Jump to content

User talk:Girth Summit/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

World Bank Document 1996 Education Reform = Rangsitpol Education Reform

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/605431468777588612/text/multi-page.txt

17. Sukavich Rangsitpol Education Reform Program of 1996. introduced "reform program". Iaround four major improvements:

His article was based on sources that used fake news as reference.

My comment on talk page based on UNESCO,World Bank and Japanese Government Document. If the truth is not allowed in talk page,where should it be. He found School for 4,530,000 poor Thai children age between 3-17 years old .That is the fact and it should be add to his biography instead of accusations. The political lies that got Rangsitpol compensation from the other politician who is dead should not be included in his biography.สตาร์บัคหัวหิน (talk) 14:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

สตาร์บัคหัวหิน, I'm afraid that I don't understand what you're talking about, but I suggest you take it to whichever talk page is relevant rather than here. GirthSummit (blether) 14:17, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't quite understand

I noticed a request to delete a PA by another editor was reverted by you on ProcrastinatingReader's talk. The edit summary mentions a version by "Liz", but is that a typo [1] ? Also, I don't really quite understand why, if the request was problematic, it was reverted/deleted by an admin. Would you take a moment and clarify for me? I reread policy dealing with such issues yesterday, and from my understanding the request was within recommenced policy. Is there an aspect I didn't understand? Thanks so much! Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, apologies - it was a fat-fingered rollback, you'll see that I reverted myself immediately afterwards. GirthSummit (blether) 12:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Stephen Hendry

Bringing this to your attention since you're one of the few capable moderators I've found on here. I warned these two editors about 3RR on Stephen Hendry's article several hours ago, but they're both still at it. Are you able to take action, or should I go through the arbitration channel?

Article history: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Hendry&action=history

- Seasider53 (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

No worries, actually. It seems it has been dealt with. - Seasider53 (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Seasider53, thanks for letting me know - yes it seems like it's sorted now. GirthSummit (blether) 07:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

protect Vettaikaaran (2009 film) always without expiry

I see to that you have protected the page there is some kind of agenda-driven abusive editing against the actor in that page kindly extend the protection always without expiry date in Vettaikaaran (2009 film) page. Thanks Dominicoz (talk) 13:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Dominicoz, hi. We don't normally permanently protect pages in that way, disruption usually dies down after a little while. If it starts up after the current protection expires, let us know and we'll look at applying protection again.
As an aside, I don't know why you think the website you just used to support content at the page is a reliable source - I can't see much about editorial policy or staff on their website, but from what I can see on their 'about us' and 'terms and conditions' it's essentially a blog site with user-generated content. I would avoid using it, if I were you. Best GirthSummit (blether) 14:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Its pretty hard to find gross and budget for old Indian film articles. Thanks again will avoid those references. I will let you know if there is any attacks in that page after the expiry of protection. Dominicoz (talk) 14:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Dominicoz, thanks. I appreciate that it can be difficult to find reliable sources for some content. The advice I always give is that if we can't source something reliably, it's better not to say anything than to use a dubious source. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 14:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok hereafter I will follow it. Thanks again. cheers Have a nice day and Advance X'mas wishes Dominicoz (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy holidays

This year, many people had COVID to fear,
The holidays are getting near,
One thing that will be clear,
We will still have holiday cheer,
Happy holidays and happy new year!!
From Interstellarity (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

For your work on the SPA case I logged - much appreciated. Have a good Christmas. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Lugnuts, no worries. The interaction analysis between yourself and the latest sock was quite an eye-opener: that can't have been pleasant, I'm glad I was able to help. GirthSummit (blether) 14:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_movie

Why did you undo my change here, which added a reference to "Blue Movie, a 1989 pornographic mockumentary film"? BoswellScribbler (talk) 16:59, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

BoswellScribbler, as my edit summary indicated, I reverted the addition of an inappropriate external link, per WP:ELNO. An IP address is logged as having added it, perhaps you were logged out at the time - would you like me to rev delete the edit to protect your privacy? Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 17:27, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Why do you consider the Internet Adult Film Database (IAFD) an inappropriate external link? Founded by the late Dutch chemist Peter van Aarle, it is widely regarded as the adult film analog of the IMDb, and in any case certainly is the largest and most audited index of its type. Wikipedia articles on adult film stars routinely cite the IAFD, e.g. the one for famed 1980's player Traci_Lords. No source is perfect, but one like the IAFD, subject to great scrutiny, is more likely to be subject to correction than others, don't you agree? Would you prefer I cite a Web site offering a copy of the film in question, as a better source attesting to its existence and descriptive details? Thanks. - BoswellScribbler (talk) 13:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

BoswellScribbler, first things first - you didn't cite it as a source, you inserted it as an external link. There's an important distinction. You can read WP:CITE and WP:EL for more.
Second things second - IMDB is not a reliable source, so neither (presumably) is IAFD. They are both user generated, and so not considered reliable. Please don't add links to it, or use it as a source, on this project. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 14:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Actually, BoswellScribbler, there's a couple of other things you should know. The page you added the link to is a disambiguation page. We use those for situations where a reader might have searched for a term, but it's not clear which Wikipedia article will give them the most relevant information. You can read about them in detail at WP:DISAMBIGUATION, but there is also very clear, concise guidance at WP:DABDD, with some dos and don'ts. One of the key pieces of guidance is Don't include references or external links. - so, based on that, it's clear that your addition was not appropriate.
If we had an article about the movie you were linking to, then a link to the IAFD might be an appropriate external link to use at that article. It wouldn't be appropriate to use it as a source of information, but if it has received significant coverage in enough independent, reliable and secondary sources, it might be possible to write an article about it based on those sources; the IAFD entry could then be linked to in an 'External links' section. That is just about the only situation in which I can imagine it being appropriate to include that link. I note that the IAFD is linked to in such a way from our article on Debbie Does Dallas. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 14:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Lady K Soul

This is here live Podcast - https://lifepodcasts.fm/podcasts/135-late-nights-with-sara-jayne-king/episode/128216-the-profile-kristen-fortuin-p-k-a-lady-k-soul Quinton Daniels (talk) 13:21, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Quinton Daniels, if you think that contributes towards notability, you should mention it at the deletion discussion. GirthSummit (blether) 13:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay thank you bud, I'll do that have a nice day. If you checked it out could you consider removing the deletion log? Quinton Daniels (talk) 13:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Quinton Daniels, I took a quick look, and am not convinced that it establishes notability. The deletion discussion will run for a month, other editors will assess the sourcing - if they are persuaded, the article will be kept. GirthSummit (blether) 13:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay bud there thank you, there are many other articles that Lady K Soul has. She's been in many of our local newpapers too but it's really hard finding it on Google. The only links I could find are the ones that she shared as a memory on social media. Quinton Daniels (talk) 13:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Girth Summit

— CuriousGolden (T·C) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! Welcome the 2021. Wishing you a happy and fruitful 2021 with good health and your wishes come true! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2021 go well for you.

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:User:Pratyya Ghosh/Happy New Year}} to their talk page with a Happy New Year message.

Posted at 20201231113451

Happy New Year!

Empire AS Talk! — is wishing you a Happy New Year! It's the last day of 2024 and tomorrow will be 2025. Hope the coming year brings pleasures for you. Have a prosperous, enjoyable and a productive 2025. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Empire AS Talk! 13:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Girth Summit!

Happy New Year!

Girth Summit,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year

Happy New Year 2021
I hope your New Year holiday is enjoyable and the coming year is much better than the one we are leaving behind.
Best wishes from Los Angeles.   // Timothy :: talk 

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!
Hello Girth Summit:


Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?

Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters.

CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

Happy New Year, Girth Summit!

Happy New Year!

Girth Summit,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI! 01:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Need help

Dear Girth Summit, I need your help to understand these two following cases; According to Xtools, It's showing I'm the one who created these two articles - Adrian Wong Tsz-ching and Allia Future Business Centre. But thats not the case. In fact, I moved these two articles from main namespace to draft because I was not satisfied with the editing. You can check the editing history of both the pages. This is quite surprising for me. -Hatchens (talk) 13:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Hatchens, what's happened is that when you move the article to draft, you automatically create a new page at the original address. That page automatically gets an R2 CSD tag on it, and will be deleted fairly quickly; unfortunately, the author of the Tsz-ching article has copied the content from their draft and put it back into the redirect in article space. I'll try and tidy that up... GirthSummit (blether) 13:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - January 2021

Delivered January 2021 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

20:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Girth Summit. 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. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 21:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

RSN

Hi. The text was getting lost amidst another editor's formatting issues, so I was attempting to reformat my own text so as to be legible. Just added two bullets - is that a problem? Also, it seemed that the revised text from earlier is okay with you. Are further reedits being requested? If so, where are the issues presently? Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, your reformatting indentation of posts affects other people's posts - their indentation shows which post they are replying to. Don't try to curate the indentation in the discussion - just leave it alone after people have responded. GirthSummit (blether) 16:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
fyi, I was blocked for not indenting before. The missing indents above and below are what's causing the format issues, I might add. Not curating, but trying to keep my own edits legible, when other edits don't keep formatting standards. That's all that's going on. Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Again, Pasdecomplot, my post was indented correctly. When you added a level of indent, you made it look like it was a response to a different post than the one I intended to respond to.
I was responding to yours of 12:48, 23 December 2020, which from a quick look at the content of both posts, is clearly correct. My response was indented one additional level, which is also correct. When you added a level of indent, you made it look like it was a response to yours of 14:14, 23 December 2020, which makes it seem like a non sequitur. I know you meant to be helpful but that is not only not helpful, it's actively destructive to the thread of the conversation.
Please, once again, just stop correcting my indents. —valereee (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I have to say, PdC, you weren't correcting anything. WP:INDENT is a dull, but useful read. GirthSummit (blether) 18:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, here's the first correction where the edit below mine wasn't indented. I indented it [2].Pasdecomplot (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Then, I added bullets to my own edits, since the other edits' indents, added by me, were removed [3]. Not indenting makes the RSN text hard to read. This was the second time I corrected formatting conflicts caused by other edits, but these you removed. I've since added spaces to my edits - to keep them legible. So, these were corrections and you weren't correcting anything is not quite accurate. As the diffs evidence. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Pasdecomplot, you are mistaken - again, I encourage you to read WP:INDENT, and WP:THREAD, properly.
  • In your first diff, the response was correctly indented before you changed it. It was a response to the comment you made immediately after your outdent ("To make sure inaccuracies are..."). I don't know why you decided to indent your own following post, but valereee was correct to apply only a single level of indent to her response to your unindented post.
  • In your second diff, I don't know why you decided to add bullet point, but again, your changes messed up the indenting in the following comments - WP:THREAD advises us not to mix colon and bullet indentation, so your going back to add bullets after someone has responded with colons just messes things up.
Indentation is fairly complicated, lots of people make mistakes with it, and it's not reasonable to expect anyone to be perfect. However, it is reasonable to expect you not to mess around with other people's indentation, and it is reasonable to expect you not to modify posts after they have been responded to. So, again: stop it. GirthSummit (blether) 10:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Lack of information and a lot of wrong facts

I edited the page to explain thoroughly for the world what Function Medicine is. Your article does not describe FM, and this completely distorted and totally flawed article is a terrifying example of source criticism. Wikipedia is not to be trusted as long as thinkers and speculators can rule the roost like this.

Since the EU and a whole world of researchers, universities and doctors are now preparing an implementation of functional medicine, I would like to see how your article contributes in any way...! The plan they have made goes towards 2030 and full implementation. Do not contact me if you get sick, you have a wrong understanding of life, and do not understand basic science! My article explains and states facts. Your article states your personal opinion and shows a total lack of knowledge. That is why I changed it.

I am a teacher, a skilled health-advisor and a researcher with political background for more than 20 y.


If you find ANYTHING wrong in my article, make a howl!


--Piawelde (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Pia

I'm howling. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 14:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Piawelde It's not 'my' version of the article - it was written collaboratively by numerous contributors. I wasn't one of them, I just patrol recent changes for vandalism. You accuse others of trying to 'rule the roost', but you are the one wading in and insisting that your version of the article be used, without any discussion with anybody else - that's not how this place works, and it will result in your account being blocked from editing if you persist with it.
From a Wikipedia perspective, there was a lot wrong with your version of the article. This isn't the place to discuss the specifics of the content, but you were including external links inappropriately, and most of your content was not supported by reliable sources. As I said at your talk page, you are welcome to engage at the talk page if you have suggestions for changes (and if you have sources which support them). GirthSummit (blether) 14:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Note about some recent edits

Hello again Pasdecomplot, I wanted to drop you a note about a couple of recent edits of yours.

  • This one appears to be the removal of reliably sourced content, for reasons I don't understand. As your edit summary acknowledged, the material was sourced to the Sydney Morning Herald, and to Reuters. The assertion made in the article is that "Chinese forces claimed to have found weapons" - that is verifiable from the sources. I could understand that you might be concerned about an assertion along the lines of "Chinese forces found weapons", which was sourced to an unreliable source; but the assertion as written seems factual and reliably sources - you can't just go around removing stuff like that. I see that your removal has been reverted, so there's no action required from you, but I'd be glad if you could either point out something that I've missed, or acknowledge that you understand that you shouldn't make changes like that.
  • This one appears to be encroaching on your topic ban again. In our previous discussions on this, I advised you that if you are unsure about the boundaries of that ban, you should approach them with caution. I'm going to repeat that advice. You mention a skewed POV, you says that some edits systematically cast the Chinese government in a somewhat more favorable light, and you name the user who introduced them. You have not flat-out called that other editor biased, but the implication is obvious, and it's totally unnecessary. You could have said "In my view, the prose doesn't currently represent the situation fairly", or even "In my view, the prose in its current state leans too heavily towards the Chinese government position" - either of those statements would explain your concern about the article, and you could have then gone on to suggest some changes. That's how you should be approaching article talk pages, talking about content and sourcing, not editors and POVs.

I hope that's clear; as ever, let me know if you have any questions. I wish you a happy new year, I hope it's better for all of us than this last one has been. Best GirthSummit (blether) 11:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you as well. Thanks for the thoughts. I thought it best to move this here, hope that's ok:
  • The edits were deleted since their source is CCTV, which is depreciated per RSN, and should be removed per RSN policy. Also, the inline attribution to another paper was false, since the link and ref url was to SMH, which was quoting CCTV. My understanding is it doesn't matter if NYT quoted CCTV, since CCTV is depreciated on the project.
  • I'm a bit confused. The last I read, the administrator on the ban is another editor. And, there's a problem with edits at that page as the edit history reveals - another editor has also more recently responded to same issue. If the language at issue here is closely examined, it will be discovered that it's a direct quotation from the same thread in the talk at that page. Does this clarify the issue?

Thanks so much. Pasdecomplot (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, why did you think it better to move this here? I'm not going to edit war with you about it, but I'm an administrator approaching you with concerns about your editing - your talk page seemed the natural place for that discussion to take place. I should tell you that my talk page is a much less private space, there are a lot of editors who watch it.
With regard to your comments above:
  • No, that is not how we deal with deprecated sources. If NYT says that the Chinese government has claimed something, we can use that as a source to say that the Chinese government has claimed something - it doesn't matter what their source is. You are right, the attribution was incorrect - you could have easily fixed that, rather than removing the entire paragraph (although in truth, the attribution isn't necessary - with a couple of different RSes confirming that the Chinese government made that claim, it's not contentious).
  • I don't really understand what you mean by 'the administrator on the ban is another editor' - the ban is yours, it was implemented by one particular admin, but any administrator can take action over breaches of it. I used my discretion and opted to give you advice, rather than applying a sanction. With regard to the edits in the history of that article, it doesn't matter whether or not you are correct about the edits, you are explicitly prohibited from mentioning that kind of thing at that talk page. Talk about the content, or take it to ANI if you think it's serious enough - those are your options. Please take my advice, I don't want to see you blocked again, but that is likely to be the end result if you keep transgressing that TBan. GirthSummit (blether) 17:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
@Girth Summit and Pasdecomplot: CCTV (distinct from CCTV International) also isn't formally deprecated at WP:RSP. — MarkH21talk 19:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Please don't refactor stuff after it's been replied to. Add anything you want to below this, but there is already a link to the diff at the top of this thread. GirthSummit (blether) 17:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Gosh, there wasn't a reply when I edited to add the possibly overlooked diff on the deletion. So, here it is[4]which specifically mentions CCTV and the rationale for the good faith deletion. As can be ascertained in the deleted text, the inline attribution to another paper was also false, since the link and ref url was to SMH, which was quoting CCTV. My understanding is it doesn't matter if NYT quoted CCTV, since CCTV is depreciated on the project. MarkH21's edit summary revert seems to disagree. So, the recent edit clarifies the correct source as SMH and their source as CCTV here [5]. But even that's been reverted. Hum. Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Pasdecomplot, of course it's been reverted, it was flat-out wrong. Seriously, have you actually read what I've written above? No, that's not how we treat deprecated sources. Attribution isn't necessary, there are two separate RSes there supporting the content, it shouldn't be in any way contentious. GirthSummit (blether) 18:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
(You're replying faster than I can gather diffs...) Just so the good faith effort is understood, the source is specifically CCTV, not generally "the Chinese government". Thus, the concern because it's depreciated. The page's inline sources even CNN when quoting exceptional claims from PRC. If deleting CCTV when quoted by RS is not policy, then I've just learned, and thanks. But, deleting inline sourcing to SMH and CCTV on an exceptional claim by CCTV? When Nyingchi/Economy/Tourism has three inline sources in just one paragraph? Hum again. Pasdecomplot (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Pasdecomplot, I don't know what you're talking about with Nyingchi/Economy/Tourism or about the CNN/PRC stuff. Getting back to this particular edit, on the face of it, I don't see any reason why the statement would need to be attributed to CCTV, but I also wouldn't be too worried about editors choosing to attribute in that way if it were to be done properly. What you wrote about the SMH was flat-out wrong though: you said that SMH published a report by CCTV, which was factually incorrect. GirthSummit (blether) 18:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Divyajiwebmaster

This guy is at it again. See Morgoth and Escort Girls. Now editing as unregistered user with various IPs. -- Elphion (talk) 06:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Elphion dealt with, thanks. GirthSummit (blether) 06:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

CVUA

Hello Girth Summit. We meet again! :-) I was looking through the CVUA trainer list availability page and saw that there are a lack of trainers with available slots in the GMT time zone. Since I have a lot of free time right now, have graduated from the CVUA myself, acquired more counter-vandalism experience, I was wondering whether you think it would be suitable to offer myself as a trainer? I just wanted to get your opinion since you trained me before I go any further like planning out a course. Thanks. Eyebeller 23:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Eyebeller, thanks for offering to step forward in this role, new trainers are always a good thing. I'll need to take some time to go through your recent contributions to give you an honest appraisal of this. Purely going on the numbers, I would have thought that a few more months of experience might have been a good thing before moving forward into training others, but if you'd like me to I can take a dive into your contribs.
As an aside, I think I saw somewhere that you were looking to go through the NPP school training. That could be fairly time-consuming in itself - are you sure you want to try both at once? Just a thought, your call. Best GirthSummit (blether) 19:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I was thinking of doing it after finishing NPP. If you wouldn't mind could you look at my contribs just for feedback in general as well? Thanks. Eyebeller 19:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Eyebeller, sure - it might take me a few days to get back to you, a deep dive like that takes a while, but I'll ping you when I'm done. If you're thinking of doing the NPP course first, there's probably no rush - it took me quite a few weeks to complete that when I did it. Worthwhile though. Best GirthSummit (blether) 19:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Fred Sargeant

We are having a problem on the Fred Sargeant page. P12Midori is an WP:SPA created just this week only to edit the Sargeant page. They have no other edits and have repeatedly changed and reverted the article to add information unsupported by the sources, even while I am attempting to engage on the Talk page. They were told by another user, Autumnking2012 to stop changing the article until a consensus was reached, but have continued to make over a dozen edits. Now they are insisting on inserting attacks on the subject from an open feud he has had with Pink News, since he criticized their coverage of JK Rowling, and I suspect they are signing in and out of their account to use an IP address to make additional reverts without violating WP:3RR. Could you come over and take a look at it if you have a chance? You have experience with this article. Thanks. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Lilipo25, I've left a note and given them some information about edit warring, which nobody else appears to have done. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 19:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I had already received a warning and was given an additional warning despite not having made any edits since. This seems a bit abusive. Lilipo25 has made reverts that were DELETING sources that I had added to justify my changes, and all of this to revert to a change that isn't sourced. Meanwhile, she hasn't been engaging in good face on the Talk page and has refused to make any compromise, and she is bringing a revisionist history of the Stonewall Riots that is not the one agreed upon by Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P12Midori (talk • contribs) 19:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
You in fact repeatedly linked to sources that didn't even discuss Stonewall, much less support your version. Then you tried to add the Pink News article from the open feud between Pink News' EIC and Sargeant (Sargeant publicly criticized him for his coverage of JK Rowling and he retaliated with a badly biased attack) which contradicts all of the other sources already on the article, which you are ignoring. And I in fact offered a compromise (using "participant" instead of either "witness" or "veteran") and you simply ignored it. It is not "agreed upon by Wikipedia" anywhere that Sargeant did not participate in the Stonewall uprising, because multiple published sources say he did.Lilipo25 (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
P12Midori - another admin gave you a vandalism warning, because they thought that's what you were doing to the article. I have given you an edit warring warning, which is a different thing - it's telling you that repeatedly changing the article when you are being reverted by multiple users is a bad idea, which will result in your account being blocked from editing. What you need to do is use the article talk page, and leave the article alone until you have reached a consensus with others. There is no rush for that to happen - the article has been around for years, it doesn't matter if it takes a few days or even longer to come to an agreement. Consider dispute resolution if you can't reach agreement.
Lilipo25 please don't bring the conduct dispute here - keep it on the article talk page, where it belongs.
Thanks GirthSummit (blether) 19:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I apologize; I should have responded to Midori's statement on the article talk page. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Lilipo25, no worries - just best to keep the content stuff on the article talk, discussions taking place in multiple locations are far too confusing. GirthSummit (blether) 19:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Impersonation

Hello Girth Summit, I just wanted to let you know that Moatlhodi Nkwadzile (Jutas) has been using your name on barnstars, for example here and here. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

(A comment by a talk page stalker) That is not the first time someone copies parts of Girth's writing to use by themselves as their own. Probably the most spectacular example was cloning the whole User's page, since which incident I watch this talk page. CiaPan (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Pahunkat, thanks for noticing that. Normally I'd assume that it was just a newb who didn't know how to thank people properly and was just copy/pasting from another page, without realising that they were including my signature. But seeing all the warnings, and the indef block notice on their talk, I guess it's a bit late to AGF now...
CiaPan You're right, I'd forgotten about that page! Some people have been kind enough to even attempt to copy my username in the past to cause trouble. There are some very strange people out there...
Happy new year both! GirthSummit (blether) 18:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Obsuser

Hello fellow wikipedian. I seem to have run into a problem with an editor who disrupts an article to the point of de facto edit-warring, this user also removes warnings and has as of now reverted my report to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism twice. As you have banned this user not too long ago, i would appreciate if you would take a look into the circumstances. Thank you in advance. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Vif12vf, hi there - AIV isn't the right place for edit warring, you should look at raising a report at WP:AN3. I could take a look later, but I'm on mobile at the moment - might be faster to report there, it's fairly easy if you use Twinkle. GirthSummit (blether) 18:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, just noticed this discussion. I've created an ANEW report, and the user has just been blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Floquenbeam, thanks for letting me know, I'll cross it off the list. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 19:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Back from vet

Sorry for my hurried post at arbcase; I am back from the vet now (left the little one there, concern whether it is something chronic as in cancer/tumor, or acute, as in bowel obstruction or other injury). I am heading back to the arbpage now to finish copyediting my post and correct my formatting, but I was wondering if, after I finish that, you would mind adding a sub-head to your portion? Right now, it is under "Scope of issues", which is a different matter ... maybe this section could have a heading more related to the rollback matter ... or the Protonk matter, but not right to single out an editor in sub-head? I ask because I have real eyesight issues and hate editing long sections, insert spaces between posts to make them easier to read, and so on ... Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi SandyGeorgia, my sincere sympathies for the stress you must be going through with regard to your pet. We lost our dog to cancer towards the end of last year, it was completely unexpected (she was only six) and unspeakably awful. I really hope that whatever is going on with your little one is minor, and treatable.
I'll go back and add a subheading when it looks like you're finished (unless one of the clerks gets there first).
Can I also say a couple of other things, that I'd like you to know, but which I don't think are really relevant to the Arbcom case and I don't want to give the arbs more reading.
  • I don't think that I have anything to apologise to Protonk for. In my mind what I wrote was fair, polite, and pertinent - I'd be happy to discuss it with him if he feels differently, but I don't think I wronged him. That said, things like that matter to me, so I'd welcome your view if you want to offer it.
  • I don't think of Flyer as a wikifriend, more as a colleague. We've never written together, we don't hang out and shoot the breeze, but we cross paths occasionally because we both do counter vandalism work. I've openly taken a different view from her in more than one discussion that I can bring to mind, and one of my first editing experiences here was being reverted by her - it's not like I'm always on her side. If I appear defensive of her now, it might be because I have deeply unpleasant but vivid memories of seeking out and revdeleting the most vile insults and threats about her that you can imagine. There is at least one LTA who has it in for her, and who regularly socks to harass and intimidate her. Removing stuff like that is unpleasant, but I don't do it because she's a friend, I'd do it for any contributor; perhaps however, coming face to face with the mysoginistic crap she has had to put up with has made me instinctively supportive of her, just as I suspect it has made her instinctively over-defensive. You mentioned a faulty defense mechanism; perhaps it's been worn down by over use.
cheers, GirthSummit (blether) 17:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, GS (for all of that-- you've clearly seen things I can't see, since I don't have tools).
I should have some answers on the little one soon; with COVID, the process is, leave her inside the vet's door, in her kennel, with a note about symptoms, and wait 'til they call you. That way, vet doesn't have to interact with public as much-- and he is a very close personal friend who loves the little one-- best dog I've ever had, and I've had tons. She is 11, and I do actually suspect cancer or a tumor, so if I get better news that it is instead another acute, rather than chronic matter, it will be Hallelujah relief !!!
There is no doubt I made mistakes here, and I hope my responses to you don't come across as aimed at criticizing you. You just happen to be an example of what I view to be the core problem here (Flyer was not going to hear someone like you, that is, subtly was lost amid the chorus of support, and hence, issues escalated).
I sincerely appreciate your tone and your clarification here; it could be moot now, if Flyer does not return, but if she does, I will come to you for examples of how to better interact. With the benefit of hindsight, it's not hard to see that a tone I would adopt with someone more "hardy" (not perhaps the right word) was not helpful with Flyer. Did you see the post I linked to at SarahSV's talk page, where WTT weighed in? Do you think it possible to round up a group of admins who would mentor? Do you view that as a possibility?
On whether your should discuss with Protonk, I really don't know ... I don't know them well at all ... I guess, wait and see if they return, or if they have given up? The problem I thought was more with Johnuniq's response, and you got mentioned by me in the arbcase only as a result of Barkeep's inquiry-- I really did not mean to single you out :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, I don't know about a mentor exactly - I can't speak for her, but she's been editing here longer than most, suggesting that she needs a mentor might not go down well. A better way to frame it might be a group of 'critical friends', whom she feels she can turn to for support if she is in a difficult situation, and/but who would be willing and able to give constructive criticism and have it listened to. To be honest, I think we can all benefit from having people like that around us, I know that the most helpful interactions I've had here are from people who've been willing to tell me where I'm going wrong (as I mentioned in that recent discussion about the tone of FA review process, and my recent comment at TRM's recent arbcom amendment request). I don't know if she'd be receptive to that, and I don't know whether having it opposed upon her would be acceptable to her, but it might be an offer she would be willing to consider by way of an olive branch. I truly hope that she hasn't left forever - I genuinely believe she is an asset to the project, despite reading through all of the evidence that has been presented. I also think we collectively owe her better than she's received thus far.
I'll keep my fingers crossed for you and your girl - I really hope it's an acute thing which can be patched up, and that you have a few more years with her. It doesn't matter how old they are, it's always a wrench when they go. If you are interested in poetry, I strongly recommend the 'In Praise of a Collie' by Norman MacCaig. GirthSummit (blether) 17:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
We should all have critical friends. Flyer made much, and unfairly, of "Colin and Sandy", when the hallmark of my Wikifriendship with Colin is that he will absolutely call me on E-Very-Thing. Pulls no punches, has told me many times, frankly, when I was wrong. No one sees that, because it's in email :) Have to look up what you posted about TRM; I have left FAC because of his hostility. (Re-phrase: not so much his hostility, because that has been the hallmark of his editing for as long as I can recall, on any page, but that people there are too intimidated to stand up to it, so the place has become hopeless.) I also posted to that arb amendment, and think they missed the chance to have him reigned in at other places. Getting very nervous now about why the vet hasn't called yet ... so gonna not type anymore ... going to look up that poem, thnx so much, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Read the poem :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
It's not a cheerful read, but for me it does better than anything else I've read of getting across the strength of bond you can have with a dog, and also the gut-wrenching shock that comes at the end of that bond. I hope you get a call with some good news soon. GirthSummit (blether) 19:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
No call yet, and I have to force myself not to abuse of the friendship and call his wife to say, "what the heck is going on, getting nervous?" I know he adores this dog as much as we do, and will as soon as he has something. Have your read Wild by Cheryl Strayed? I've had both ends of the spectrum with dogs (very peaceful passing and very traumatic), but there's nothing quite as awful as putting down a horse, because it involves a backhoe :( Her book has the most gut-wrenching tale of her brother and their horse ... very powerful book that I couldn't put down from the first page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure I've read a full length work of adult fiction since I started editing here - it's either children's fiction for work (I'm a primary teacher), or reference works for writing articles here. Maybe I should get back into it - I might give that one a try, thanks for the recommendation. GirthSummit (blether) 20:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Hooray! X-rays show no obstruction or tumor, and their thinking is that the sudden, odd pain and bowel issues are related to neurological back pain ... that prevented her from "performing" shall we say normally. She is on her way home with dear hubby now, with pain killers and gabapentin.
Like you, I found that editing Wikipedia really cut in to the time I used to spend reading for pleasure, but I picked up that Strayed book on iBooks because it deals with the part of the world where I grew up, and found I couldn't put it down ... started out really really weird, and just kept growing on me, so I read it cover to cover in one sitting. Oh, but the horse scene ... Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
That's such great news - I'm very happy for you. Hallelujah indeed! GirthSummit (blether) 21:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Allright, I guess the mentorship idea is dead in the water, so I'll reluctantly drop it. But lest there are any follow-up discussions, I'll offer here my ideas on how "friends" have harmed Flyer, and what I believe a healthy Wikifriendship looks like.

I don't have any friends who follow me to content disputes. Period. I'm on my own if there's a content dispute, because I just don't form friendships with people who follow other people to disputes. If they are that kind of person, they aren't going to have my trust. Probably related to the fact that I was attacked by an admin cabal early on in my editing here, so I avoid editors who show cabalistic editing patterns.

But on the other hand, my Wikifriendships are characterized by people who will never hesitate to email to call me out when my conduct is out of line. That's what real friends are for! Too many years ago to remember, there was a heated discussion between two editors with whom I was connected on one of their talk pages. I butted in with my two cents. Shortly, I had an email from Colin telling me I was interfering in something that they were hashing out, I was out of line, and that besides, because I had taken sides, I needed to apologize. OK, so I had to acknowledge Colin was right when I looked at it from that perspective and re-read the conversation, and begrudgingly went over there and struck my comment and apologized. But I also explained myself. Got another email from Colin saying that true apologies never included the word "but". Character, integrity, right there.

A separate example: Doc James and I edit the same topics, so the idea of friends following us to content disputes is moot. But whenever I tried to work things out with him on his talk about his conduct, discussion was impossible because of the buttinskies, who never let us work things out. Interfered with their perspective out of their desire to shield James, because James was too busy (too busy, trying to do too much, thinking it is even remotely possible to put a finger in the dike and save the 'pedia is a common problem that leads to worse problems).

These are the things I see occurring in Flyer's circle of contacts, which is what I think has not served her well. Her "friends" do follow her to content disputes, or respond when pinged to them. And her "friends" are quick to weigh in on disputes on her talk page (in a logical desire to shield her, considering things she has dealt with), which makes it harder for a) others to have a voice, or b) Flyer to hear other voices. This is complicated by Flyer's refusal often to discuss, which only escalates disputes. And the consequence in the long run is that editors learn that they cannot take a dispute to Flyer's talk, as they know the inevitable outcome: they will be shouted down, and targeted. Those are the patterns I see that need to be broken. Choose Wikifriends that you can trust to call you on your own conduct, but stay out of your disputes with others until absolutely necessary, and never follow you to content disputes. If you have any way of making a difference here, that is the kind of advice that I would hope a mentorship would achieve. Engage in dialogue with the aim of achieving consensus, not winning, shouting down, calling in reinforcements ... etc. I hope this helps. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi SandyGeorgia, I'm not ignoring this, but need time to consider before responding. Hope the hound is comfortable! GirthSummit (blether) 21:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey, Girth Summit; the little girl seems back to normal with pain meds. Not sure what that means ten days from now, when she stops meds, but we'll see. I'm going to unwatch here now, as you seem busy, or still considering your response (I keep my watchlist intentionally trimmed to ongoing discussions per the messages at the top of my talk page about the tree that fell on me leading to a permanent back injury that affects my editing, so that I have to take certain steps to manage my posting and reading time). Please ping me when you do have time or want to continue the discussion; I have disabled web pings, but will eventually see them when I check my email. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi SandyGeorgia - I've included a ping since you said you're unwatchlisting. You are to be commended for your watchlist hygiene - I have never cleaned mine out, and it currently sits at (checks) 21,571 pages! WAID once suggested to me that I simply delete it entirely and start again, advice that I might follow one day; at the moment, my watchlist is about as useful as the 'recent changes' feed...
Part of me would like to continue the discussion, but I'm not sure what best to say next. Your comments raise questions in my mind about policy, guidelines and best practice, where one ends and another begins, mitigating factors, how things like that might look to someone who takes an opposite viewpoint, or a disinterested observer: basically, there are a lot of threads there to pull at. I feel as though this would be a conversation better had over a couple of drinks in a convivial and private environment, rather than an impersonal text-based discussion held in a relatively public forum. There are certain things I might want to put to you hypothetically, but I don't feel entirely comfortable doing so here because people may (rightly or wrongly) make assumptions about specific individuals in anything I say, and take it as a comment on their conduct - and the last thing I want to do now is stoke any further discontent, or make anyone feel like people are talking about them behind their backs.
As things stand, my central desire is to see Flyer22 come back to editing, and doing what she does very well. I am not saying that she is the perfect editor (who is), but I believe that her contributions are a net benefit, and I can only imagine how she feels at the moment if she is watching that page grow arms and legs. You have given me some food for thought with regards to how I can best support people in future, which I'm grateful for; I think anything else can probably wait for now.
I'm delighted that your girl is feeling more like herself - have a good weekend. GirthSummit (blether) 17:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Yep, on the pingie-thingie, I am kind of resentful that I now have to check my email regularly, but this method is working much better for me. For the full explanation (and how it does affect all of my editing, including sometimes being misunderstood, not stating things clearly enough, having to revisit to fix typos, please do have a look at this discussion. I am just not able to be as clear and coherent in typing as I once was, and I frequently have to revisit for typo fixing and clarity. I am forced by circumstances to find a way to manage my editing time.
I understand your concerns, and don't see a need for you to answer anything :) I hope you understand that my response at the arbpage was not intended as criticism of you, and your response at the NORD discussion was just not some sort of huge offense to me. I do hope you'll think, not in terms of "SG says I did something wrong", rather, "I missed an opportunity to do something that would help both SG and Flyer". With all of the hindsight is 20-20 that I now have about Flyer, I can see the points in that conversation where I "triggered" (not sure that's the right word) her, but I am not sure she sees where she "triggered" my main concerns (how we can attract new editors towards rebuilding WP:MED after a disastrous five years).
On the bigger picture of toxicity is furthered on Wikipedia by failure to communicate person-to-person, there are a lot of thoughts in that same thread about my need to manage my watchlist discussing how the ECHO system (that damn pingie-thingie) has changed the Wikipedia culture. Maybe that will be a safe place to explore our related thoughts? Re-watchlisting your page for now, but yea ... I try to keep my watchlist around 500 to 700 by only watching current conversations. Otherwise, I find I cannot manage because of my back. I have never been a fan of off-Wiki communication, and when I was FAC Coord, it was key that everyone understood Not To Go There, as I believed so strongly in transparency. But I understand how delicate this situation is, and if you would rather email, please know that is OK, and that I have very serious boundaries around the privacy of email. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Please consider me for the admin role

As I see a lot of articles are intended for promotional purposes and some are destructive enough. I want to protect important pages that I can edit at any time whenever the changes occur. I am familiar with computer science and information technology, as I am a CS student. Ensuring that I would not recommend myself to misuse Wikipedia. There are multiple manners that I want to work with. Vimlesh Kumar Kanaujiya (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Kanojiyavimleshkumar, thanks for offering to volunteer as an administrator. Admins are selected by the community using a process called a request for adminship. You can nominate yourself, or someone else can nominate you, and the editing community will say whether or not they support your request. There aren't any hard-and-fast rules about how much experience you need and what qualities you should have, and individual editors have their own ideas about what makes a good admin; as a rule of thumb though, people don't tend to support editors who haven't written at least a couple of good articles, and who have made 10,000 edits. I'm afraid that, since you have only made a few hundred edits here, I honestly don't think it very likely that your request would be successful - I would not advise you to make a request for adminship at this time. Best GirthSummit (blether) 10:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Trinity112233 (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Notice on ArbCom request

Hi, just making you aware that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Syrian_Kurdistan exists, since you commented in prior discussions on the issues raised there. GPinkerton (talk) 11:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BarNoneMusicIncorporated

Hi Girth Summit, thank you for your advice at the SPI. My apologies for filing the report without being clearly aware of WP:SOFTBLOCK. Thank you for the advice, and I'll make sure not to repeat the same mistake again. Have a very happy new year. --Ashleyyoursmile! 16:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Ashleyyoursmile, no worries - don't feel bad about it, nobody has read all the policies, it's fine to make mistakes. GirthSummit (blether) 16:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the vote of confidence :-) I didn't mean to try and pull rank on the guy, but that's not the first time he's let something like that through the net. Just needs a second eye on things, I suppose. Deb (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Deb, no worries. I took them through the CVUA program, so their talk is on my watchlist - I noticed the back and forth, thought I might just drop a wee note... GirthSummit (blether) 19:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello Deb. Please refer to me using gender-neutral pronouns like the software does. I consulted with Primefac and they said the submission was ok. Eyebeller 00:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Eyebeller, I'm sure that Deb wasn't out to give you a hard time. Different reviewers can arrive at different conclusions, different people have different threasholds, etc. You thought the draft was OK, and Primefac agreed, so you moved it into article space; Deb disagreed and moved it back into draft - so far, no harm no foul. At that point, rather than moving it back into article space, I'd have advised you to reach out to Deb and ask what their concerns were specifically. Ask questions, try to understand other people's perspectives - don't go around reverting experienced users. GirthSummit (blether) 08:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
They told me why they don't think the draft was ok and those issues were addressed so I moved it back. Eyebeller 09:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Eyebeller, if you'd actually discussed with her the specifics of what her concerns were, you would have known that they hadn't been addressed to her satisfaction. Nobody is saying you're incompetent, or trying to haul you over the coals, but you're still learning the ropes and I'm trying to give you a friendly steer on effective collaboration. Look at it this way - if Deb had moved something to draft, I would always check with her to see whether she agreed it was ready to roll before putting it back into main space. My advice to you is to move it back to draft and ask whether she'd be willing to explain what her concerns about the content and sourcing are - you might learn something. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 09:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I do want to learn but Primefac endorsed the acceptance of the draft so I don't really want to move it back but I am more than happy to listen to her concerns. Eyebeller 09:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, I've given you my advice, but I don't want to tread on Primefac's toes if they're giving you training - why not discuss this whole situation with them what they think you should do? GirthSummit (blether) 09:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Had I known that Eyebeller had consulted Primefac, or had either of them left a comment on the Talk page of the article to demonstrate that it had been fully reviewed prior to acceptance, I would naturally have gone to discuss it with the more experienced editor. Deb (talk) 10:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Why would I need to leave a comment on the Talk page to say that it had a full review? What are you implying about my reviews? Eyebeller 10:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Eyebeller When reviewing, it's normal to have comments on the quality of the article, and to put them on the article's Talk page, rather than on a user talk page. Deb (talk) 13:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I didn't have any comments on the quality of the article. Eyebeller 13:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I have commented on a couple of Eyebeller's acceptances, but I wouldn't say that I'm necessarily giving any sort of formal training (and in response to Deb, I was asked about the acceptance after it had been made); happy to do so, of course, but it hasn't been requested. I do agree with a few of the above statements, specifically that if a page is moved back to draft after an acceptance, it's generally a good idea to let a third reviewer take a look at the page (or start a discussion about it). Additionally, if I'm accepting something that I'm on the fence about, I will leave a talk page note to that effect explaining my decision.
That being said, AFC reviewers are not expected to be perfect, and a "bad" acceptance or two should be treated as an opportunity for discussion as opposed to any sort of tarring and feathering (not saying that this happened in this case by any stretch, but in a similar case they're being lambasted somewhat unfairly). At that point it doesn't really matter where said discussion occurs,though I would argue WT:AFC is the best place since the draft talk is likely unwatched; also gives uninvolved folks a chance to provide feedback. Primefac (talk) 16:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

Comments at RfC

An edit summary was provided more than a week ago on the reasons for the removal of CCTV related edits. The edit summary does not correspond to the edits at the RfC. 'Broadcast' is a general term used to describe the spreading of information. Please also note the RfC includes a request that involved editors/admins not participate. Pasdecomplot (talk) 09:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, I don't understand what you are trying to say to me above, but I will give you some advice: when multiple experienced editors are telling you something, you saying 'no, you're all wrong' isn't a great look. How about trying 'Sorry, I seem to have misunderstood how deprecation works, would one of you be willing to explain it to me?'
And no, you don't get to dictate where I may or may not post comments. GirthSummit (blether) 10:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Specifically, Newslinger created WP:DEPS, and added CGTV to it. Your pointing to that page as proof that Newslinger is somehow mistaken in their opinion of what they meant to do when they added it is unlikely to convince anybody. GirthSummit (blether) 10:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
The point is a source is either on the deprecated table, or not on the deprecated table. CCTV International is on the table. How did it get there?No one has yet to respond to why it's specifically on the table if it's not deprecated, beyond the earlier discussion itself. It seems very simple, like being pregnant or not being pregnant. It also seems that until Usedtobecool responds and clarifies, or until CCTV is deleted from that table, its current status is real clear.
I'm trying to build an encyclopedia, and am trying to stop the shifting goal posts. As in, CCTV is deprecated. But comments at RfC reveal a certain level of confusion, since it's listed as deprecated but editors seem to think it shouldn't have been deprecated. As edited at the RfC, that's another RfC, not the one I've submitted. Is it clearer now?
And, I'm also participating in building an encyclopedia and abide by policy on deprecated sources, on exceptional claims, on BLP, and especially on exceptionally negative claims about living people: Monks are living people; hiding guns in their monastery would break every vow they've made and cause themselves enormous harm; and, the claim is not further substantiated by evidence nor other RS. This all makes the CCTV report simply not credible and unreliable, nor would it be found as credible by other editors as familiar as myself with the topic area. All of these concerns, and others, remain at the current reedited version of the page. I deleted it since the RS was also misrepresented; then added inline citing per policy on exceptional claims and BLP.
So, please, as to the message above: I'm not in any way discussing motivations. All I am saying is the edits and reverts under discussion at RfC do not correspond to your edits at RfC. The edit summaries state my good faith intentions clearly. I would have made the above message clearer, but the need for writing no comment on motivation has been made nor can be construed as implied not insinuated in the foregoing statements is rather awkward. So, I am just respectfully requesting that you modify/restate your edits of the words/phrases that include "false", and re-examine the diffs already provided, and the edit summaries at 2008 Tibetan unrest. Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi again Pasdecomplot. What the above shows is that you don't understand how this works, which is absolutely fine - I'm not trying to give you a hard time about it. What you should do, when you don't really understand how things work, is ask questions and listen to the responses, rather than telling everyone else that they are wrong. As has already been explained in that discussion, that table is a summary of decisions that were made in the discussions to which it links. It is those discussions that need to be consulted when there is a question about the decisions, not the table itself. As has also been explained in that discussion thread, CCTV International is listed because it is/was an alternative (earlier?) name for CGTN, which is the source that was discussed and deprecated, rather than the CCTV network as a whole. Is that clear now?
The statement 'the Sydney Morning Herald published a report by CCTV...' is clearly false - it did no such thing. If this is a matter of comprehension - perhaps English isn't your first language? - I'm quite happy to put it down as being an unintentional error rather than a deliberate untruth. But it is a false statement nonetheless, which had no business being in our article, and I don't see any need to reword or amend my assertion that it was false. GirthSummit (blether) 17:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
This is in English: 78] "China finds firearms in Tibetan temple". The Sydney Morning Herald. April 14, 2008. Archived from the original on October 19, 2017. Retrieved October 18, 2017. Your point is...? Their source, if you open the link, is CCTV. Therefore, they "published a report by CCTV" since the report was broadcast on TV and SMH published information from the report. It is not a "false statement" nor a "deliberate untruth".
Please, again, correct the misstatements at RfC. The text I edited is accurate, and I adhere to accuracy on our pages, and in all research. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Pasdecomplot, no. They published a report they wrote themselves, which itself cited a CCTV report, amongst other sources. That is very different to publishing a report by CCTV - I shouldn't have to explain that to you. GirthSummit (blether) 18:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Incredible. It's obvious they "cited a CCTV report" in their publication, which means they "published a report by CCTV". Where are the BLP concerns with MarkH21's reedits? And, using the word "embarrassing" to characterize my attempts to treat an exceptional claim with BLP issues is itself embarrassing. Just stop, and stay on-topic. Pasdecomplot (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, straight up question: is English a second language for you? I'm happy to put this down to a lack of familiarity with the nuances of the language, but you really ought to be able to take it on board when others explain to you where you have gone wrong. Again: to publish a report, and to cite a report in one's own report are two entirely different things.
On the question of the BLP violation, I don't see it. The Chinese government presumably made those claims; to repeat RS that report on the claims isn't a violation. It might be a different matter if the article was presenting the claims as being true, but that is not the case. GirthSummit (blether) 18:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Recent changes patrolling

Based on my recent changes settings, Is there any more filters I can use to catch more bad-faith edits without significantly increasing the number of good edits in the recent changes queue? Thanks, Steve M (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Steve M, hi. It's always a trade-off - as you filter out more stuff, you will inevitably filter out some of the vandalism along with the good edits. Personally, when I'm doing RCP, I just use 'likely bad faith' and nothing else. I'd suggest experimenting with different filter settings and seeing what works for you - it will depend on how many good edits you are willing to review in order to find a bad one. GirthSummit (blether) 07:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
No filters, just a scroll wheel here. Difficult with paws though. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 07:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
AAArrrgh. I just looked at Steve M's settings, and now my watchlist and recent changes list have become different. I hate it when something like that happens and I have no idea what I did, or how to change it back. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 07:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Roxy the dog, hmm. Yes, my watchlist/RC display appears to have changed as well - hard to describe, they seem to be offset from the left of the page. The filters haven't changed though. That's really annoying, I'll let you know if I can find a way to put it back... GirthSummit (blether) 08:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Roxy the dog, it seems to be to do with the 'Highlight Results' options in your filter settings. SteveM had it set to highlight edits according to how bad they were likely to be, with a coloured bullet point; I've found how to turn the colours off, but the table is still offset leaving a space for the bullet points. I'll continue to play with it later today, any talk page stalkers with suggestions please chime in! GirthSummit (blether) 08:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I've been offline doing other stuff, and missed what you've been up to. thanks. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Notifying about my comment

Hi Grith Summit, I thought i had sent a notification, but it didn't reach you. I just wanted to let you know that i've added my comments on the SPI report. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Knightrises10. If you have any questions, Please let me know. Thanks -Tatupiplu'talk 14:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Tatupiplu, thank you for letting me know. Since I am the person who filed the report, I intend to take no further action, I will leave it for someone else to make the assessment and proceed with the case. GirthSummit (blether) 14:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Girth Summit, No problem. :) - Tatupiplu'talk 14:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The situation with fortified foods

To my knowledge fortified juices are not 100% pure juice. Your revert implies otherwise. If this is a new standard here. I’d like to know. Dana60Cummins (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Dana60Cummins, the article talk page is the place to discuss this, but unsourced subjective observations about things being expensive or hard to find aren't ideal. GirthSummit (blether) 22:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I got my data from a case of pure unadulterated juice. No water. No preservatives. Nothing. Not a valid source? I can take pictures. FDA issues fines when it’s incorrect. I’m frustrated here because health issues prevent me from hunkering down for hours on end here. Also my only justification for even doing these edits is helping others dialing in their own health. The article as is doesn’t even acknowledge it’s existence. Like I said it reads as if a Ocean Spray shareholder wrote it. Dana60Cummins (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    Dana60Cummins, I'm not trying to frustrate you here, but you have no source for pure juice being expensive or hard to find, and a carton of juice isn't a reliable source. I'll go back to check the article to see whether I agree that it's promotional with regards to Ocean Spray, feel free to raise specific concerns on the talk page. GirthSummit (blether) 23:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
It's the situation I'm frustrated with. Not you specifically. I'm going to revert, copy, the revert my own edit so I can copy and paste and save my work on the talk page. I think if the page says Cranberry Juice, we need to start with purity. Dana60Cummins (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

"A cup of standard 100% cranberry juice, amounting to 248 grams or 8 ounces, contains vitamin C as an ingredient to preserve freshness, with other micronutrients that may be added during manufacturing." This is very misleading and what I'm getting at. It's not 100% if it's got Vitamin C other micros added. But you and the doctor added this back. I'm going to change this part. I can not see how you two agree this is correct. To me this is a contradiction.Dana60Cummins (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

(Replied on user's talk, since they're currently blocked and can't respond here, and commented on article talk) GirthSummit (blether) 10:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The punishment doesn't fit the crime here. I've reformatted lots of pages that desperately needed it, like this. I do think you see where I was going, but he USDA gets all of it's data from Ocean Spray making this extremely difficult. It's not like Apple, Orange, etc. juice were no sugar needs added for palatability.

I'm can't fix pages in one edit. The pages I have set up require lots of edits, and yes I know it's frowned upon but it's that or nothing. It's never been a problem before and my edits have laid the ground work for many popular pages. The Ford Ecoboost page turned out nice I won't be editing cranberry juice or any other wikipedia article. So I request a indefinitely block on my account to prevent it from being hi-jacked, etc. I'm retiring from wiki. I'm a mechanic, my lungs seem to be about healed from Covid, I should probably get outside. I also get how strict everything needs sourced, but 95% of my edits are unsourced, so that means 95% of my work can get easily deleted like this. The mob mentality here is very notable. Fart lighting#hazards section is my latest and completely unsourced so the admins can start with that and work your way backwards for the decade I've been editing.

People with chronic kidney infections, that can't be treated, gravitate towards cranberry juice. Like myself. I make sure I'm a on a sugar free diet for weeks/months. No fruits or veggies. Then begin on a protein fast. Fats, oils, salts, only for another week, then. Just water for another week or so, then dry fast. No water. I've been beyond the 4 day threshold. That's how desperate we are. Coming out of a dry fast we use cranberry juice. It's harsh. But the effect is extremely different. between Raw, concentrate, and of course fortified with Vita C and sugar (Ocean Spray). None of this I was going to add, there's no need. There's no science on this. It's just something you get sucked into to survive.

I thought about how I was going edit this for days. I read the page everyday for days. This was well thought out. A citation needed for my edits would have worked, a admin intervention would have worked. There was a fleet of admins on this. Like I said the punishment doesn't fit the crime, I was trying to do good, there was alternatives, but instead we are sticking to punishment and added sugar is harmless. Coming from a country that has an obesity rate greater than 75%? Dana60Cummins (talk) 10:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Dana60Cummins, hi again. You weren't blocked as a punishment, but to stop disruption - you simply can't go around reinstating your edits when someone has reverted you - you need to talk it out with them on the talk page. I am concerned when you say that 95% of your edits are unsourced - ideally, none of your edits in article space should be unsourced, because verifiability is one of the five pillars of this project. We don't edit according to what we know, what common sense dictates, or even what we have found out in our own research - we summarise what reliable sources say.
If I had to guess about why your unsourced edits to other articles have gone unchallenged for so long, but then your edits to cranberry juice were picked up immediately, is that it's an article that quite a few people (including myself) have on our watchlist because of past disruption. People have in the past come along and added extraordinary unsourced content to the article - quite a few people watch it to ensure that doesn't happen again.
Your block was temporary, and has now expired; you haven't been topic banned, so you are welcome to discuss all this at the talk page, but you will have to get sources for any content you want to add, or any changes you need to make.
You have above requested an indefinite block to ensure your account isn't hijacked. Are you serious about that request? Best GirthSummit (blether) 10:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not the average IP vandal and I was treated as such. [citation needed] was injected into the code, for this project, for a reason and was overlooked here. It was an option that could have been used. I was actively re-constructing the layout and got silenced. How do you source anything on raw cranberry juice? There's no data. "They don't make cranberry juice without added sugar" is the common phrase around here. Can you even source that's it's available without linking it to an ad? It's a bellwether moment for Wikipedia IMO. Not to mention I couldn't even put sugar in bold text. Take a step back and see how this looks from my perspective: My edits are primarily automotive, I actually just removed a cn because it stated why a balance shaft was put on an engine, but that shouldn't need sourced. If you need reasoning why a balance shaft was added, you shouldn't be editing the page. Balance shafts are added to any engine for the exact same reason.Dana60Cummins (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I can keep stating my case, going deeper into this, explaining why Americans are so fat, etc. but once you are done hearing it: Yes, do an indefinite block. Dana60Cummins (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Dana60Cummins, random vandals get indef blocked and ignored, per WP:DENY and WP:RBI; you got a short block and some words of guidance, which is what would have happened to any editor, no matter how experienced, who engaged in edit warring rather than discussion. I've seen accounts with tens of thousands of edits blocked under similar circumstances.
I don't know what to say to you about the cranberry juice stuff - perhaps you have seen the comment I put on the talk page? Our mission is to summarise what reliable sources say about any subject; if no sources exist, we should stay silent, we don't try to fill in the blanks with our own reasoning.
I don't have any view on the balance shafts stuff, but I do question your idea that 'if you need a source, you shouldn't be editing the page' - the sources are there for our readers, so they can verify our assertions, they're not there for our editors. Are you really saying that 'if you need a source, you shouldn't be reading this page' - that seems to be contrary to the purpose of an encyclopedia, which is intended for a general reader rather than a subject-matter expert. GirthSummit (blether) 12:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Donald Trump on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism on WS-10 and J-20 page

There is the user called Revolving Personality Construct who keeps removing sourced materials on the WS-10 and Chengdu J-20 pages. He asked me to reason with him on the talk page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RovingPersonalityConstruct

After many attempts to reason with him and proofs with reliable sourced materials. He still goes by the same behavior. He never made any constructive edits on practically any articles, simply removing materials based on his personal agenda.

Please take a look at his behaviors and his disruptive editing here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shenyang_WS-10&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chengdu_J-20&action=history

He keeps arguing with empty air, never tried to come up with anything constructive, never showed me a good reference to prove his point of view. I tried to reach an agreement with him but he ignored. After all attempts failed. I ignored him and treated him as a disruptive editors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shenyang_WS-10

He was blocked multiple times for disruptive editing and edit wars.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ARovingPersonalityConstruct

--2601:152:4400:5580:3046:5C53:419D:91E6 (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi IP editor - I don't have any knowledge of the background of those articles. It looks like you are engaged in a content dispute with the other editor - dispute resolution might be able to help you. If you are concerned about their conduct, WP:ANI is the place to go. Best GirthSummit (blether) 15:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


Thanks for the quick reply. Regarding the situation. He simply removes sourced material based on his personal agenda.

Is there any thing you can do about it?

--2601:152:4400:5580:3046:5C53:419D:91E6 (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Could you please kindly do this on Chengdu J-20 and WS-10 pages? Specially regarding J-20's engine.

I have tried many times. But he is a troll and can not be reasoned with.

Thank you,

--2601:152:4400:5580:3046:5C53:419D:91E6 (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi - there's no need to create a new section. Please don't call other users trolls on my talk page - it's a personal attack. If you believe that they are trolling, I'd ask that you start a thread at WP:ANI, so that other editors can evaluate the situation. Thanks GirthSummit (blether) 15:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


Understood. I just started a thread on the Incident board.

Thank you,

--2601:152:4400:5580:3046:5C53:419D:91E6 (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

CVUA enrollment request

Hey Girth! I noticed that you've opened up a CVUA training spot, and I'd love to learn from you if you're willing to take me on. I've previously dabbled in counter-vandalism (and recently received rollback though I haven't gotten the hang of Huggle yet), but I think it would be helpful for me to go through the course to understand best practices and other things I'm not currently good with, like when to request page protection, etc. Let me know! Thanks in advance, DanCherek (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

DanCherek, hi - thanks for reaching out. In principle, I'd be happy to take you through the course, but can I just check - your user page says you're in the US, might you be better going with someone in your own time zone? If you're happy with waiting a bit between interactions it won't be a problem, but you might have a better experience working with someone who's not asleep while you're editing! Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 18:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I'm in the US (UTC-5). If you're fine with it, I am too - no rush for me, and I'll be able to find plenty of things to work on content-wise in between interactions! Thanks. DanCherek (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
DanCherek, cool. I'm about to log out for the night (making dinner...), but I'll do a run over your contribs tomorrow and ping you with the next steps. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 18:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Who can give necessary clues to a 'clueless newbie'?

Hello!

I hope you have a good day today. :) I have a question, or may be a request, and I have no idea where – to whom – should I turn.

There is a new user, focused on fixing some detail in Wikipedia. His activity (substantial part of which has been deleted by now) leads to nowhere almost but causes a big mess in history of pages. Cleaning it up took a big effort of an admin, including history merges.

I have reported the problem to WP:ANI WP:AIV (corrected 19:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC) --CiaPan (talk)) but it was dismissed as 'it's a clueless newbie, not a vandal'. I was astonished with it, as I think causing a mess in pages and edit-warring on modifying other users' entries in Teahouse – if perseverant – is vandalism. But I let it go.

Now, when that's been done, he started a new revolution: Special:Contributions/Kavex98162. I don't feel like pulling him over to school, but I'm afraid it will eventually end with a block if he doesn't change his behavior. And that would be a harm both for the user and a bit for Wikipedia, too. Who can convince the user to take a breath and learn basics before 'fixing' the world? --CiaPan (talk) 10:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

There's something distinctly odd going on here. Things have been revdel'd from WP:BLPN and the Teahouse, and Kavex98162 is trying to get Oliver Emanuel deleted. So is 82.132.219.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who keeps trying to G1 it, and who has also edited Kavex98162's talk page to remove mentions of a draft about Someone Who Must Not Be Named. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 10:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
BlackcurrantTea, CiaPan - yikes, what a mess. The stuff from BLPN has been oversighted, rather than revdelled, so I can't see it - I'm guessing they added some non-public information. It looks like there's going to be some tidying up required, let me take a look... GirthSummit (blether) 10:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Fram's posted it at AN/I now, so you'll have help. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 10:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit and BlackcurrantTea: Thank you both for taking care and for information. Also warm thanks to Fram for raising the case at ANI.
Special thank-yous go to Black Kite for doing all the hard work with that disgusting mess. --CiaPan (talk) 11:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing

Hi Really appreciate your feedback and stopped from Medical News Today.Thanks again. Gardenkur (talk) 06:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

CVUA Completion

Thank you for your work, patience and politeness during my CVUA training!

I do have one question. Would this be a good time for me to apply for WP:ROLLBACK rights? — CuriousGolden (T·C) 16:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey CuriousGolden, you're welcome. You could apply now - you're eligible - but I just did a quick skim through your contribs, back as far as the 1st of Jan, and I'm not seeing much countervandalism stuff. If you wanted to make it an easy decision for the reviewer, you could spend a bit of time doing some more recent changes patrolling. GirthSummit (blether) 17:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Sure, I will do more counter vandalism work for the next few days and then apply. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 17:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
@Girth Summit: Good day, I have applied for the rollback rights now. You can comment on it if you wish here. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 09:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Ah nevermind I got it immediately after I posted it. Thanks for all your help! — CuriousGolden (T·C) 09:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump Demagogue revert misunderstanding

I would’ve reverted myself had I seen the RFC and and talk page history on the topic. Of course you were right to revert. I was stating that the arguments in the RFC were absurd. Sorry for the misunderstanding! SanctimoniousDuplicitousBiters (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

SanctimoniousDuplicitousBiters, no worries. Just so long as you understand why I removed it, we're good. GirthSummit (blether) 16:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Oops

In case you got a ping for this, I accidentally reported you at WP:AIV when I was trying to report the IP who left a personal attack on your talk page. (I was expecting Twinkle to report the user who carried out the edit in the diff I was looking out, not the person whose talk page it was.) Sincere apologies! YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

YorkshireLad, no worries - I didn't get a ping. That's rather interesting actually - I'd never really thought about it, presumably reports at AIV are excluded from the notification system for obvious reasons. Thanks for keeping an eye out :) GirthSummit (blether) 19:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Revdel request

WhatamIdoing accidentally restored an earlier version of AN/I, and doesn't seem to be online now. Would you be so kind as to revdel the two versions in between these edits? If you check the page history, you'll see that quite a few versions had been done a few minutes earlier. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

BlackcurrantTea, hi - I'll be happy to help, but could you let me know what the problem with those version is? A lot of text was reintroduced, it would help if you could point me at the problematic bit.
Actually, I see that a lot of revisions prior to that have been oversighted, but WhatamIdoing doesn't have the technical ability to reinstate anything that has been revdeleted or oversighted: either there are previous problematic versions of the page that also need attention, or the material they reinstated doesn't need to be revdeleted, or I'm missing something. If it's too sensitive to explain on my talk feel free to e-mail, but you might want to consider e-mailing WP:OVERSIGHT instead if there is private information in there. GirthSummit (blether) 13:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
BlackcurrantTea never mind - I spotted the Twitter account in there, I assume that's what the concern is about. I've revdeleted, and will e-mail oversight now; do you happen to know how WhatamIdoing managed to reinstate that version? Presumably it's still there in the earlier history somewhere. GirthSummit (blether) 13:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I think I've figured it out - looks like WAID edit conflicted with the redaction while she was typing out her post, and managed to reinstate the doxxing. I've e-mailed oversight, it should be sorted out shortly, nothing further needed from either of you, unless anything I've said above is wrong. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 13:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
(a couple of edit conflicts, must learn to compose more quickly) Because she works for the WMF, I thought she had admin status, so thought nothing of seeing it restored. Thanks for taking care of it. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
BlackcurrantTea, no worries - sorry for the edit conflicts, if I'd looked at it properly before replying I could have done all that in one post! Folk who work for WMF don't automatically get admin status, and she'd have needed the oversight flag to access those versions; I'm pretty sure what happened was that she had the older version of the page open in her browser and was typing up her comment while the redaction took place, then by publishing the comment she effectively undid the redaction - can't see any other way it could have happened. GirthSummit (blether) 13:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
That would do it. I didn't realise the revisions were oversighted rather than revdel'd since there's no difference in their appearance. But of course: personal information gets oversighted, and Twitter is personal information. (One doesn't always think these things through. One will try to remember for next time.) Thanks again. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
BlackcurrantTea, apologies - I'd forgotten that they look the same when you don't have the admin flag. They look very different to me, but you're right, it's not obvious to non-admins which tool has been used to remove stuff. I'll try to remember that! It's been oversighted now anyway, so all tidied up. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 15:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I've carefully kept all of my accounts free of advanced user rights. The most destructive thing I have access to is m:MassMessage. But in general, staff-related rights would be on my "(WMF)" account, not my real one. (Yes, there were multiple edit conflicts, plus one time-out message from the Wikipedia:Talk pages project's Reply tool. I eventually gave up and pasted the message in the full-page wikitext editor. The oversighting process probably explains what was going on.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

regarding Nie ji gui

if you can read chinese , you will be able to see this member of Nie is very important in the history . you should add him to the list under Nie (surname ) please see : https://zh.m.wikipedia.org/zh-hant/%E6%9D%8E%E7%80%9A%E7%AB%A0 if you have questions feel free to email me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5CC:C901:F630:C9D8:CDC:DD37:7B41 (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi IP editor - are you Sericausa? You appear to have left this edit while logged out, let me know if you would like me to redact your IP address. The page you're talking about lists people by that name who have articles about them on the English language version of Wikipedia. If you want to write an article about them, please go ahead; before that happens though, they shouldn't be on that list. GirthSummit (blether) 15:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Sherdog.com RfC Closure Has Had No Effect on Wikipedia Because of a Small but Organized Gang of Editors

Hi. You had participated in the 30-day RfC of Sherdog.com's reliability at RSN here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_318#Sherdog.com and in the end it was closed to be used only for some basic fight information in the absence of reliable sources such as ESPN, on a case by case basis and with that fact that additional considerations apply on top of it (option 2 or 3).

But some editors (NEDOCHAN, Cassiopeia, Squared.Circle.Boxing, and a couple more) who voted for the reliability of Sherdog.com in the RfC, still enforce the usage of Sherdog.com as the most trusted source on MMA-related pages and go edit-wars for it. They are like a small organized gang of editors that have taken anyting MMA-related hostage on the Wikipedia and act like owners of the whole site. It would be nice if you could help with the enforcement of the result and consensus that were reached there since you helped reaching the consensus in the RfC. Thanks in advance.78.190.164.254 (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

They are especially active on pages Conor_McGregor, Tony Ferguson and Dan Henderson, trying to enforce the usage of Sherdog.com as the source over reliable sources such as ESPN, Fox, UFC.78.190.164.254 (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I remember the RfC, and my opinion of the source remains the same; I don't recall how I got involved in that discussion though, MMA-related articles aren't an area of interest for me. You are making some pretty serious accusations about these editors, and while you've given links to the pages in question, you haven't been specific about edits you're concerned about. What exactly are the problems - can you give example diffs? Have you tried talking to them? GirthSummit (blether) 16:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
The IP (Lordpermaximum) is evading a block. Just saying. – 2.O.Boxing 17:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Could be, Squared.Circle.Boxing, could be... GirthSummit (blether) 17:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Girth Summit, the IP's first edits were to post on loads of admin talk pages about the RfC that they started. Come off it.NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
NEDOCHAN, I'm not sure what the 'come off it' is referring to - have I said something you disagree with? GirthSummit (blether) 10:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I disagree with 'could be'. Have a look at Lordpermaximum edit history.NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
From our discussions last year, I got the impression that the world is full of editor warriors willing to go to all kinds of lengths to argue about the minutiae of MMA infoboxes - is there specific evidence showing this particular IP to be that particular person? GirthSummit (blether) 10:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Look at their first edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/78.190.164.254 From a supposedly new IP editor? Immediately canvassing admins in regard to an RfC conducted months ago. Lordpermaximum went to war with the entire arbitration committee! NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

It's clearly not a new editor, but I personally don't feel there's enough to go on to say that it's that particular editor. Someone at SPI may feel differently though, feel free to report if you think it's persuasive and I'll leave it to someone else to consider. GirthSummit (blether) 11:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
You can report IPs at SPI? I can find some diffs where the blocked user admitted to using that IP range, as well as another. – 2.O.Boxing 11:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Squared.Circle.Boxing, yes - you can report IPs at SPI, just don't request a checkuser (they're not allowed use it to publicly connect an IP with an account). Behavioural investigation is used, and statements they have made themselves about their IP range would probably be relevant. GirthSummit (blether) 11:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:PragerU on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Nonetherite2

Hi. Nonetherite2 is pretty clearly the same user as Nonetherite, who made similar count-gaming edits, some nonsense, was warned, and then reincarnated. Looks NOTHERE, no? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

AlanM1, agreed - hadn't realised it was a second account, thanks. GirthSummit (blether) 08:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Girth Summit. 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.

Request for 2-way IBAN (per BANEX, point 2)

So it has been ten days since you declined my previous request for a 2-way IBAN, mandated (as I understood it) by this comment by El C, and I wanted to ask again for the same two-way IBAN. During the last ten days, the person from whom I am IBANned has complained about my editing by name and also by indirect mention, has misgendered me and responded to my comments in such wise that I can then not participate further in the dialogue concerned (per your construal of my IBAN).

I have provided above the long sequence of events that resulted in my IBAN, and so I won't repeat that here. Instead, I will offer some longer-term context to show how little has changed in this editor's behavior over the last year.

In April 2020, she offered, for example, the following comment about myself and fellow editors: As usual, there's no way to fight trans activists who want this page to be as negative as possible. You now have someone new joining in to help keep it that way. Then ten days later, she wrote of me that like all misogynists I enjoy smacking a woman into place and telling her it's good for her.[6] I brought this diff to your attention and to that of El C, and neither of you chose to act on it.

In January of this year and she wrote, of several editors including me, that A particular group suddenly all appears together and attacks anyone who disagrees that Pink News' horribly biased attack pieces are a reliable source and then just won't let up until they've chased all dissenting opinions away. She also made the claim (ironically, while engaging in BLUDGEONing), that It is telling that those of us who vote against these Pink News hit pieces on feminist or lesbian groups/figures never seem to feel the need to pile onto the votes of those who vote 'keep', but instead concentrate on giving our own votes, while those who work to keep Wikipedia as biased as possible against all feminist and lesbian subjects never fail to do the opposite. Every time. This in spite of the fact that Pink News has been found "generally reliable" at RSN and no hit pieces were being used for sourcing.

This month, she violated WP:BLP policy on another Talk page by accusing a living person of "misogyny" and "bigotry toward lesbians" without evidence, in order to dismiss a sourced opinion reported in RS.[7] She also went out of her way to dismiss a source she didn't like, and made completely unsubstantiated claims about an RSN discussion in which she had participated, when she claimed that Pink News has a caution because it's anti-feminist and anti-lesbian, not because it's pro-gay - these are allegations that were not made either in the RSN discussion or in its close.

In a similar vein, she dismissed a peer-reviewed source as misogynist based on nothing besides her own POV, citing its use of a term (TERF) which she called a slur.[8] Meanwhile, according to the balance of academic and non-activist sources, the claim that "TERF" is a slur is not a neutral statement, but rather a position within a debate that is taking place inside and outside feminism, as documented here. Why she would accuse a transmasculine author of the peer-reviewed article as having "misogynist opinions" - without evidence or plausibility - I cannot guess.

I have listed these, along with the most recent comments directed at me, in part to demonstrate the consistent failure of WP:AGF on her part shown this month as much as last April, and also to document the pattern of baseless accusations of misogyny directed at those she disagrees with, whether at editors or at the authors of sources or at living public figures (often, though not always, at trans or nonbinary people). None of these comments are any different in kind - and many seem to me more egregious - than the "handful of transphobes" comment by Awoma that you removed from the Graham Linehan Talk page, unless you think that unsupported accusations of misogyny or "bigotry towards lesbians" are somehow less problematic than statements about transphobia. But she seems to feel empowered to keep on keeping on accusing.

I don't feel that I am asking for anything unreasonable, here. I would just like to know that I will not be misgendered or targeted by this editor's comments and, to use your previous language, that our standing be "evenhanded" - that we two as editors should be treated proportionately and without bias. She has received repeated warnings about commenting on my edits in particular and, to a lesser extent, about AGF in general, but the problematic behaviour just continues on and on.

Finally, I know that a notification should be given, and while I am willing to do so myself, I imagine that it might be better received if you were to place the required notification on her talk page as soon as you see this (even if your reaction is to promptly refuse my request). If, however, you insist that I post the notification myself, I will certainly do so. Newimpartial (talk) 05:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial, I've only skimmed this, and haven't followed any of your links yet, but can you please explain how you feel the content of this request is covered by BANEX point 2? GirthSummit (blether) 06:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
BANEX, point 2 covers Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, e.g. addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum, including appealing the ban. The section of WP:ACDS linked as "sanctions.appeals" offers as its first step, ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision, while the following section, "sanctions.modify" specifies No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator.
As I understood El C's "leaving me in good hands" diff provided above, he has given the required "explicit prior affirmative consent" for you in particular to modify the ban if you so choose. In this case I am asking for the change from a 1-way to a 2-way IBAN based on what I see as "legitimate concerns" with the effects of a 1-way IBAN. If you do not see this as a correct forum for this appeal based on El C's diff I provided above, then I am certainly willing to revert and to file the necessary noticeboad appeal, but I had understood that El C was explicitly empowering you to "address legitimate concerns about the ban" as though you were the originally enforcing admin. Newimpartial (talk) 12:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
P.S., Beyond having the policy room to do so - which didn't seem to come up as an issue in my previous request for the same change - the reason I opted to try again here was based, yes, on the course of events, but also on your comment in my talk page: All I can say is that I will continue trying my best to be fair, and I remain open to being told in a civil manner (as you have done) when people disagree with me,[9] which I hope I have not misconstrued. Newimpartial (talk) 13:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Newimpartial, I could see how it would be covered by BANEX if you had restricted yourself to remarks that were exclusively about the IBan, or about the other party's behaviour towards you. This post mentions some stuff about interactions between you, but also goes on at some considerable length about comments she has made which you say violate our BLP policies, you criticise arguments she's made about the term TERF, you talk about a consistent failure to AGF - none of these are things that, on first glance, have anything to do with you, or are relevant to the IBan. Why did you include them? GirthSummit (blether) 13:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
I know that was a long posting (sorry!), but I tried to answer that in my third-from-last paragraph I have listed these, along with the most recent comments directed at me ... to document the pattern of baseless accusations of misogyny directed at those she disagrees with, whether at editors or at the authors of sources or at living public figures (often, though not always, at trans or nonbinary people).
In other words, not only has she misgendered me and (baselessly) called me misogynist, she also has a habit of (baselessly) calling BLPs and sources misogynist when they disagree with her. This is relevant to what you have referred to as being "even-handed". As I continued to say in the same paragraph None of these comments are any different in kind - and many seem to me more egregious - than the "handful of transphobes" comment by Awoma that you removed from the Graham Linehan Talk page, unless you think that unsupported accusations of misogyny or "bigotry towards lesbians" are somehow less problematic than statements about transphobia. But she seems to feel empowered to keep on keeping on accusing. (Emphasis added.)
As I said previously, I would just like to know that I will not be misgendered or targeted by this editor's comments - their continuing use with other editors of the same direct and indirect attacks they used (and use) against me are why I believe them to be relevant. This editor told me that that like all misogynists I enjoy smacking a woman into place and telling her it's good for her.[10] When she continues to use the "misogyny" trope equally groundlessly against other trans or nonbinary people, while continuing to accuse me directly of manipulation through a particular aspect of gaslighting: aggressors playing the victim to elicit overcompensation toward their POV[11] - well, her consistent behaviour towards me is a direct reflection of her behaviour elsewhere in the project, so I don't see any reason short of a formal IBAN why she would stop making unfounded accusations of misogyny and gaslighting, etc, against me, since that is what she consistently does more generally. Newimpartial (talk) 14:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Newimpartial, I think that you are stretching BANEX far beyond its breaking point above. A few posts up, you will see a query from someone, asking whether they still have an iban in place with another user because they want to post on an AfD discussion that user started. That's the kind of thing I believe BANEX is intended to cover. I think it could also cover a brief statement along the lines of 'This person has been baiting me DIFF DIFF DIFF DIFF, please could you make this a 2-way Iban'. What you are doing here goes way beyond that, it's about their general behaviour - I'm not going to engage with you in a general discussion of an editor you are IBanned with. I've said to you before that I don't want to block you from editing over this, but I do ask you to adhere to that IBan strictly from here on out.
You remain free to appeal at WP:AE or at WP:AN. You are also free to ask at those locations for a view on exactly what sort of thing your IBan covers - I believe that the advice I've given you is the commonly accepted interpretation, but I could be out of step with the community on that. GirthSummit (blether) 14:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Girth Summit. I will do that. Please note that I was not asking to have a general discussion about anything, I was asking for my 1-way IBAN to be turned into a 2-way IBAN as mandated in WP:ACDS and providing what I understood to be the relevant evidence. I now understand that your answer is "no", and will not be asking you that question again.
Also, please feel encouraged to remove/archive this section as you see fit. Newimpartial (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Continued discussion

Well doesn't Wikipedia characterize its very SELF as user generated??? Quoting from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#User-generated_content Examples of unacceptable user-generated sites are Wikipedia, Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Instagram, Reddit, IMDb, Ancestry.com, Find a Grave, and ODMP. Thus, per your directive, no Wikipedia article should link to (another) Wikipedia (article)!!! But moving beyond the abstract issues, can you suggest any way in the world I can add an entry on the page at issue for "Blue Movie, a 1989 pornographic mockumentary film," and better yet, provide evidence for its existence? Thanks for your kind attention to my sincere query. -BoswellScribbler (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi BoswellScribbler. Perhaps it wasn't your intent, but by editing an old version of my talk page, you removed tens of thousands of bytes of more recent discussions, and messed up the talk page archiving. Please be much more careful when editing other users' talk pages. If you want to continue an old discussion which has been archived, you need to start a new thread and remind the person, if necessary, what you were talking about.
Wikipedia is user-generated, and unreliable for our purposes. When I see people adding Wikipedia pages as references (it' a common mistake), I revert them and give them a link to WP:UGC. That does not lead to your conclusion that no Wikipedia article should link to another however: I think you are confusing citations to reliable sources, external links and internal links.
As I have already said to you, the page you were editing is a disambiguation page: its purpose is to provide explanatory links to different existing articles with similar names. If you want to link to an article about that mockumentary film, someone will first have to write an article about it. If you think it would pass the notability guidelines for films, you are at liberty to do so. Best GirthSummit (blether) 06:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry if I did damage; I would have hoped that after two decades, the Wikipedia infrastructure would not make it so easy to mess things up when undertaking a threaded discussion with another party, accidentally or maliciously. - BoswellScribbler (talk) 04:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

On further consideration, if the film doesn't have an article itself, but there is an article which contains reliably sourced information about it, it would be reasonable to add a link to that article, similar to the ones you see further down in the 'Music' section, where the song titles are not linked, but there are links to the albums the songs are taken from. If, for example, there is an article about the director or one of the principal actors in the film, and that article mentions the film, you could add an entry along the lines of "Blue Movie, a 1989 mockumentary film starring/directed by...". If there is no Wikipedia article that mentions the movie however, there is no purpose in adding the link, which as I say only serves to provide the reader with a useful internal link to one of our articles. GirthSummit (blether) 10:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I will argue that a disambiguation page should function to distinguish things that exist in the WORLD, rather than merely distinguish their respective Wikipedia ARTICLES, i.e. it is useful to allow entries for which there as yet exists NO Wikipedia article. Indeed, I have seen many Wikipedia articles which include what I'll call "pregnant" links, i.e. links not to other extant Wikipedia articles, but rather to machinery which launches the creation of same. I think it is useful to allow a contributor to effectively nominate the creation of an article that way, even if she herself does not have the time to create it, implicitly soliciting another reader to do so. - BoswellScribbler (talk) 04:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

BoswellScribbler, the correct place to request that an article be written is WP:RA. You can argue whatever you like, and if you gain consensus then the practice will change. What you are suggesting is quite a major change though, and would require substantial discussion. Personally, I've never proposed a change that big, but I think the village pump might be the right place to start a discussion. Until that happens, links like that should be removed - if you are aware of other similar links please let me know and I'll review them when I get some time. GirthSummit (blether) 06:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

and what right would those reasons be?

What is exactly your problem with the Horned God edit, what issue did your eyes see with my signature? Gnoming?

Besides that, thank you for your input, understanding, and support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Threesom666 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Threesom666 - I see you've been unblocked, congratulations. To answer your questions:
  • The right reasons are described WP:HERE. Accounts which are used for other reasons, such as messing around and wasting people's time, are often described as being WP:NOTHERE for the right reasons, and are blocked from editing.
  • The horned god page after your edit looked like this. Can you see that the image is far too large? So large that it more than fills the screen, forcing the reader to scroll down to find the article's content? I can easily understand someone doing that by accident because they don't know how to set the size of the image properly, but I'd expect them to undo their edit once they saw what they'd done. I find it hard to understand why you left the page in that state - that version of the page persisted for two days after your edit, until an IP editor came along and undid it.
  • Your signature is exceedingly long. The purpose of a signature is to indicate who left a message in a discussion, and to provide a link to their talk page. There aren't any hard and fast limits on the length, but even on my 17" laptop screen, yours fills the entire width of the screen and goes onto a second line. That would make any discussion unnecessarily difficult to follow, and would be disruptive.
  • Gnoming is a reference to WP:GNOME - lots of editors here proudly proclaim themselves to be gnomes, it wasn't meant as an insult, it's an honourable pursuit. It's a shorthand to describe a form of editing where you go about making small changes, as opposed to writing new articles or undertaking major re-writes. Fixing typos, updating statistics, that sort of thing is gnoming.
If you want my advice (I assume you do, since you've come here), I'd suggest change your signature to something much shorter. The default is just to have your username, with a link to your talk page. You would be welcome to create a userpage displaying the text that currently makes up your signature - that seems more reasonable than inserting the text repeatedly into any conversation you take part in. I'd also suggest that, if you make an edit that messes up the way a page is displayed, you undo your edit and head over to the WP:HELPDESK and ask how to achieve whatever it is you're trying to do.
The username thing is up to you. I can understand why you might be reluctant to change it - at my RfA, a few people said that they assumed my username was an inappropriate sexual innuendo, and that I should change it. I seriously considered doing so, but I'd been using it for ten years and was quite attached to it. In the end I wrote this page in hopes of allaying their concerns. What you do with yours is your choice now that a consensus has established that it isn't outside the boundaries of what is acceptable. Best GirthSummit (blether) 12:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you.

• I don't know what this is referring to since I didn't ask for the right reasons nor was I wasting people's time. They were wasting my time for trying to fix edits. • I did, left like that because I didn't know how to resize. I figured it might've resize by itself or someone might fix the size. This image was originally there and I always liked it but someone keeps taking it down. I'd like to put it back on because it goes with the theme perfectly but I am not a good wiki editor at all. It is way too complicated and there isn't a place where you can just ask someone to do it. • Okay, I thought you might've been referring to with what was said. I didn't think it would cause such a problem. I've always used a signature as a sign off, signature, and reverence. Never as a link or reference to my profile. First! I don't think I even have a profile page. Your free to help as much as you'd like. You're free to edit the signature as you'd like as long as you keep the same words. • I wasn't sure what you meant. Must be a wiki-lingo, which I am not part of. Yea you can say I am sort of gnome but I mostly like to read articles and get pissed off when there is a typo. So much so that I correct it myself when I really don't want to. I'd much prefer to alert it and have someone else fix it since it is so annoying to go through.

I didn't care about being blocked since I am contributing to something I gain nothing from. But they blocked me from several things as well. Which I found too annoying and over barring so I took action. Plus the stupid admin's response which I thought was inappropriate and unhelpful. I personally hate people that have dirty minds and jump at the conclusion of making normal things dirty. I have never been asked, nor persuaded for an explanation. The talk discussion was full of assumptions but happily not everyone had a dirty mind and some actually had an open mind. I didn't want to change it not for the discomfort it causes but because literally is my identity and when I come to wiki to read I'd like to able to come and read under my identity. A complain I do have about wikipedia is that I've now noticed articles everywhere are being trimmed down forcibly I absolutely hate it because to me that is not the purpose of wikipedia, simplify things and dumb it down, but to come here, investigate, educate, and get details you won't get anywhere else. Now as for your username, I did think it came off as strange too, but who am I to judge? And certainly not to forcibly have you removed it or blocked. Plus I think it's nobodies business since nobody sees usernames since they are mostly in the background. Are they going to make wikipedia pg now? With its massive amounts of rated R content? Kinda dumb. and I suppose like me, at your end, you weren't given much to explain yourself. Another thing that is messed up with the system. You know, I had almost given up. I was double blocked and I had been so busy and I didn't do anything for like a week. Then when I tried to reappeal I couldnt. I was totally blocked. But then I said the hell with it and some how I came from the grave. Totally inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Threesom666 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Threesom666, sorry if I misinterpreted you. I assumed from the section header you wrote, you were asking me what I meant by 'here for the right reasons' - the links I gave you above were meant to address what I perceived to be a question about that. Some more important points:
  • If you aren't sure how to do something (e.g. fix the size of an image), you have a few options available to you. You can ask at the WP:HELPDESK - people there are very responsive, you will probably get an answer within a few minutes/hours. Alternatively, you can make an edit request on the article talk page. If something you do messes up the way a page displays, you shouldn't just leave it like that and hope that someone will fix it - undo your edit, and ask for help.
  • You don't have a profile page, but you can create one if you like, with that text about strife on it. You already have a user talk page however, and that's what your signature should give a link to at a minimum. The text in your signature as it currently stands is far too long - you should cut it, which only you can do, by editing the text in your 'Preferences' page.
  • Now, this next bit is really important. Above, you describe someone as a 'stupid admin' - that is a direct violation of our no personal attacks policy. I see that you have been blocked again for trolling other user's talk pages - I am not surprised, if you're going to say things like that about people. You might disagree with someone's actions, and you can of course think what you like, but if you talk that way about people your next block will probably be indefinite, and a block for personal attacks will likely be far harder to overturn than one for a borderline username violation. GirthSummit (blether) 10:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Huggle

Recently, I switched to Huggle to revert vandalism faster. Am I doing better with Huggle, or do I need to slow down with Huggle? Steve M (talk) 01:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Steve M, I did a quick spot check on half a dozen of your vandalism reverts with Huggle, and I agreed with all of them; is there something in particular that you wanted me to look at, or particular concerns that have been expressed in the past? (Apologies if you're asking because of an interaction that we've had in the past - mind like a sieve...). GirthSummit (blether) 10:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Girth Summit, not really. It was jest because i am new and wanted an overview with Huggle. Steve M (talk) 13:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Steve M, well as I said, from a quick spot check I'm not seeing any issues; feel free to pop back if you ever have a question or a specific thing you want me to look at. GirthSummit (blether) 14:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I need help! Vandalism on my talk page!

Hi, Girth Summit! Please revert IP User 120.22.160.252's edit on my talk page. I cannot undo it anymore because of how much bytes it has added. Help me please! Thanks! A21NX (talk) 07:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit:, you may also block it for disruptive editing. Your soonest response and action will be highly appreciated. Thank you. A21NX (talk) 07:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
A21NX, the IP address is already blocked, they were vandalising quite widely. I reverted their additions to your talk page. GirthSummit (blether) 07:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Girth Summit! I hope no one will vandalize my talk page next time nor my user page. I hate vandals. A21NX (talk) 07:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

A21NX, I recommend taking a look at WP:RBI and WP:DENY. Trolls and vandals are often just looking to get attention - the more you react, the happier they are. Their aim isn't to permanently vandalise your talk page (they know they can't do that), they just want to get a reaction from you. My advice, if it happens again, is just to report them, revert the vandalism, and then forget about them - they're not worth getting upset about. GirthSummit (blether) 08:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For dealing with a particularly tedious wave of vandalism. 🙂 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

On that shivaji maharaj wiki

Shivaji Wiki Can't we replace Indian Ruler in the first para with "Kshatriya Ruler" his biography also mentions that he was a shuddha kshatriya and hid ancestor was from kshatriya sisodiya Rajputs Kanishk1zero1 (talk) 05:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Kanishk1zero1, it wasn't me who reverted your change at Shivaji. You should discuss changes to the article at the article's talk page, where other interested editors will see the conversation and express their views. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 10:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

125.26.13.50

Can user:125.26.13.50 please be blocked ASAP for vandalism. CLCStudent (talk) 13:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

CLCStudent, already done by the looks of things! GirthSummit (blether) 13:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Jame Dreyfus

Hello.

I don't believe we have interacted before, but I am aware that you have been willing to intervene on some of Wikipiedia's more contentious pages.

There is an issue at James Dreyfus. Dreyfus became involved in a protracted Twitter spat, which seemingly ended with him saying he doesn't use pronouns [[12]], which multiple IP users (possibly all the same person) are taking to mean that he does not use them in reference to himself. In reality, this sentence could mean one of several things, however, the point is, it is not relevant to a Wikipedia article. A Twitter tantrum doesn't warrant as sufficient for inclusion in a WP:BLP.

Attempts to make reference to the episode in the article text appear to have ceased, and attempts to WP:LABEL Dreyfus have also been reverted. However, IP's continue to reinstate edits removing male pronouns. My reverts are skirting on edit-warring, so I do not wish to continue to do so. One registered editor left me a message, to which I replied and advised starting a discussion on the article Talk Page. A different registered editor then did so, in an unsigned comment, to which I also replied.

I do not feel that there is any justification for removing male pronouns from the article, and furthermore, believe attempts to do so are merely being done for spurious 'point-scoring' motives. The latter is supported by the fact that numerous Twitter users are encouraging and joking about this, including one who specifically stated they were aware their behaviour might earn them a ban, and who made a point of naming my account, in what I can only presume was an attempt to provoke harassment against me. [[13]]. I have requested edit protection, which I believe I have done correctly (I have never done such before). I was hoping you might take a look, and provide temporary protection from IP editors.

Many thanks, and apologies for the rambling nature of my request. Regards. AutumnKing (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Autumnking2012, in this instance the page is clearly being disrupted, and I've applied protection for a week. In general terms though, I'd say that the last thing I want is a reputation for being an admin willing to intervene in contentious pages - your report to RfPP was fine, it would have been acted upon, it's just that the page looks like it's backlogged at the moment.
cheers GirthSummit (blether) 19:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
My apologies if it was inappropriate to make the request here. I have never tried to protect a page previously, and was unsure how effective the process was. I think the fact that my user name was being thrown around on Twitter (there were subsequent instances to the Tweet I referenced) felt a bit disconcerting. I have tried to remove myself from these discussions in the past, when they get too heated. I appreciate that there are topics here which descend too quickly into personal bias. I wanted to make sure I wasn't spiralling into violating the 3RR rules, and I happened to recall that you have previously intervened in discussions I had been following, in a calm and measured manner. Many thanks for your assistance on this occasion, and apologies again. Regards. AutumnKing (talk) 10:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
No need to apologise, I'm just letting you know that you did the right thing with the RfPP request. In future, if you're worried about getting drawn into an edit war, you can always consider posting a note at WP:BLPN asking for more eyes on it. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 11:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - February 2021

Delivered February 2021 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

15:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021

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

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi. User:InellectualThinker vandalizes articles. I want him to be blocked. - Aybeg (talk) 09:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Aybeg, The User:InellectualThinker does not generally vandalise articles but you seem to have a dispute on the Article Baykar - best thing would be to discuss this on the article talk page. Please have also a look at Wikipedia:How to deal with vandalism. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Aybeg - I'll go a further than that actually. As the term is understood here, WP:VANDALISM is defined as bad faith editing; an accusation of that sort, without supporting evidence, is often interpreted as a personal attack, which should be avoided. I haven't looked into the dispute between you that CommanderWaterford refers to, but you have two choices at this point:
  • If you are convinced that the editor is intentionally damaging our articles, and are prepared to support that position with evidence, you can raise a thread about them at WP:ANI; be aware though that frivolous accusations of bad faith editing may lead to sanctions against the filing party.
  • If you are just in a content dispute with them about what one of our articles should say, you should discuss it with them in a civil manner on the relevant article's talk page, or engage with dispute resolution processes. Best GirthSummit (blether) 19:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Annandale High School on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Violation of AGF and PA

Hi, Girth Summit! Can I have your opinion on whether the comments by Steverci here warrant a warning (the user has previously been topic-banned from that topic)? They violated AGF the first time in the discussion, then I asked them not to repeat it again, yet they just replied with a "threat" to take me to ANI. Cheers. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 16:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

CuriousGolden, the difficulty with a situation like this will be harking back to conversations that were had elsewhere. I noticed that both you and Steverci were involved in another heated discussion about place names at Talk:Yerevan. I don't pretend to understand the significance of the place names/languages involved, but the issue appears to be a magnet for hostility.
So, how best to respond to a lack of GF is a tricky question. I'm trying to think now of a time where I've seen an 'AGF' warning template achieve the desired effect, and I'm drawing a blank. They often actually increase tensions, and all parties involved end up bickering about who started the argument. I can't tell you what you should do, but if I were in your situation I think I would aim to demonstrate my good faith by rising above any mud slinging, ignoring it completely and focussing on the content question. If you make it very clear that you are acting in good faith, accusations to the contrary become ridiculous. Best GirthSummit (blether) 17:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, that's also why I avoided giving a warn to them about it right away, since it usually just ends up with them getting more angry. I'll just ignore everything in their comment that's not about the content we're discussing. Thanks for the help! — CuriousGolden (T·C) 17:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoOKC

This is still open, I assume you meant to close it? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

RoySmith, oops, forgot to tick the box - thanks, closed now. GirthSummit (blether) 18:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Girth Summit, BTDT. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
RoySmith, I had to look that one up! Appreciated, a lot friendlier than telling me to RTFM. GirthSummit (blether) 20:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Girth_Summit/Archive_10&oldid=1199758542"