying only FTN (that problem has been mitigated by others).

The same user is also making personal attacks against other editors in the same FTN discussion. I have trouble deciphering what "ordering milkshakes" means. Is that some kind of physical threat or culinary advice? Cheers, Politrukki (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Non-neutral wording in a noticeboard notification is not good, nor are personal attacks, but it's not canvassing. Calling it "canvassing" implies that readers of the notification, i.e. regular watchers of FTN (who can take note of the notification and – being mature individuals – just ignore the caustic phrasing) are inherently biased. –Austronesier (talk) 13:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
@Politrukki: posting to FTN isn't canvassing, and of course anyone else is welcome to post elsewhere. Pretty sure this has been discussed before. Doug Weller talk 16:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
That is not what I said. Should the combination of targeting a specific audience with biased messaging and lodging egregious personal attacks, likely threating the target with violence, be considered okay? Politrukki (talk) 14:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
@Politrukki: I don't know why you've chosen to post here, but I'm not getting involved. As you know, there's always ANI. Doug Weller talk 17:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I assumed you were an expert on this.

This is the sort of thing that can get you blocked or topic banned. Even if this wasn't in an area of discretionary sanctions it could get you blocked. Doug Weller talk 19:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

You wrote that did you? I paraphrased that comment (without mentioning you by name or diff) to someone in 2019 or 2020 when I told them that it would be unwise to selectively ping editors to discussions. But I also said that mentioning blocks or topic bans might could be perceived as overreaction. Or something like that. There's already one long ANI thread involving the WSJ article. How many do we need? Please don't ping me. Thank you. Politrukki (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

A little correction from this block:

When you blocked Penjogjoposioćio as a sockpuppet, you made an error, as the sockpuppeteer has a symbol over the "I", and I'm here to let you know that the sockpuppeteer is "İsmail Kendir", not "Ismail Kendir". Just thought I'd drop by and let you know the red link showed up from the block. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 11:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@DarkMatterMan4500: thanks. Weird, as it was copy/paste. I don't know how that happened, glad you caught it. Doug Weller talk 11:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
No problem. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 12:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

A block-evader whose edits caught your eye

@Styyx: Hi, you questioned the edits of an editor's contributions here. That account looks to be a sockpuppet of the user Ismail Kendir. They engage in the same religious proselytizing, write the same way, continue the edit warring of said sockmaster's previous accounts, and lastly, amongst all their adding religious POV to articles, are also editing meme-related word redirect pages -- here their previous sock account did this, now here is this new account doing the exact same. Pinging the editor who made me aware of this for good measure as well. Eik Corell (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Note that this account has already been blocked and tagged on the Turkish Wikipedia. Obviously this LTA barely makes correct edits, so most need to be reverted. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 06:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
@Eik Corell and Styyx: CU blocked, will add to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/İsmail Kendir. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Paititi

Thanks for the heads-up on Paititi. I'm on it. Hoopes (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I've cleaned up some redundant language. The additional text still needs a citation to the YouTube video it mentions. I think the claims for discoveries of Paititi are central to the article and should be reported in this level of detail. Let me know if you disagree. I'm not clear on what you mean by "problematic" Hoopes (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
@Hoopes: the section on Pélissier looks like OR to me, an analysis by the editor. I don’t think it belongs. We need secondary reliable sources discussing his self-published ideas. Doug Weller talk 18:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for Notice on my IP Talk Page

I want to understand why you have put this notice on my page.I did not vandalize or edit any page. I was talking to a couple of editors civilly and respectfully asking for reasons of why my suggested edit is in violation of wp:blp when an eerily similar statement already present on the Article is'nt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.204.199.32 (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

It’s just an alert. I’ve alerted myself at the top of the page. Follow our policies and guidelines and be civil, you’ll have no problems. Doug Weller talk 19:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Io, Saturnalia!

Io, Saturnalia!
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

SlaterSteven is feigning Dyslexia to cover up the usage of racist slurs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Slatersteven#Delhi_Riots He has used the same racist word in the past and attributed it to his reading habits. He has used the derogatory spelling intentionally in the past https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2020_Delhi_riots&type=revision&diff=1028862882&oldid=1028858212 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.204.198.173 (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

It has been on my user page for a while now, its not a new claim. I also note you seemed to accept it as an explanation [[39]] yet are still trying to weaponize it. If you were dyslexic you would know that it is not something that goes away.Slatersteven (talk) 19:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
The above IP has been blocked. I recommend ignoring them. Jehochman Talk 19:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
@Jehochman: agreed. but as the IP says their ISP changes their address, and this is their second on two days, I’ll keep a watch on relevant pages. Doug Weller talk 20:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

"Newbie"

Jacob Zumba does not sound at all like a newbie. Can you check who they are? tgeorgescu (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: fishing isn't allowed. I did look at the pages they edited to see if there were any blocked socks editing them (there's a script to show blocked editors) and found none. That's all I can do. Doug Weller talk 10:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Where's the evidence for disruption?

You say that I have a history of disruption. If you are referring to my supposed edit warring, I have to point out that some of the administrators on the JFK Assassination Conspiracy page apply a selective interpretation of edit warring. In other words, it seems that only certain editors, mainly administrators, are allowed to revert edits, unquestioningly and without consequence. Any editor outside of the administrator clique who reverts is automatically labeled by these administrators as an edit warrior, worthy of sanctions. Pretty sad. BrandonTRA (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

And yet the consensus of editors at ANI was an indefinite block. Doug Weller talk 07:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Joyous Season

I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Coffee/Holidays}} to your fellow editors' talk pages.

The minor edit thing

It would have been helpful if you explained what a minor edit is and given me grace due to the fact I’ve done this all of 5 times. Believe it or not, I edit documents for a living, to me the “minor” of it was that it had no citation and there was a very similar with appropriate citations in the next section of the article. Putting me on notice officially is punishing me for a innocent mistake w/ no intention to make sure I have the knowledge to not do that again.

Also this is why I don’t give to Wikipedia ever. It is an elitist space. The fact that those who have been on here for such a long time do nothing but antagonize others who are new and just trying to learn is awful. Fatimaniqbal (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Fatimaniqbal: huh? What are you talking about? I didn't put you on notice officially, I gave you an explanatory note/request. And it explains what a minor edit is, "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information." I'm not clear how giving you an explanation is elitist. Sure, editing Wikipedia requires knowledge of our policies and guidelines, and that can only develop slowly through experience. I made some major mistakes when I was new, and this is nowhere near a major mistake. Doug Weller talk 17:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I am talking about the fact that at Wikipedia you all speak a language that is specific to Wikipedia. Language is hard to learn. While others are learning, people are not interested in helping them, but interested in keeping knowledge and power to themselves. That is the elitism.

Editing articles is a certain type of power. Articles are now cited in Courtrooms as fact. So the person who just deleted my commentary before you, didn’t tell me anything. Didn’t say “that is not how you mark that a citation is needed” and just went on their way. So they reverted the changes w/o addressing the problem.

That person was not you and forgive me, notice is a legal concept and putting someone on notice is a reprimand in the real world. Again, at Wikipedia language does not take the normal meaning of the word, at Wikipedia, notice is something different. Minor is something different.

Here is another way of explaining what I am trying to say: the Edwardians used manners not to be “polite”, but to differentiate themselves from the lower class. ostracizing them when they didn’t understand their manners.

Here is my question to you, where can I learn the basics? Where can I learn the language of Wikipedia editing? 

Fatimaniqbal (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
@Fatimaniqbal: we have a couple of places where people who specialise in helping editors can be found. One is the WP:Teahouse, and the other is Help:Editing. take a look at both and see where you'd rather ask. But on send thought, do the tutorials at Help:Introduction first, maybe read Wikipedia:A primer for newcomers and then if you need help ask for it. OK? Doug Weller talk 17:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't quite understand why a having set of house rules that are necessary to keep a collaborative effort going is "elitism", nor how the word "minor" has any "normal meaning" free from context; no-one owns its meaning. In any case, the welcome message which I have just posted might answer some the posed questions. –Austronesier (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

So having a set of rules is very different from using language in a new way (and there is nothing wrong with that, but this idea is antithetical to the ones you are describing above) Grass and golf both meant something in the 50s; today, depending on who’s speaking, it could mean something else. Same as Kool-aid. It would put one at a disadvantage if they were trying to speak with these people who’ve attributed new meanings to old words to not know their new definitions. They are not changing meaning, but ascribing new meanings to old words. It’s just that simple, why are you complicating this discussion Austonesier?

Btw if this space was truly “collaborative” people wouldn’t pull the stuff they do. You would all use your real names, but so many of you have agendas, you don’t want to be found out.

Years ago, I was doing a research paper on Islam and I followed links to a guy that was a major “editor” of all things Islam only to learn that he was a Sikh man who used his editing knowledge to edit articles about Islam to the detriment of Islam; i.e. anti-Muslims editing articles about Islam. He specifically put on his pages that he was looking to say Guru Nanak influenced Islam; never mind that Islam came way before Sikhism and he had an agenda (at the end of the day everyone does on here, please don’t delude yourselves), but the idea that those with institutional knowledge and agendas get to police other people a hierarchy of power that is problematic.

The rules are to keep people in line, not to encourage “collaboration ”, but be a gatekeeper for those with limited, specific institutional power. Wikipedia is an institution, those who have been here for a while police others, it’s that simple. And there in lies the problem. Fatimaniqbal (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Unfair sanctions from Wikipedia

I am not specialist in editing and even in English language, so you will understand me. On wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MassResistance i find it very offensive the expression ”MassResistance is a hate group which promotes anti-LGBT”, made without ANY citation. I think you will admit this might very well be a very subjective opinion by the author of the article. The following sentences are correct because they use citations ( ”The group is designated an anti- LGBT hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center,[4]...”). Because I know very well MassResistence group activities, I tried to corect the first two sentences by changing them with :”MassResistence is a group that opposes LGBT groups activities in schools and promotes socially conservative positions”, which is the absolute truth, from a non partisan position. I was ”undone” twice by the author. Will you please be fair and accept a non biased reformulation of the begining of the article? Because as it is now I actually consider it as an incitement to hatred against a ( large ) group of people who are simply concerned by what their children are taught in schools. I want to mention I am non American citizen living in Europe. Be careful what you promote worldwide. I used to see Wikipedia a serious, reliable, non biased source of information. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cichirmeza (talk • contribs) 19:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

See WP:Lead. If the sources are in the article, they don’t need to be in the lead. Doug Weller talk 19:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

So. Mr. Weller,the author of the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MassResistance appears enough offended to use the word ”hate”, but I dont have the right to be offended by this word when used by him! Interesting! Mr. Weller, I want to reach a consensus, because I do not agree with the word ”hate” used by the author. I want him to mention the source ( his name ).

Which of the 233 editors are you talking about.. And again we go by the sources and if you look at them you’ll find what you seem to be looking for. A number of our articles offend people, but as an encyclopaedia that really isn’t an avoidable problem. Doug Weller talk 21:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Unfair sanctions from Wikipedia

I find the expression ”MassResistance is a hate group” in the begining of the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MassResistance subjective and offensive. I want to reach a consensus with the author; either he/she deletes the word ”hate” or he/she mention the source ( his/her name ). I want Wiki to be fair and un biased in this case. In my opinion, thhat expression itself incites hatred against o large group of parents concerned about what their children learn in school. Of course, you, Mr. Weller, can block me. That would not mean you are a correct and unbiased Wiki administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cichirmeza (talk • contribs) 21:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Why are you arguing this here rather than on the article talkpage? If you're looking for consensus on an article wording you need to present your proposed edit on the talkpage, supported by Reliable sources. It can then be discussed with other editors. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas from Bishonen and all her socks! bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 19:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC).

Season's Greetings

Merry Christmas, and best wishes for 2022 Doug. I wish I could create something as delightful as that critter above has done but I'm not good at that sort of thing (I guess I'm just not a monster!)!--RegentsPark (comment) 20:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

[Bishzilla solicitously puts the little RegentsPark in her pocket. Bossily:] Sit on sofa! Learn to be monster! bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 20:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC).

Merry Christmas 2021

Merry Cristmas everybody!!!
Merry Cristmas everybody!!!

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC) is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.


Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy Christmas!

Season's Greetings
Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Kings (Bramantino) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Recommended Name Change for an Existing Article

The article Atlantis of the Sands should be retitled "Ubar". The nickname, popularized by the title of a 1992 book Atlantis of the Sands by Ranulph Fiennes, perpetuates a misleading reference to Atlantis that has nothing to do with the history of Ubar. While the actual identify of Ubar is currently debated, with some scholars rejecting its identification with the site of al-Shisr, it is harmful for Wikipedia to perpetuate the misleading nickname by featuring it as the title of an article. At best, "Atlantis of the Sands" should be an alternative titled that redirects to an article titled "Ubar". Thanks! Hoopes (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Season's Greetings
Here's wishing you a marvellous holiday and the best of 2022 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Wishes

Hello Doug Weller, I wish you and your family a merry christmas and a healthy and happy new year. Regards --Serols (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Incomplete close

You seem to have forgotten to mention the indef for Ivan VA here. -- Valjean (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Valjean: done but not as an AE action, but as NOTHERE. Doug Weller talk 18:19, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Okay. -- Valjean (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions Notice and Twinkle

Did you used twinkle to issue the alert[40] because I didn't found such option? Shrike (talk) 13:13, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

It's a script: User:Bellezzasolo/Scripts/arb Doug Weller talk 14:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
I was not notified, how do I install the extension? Shrike (talk) 15:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
You should explicitly ping the user to get him notified Shrike (talk) 15:07, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
@Shrike: I thought that was the case. In the infobx, at the bottom, when I look at it it says "Uninstall". Presumably because it knows I have it. What does it say for you? Doug Weller talk 15:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

DS test

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in COVID-19, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 15:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. The thread is WikiIslam. Thank you. —Snuish (talk) 12:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Doug Weller. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Snuish (talk) 05:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 December 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

common era

Hi, It's not clear to me why are you stating that my edits to the ancient history page aren't neutral? Thank you for sending the style guidelines but I don't see a conflict in them. I am changing from BC/AD for the sake of religious neutrality, which is an important part of neutrality on Wikipedia. EuCJD (talk) 02:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Replied at editor's talk page. Doug Weller talk 09:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Zheng He

Thanks for reverting again at Zheng He. Could you maybe give it indef semi protection? The edit history suggests it has been repeatedly plagued by this kind of stuff. Aza24 (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Aza24: good idea but I've been too involved with editing the article to do it myself. I'll take a look at what I can do. Doug Weller talk 09:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
@Aza24: I took this to RPP, one year semi protection. Doug Weller talk 16:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Ah, thank you! Your editing of the article didn't occur to me as a barrier to protecting, otherwise I would have taken it to RPP myself. Aza24 (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

RFA 2021 Completed

The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular Primefac, Lee Vilenski, and Ymblanter for closing the most difficult conversations and for TonyBallioni for closing the review of one of the closes.

The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:

  1. Revision of standard question 1 to Why are you interested in becoming an administrator? Special thanks to xaosflux for help with implementation.
  2. A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
  3. Removal of autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to Wugapodes and Seddon for their help with implementation.

The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:

  1. An option for people to run for temporary adminship (proposal, discussion, & close)
  2. An optional election process (proposal & discussion and close review & re-close)

Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.

A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months.

This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned.

01:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Smells like sock spirit

The IP 50.100.221.36 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that has rambled in Talk:English people and edit warred in several other pages awfully reminds me of User:Sprayitchyo, especially when they're talking about a "biologically distinct human subpopulation". One of Sprayitchyo's socks was User:Human Taxonomist, which says it all. –Austronesier (talk) 19:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I put a link on this on the IP’s talk page as they are appealing their block. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 20:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Though it's not an exact science, IMHO the 'tone' of their responses does certainly evoke some similarities. Alssa1 (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Further to the previous (though it may not mean anything), I've noticed that one editor User: 67.70.11.121 has made amendments to the same or similar topics (such as Aeta people) and doing a 'WHOIS' search on the IP address shows the same geo_ipinfo, asn_registry, as well as net name, description, address etc etc. Alssa1 (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
How's this diff from one of Sprayitchyo's socks for a comparison [41]? If one bothers to dig through the many socks I'm sure more similar edits will appear.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Also both are interested in Germanic stuff, see the edits by sock Greumaich [42], edits to English language and West Germanic languages. There's also at least one sock whose edited English people, [43] as well as Frisians [44].--Ermenrich (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Another connection: edits on Pacific/Southeast Asian populations: e.g. [45], Melanesians [46]--Ermenrich (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
@Ermenrich:, pinging User:AmandaNP as I think she'll be more helpful, sorry. Doug Weller talk 11:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy new era

Your friend Bishzilla and all her socks wish you a happy and healthy new Jurassic era! Bishonen | tålk 08:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC).

Stop posting warnings

I don't need repetitive notices that I've received warnings on my talk page. At this point it's no more than an irritant/harassment. Buffs (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Buffs: nope, it isn't harassment although it obviously irritated you. I won't post to your talk page again about how many alerts you've had as there's no need, but as you claimed 5, which was clearly wrong, I wanted you to have an accurate count. Just as I told people above they'd undercounted. As an Admin I am entitled to post warnings to your talk page. Doug Weller talk 17:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I checked manually

I manually checked all of the "new section" edits in edit history for User talk:Buffs back until I reached 2016. The only posting of discretionary sanction notices was for AP2 on 16 September 2019, which remains on page to this day without deletion or archival. Platonk (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

So a fresh template is due. Their block log refers to numerous warnings, some of which might be relevant now. -- Valjean (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
@Valjean: Doug Weller did do one; Buffs insta-deleted it. Check the edit history for the *ahem* discussion. So I volunteered for a little gumshoe work. The only reason I was even alerted to Buffs returning to the Daily Wire article was because his user talk page was still on my watchlist (though Daily Wire wasn't any longer). Platonk (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that. Now he's essentially asserting ownership of the article and talk page by claiming I'm "stalking" him. I'm tired of this type of PA. It's been going on for a long time. -- Valjean (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
I know, I've watched it; and been one of his PA targets myself. I swear I read somewhere where he pleaded he would stay away from Daily Wire and not engage with Valjean if only someone would remove a block or two, but here we are. Déjà vu. Platonk (talk) 04:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Bish renewed his AP warning in November. @Valjean: Bish has now made it clear he'd better justify his stalking claim. Doug Weller talk 10:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Keeping this in one place... Bishonen, I saw your comment on Buff's talk page and think a clarification is in order as Buff's is misrepresenting things, and has done it several times in various places. They wrote "Valjean is already wikistalking me, (after swearing to leave me alone as part of the condition for the lift of his most recent block...see how unseemly that is?),.."

Here's what I originally wrote in my response to ToBeFree: "Thanks for the clarification. It's healthy to see things through other's eyes. Thanks. I won't be engaging in such behavior again and have already disengaged from dealing with Buffs." ..."have already disengaged from dealing with Buffs." says nothing about future interactions, but of course, I certainly intended, and still do, to be civil and generally try to avoid any unpleasant personalized confrontations with Buffs.

That doesn't mean I cannot continue normal editing and on-topic discussions on talk pages. I haven't touched Buff's talk page since then and have tried to avoid any unnecessary personal comments to them on other talk pages. That does not mean they can own any other pages or articles, or that I can't engage in the normal business of civil editing and discussion on pages where they might be active.

The Daily Wire has been on my huge watchlist (sometimes over 10,000 articles, plus talk pages) for years, and I am not "stalking" or "hounding" Buffs. They have repeated these accusations and personal attacks many times and made comments implying that they found any edits near them or interacting with them as "stalking". That's not true. I have been very careful and very civil. In my response to Buff's last personal attack, which you have called them on, I responded civilly and as carefully as I could: "Are you asserting ownership of this article and talk page? Stop the PA. No one is "stalking" you. WP:FOC." Yes, that's direct, but, under the circumstances, it's very civil.

An analysis of Buff's contributions going back for many years show they have a very consistent pattern of nasty personal attacks, personalizing everything, even in their edit summaries, removing proper warnings and advice with bad faith comments and edit summaries, nasty comments about admins, and always attacking "leftists", thus showing a long history of battlefield and politically-motivated interactions, and that pattern is totally unchanged to this very day in spite of all the blocks and warnings. I'm tired of them targeting "leftists" and "leftist sources". I'm tired of them personalizing everything and making personal attacks against me and other editors. When will this stop? -- Valjean (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Now, while I was writing the above, Buff's again assailed Doug calling their proper notification "an irritant/harassment." This shows bad faith, an uncollegial spirit, and improper ownership of their own talk page. -- Valjean (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Merchandise giveaway nomination

A t-shirt!
A token of thanks
Hi Doug Weller! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk ~~~~~
A snowflake!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

The Meta post that didn't :(

Disallowed comment: You never wear t-shirts — what?! What's a humble t-shirt salesman (←what is this anti-spa/\/\ bs?!) to do, then? 😾 BTW, I've declined participating myself, but I demand Doug gets t-shirts, even if against his will! Conclusion: Doug probably a replicant definitely human. Meta sucks. El_C 14:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@El C: hey, you made me spill my Pepsi Max! Thanks for helping make my day. Doug Weller talk 15:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Flattery will get you... not having your model retired! El_C 15:27, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2022

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

Guideline and policy news

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

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

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

Important Notice Unspecified

You helped me understand the sanctions thing before but you recently put a table on my talk page with sanctions notices for blockchain and cryptocurrencies, post-1978 Iranian politics, Michael Jackson, professional wrestling South Asian social groups, the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, measurement units in the United Kingdom, and the Uyghur genocide is this just like any other sanctions notice? Viktory02 (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Viktory02: I used a tool to do that and clearly something broke, I’ve never seen that before. I’ve fixed it. Sorry about that. Doug Weller talk 20:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

No worries thanks! Viktory02 (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

2350 BC Middle East Anomaly

Hi Doug. I see that 2350 BC Middle East Anomaly has been changed to a redirect after a brief and superficial discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. I do not think this should have been done without giving notice on the talk page of the article. It is on my watch list, but I did not get the chance to comment. I do not remember what drew my attention to the article but it was not the 1998 source. There is a reliable source which briefly mentions the event at [47]. I do not want to challenge the redirect in view of my limited access to scientific papers, but I would like to register a protest against fundamental changes to articles without notice on the talk page. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: as you know I didn't do it. I take your point about the talk page but it did seem pretty obvious so I didn't think much of it. As for Umm al Binni lake, I've several papers from the past 3 years that all say it's a lake, and even Master wasn't at all certain although the article suggests he was. Baillie on his own isn't enough to establish that there was such an anomaly - wouldn't you expect to have a lot more mentions of it if there was one? Doug Weller talk 12:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
My point is the talk page. I do not think that any article should ever be discussed on a noticeboard etc without giving notice on its own talk page.
I said I would not challenge the redirect because I agree that Baillie on his own is not enough, but he may provide a starting point for a page watcher with access to sources to follow up his references and other sources on tree ring anomolies etc for an article or section in an article on a possible climatic anomaly. I do not agree on more mentions. There are so many tens of thousands of articles on every aspect of science that Wikipedia editors are bound to miss some that are genuinely notable. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: I see. We normally do that with editors, but I haven't seen it done much on article talk pages, and usually then when it's an NPOV or RS issue. I guess you could suggest that at one of the Village pumps. Doug Weller talk 13:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't see a procedural problem here. A redirect of a weakly-sourced stub to an article which has more sources and details about the same thing is a legitimate transparent WP:BOLD way of cleanup—even without foregoing discussion (unless standalone notability has been established by consensus e.g. in an AfD). It can be simply undone per WP:BRD if contested. And the redirect in question was bold, since the discussion has taken place elsewhere to the potential exclusion of page watchers of 2350 BC Middle East Anomaly. –Austronesier (talk) 14:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
It would not be a problem if the redirect was to "details about the same thing" but it is not. I have reverted the redirect and would not oppose an afd if no one can come up with better evidence. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: as I still think this is just another Velikiovskian neo-catastrophism claim, I've taken it to AfD. Doug Weller talk 17:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
(talk page gnome) Yes bold merge/redirect was fine, but as usual if contested and it's worth it, options are then merge proposition or AfD, —PaleoNeonate – 15:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Confused about message to me

Doug, I see you noted that a recent change I made might not have appeared due to "verfiability".

My question/request. Which change? If the message pointed to the change, that would help! Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChalmersH (talk • contribs) 20:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@ChalmersH: :"After the existence of the Bletchley Park decoding of German transmissions was made public in the 1970s, Bletchley Park personnel revealed that they had told the Royal Navy of the German breakout. However, the "proud" Royal Navy refused to believe the "civilian" codebreakers and despite begging from the codebreakers, never notified the Glorious squadron of the German advance.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://battleforhongkong.blogspot.com/2021/01/hms-glorious-controversy-around-tragic.html" We hardly ever use blogs, see WP:RS and WP:VERIFY, and we don't use scarequotes, eg "proud", "civilian". See MOS:SCAREQUOTES New users rarely understand our policies and guidelines, so no problem. Doug Weller talk 20:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Im sorry youre right. But a sockpuppet needs to be reverted, not helped editing, am i right? What a savior and genius (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@What a savior and genius: yes, if they are definitely a sock. And as a new editor knowing about such things, you might be thought to be a sock. In any case, that's a terrible way to convince anyone. IF I have time tomorrow, and I am in quite a bit of pain in my back, I am someone who might be able to help. Give me a link to the SPI. If there is one. Your other edits seem ok. Doug Weller talk 20:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)I am so sorry your back is causing you a great deal of pain, Doug. I hope it is better than it was yesterday. --ARoseWolf 15:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
And What a savior and genius turned out to be a WP:LTA sock. Doug Weller talk 20:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh the irony! --ARoseWolf 21:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Rev delete request

Hello.

Could you please take a look at this and see if it needs to be redacted. Thank you. --DB1729 (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@DB1729: done. Doug Weller talk 14:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Is there something with the edit filters today? Just stumbled onto this as well. --DB1729 (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in COVID-19. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 08:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Added 2 new references to "abortion" debate.

Hello Mr. Weller,

I am a retired philosophy professor who added 2 references to the abortion debate. One from Judith Jarvis Thomson which is probably the most celebrated article in the field (reprinted in virtually every university philosophy text) and another of my own contributions to a collection of essays about the abortion debate. I then received a warning from you. Can you explain what I'm doing wrong? I'm guessing it has something to do with the conflict of interest issue. So should I have the departmental secretary or someone else add what I think is relevant material?

thank you for all your work at Wikipedia. It is one of the only trusted sources in the world today.

John Messerly PhDJohnmesserly (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Appropriate for me to add WP:ARBCOVID and WP:ARBBLP notices to Talk:Eric Feigl-Ding?

Hi there - messaging you as I noticed you added a notice regarding WP:ARBCOVID and WP:ARBBLP to Talk:Marty Makary. We are experiencing a similar phenomenon with Eric Feigl-Ding, where a number of editors keep making edits to the page from a non-neutral point of view due to conflicts over COVID-19 and other issues. I wanted to check that this article falls under the ambit of these arbitration decisions, and if so, whether it's okay for me to add {{Ds/talk notice|covid|long}} and {{Ds/talk notice|blp|long}} to the talk page, as it isn't clear to me whether it is preferred for admins or similarly credentialed users to add such a notice. GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 22:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

After reading WP:AC/DS, I think I was misunderstanding how this process works. I will look at the relevant arbitration pages and determine if requesting enforcement for the article is necessary. Sorry to bother! GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 22:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@GlobeGores: I've gone ahead and added the talk page notices. By doing this, any editor can request enforcement concerning another editor IF they either have had an alert or meet the other criteria at AC/DS. Neither notice actually adds any enforcement, eg 1RR. Can I suggest that you alert yourself? I've use {{collapse top|Discretionary sanctions alerts}} {{Ds/aware|9/11|a-a|a-i|ab|acu|aerc|ap|at|os|b|blp|cam|cc|cid|e|ecig|fg|gc|gg|ggtf|gap|gmo|ipa|lr|lw|muh-im|old|pa|pr|ps|r-i|saq|sen|sci|tm|tpm|tt|we}} {{collapse bottom}} to get the message at the top of my talk page. You wouldn't want to alert yourself to all of those and as you can see covid isn't included (because it wasn't a DS at the time) but I've given myself a proper alert while testing something. Feel free to give other editors alerts, anyone can do it. Of course, you need to be even-handed while doing it. Doug Weller talk 08:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

A sleepy duck?

Hi Doug,

After seeing disruption from a likely sock of Mikemikev that was blocked rather rapidly today [48], I examined the contribution history of an editor whose talk page thread this sock was continuing. When I did so, I saw that this editor has a lot of commonality with Mikemikev as well: [49]. See for instance their insistence that Western rejection of race realism is idiosyncratic at Talk:Racism#Etymology, definition and usage, their focus on right-wing hobbyhorses throughout their editing history, and even this opinionated edit on Korean culture: [50] (Mikemikev is known to have lived in South Korea). See also their mocking user page [51], which reflects a Mikemikev pattern (cf. the user page for User:DuskDuck before it was deleted). Could this be a sleepier, long-term sock?

Thanks for all you do, Generalrelative (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: sorry, thought I’d replied. Afraid not, sorry. But if you see more evidence let me know and I can ask someone with more experience with evading CU. Doug Weller talk 19:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Understood, much appreciated. Generalrelative (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thanks tons for the welcome and the wealth of Wiki info! Now I have a place to begin learning where to begin! Curious Ip (talk) 05:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

impact 2022 by pastor w f kumuyi general superintendent of deeper Christian life ministry life from Lagos state Nigeria dlcc kilometer42 Lagos ibadan express way

I - Interrupting , intersessions M - manifold , miracle. P- Passion A- Action association C- Consideration T- Tangeable,teachable , thankfulness 


   Isaiah
   Moses 
   Peter
   Abraham
   Cornelius
   Timothy  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew ewenyi oroko (talk • contribs) 20:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Matthew ewenyi oroko, Impact - noun: the action of one object coming forcibly into contact with another. verb: to come into forcible contact with another object. to have a strong effect on someone or something. --ARoseWolf 20:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I WP:IRS
M WP:MEDRS
P WP:PARITY
A WP:ARL
C WP:CITE
T WP:TPO

—PaleoNeonate – 05:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Doug Weller. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Snuish (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

The user you blocked

Hi @Doug Weller:, this user Chadbhakt that you blocked has been abusing Hindi Wikipedia with the same account as well as created new Chadhindu account on English Wikipedia. The user has been vandalising Hindi & English Wikipedia using IP ranges (eg:- 2401:4900:5abc:4156:3b13:7821:e524:ed95 & 106.208.158.42) from few days. They also gave a threat to ruin my image (don't know in which way) for reverting their unconstructive edits. You can check the user being engaged in edit-wars on Hindi-Wiki over here. Please do take a look on their sockpuppetry. I've filed a complaint here. Thanks. HinduKshatrana (talk) 12:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey again @Doug Weller:, found out one more sock account of the user, while waiting for your reply. Updated the name for investigations. Do take a look into this matter. They're doing vandalism across different language wikipedias, with many accounts. Thanks. HinduKshatrana (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
@HinduKshatrana: sorry, busy yesterday, will try to look at this today. Doug Weller talk 08:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: Thanks. The user is still messing up with pages as can be seen over here and here. May make other accounts for the same. HinduKshatrana (talk) 08:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
@HinduKshatrana: we can only deal with enwiki I'm afraid. Doug Weller talk 14:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
And I've done a check and can't confirm them. Linguistically they are very different also. Sorry. Doug Weller talk 14:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Doug Weller/Goyim Defense League

What is this page about please? Are you Jewish? You seen to be very interested in Jewish genetics, today you wrote No, there are Jews who are not genetically related what is your interest in Jewish genes if you don't mind. Shandor Newman (talk) 03:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Shandor Newman: a better question is what is my interest in genetics. That's because they are important for archaeology, and archaeology is my main interest. Genetics is badly dealt with on Wikipedia, with people cherry picking sources, not looking to see if there are newer sources (eg with the Lemba), using bad sources and using genetics to push a pov. I'm not particularly interested in Jewish genetics and agree that most Jews have some genetic relationship, but that relationship is not a defining characteristic of being a Jew. As for the GDL page, that's a draft of a deleted article I'm working on. It was deleted because the GDL, an evil anti-Semitic network, wasn't notable by our criteria at the time. But I get regular emails from the ADL and a recent email about it showed me that things have changed and we can now have an article on it but it needs a lot of work first. If you look at the post just above, it's about a virulent anti-Semite who continues to create sock puppets here. I'm one of the few WP:Administrators who has use of WP:Checkuser which helps find sockpuppets. See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Mikemikev. He seriously dislikes me because I've blocked so many of his socks. He even named a sock after me.[52] Also see this. The last anti-Semite I blocked was an IP yesterday. You really need to apologise to me and retract your claims at Talk:Yahweh. That sort of attack can get you blocked, although not by me as I'm involved in discussions with you. Doug Weller talk 09:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Shandor Newman, as someone that is of Jewish ancestry and was made to read the Torah more times than I can count growing up by my grandmother that practiced her faith I find what you have have written about Doug and others at Talk:Yahweh to be extremely offensive. Way more offensive than anything written within that article. I get you are passionate about your faith and what you believe. No one, trust me, No one is trying to take that away from you, nor can they. Least of which being Doug. Your personal attack on him was unwarranted and uncalled for. I'm asking you to apologize, please. I'm also asking you to step back and think for a moment. Are you really saying that Wikipedia and Google have such control over your faith that what they include in an article or search engine dictates how you or any other person can live out their faith? This is just an encyclopedia and Google is business that produces technology. They have no more control over what I believe and how I live my life than what I allow myself. You have to stop acting like you have to fight some battle and just live your life and practice your faith. Whether there is an article on Wikipedia about things you think are important or not and whether those articles say what you want them to or not doesn't make what you believe any more or less real to you and if it does then I really do feel sympathy for you. I do anyway because I understand your passion, its just misguided, my friend. Please listen to advice. Let it go. --ARoseWolf 14:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
ARoseWolf I'm sorry this is really weird, why does he have such a keen interest in anti-semitic topics and Jews? Just in the past 24 hours he edited Doug Weller/Goyim Defense League a page he is trying to create, Jews where he said we are not related to each other, and Swastika where he removed the word gammadion so the word swastika is enblazened on the page. I've never heard someone use the word 'faith' before to describe being a practicing Jew. Why did you have to read the Torah were you the hazzan? Can I get another administrator on here please?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shandor Newman (talk • contribs) 15:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Shandor Newman, that is an article Doug and other editors are creating in user space until it is ready for main space. Nothing written in that article is definitively what Doug believes individually but what reliable sources say about the Goyim Defense League. I have articles I am working on in a similar fashion, User:ARoseWolf/Wild River (Alaska) as an example. It doesn't mean anyone here ascribes or holds any particular view on what is written. Again, your unfounded claims that Doug is an anti-Semite are way off base and highly inappropriate and I call on you, again, to apologize, please. I don't want to see you blocked and I honestly don't believe Doug does either but these personal attacks can not be tolerated. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what User:Doug Weller/Goyim Defense League is. --ARoseWolf 15:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
@Shandor Newman: Amazing. I explain how much I despise anti-Semites and you suggest I am one. I clearly haven't edited Jews although I did revert you at Category:Jews because you changed "originating from" to "descended from". I'm going to take it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism as there's some technical stuff about categories I hope someone can clarify. I certainly did not say you are not related to each other, I said "No, there are Jews who are not genetically related, one was a witness at my wedding". And at Swastika what I actually did is revert someone who replaced the word swastika with gammadian, adding it 136 times which in many cases contradicted the source - see Talk:Swastika. I don't know why you want another Admin here unless you are trying to get me sanctions, in which case you can go to WP:ANI - please feel free to do so. I'm fed up with your misrepresentation of me. @ARoseWolf: thanks. I'd much rather he become a civil editor understanding how Wikipedia works, and I thought my post here would help, but if this continues I'm not going to have much choice but to go to WP:ANI myself.Doug Weller talk 15:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
@Shandor Newman:, I never said I was a practicing Jew. I said I am of Jewish ancestry and my grandmother practiced. The degree to which she practiced her religious beliefs as a Jew or of Jewish descent is her own business and seeing as she is no longer with us it is a moot topic. I respect your beliefs and those of every other person. I was made to read the Torah because my grandmother wanted us to understand that aspect of our cultural history and where we came from, plus it instilled in each of us a love for reading, not just reading but understanding what is written when we read. Again, I call on you to apologize for your mischaracterization of Doug. If it goes to ANI it will be said how much we have tried to help you understand and yet you were not willing to listen. --ARoseWolf 16:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
@ARoseWolf: he took me to ANI. Doug Weller talk 16:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm very sorry you were attacked this way, Doug, even more so that this took up so much of the communities time and efforts. I felt it was worth my time to respond and give this individual the chance to recant their personal attack against you. There is enough anti-everything out there to focus on if that's your thing. I don't believe he was a troll. I continue to believe he was misguided. However, wrongfully accusing someone of something as damaging as being an anti-Semite is a bridge too far and I felt something needed to be said from someone other than you, the accused, in your defense though your true defense has been your amazing efforts here. Thank you. --ARoseWolf 17:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, just want to chime in here to say that this was some weapons-grade nonsense. Cheers to you both. Dumuzid (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
@ARoseWolf and Dumuzid: thanks both. Sometimes it's not worth trying to explain things to people. Doug Weller talk 17:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I like the article. Are you going to move it to mainspace? Jehochman Talk 17:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jehochman: it needs updating for recent activities to show it's notable. I haven't had time, wasted too much of it the last 24 hours with the troll. There's quite a bit, which is why I resurrected it. You're welcome to help! Doug Weller talk 17:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

This one is definitely Mikemikev

Einstein_the_Plagiarist. They've posted an almost identical comment to the previous known sock (cf. [53] with [54]) and their user page follows the pattern of being a pastiche of my own (again, cf. DustDuck's deleted user page): [55] versus [56]. Thanks again for all you do, Generalrelative (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

One more if you're keeping track: [57]. Much appreciated, Generalrelative (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@Generalrelative: the IP addresses are thousands of miles away from where I think Mikemikev is, and evidently not proxies. Doug Weller talk 15:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Huh, thanks for letting me know. In the future I'll try not to be so confident in my ability to identify specific sockmasters based on such limited evidence. Generalrelative (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Austin, Texas

Good Morning! ~ Can you tell me why you reverted my ~ caps edit ~ here? By the way nice to meet you! ~mitch~ (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mitchellhobbs: oops, I was trying to revert the overlinking [58] here. I'll fix it. Sorry about that. I can see why it was all caps, but even thought that's what the source had, it is probably best not. Nice to meet you too! Doug Weller talk Doug Weller talk 15:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Dare Stones

Hello, I just want to thank you for the material you sent me. It's a lot to get my head around and it may be a few days before I can give it the attention it needs. On first glance it looks extremely interesting. asnac (talk) 05:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Without access to the books, I have only been able to summarise the key issues from the material you sent me and from the little I have been able to glean online. Maybe you can take a look at what I've done on the Dare Stones page and see if you can improve it. asnac (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@Asnac: I'll have a go when I have time. It is indeed hard without the full book, and even then it would be exhausting. My first comment is that probably "hypothesis" or "suggestion" is better than theory. Doug Weller talk 09:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Anything actionable here?

Hi Doug,

I'd like your opinion as to whether Bloodofox has done anything actionable in this thread. Particularly in these edits with comments like:

  • What's notable about this situation on this page is the aggression coming from you in particular about it [59]
  • who knows how many hours I've wasted on ridiculous talk page blather from ideology-motivated editors [60]
  • it's pretty clear to me (and it would seem a couple of editors who have messaged me) that you're on a mission here, and that you appear to be far less interested in improving the article than you are in making a point by way of doing things like emphasizing challenges to the term over its defenders [61]
  • the fact that this particular matter is so aggressively highlighted in the lead over all else—your preference—is a big read flag. [62]
  • Bold and italicize all you like, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Germanic_peoples&type=revision&diff=1065490805&oldid=1065489975 edits like this make clear your preference to emphasize what appears to be your preferred side of the "anti-Germanic" aspect of the controversy]. As you know, before my edits, readers immediately heard aspects of the argument of the "anti-Germanic" wing but they needed to actually go digging into the body to hear from the rest of the field. We see obfuscating behavior like this on fringe articles all the time. Leads are summaries of the article's contents (WP:LEAD), not a place to promote a preferred stance over all else (WP:Balance, WP:NPOV). We can discuss the appropriateness of some, sure, that's reasonable, but behavior like that is unacceptable. [63]
  • It's something we see again and again at, for example, fringe articles when ideological editors—often adherents with single purpose accounts—aim to present material their preferred way. [64]

Besides these comments verging on personal attacks and aspersions, there's also a general refusal to provide sources for their assertions. For context, he's behaved in similar ways in the past, see this discussion from 2019.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Also for further context this personal attack from last year Lol, this guy ranting about linguists and going to lengths to try to insert Goffart into every nook and cranny of this article while excluding philologists, the latter producing the vast majority of scholarship in this field. What a bizarre thing to see. here Similar things can also be found in that archive.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
@Ermenrich: I'm very sorry. This is a bit too much for me to deal with right now as I've had a phone call today from a hospital consultant telling me I need a biopsy as it's likely I've got cancer. I'm trying to stick to easier to solve issues. Doug Weller talk 11:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
My best thoughts go with you, Doug. Haploidavey (talk) 11:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@Haploidavey: thanks. The best thing that happened to me was to get Parkinson's. I enrolled in a drug test and was rejected when they found a heart murmur. I fell off a ladder 3 weeks ago due to Parkionson's, a week later was in such pain that I went to A&E where they were worried about a puncture from broken ribs. An MRI discovered lesions on my liver. Without Parkinson's these might not have been discovered in time. Doug Weller talk 11:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Of all possible ill winds, that has to be gale force. Just want to say that you're very much liked and much respected in these parts. Haploidavey (talk) 11:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm very sorry to hear about your health problems Doug, I wish you a swift recovery!--Ermenrich (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Doug I am sorry to read this. Wish you the soonest recovery.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
So do I with all my heart. --Rsk6400 (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Same here! Your ability to find the good in adversity is inspiring. The world is clearly a much richer place with you in it. Generalrelative (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Sorry to hear this. My best wishes for a favorable outcome. - Donald Albury 19:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
OMG! So sorry to hear this. I wish you the best and hope you're in good hands. -- Valjean (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Stuff like this comes with advancing years, as we know very well in our locked-down household. Our sympathetic thoughts are with you, and best wishes for an improvement in your condition. Sweetpool50 (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm also sorry to read this. But also hopeful, since if it's cancer, I know various people doing well after surgery. I also wish you fast recovery for the injury, —PaleoNeonate – 04:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Words can't express how much these kind comments have meant to me. Thank you all. Doug Weller talk 09:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Doug

I am all too familiar with that call. My first scare was in early 2019. The doctors thought I may have had Leukemia then but did two separate biopsies, the first came back inconclusive, the second showed no signs of cancer. A part of me was relieved but a part of me was concerned as I really had become resolved to the fact I had cancer. I think I had perhaps an early stage of it as two years later it was confirmed. I know our policy of this not being a social site or a forum but you can't be a part of this community, you can't meet such amazing people, without connecting on a deeper level. I love my family and my daughter is my world but I firmly believe I am alive still because of the connections I made with certain individuals on Wikipedia and having this encyclopedia to come to every day that I was in hospital, quarantined from the outside world by cancer, unable to see my family at the height of a pandemic. I hope your biopsy comes back negative, I wouldn't wish cancer on anyone, let alone someone I respect and care about as yourself. You have have been through so much dealing with your Parkinson's and I believe you have handled that so well. No matter what I believe you will get through this too. And if you need a community to lean on we will be here. --ARoseWolf 13:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf: thanks. User talk pages are often used for more chatty purposes, we allow some leeway. Your comments are very appreciated. Doug Weller talk 14:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Tidy

I've tidied up the formatting of your userboxes. If you liked it the other way, I am sorry for messing it up. Jehochman Talk 14:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jehochman: finally! I keep meaning to find someone who can do it for me. I'm going to add a couple more, one for Parkinson's and one, if confirmed as I expect, for cancer. That looks so much better. Very much appreciated. Doug Weller talk 14:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Any idea why it says my public key is unknown with a link to some website? Doug Weller talk 14:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't know. I'll compare to a prior version and see if I somehow introduced an error or if that was there before. I didn't intend to touch that component. Jehochman Talk 15:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Having checked, the pre-existing problem is that the {{PGP top}} template requires two parameters: url (which is the URL of the keyserver your public key is stored on) and keyid, which is the Key ID. Do you happen to know those two parameter values? Jehochman Talk 15:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
@Jehochman: No. I created that during my first month as an Arb. I guess I might as well delete it now, I don't think it serves any important purpose. Doug Weller talk 15:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
That was a while ago. I think the key is probably obsolete by now because it looks very short. These days I'd want a 4096 bit RSA key. Jehochman Talk 15:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
@Jehochman: makes sense. I'll delete it. Thanks again. Doug Weller talk 15:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

DS

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in COVID-19, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 13:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Doug. It's me again. This is a big deal only to specialists, but since you overruled my poorly entered content under the entry of "Sea Peoples" subdivision "2.3 Ramesses III narrative", in which I added that the archeology of Carchemish did not show the destruction claimed on the Medinet Habu temple of Ramesses III to have been committed by the Sea Peoples, so the claims of the temple must be thrown into doubt. I sent you a note with sources, but when I checked you only directed me here.

Please allow me to repeat. Since Wikipedia rightfully accepts the authority of noted Hittitologists Trevor Bryce and Gary Beckman, I thought my citation would fully justify the changes the I suggested. I first read of the archeology of Carchemish showing no signs of destruction at this time in Manuel Robbins Collapse of the Bronze Age: The Story of Greece, Troy, Israel, Egypt, and the Peoples of the Sea (2001): "Thus, the inscription [at Medinet Habu] says that the Sea Peoples destroyed Kargamish [Carchemish]....Yet archeological investigation shows no such destruction" (p. 180). No other source is offered. But Robbins's source may be Gary Beckman from a year earlier.

Elsewhere in Wikipedia, under the entry for "Carchemish" is the statement, "Although Ramesses III states in an inscription dating to his 8th Year from his Medinet Habu mortuary temple that Carchemish was destroyed by the Sea Peoples, the city evidently survived the onslaught."[31] The "[31]" cites the eminent Gary Beckman: Gary Beckman, "Hittite Chronology", Akkadica, pp. 119–120 (2000), p. 23. Since this citation is not listed only in endnotes and not in the references at bottom, I suspect it may be a fairly recent addition. I'm sure Dr Beckman has cited the precise archeological venture that originally made this discovery.

In any case, I would like my editing amendment under "Sea Peoples" to stand since it has been verified and properly sourced. Could you be of assistance?

Gregory M. Nixon, PhD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docnixon (talk • contribs) 02:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Docnixon:I meant the article talk page, could you move this, maybe modified, to Talk:Sea Peoples please? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Help request and Fact check on Antiochia ad Taurum

I noticed your edit on Hellenistic and Roman Periods. Can you help or direct me to a qualified Admin? I need a review of my suggested revision for Antiochia ad Taurum as I've outlined at Talk:Antiochia_ad_Taurum#Antiochia_ad_Taurum,_Syria_not_Commagene.

No new data or facts, just an edit from the sources on Wikipedia for logical consistency. I'm just starting as a Wikipedia editor so didn't want to jump independently without the supervision of an experienced Admin. Thanks BiblicalArchaeologist (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Query

Hello, Doug,

Aydın memmedov2000 came to my user page asking why two of his articles were deleted. You deleted one, Huseyn Ali Khan (Khan of Quba), based on CSD G5 grounds but the editor is not a blocked sockpuppet. The other, Nacaf Şarifi İrevani, was deleted on CSD A7 grounds, which I can evaluate, but the editor's main complaint is that both were tagged for deletion, for very different reasons, by Kevo327 who has also PROD'd one of their other articles, Azerbaijan old maps. They are feeling targeted.

So, if Aydın memmedov2000 is guilty of ban evasion, can you point me to the SPI case or let me know who the sockmaster is? When I get complaints like this on my user talk page, they are sometimes frivolous but in this case, I'm trying to sort out what happened here. Thanks for any clarification you can provide. Liz Read! Talk! 16:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: interesting. I have assumed that "banned" includes "topic banned". Is there some guidance on that? The reason given by User:Kevo327 was "This special page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a page created by a banned or blocked user (Aydın memmedov2000) in violation of the user's ban or block, with no substantial edits by others. See CSD G5." Doug Weller talk 17:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
as I have been tagged, I want to clarify that the second bullet point under G5 criteria is For topic-banned editors, the page must be a violation of the user's specific ban, and does not include contributions legitimately about some other topic. which is why i tagged that article, I don't have any ill-will towards that editor.- Kevo327 (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I have since been filled in by El C about this editor's AA topic ban and they have been blocked. I never thought of a topic ban being a justification for a CSD G5 page deletion as it is meant for editor evading a block but I will look into this policy. It seems that I was misled by the editor, it's not the first time, so I appreciate your help sorting this out. Liz Read! Talk! 06:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions topic area changes

In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Arbitration Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad.

The topics proposed for revocation are:

  • Senkaku islands
  • Waldorf education
  • Ancient Egyptian race controversy
  • Scientology
  • Landmark worldwide

The topics proposed for a rewording of what is covered under DS are:

  • India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
  • Armenia/Azerbaijan

Additionally any Article probation topics not already revoked are proposed for revocation.

Community feedback is invited and welcome at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. --Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It looks like Ancient Egyptian race controversy still needs 'em. Bishonen | tålk 15:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC).
I would recommend that sanctions be retained at Ancient Egyptian race controversy a bit longer. We do still get POV-pushers from time to time. Wdford (talk) 13:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Countering Fringe Theories?

Hi Doug. We have Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism (which, even though I sympathize, I have never joined), but do we have anything like a Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering Fringe Theories? I feel we need something along those lines. Currently, we document fringe ideas, pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, misinformation, disinformation, and such like, and that's all good, but we need to actually counteract the effects of such things because RS also do that.

While we don't have literal disclaimers (now that Wikipedia is mature and a dominant voice in the world, I believe we should have them), we should have notifications (BS alerts) where BS is mentioned, sort of like how Facebook and Twitter have been forced to deal with misinformation. We should do the same for the most egregious and dangerous types. It's not enough to just document that BS exists. We don't censor misinformation, but we should "hand out a condom" whenever it's mentioned. I believe we have a duty to do this, and that it can be done in ways that don't violate NPOV. A Wikiproject might be the best place to hammer this out. -- Valjean (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Would WP:FTN not be useful for this? I agree that something useful like Article Alerts would be beneficial, and afaik those are only on wikiprojects. Perhaps we just need to be better at putting the WP: skepticism banner on more and wider articles so they wind up on more user watchlists? Or create a task force on that wikiproject with subsection article alerts? I personally agree with your sentiment 5000%, but I think any attempt at creating another wikiproject specifically about this would be countered by a large segment of the community. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Whatever works best. I feel the noticeboard isn't the right place, but is obviously a very relevant tool for dealing with fires that need to be put out. What we need is the creation of policies, additions to existing policies, creation of templates, notifications, and disclaimers. -- Valjean (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Ah yes, this I 100% agree with, and will happily collaborate on it when I'm not putting out my own fires :) — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I have copied this to User talk:Valjean/Wikipedia sides with facts and RS so we can continue there. -- Valjean (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Twinkle can be used for DS notices?

Hey Doug. I noticed that some DS notifications include the topic area. When you issue this kind of alert, do you use a particular Twinkle option? I have Twinkle installed but am rather unfamiliar with its features. EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: it's User:Bellezzasolo/Scripts/arb#Arbitration_Sanction which gives more Twinkle options. Doug Weller talk 17:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, done! EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Question

I saw your feedback, and I'm kind of confused. If you could clarify, the book I linked to was from the International Journal of Research which is a peer reviewed research journal and the pages use Chitralekha Zutshi, a professor of history and TN Madan, a highly accomplished anthropologist and professor as references. https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/International_Journal_of_Research_IJR/i4yUBgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=sikh+empire+opress+muslims&pg=PA12&printsec=frontcover%7Ctitle=International

The google books version says the publisher is lulu.com which is indeed a self published source but it is also found in the IJR site archive https://journals.pen2print.org/index.php/ijr/article/view/34/22 in page 12. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamhiri (talk • contribs) 06:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kamhin: Using good references is immaterial, I've seen the worst authors use good references. The journal is indeed self-published and appears to be a predatory journal. Note that it is indexed by Index Copernicus, never a good sign. It's proper name is International Journal of Research -GRANTHAALAYAH.[65]. Its publisher is a printing press.[66]. Your author is an urban planner with an interest in poetry.[67]. Doug Weller talk 07:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Update: I've read the entirety of IJR paper, and it does seem that a large section of the paper is poorly written and there probably is reason for doubt on its reliability. Therefore, I will withdraw my request for the paper to be included in the article and will far more thoroughly examine sources I use in the future. My apologies. Kamhiri (talk) 07:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kamhiri: thanks very much for your cooperation. After well over 200,000 edits I still at times have problems with sources. Doug Weller talk 07:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you as well. In case you'd like some more info on the IJR source, apparently how it works is that people submit their research to the site which is then ostensibly reviewed by their editorial team. See [68], apparently this is their board of editors [69]. Also for the paper I wanted to use [70], it states that the author of the paper is Ms Surekha-"Research Scholar, Dept of History, Panjab University" but the official Punjab University website reveals that she is actually a biochemist [71]. So yes this IJR source definitely appears to be shady. Kamhiri (talk) 07:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
@Kamhiri: you've done a very good job there, much appreciated. I'm trying to make sure these journals don't get used on Wikipedia. Have you read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS? Also WP:NOR. Doug Weller talk 08:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I'll take the opportunity here to mention the WP:UPSD script, and WP:CITEWATCH. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I didn't notice your reply until just now, Feb. 1st, 2022. I can't know for sure if it was a repeat of a broadcast mentioned very nebulously in the article. The only thing close was the article's reference # 15. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Photojack53 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 48

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 48, November – December 2021

  • 1Lib1Ref 2022
  • Wikipedia Library notifications deployed

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

RevDel request

Would it be possible to get a revdel on Special:Diff/1069188798, and that editor's edits to the article page? I think the IP's sincere, but it's very much a BLP violation. I've emailed the IP with advice, hopefully he takes it to heart. Gaelan 💬✏️ 16:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Guelan: I've suppressed it as potentially libelous. How in the world can you email an IP? Doug Weller talk 16:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
They included an email address in their talk page comment. :) Gaelan 💬✏️ 16:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Since the discussion got archived before I could save this ...

...here's what I had written in response to you:

Since it was buried in all the other responses that tried to compete with each other in dramatic expressions of outrage, I will answer your direct question here: Yes and no.

I knew it would probably be provocative, but I think it is a real issue as well. Inasmuch as we now have some hard evidence of the community's inconsistency on this issue, I believe that in the coming years we will be having to discuss this more seriously.

I note that Bduke's answer above, at the very beginning of this "discussion" was the only one from a user who has personal experience confronting this issue ... and it was a few orders of magnitude more thoughtful than just about every other reply here combined (mine included, I'm afraid). When I saw it I had hopes that the rest of the discussion might continue in that vein, hopes that now, alas, are revealed as naïve.

I answered "exactly" because I do not believe that at this point we must set a hard age. But the larger issue is still out there in the weeds. Daniel Case (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2022

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

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

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

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

Possible NOTHERE editor

Hi Doug! I hope you're doing well, all things considered. If you're able, I was hoping you might keep an eye on Xsaxds12. All of their edits have to do with removing the word and/or information about "Arab" and/or "Muslim" from various contexts, see [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], etc. Almost all their edits have been reverted. It strikes me they may be WP:NOTHERE.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Will do if I have time. Doug Weller talk 17:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
@Ermenrich: no need to watch him, clearly NOTHERE as well as CIR. Doug Weller talk 17:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick action!--Ermenrich (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doug_Weller/Archive_61&oldid=1182580263"