Jump to content

User talk:Johnuniq/Archive 30

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32→Archive 34

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

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

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

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

AE

I was wondering if there is a minimum time, an AE thread must be kept open. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I have been meaning to close that for a while and I finally did it. Johnuniq (talk) 10:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

ANI

Thank you for your question to me at ANI, and for coming in with a fresher approach.

I will not have any time today to address it: I will hope to be able to tomorrow morning. Kevin McE (talk) 08:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Flyer stuff

Regarding this warning, the thread immediately above it indicates that Newimpartial should receive one as well; the thread consists of off-SPI accusations of sock-puppetry against two editors whom Newimpartial claims are or "look like" Flyer, and both of them clearly object to the out-of-band accusations. Newimpartial went out of their way to dig these accusations back up after the actual SPI was closed, and the activity smells like coordinated (WP:MEAT / WP:GANG) behavior between Kolya Butternut and Newimpartial to shit-stir in user talk after being prevented from doing so further at SPI and now at ANI.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

First of all, I don't even agree with KB on either how to interpret the Flyer-related evidence or, more importantly, on the interpretation of community norms - I do not think it is in any way ok to try to dox our editors. So I profoundly resent the WP:MEAT / WP:GANG accusation (and at the time I made my Talk page post, I had no idea of any of the sordid details of Kolya's arb filing, even to the extent that they were revealed at the Arb noticeboard).
As far as Newimpartial went out of their way to dig these accusations back up after the actual SPI was closed, that - like so many things SMcCandlish has said about me in the past - is completely false. As I immediately explained to the Admin that closed the SPI, it was an edit conflict situation and I had no way of saving or retrieving my edit except by "restoring" the SPI. No going out of my way, no digging anything back up.
I recognize, Johnuniq, that you disagree with me about the appropriate treatment of Flyer-lookalike accounts going forward, and I will consider myself equally "warned" whether or not you post anything on my Talk page. From my perspective, the Arb noticeboard promises a logical and appropriate path to deal with further disruption arising from the lookalike accounts, going forward, and I will do no more and no less than is necessary to uphold WP rules and community standards in this area. Newimpartial (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
"saving or retrieving my edit ... by 'restoring' the SPI" = "went out of their way to dig these accusations back up after the actual SPI was closed". Restating my observation in Newimpartial's own words but with identical facts does nothing to disprove my observation; rather the opposite. While "I will consider myself equally 'warned' whether or not you post anything on my Talk page" is diffable, few will see it, and it would be better for Newimpartial's user talk page to have a warning, especially since ArbCom keeps making up nonsense rules about whether someone is "aware" in a formal way of potential impending action, and they tie this bureaucratic "awareness" concept to receipt of user-talk notices.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
SMcCandlish, clicking "restore" - which was the only way I could retain the edit I had already composed to have any record of it - is simply not going out of (my) way to dig these observations back up. Words do not mean whatever you want them to mean, and your repeated ASPERSIONS and unfounded accusations are simply unCIVIL. I am asking you, as politely as I can, to stop doing that. Newimpartial (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
While I agree with you, I think Newimpartial is more sensitive to what they can get away with than some others and doesn't need more of a warning than what we're saying. I can understand what happened at the SPI—Newimpartial had composed a comment they thought useful and when they went to publish they found the page had been deleted so they thought their careful comment deserved to be preserved in at least the deleted version, even if no non-admins could see it. That was a rather full-on blunder of judgment, particularly given that the comment was innuendo without substance. I issued a strong warning to another editor at permalink. That received four endorsements from admins and three thanks from others and I will follow through with that matter or any other similar problem. The community and Arbcom have endorsed the current situation and anyone who wants to see how far they can push at the edges will be bluntly stopped. The internet has thousands of places where people can exchange views on all kinds of fruit-cake ideas—Wikipedia is not one of them. Johnuniq (talk) 01:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
To be fair, at the time of the SPI, ArbCom had not even announced its intention to create an SPI where these problems could readily be dealt with. Since they have expressed their intention to do so, I am confident that DUCK evidence will be appropriately examined and dealt with as it is identified. Newimpartial (talk) 02:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Program synthesis

Hi! You helped with semi-protecting the page Program synthesis on 4 Mar 2020, to prevent the anonymous IP 2601:184:4081:1cbe:... from disruptive editing. Since the protection has been released, we have the same problem with IP 2601:184:407f:1ac0:... (starting on 20 Aug 2021), so I'd like to ask you to protect the page again. Thanks in advance. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 09:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jochen Burghardt: I partially blocked Special:Contributions/2601:184:407F:1AC0:0:0:0:0/64 so they are not able to edit Program synthesis for two years (they have been pushing their OR for 18 months). I see there is also an account but they could still edit even if the article were semi-protected and the disruption, while frustrating, is not at a level that would justify more restrictions at the moment. Let me know when the next problem arises and I'll deal with it then. Johnuniq (talk) 09:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: Thanks! I expect user Mdaviscs to continue the edits now. However, I'm deeply involved in the debate with them, so I'm very biased, and should request moderation of the conflict rather than blocking the user. That said, all recent edits criticized that the approach amounts to plucking a program from a list (starting on 25 August 2019 on the talk page), and I have answered that issue starting on 26 August 2019. Meanwhile I have no idea how to improve the article to meet the critics (a few initial contributions of the IP *did* lead to some improvements in presentation), and I'm tired of repeating myself again and again. (I had also asked JayBeeEll to help settling the conflict, see User_talk:JayBeeEll#Help_needed_with_Program_synthesis.) For now, I'll wait and see what happens, and possibly ask you again. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Deprecated parameter

Hi. Do you know when the caption parameter in this template was deprecated? Someone else began to replace the caption parameter with the footer parameter in several other templates even if the footer parameter did not yet appear in the documentation of the template. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 14:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@LSGH: I don't know anything about that template although I did comment on its talk about some errors that were occurring in articles in January 2021. At Template:Medical cases chart, you can click "history" next to "Template documentation" to see the history of the documentation page. The most recent edit was 26 August 2021 which shows the deprecation. The history at Module:Medical cases chart shows that first footer was inserted as the preferred parameter, and later caption was removed to make it invalid. Johnuniq (talk) 01:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
It appears that this edit allowed both parameters to function properly while the process of replacement was going on. Do you know why the replacement was necessary? Are the two parameters similar in Lua? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 16:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that allowed both parameter names to work and to serve the same purpose. I have seen enough of Module:Medical cases chart to know that it is good code that performs useful work. It is complex and needs knowledgeable maintenance, which it is receiving. In my experience, it's best to let maintainers work in their own way and tolerate any quirks (if there are such quirks). That edit shows that the module uses footer for the parameter and it would be irritating for any experienced programmer to have the inconsistency of the parameter having a different name elsewhere. I infer from your above comments that they changed all the places where the module is used to be consistent so I would say that is a good outcome. My guess is that the replacement was not necessary but was implemented for consistency and a cleaner result. Matters like that are always debatable but I wouldn't raise it without a compelling reason such as errors in articles. Johnuniq (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Conduct Question re Leopard Gecko Article

Hello Again,

Quick question for you - in terms of the curious case of the leopard gecko article, where folks keep edit warring without discussion or citations - I think the most obvious reason for this if we are presuming no malice is that they're confused by the Wikipedia process itself and perhaps don't know how to get to the talk page or check their messages. I could probably find stakeholders interested in discussing some of these issues through herpetoculture groups, but it seems a little sketchy to be soliciting editors from a third party site. It could also have the unintended effect of spreading a position that is not well cited but is widely believed by users of a social media echo chamber. At the same time, it would potentially be a way to increase interest in improving articles. Are there rules/guidelines for or against soliciting editors on websites that are non Wikipedia? Any direction on this topic you could provide would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Connorlong90 (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

This relates to Common leopard gecko and our discussion in January 2021. The problem is clearly one devoted fan but I don't see any activity since July 2021 so we have to call that a good result. There is no way to handle long-term disruption other than tediously repeating standard procedures. Let me know if it resurfaces and I will handle it. I would not recommend starting off-wiki discussions because it's extremely unlikely that our friend would see it, and they almost certainly would not be convinced if they did see it. You would either get no contributions at Wikipedia, or you would wake a small group of people convinced that their experience proves you are wrong and who would spend the next few months trying to correct the article. There are no rules/guidelines about this, other than that canvassing is bad. Generic discussion about the underlying issue (nocturnal/crepuscular) would be fine, but not useful IMHO. Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Articles for deletion/List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming

Hello, Johnuniq,

This page was listed on a database report of orphaned talk subpages, most of which I have been deleting because they were leftover after AFD closures. This talk page had a discussion on it but there is no related article/project page which it is associated with so ordinarily it would be deleted. You were the most senior editor participating in the discussion (many others are no longer active) so I thought I'd check with you and see if you know whether this page should be deleted or preserved and moved to another location. Thanks for any help you can provide. Liz Read! Talk! 05:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I closed the AFD and deleted the article, Liz. It was subsequently taken to deletion review here, where the deletion was endorsed. That was the place for a review — not the talkpage of the AFD, which is in any case superseded by the later (and fuller) DR. I think you should go ahead and delete the talkpage. Bishonen | tålk 06:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC).
Thanks for the background. I don't remember that issue from 18 months ago but it looks like I was pinged to that talk page and unwisely responded. I agree with Bishonen that the talk page should be deleted per WP:G8 (dependent on a non-existent or deleted page). @Liz: Thanks for fixing problems like this. Johnuniq (talk) 07:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the background. Most of the pages are more straight-forward, like archived talk pages of deleted articles that were missed when the articles were deleted. I'll go ahead and delete this page. Thanks again. Liz Read! Talk! 16:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2021

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

Administrator changes

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

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

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Maxim gun

I'm posting here as an FYI, rather than muddy the waters at WP:ANI#Subtle vandalism or the user TP. As an FCIPA (retd.) and EPA (retd.), I consider "invented" in the first sentence of Maxim gun sloppy wording. Invention date is rarely either known or legally relevant. I would prefer "developed in 1884", which is supported at Maxim gun#Development (1883–1884); the 1884 demonstration shows that Maxim had something that worked, not just a paper patent. I haven't edited the first sentence of the article because of the ongoing discussion, but I did tweak the first one in that section. The patent dates for his invention range 1883-1885, because of the vagaries of C19 patent laws. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 11:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: Thanks, and I agree. However, an editor has to have a reason when they change a date and if they don't give that reason in the edit summary they should be prepared to explain when asked. Contributors who change dates or other factoids without explanation are a particular problem. Presumably, sources use the imprecise term "invented" and that has been copied into the article. Johnuniq (talk) 23:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
I too agree, and notice they as yet haven't. Narky Blert (talk) 06:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions on Gender Talkpage

Hi,

Saw your "discretionary sanctions" note on the Gender Talk page and had a few questions: can I "post a new section" on the Talk page or only on the main page?

I have something in the way of a rough draft for a new Lead section that addresses the NPOV issues and clearly discusses the wide-ranging controversies on the topic as required. But I'd like to post to that Talk page for discussion purposes and didn't want to be subject to any further sanctions. And that particularly as I see that the BRD document says "Don't be bold with potentially controversial changes; instead, start a discussion on the talk page first." And I expect what I'm suggesting is likely to be controversial so would like to open it up for discussion first. But I didn't want to spend a lot of time dotting all the Is and crossing all the Ts so it's hardly ready for posting to the main page, although I do have a bunch of links and sources to buttress what I'm suggesting.

Changing gears though, I wonder what the reasons are for "being under discretionary sanctions". And aren't you obliged to log that somewhere or is that not applicable in this case? Though it was maybe a good idea to close that conversation in any case.

But had thought it might have been because they were based on WP:ARBGENDER and were "authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people." But I see that there was something of a further clarification on the "scope" of those sanctions that "Gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender." Or "any discussion regarding systemic bias faced by female editors". But neither I nor anyone else in that conversation was talking about pronoun use or bias faced by female editors. So not sure of the justification for that "under sanctions".

In any case, please advise, particularly about suggested or allowed ways to proceed with further edits and posting that rough draft for discussion purposes. Thanks. --TillermanJimW (talk) 07:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@TillermanJimW: This relates to my close of a discussion at Talk:Gender#Explicit “criticism” section required to address POV issues (permalink). If by "main page" you mean the article Gender—no, I did not intend suggesting anything happen on the article. If you are asking whether it is ok to post a new section at Talk:Gender, of course you can since you are not topic banned. However, uninvolved administrators have a duty to ensure that discussions in topics under discretionary sanctions do not meander on and on because that drives away good editors. The discussion I closed is over 33K bytes and is not leading anywhere that I can see—it appears to concern a belief that there are some hard-to-specify gender issues that require a criticism section (you might review WP:Criticism). As stated in my close, this page is only available for actionable proposals to add/remove/change specific text, with sources. If there is such a proposal, post it in a new section and focus on one specific proposal. Regarding a log, if you want a lot of background reading, see WP:ARBGS and the pages it links to. From that link, "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people." That means Gender and its talk page are subject to the special regime without any logging requirement. If there were, for example, an ongoing edit war, an admin might impose an extra condition such as WP:1RR—that would need to be logged at WP:Arbitration enforcement log/2021#Gender and sexuality. At Wikipedia, discretionary sanctions are very broadly construed. That means that if a topic has any resemblance to gender or sexuality it is covered by WP:ARBGS. Clearly, any valid use of Talk:Gender would be related to that topic, and any invalid use of that page would be disruption which is also covered by WP:ARBGS.
If you intend making a proposal, it needs to be succinct and actionable. For example, it would not be useful to make general comments about a need for NPOV or a need to cover certain points in the article. If you don't know what amendments are needed, you could post a brief suggestion that certain text (that you quote from the article) is problematic due to a brief and clear explanation that you include, then ask if anyone has suggestions. If they don't, you need to move on. If you do have a specific proposal, you should make it. If it requires a massive new section, you should think very hard because it is likely that such a section would not be helpful. If you want to discuss a rewrite of a section of the article, you could put it your sandbox and ask at talk for opinions. However, no one is permitted to argue interminably because it drives away good editors. If you don't get consensus within a couple of days, move on. Johnuniq (talk) 10:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your response and information, particularly for the link to the Criticisms page which I’ll try to plow through and incorporate before posting my “specific proposal”. Some very good points there, particularly about not giving undue weight to either the negative or positive viewpoints. I think there’s quite a bit of merit to both the “orthodox” and the “heterodox” positions and think that much of the “controversy” is due to ambiguous or careless language and various misunderstandings, particularly about defining categories and the use of basic statistics.
But apropos of which, I was just skimming through the “Lead sentence” section – partly to see if other talk sections had anything close to the 33k bytes that the “Explicit criticisms” section did. :-) Seems the former has some 22k bytes; still, 33k is probably beyond pale.
In any case, I happened to notice that @Tewdar: & @Newimpartial: had some exchanges in that section that point to some aspects which I think are important and relevant if not foundational. Hence the pings; hope you don't mind any resulting discussion though I can take it to the Gender talk page or my own later if it gets too lengthy.
But in particular, the latter made a very good point or at least suggestion that defining gender as the “range of characteristics differentiating between masculinity and feminity” can’t reasonably include sex as “a subcategory of gender”, can’t reasonably include sex among those characteristics. As indicated, for example, in the “femininity article, it is more or less defined as those traits typical of women and girls – the sex of the subjects being studied. Those are the traits strongly “associated” with that group, that are more prevalent among that group than among males. But we can’t possibly decide which traits are more prevalent among a given sex if we have first grouped the subjects by sex.
In the language of statistics which I expect you have some familiarity with, gender is the range of characteristics that correlate to a greater or lesser extent with sex: those that correlate more with females are deemed “feminine” while those that correlate more with “males” are deemed “masculine”. Those other characteristics are the dependent “random” variables while sex is the single common independent “random” variable – it is the common point of reference. It is meaningless or logically and mathematically incoherent to talk about sex correlating with sex, to talk about a random variable correlating with itself.
Not quite sure how to integrate that perspective into the definition, into that lead sentence, but it seems an important one. But will try to do so in my proposal.
However, I might note in passing that much of that “lead sentence” discussion was more about gender, more about a clear, unambiguous, coherent and rational definition for the term, and less about the goal of improving the article. Not that I’m complaining as I think we can’t reasonably improve the article without that “rational definition” as a necessary precursor. But not sure that anathematizing any and all discussion about the concept is conducive to reaching that goal.
[BTW, fixing my spelling mistake in the header; it was late ...] --TillermanJimW (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm sure Tewdar and Newimpartial are smart enough to know that I am not expecting this page to be used to debate gender issues. Re correlation, there will be not be any mention of that unless a reliable secondary source describes the issue in those terms. The way articles should be built is that someone familiar with the topic should examine (that is, thoroughly read as if studying for a uni exam) a wide range of highly reliable sources and should use them to write a balanced view of the topic covering mainstream knowledge. Johnuniq (talk) 03:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Would you consider Scientific American and PubMed Central to be "reliable secondary sources" as they both republished all or part of an article at Frontiers In Psychology? Of particular note is this graph from Frontier, republished in SA, which clearly refers to population distributions in what is clearly a joint probability distribution:
Overlapping distributions of Agreeableness for men and women. Vertical axis indicates density, or the proportion of the sample in a given area under the curve.
(* As an aside, there seems to be a bit of a problem with the copyright for the graph though Frontier article seems clear. I may have to contact the authors but any suggestions would be appreciated. *)
In any case, it is sort of common knowledge - like the statement, in one of the Wiki documents on citations, that Paris is the capital of France - that comparisons of various physiological and psychological traits are based on just those joint probability distributions; it undergirds the whole issue of sexual dimorphism, of being able to say which traits are more common among which sexes.
But more particularly, the article on femininity clearly indicates that "traits traditionally cited as feminine include gracefulness, gentleness, empathy, humility, and sensitivity" - and the "agreeableness" in the graph might reasonably qualify similarly. But the only reason that we can say that is because those traits are more likely to be found among females than among males. For example, notice in the attached graph that the average agreeableness for females is somewhat higher - think the SA text says about 0.4 of a standard deviation - than it is for males. And notice also that it is sex, not gender, that is one of the variables being compared - even if it is a discrete, and binary, variable.
Great deal of evidence that males and females differ not just in the type of gamete that each sex produces - the necessary & sufficient condition to qualify as such - but also in many psychological traits that contribute to what we define as gender. I think there's some utility and social value in the latter concept. But I think we have to be clear on how it is that we quantify those traits - and it seems clear that joint probability distributions is one of the better, and quite commonly used, tools to do so.
Not at all sure how to integrate such perspectives - and sources - into the Gender article, but it seems like it might be a useful discussion to have. --TillermanJimW (talk) 04:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure you are interpreting my messages as intended. My talk page is not available for a discussion regarding article content—use Talk:Gender. However, Talk:Gender has filled its quota of non-actionable lets-have-a-discussion forum-like debate. If you have a specific proposal (add certain text, remove certain text, change certain text), post on article talk with sources. If you do not have a specific proposal, you might re-read my above paragraph with "ask if anyone has suggestions". The situation is that Gender is a topic under discretionary sanctions. Such topics are often subject to prolonged and unfocused debates. That is disruptive. Administrators are supposed to stop disruption. If there is any ongoing disruption, I will stop it. Tools available are providing advice, topic bans and blocks. I think I have provided enough advice unless you have something new and specific to ask. Regarding secondary sources, I would have thought that a topic like gender would have a library full of scholarly works, allbeit some of which would be written by advocates. Scientific American and PubMed Central are wonderful but are not what I had in mind with "as if studying for a uni exam" and the latter is not anything like a secondary source. Johnuniq (talk) 05:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Bravefencer365

I'm the person behind the recent ANI thread regarding User:Bravefencer365, as he's continued his subtle vandalism since then. [1] [2] Loafiewa (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Most of their edits are good. Per WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU, it is possible that Bravefencer365 (talk · contribs) cannot see talk page notifications and that may be why they have not answered the question I left on their talk. I would block if the edits were clearly a problem. Consider your first diff above. That changed 22,500 psi to 22,000 psi. As far as I can see, that edit is good according to what the reference says so I won't take any action at the moment. Given that the ANI report is still open, it would be better to raise new issues there so that the points are more easily found if needed in the future. Johnuniq (talk) 03:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Asking why an edit needed to be hidden

Hi Johnuniq, I'm wondering why this edit of mine had to be removed from public view. Can you give me any more information about the alleged editing by this editor and why it can't be mentioned on-wiki, please? MPS1992 (talk) 04:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I replied at your talk. Johnuniq (talk) 04:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks buddy! Left you another question there about these people-that-cannot-be-named! Wow! MPS1992 (talk) 04:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Johnuniq, just noting for transparency that I've suppressed that edit. I'm not sure if you requested oversight as I've not looked at the email queue today ~TNT (she/they • talk) 11:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

MPS1992 (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked by Arbcom. Johnuniq (talk) 07:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Wow. Softlavender (talk) 09:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Re: Your comments on "Wi Spa Controversy" arbitration/enforcement case

Hi Johnuniq

I had a question re: you comment in the report at Boodlesthecat (and as an aside, to share my feeling that this report was filed by an article creator with WP:OWN issues simply as a form of harassment and to maintain control of an article which other editors have found to have POV issues.) You wrote: The lead at Wi Spa controversy currently has a completely gratuitous "(a.k.a. gender-critical feminists or TERFs)" and the argument seems to be about whether "TERF" is an insult or an objective term that can be applied without attribution. My recommendation would be to reword the article to focus more on the facts of the incident and keep third-party's opinions regarding the motivation of the participants for the body of the article.

My question--should the use of "TERF" be removed from the whole article? There are editors who consider it to be a slur, regardless of whether it's used by some online news sources, and that we shouldn't be using it as a description of particular people (the Wiki entry also acknowledges that some consider it a slur). There are other issues with the lead/body of the article, such as it promulgates a false, somewhat defamatory claim that there is some alliance between gender-critical (GC)feminists (the so-called "TERFs") and neo-fascist/Pround Boy, Capitol-storming types. The lead now as written (which the article creator refuses to correct, and has reverted attempts at correction) places these feminists as the leading force instigating the protests/violence at Wi Spa, when it's pretty universally understood that the primary cause was anti-trans protests organized by the right wing/neofascist types, as well as antifascist counterprotests organized in response, with GC folks mainly involved via chatter on fringe feminist websites. The violence (which is largely what made these protests notable) was basically between the fascists and the antifascists (and the typically out of control LAPD).

Thanks! BTC Boodlesthecat Meow? 20:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Boodlesthecat: Sorry but I'm not going to be drawn into the discussion any further than the advice I offered at WP:AE. You have to work within the constraints of how things are done here. It's a bit of a farce with people on both sides knowing full well that they are playing a game trying to out-wait their opponents. You have to be WP:CIVIL at all times, and base arguments on reliable sources, and do not offer strong opinions unless describing a conclusion from a reliable source. Showing emotion or a strong personal view is fatal because content has to be neutral and personal opinions work against that. Ultimately, whereas WP:NOTVOTE applies, in practical terms what happens at an article depends on the experienced editors participating, and how many of them fall on each side of an argument. Fighting against a majority of experienced editors is a waste of time and a path to a short wiki-career. A problem is that there is a tendency for topics like this to attract people with a strong view but who have learned how to play the game.
My comment at WP:AE was suggesting that Wi Spa controversy should start by outlining the facts—certain events occurred and certain protests resulted. After covering the value-free facts, there might be attributed opinions regarding the participants and whether they were TERFs or right-wing or whatever. That's how an article should be written but I will stay WP:UNINVOLVED. The official options are listed at dispute resolution. That boils down to patient discussion based on sources, requesting opinions using neutral statements at noticeboards, and possibly an RfC. Johnuniq (talk) 03:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply and suggestions. I'm finding this a bit frustrating and dismaying, since what I've done is attempt to provide some well sourced good faith edits in an attempt to bring some neutrality and order to a sloppy and clearly biased article. I guess I wasn't expecting to come up against the same obstinancy from editors who are "experienced" (ironic term, I've been editing and writing since long before they were born) whose main talent seems to be being adept at the "game-playing" you reference. identical to the gaming that I had to deal with years ago on WP when I was up against a cabal of antisemites who were injecting Jew hatred into multiple articles--a group that including admins who were discovered to be coordinating their actions (including seeking sanctions against their "enemies") in private chats. I barely a week I've come up against the same crap, complete with a gratuitous, underhanded attempt by the de facto article "owner" to get me sanctioned. I've attempted rational discussion on the talk page, but come up against filibustering game playing there too, along with passive-aggressive attacks that flip into victim-playing. Oh well. Cheers, Boodlesthecat Meow? 04:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) This is how Wikipedia works, on contentious topics. The only real solution is to create an WP:RFC on each item you really care about, and then accept the result(s). It's good to accept going in to any of these topics or articles that the ride is going to be bumpy and possibly/likely unfair, and to know what your best (or only) options are. Softlavender (talk) 05:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes thanks. Still dismaying and sad, but thanks. Boodlesthecat Meow? 05:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

2404:3C00:502F:4C80:2D67:A50D:3264:B91A / rangeblock

You performed a rangeblock earlier today of 2404:3C00:502F:4C80:0:0:0:0/64 giving the reason of talk page abuse. Not sure if you want to reset the rangeblock with talk page access revoked, but the edits of 2404:3C00:502F:4C80:2D67:A50D:3264:B91A (talk · contribs · WHOIS) show that talk page abuse is still ongoing. -- Longhair\talk 08:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I see they went wild on that IP talk page and it was deleted. I set it so they cannot edit their own talk. Johnuniq (talk) 10:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
I deleted the nonsense once, then let them go as they stopped shortly after and giving them little attention seemed to tire them out before somebody else eventually deleted it again. All good. Cheers. -- Longhair\talk 10:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

The Wachowskis

Hi, this is re: this discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase&oldid=1043842728#The_Wachowskis, and your reply at 03:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC). The established user (Redacted) is the transphobic troll. In these archived 4channel posts, you can read him drafting this edit: https://archive.4plebs.org/tv/thread/156142956/#156147265, https://archive.4plebs.org/tv/thread/156142956/#156146826 in consultation with other transphobes. Inanna K (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Inanna K: Wikipedia is a confusing place and I have redacted your above attack on another editor—we don't do that unless at a noticeboard such as WP:ANI and with on-wiki evidence (per Joe job, stuff on random websites may not be useful evidence). I believe the issue concerns The Wachowskis and this edit which concerns living people. What I said at the requests for protection page is correct—the protection policy does not help in a situation like that, particularly with an unanswered discussion started on article talk. The way to proceed is to briefly explain the situation at WP:BLPN without mentioning other editors. You can use the "this edit" link in this comment and ask whether it is suitable and whether MOS:DEADNAME applies. Johnuniq (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Help

Hello sir I really need your help, I am contributing in an edit in an article, but as I contribute it always gets deleted and the edit 100% correct I even add citation to it but he is still removing it I need your help I beg Alooypasha (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Alooypasha: I have looked at a couple of talk pages where you have commented. Your use of English indicates that your contributions would be more suitable at another Wikipedia that uses your language. I'm not motivated to investigate this at the moment although I see that 89.148.26.89 and Rayooni (talk · contribs) are blocked. You or M.Bitton might like to let me know with a ping from an article page if problems continue. I would need a brief explanation of a specific edit and why it is inappropriate. Johnuniq (talk) 07:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Charles Darwin

Hello Johnuniq, I'm Dinu1133, and I'm think that the page "Charles Darwin" and the contents under "Biography" should be changed. I think that it is a bit-contenty and so need some changes in order to recreate the page contents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinu1133 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Dinu1133: Please discuss issues regarding an article at its talk page: Talk:Charles Darwin. Johnuniq (talk) 05:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

RfC question

Hi there. A few years back you gave me some advice about writing an RfC. The proposed RfC was to be about magazine rankings being used in US city articles. I never found the right time to start the RfC, but another editor has recently started one at Talk:Chanhassen, Minnesota#Request for Comment - Should the 'Best Place to Live in the U.S.' rankings be included?. I wonder if I could as you a few questions about the RfC? It seems to be heading in the "no" direction, and I'd like to broaden the question to include all magazines that include these sorts of rankings. Do I wait for the RfC to close? Or do I make a proposal now to broaden the question? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 22:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: I would wait for that RfC to thoroughly close (that is, wait until a week after a close by an established editor after the 30 days has elapsed—don't apply WP:SNOW). Waiting would support the view that the issue was settled for that article. If wanted, a more general RfC could then be started with a mention of this RfC as an example. The RfC would need to be in a central location (not sure where, possibly a wikiproject) and be widely advertized. By the way, a recent edit at Chanhassen, Minnesota had summary "Why is this notable?". That is not ideal because opponents can seize on the term-of-art "notable" and point out that WP:N only applies to whether an article should exist—that policy says nothing about what content should be in an article. The correct word is significant as in WP:DUE. After WP:DUE, the next issue is whether the source is authoritative for the claim (is WP:RS satisfied?). Johnuniq (talk) 05:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I'll wait for the RfC to close, and depending on the outcome, will start another RfC. I'll run a draft by you then if it's ok. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 10:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Sure. Johnuniq (talk) 10:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi again. The RfC at Talk:Chanhassen, Minnesota#Request for Comment - Should the 'Best Place to Live in the U.S.' rankings be included? seemed to yield a consensus to NOT include magazine rankings in US city articles. Does this need any more discussion, or would I be safe in deleting magazine rankings from US city articles with the edit summary "per consensus"? Should I seek closure of the RfC, or is this necessary? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 11:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
@Magnolia677: I closed the Chanhassen RfC. You notified the wikiproject on 23 September 2021 so people had an opportunity to respond and the result was clear. My suggestion would be to start by editing ten articles with the edit summary linking to the RfC, then wait a week. Then do more (perhaps 50) and wait. And so on. If challenged, I'm afraid you might need another RfC perhaps at WT:WikiProject Cities asking the general question about whether such rankings should be included in US city articles. Johnuniq (talk) 23:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thank you again. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Correction

You're wrong, John. That's not my motivation at all. In fact, it's insulting dismissive of the work I have put in so far.

We now have reliable sources for the first use of the term relating to the Nazis immediately *after* the 1939 September Holocaust (in May 1940, I think it was without looking, the "hideous holocaust of 3,000,0000" in Germany), & before its use for humans (the refs say, 1942). It ties the highlest levels of society in England with the Nazi leadership, involves the military command & intelligence, & pretty much the entire adult population of London.

How can you say that has no relevance?

It's documenting the then contemporary use of the term & is every bit as valid at the references to the Armenian Holocaust. A 45 word reference out of 16,000 words.

Now, before you come back with WP:OR, I'm not present any such interpretations, just documenting the facts.

The study of animals in war is as valid a discipline as any other in the field, albeit far less studied. But it is growing. --Iyo-farm (talk) 00:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


The "consensus" your refer to were merely a handful of unsubstantiated kneejerks who found the reference "offensive" for reasons unstated, before I'd even put my case, & provided the references, which take time to research & compose.

I'd argue they are still unstated but appear, from your comments, to be motivated by anti-animals rights sentiments. I don't see the connection. --Iyo-farm (talk) 00:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher), @Iyo-farm: Your last statement just above is a violation of assumption of good faith; I can assure you that that is not the motivation of Johnuniq's comments. Trust me, you don't want to go there. As for the rest of your comment, please see my reply to you at User talk:Iyo-farm#Warning. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:15, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
To state that you think someone's accusation of my motivations - "kind of righting-great-wrongs-against-pets campaign" - is wrong, & then go to length to explain why, it not a failure of WP:AGF.
Please address the discussion on the talk page. And, for what it is worth, I personally have no interest in an "animal suffering in war" article, noting that what I am referring to was not that. I'm interested in the etymology & use of a word. Thanks. --Iyo-farm (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
We're at ANI now. I've lost patience entirely, but since I attempted to engage them, I'll leave sanctions to others. Acroterion (talk) 01:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Followup on ARE discussion

Hello Johnuniq. You may not recall, but you were in involved in an ARE discussion about Leechjoel9 (link here). As part of that discussion, which was started due to a dispute about how to best express the (very uncertain) population of Eritrea, you noted that "The demographics RfC is not sufficient to say what should be in the Eritrea infobox but I will repeat my concern regarding Leechjoel9: insisting on 6 million as the only figure in the infobox given the result of that RfC would be disruptive (sanctionable)." We were unable to reach a consensus on how the Eritrea infobox should state the population of Eritrea in a talkpage discussion, with Leechjoel9 objecting to using the same content as on the Demographics of Eritrea article. Eventually, I started an RfC on the topic (link here). The reason I'm pinging you is that, in the course of this RfC, Leechjoel9 recommended using only a single source and 6M estimate, saying "The preferred option is to put estimate around what the majority view (sources) supports, per undue weight WP:RSUW, which is ~6M. This option would have the MOI cited source of 5,8 Million (estimate) in the info box, and a text for the census, which would explain that Eritrea never conducted an official census." Given your previous comment, I thought I'd bring this to your attention. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@BubbaJoe123456: I see a bunch of edits at Eritrea but the RfC on the infobox only started a week ago so unless I'm missing something, I would be inclined to wait for the RfC to close and ignore one-off comments. Let me know if there are any problematic edits or bludgeoning regarding the issue (showing the population for Eritrea in its infobox). I left a warning and will follow-up if further problems occur. Johnuniq (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate it. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Yaduvanshi

Hii jhonuniq i will move or delete this Yaduvanshi page, because this page is not coming in google search, and then create new page with same name AlexaRiveralis (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@AlexaRiveralis: First, entering "Yaduvanshi" in Google shows Yaduvanshi near the top of the results so there does not seem to be a problem there. Second, we never create a new article that duplicates what another article with the same name was intended to cover. Instead, any problems with the existing article are fixed. Please edit the talk page of the article (Talk:Yaduvanshi) and explain what needs to be fixed. Johnuniq (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Help desk#Move page (permalink), I see that Yadu (legendary king) is part of this. Johnuniq (talk) 03:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2021

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

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

Miscellaneous

  • Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
  • The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Kombucha and disagreement with another editor

Hi, I am messaging an admin about this because I am not sure how to proceed with this problem. I am attempting to make an edit that I believe to be in accordance with reliable sourcing, verifiability, due weight, and neutral point of view, and I am willing to discuss my disagreement with the other editor. A short exchange through edit history notes has not been productive and I feel that I am being stonewalled.

  1. I made my edit: [3]
  2. I added to the talk page explaining my edit: [4]
  3. They reverted claiming "not in source" (which is not true): [5]
  4. I think they had reverted as a kneejerk reaction, so I restored my version with the note "Read the source before you assume a statement is unsourced": [6]
  5. They reverted noting that the content was duplicated in the section: [7]
  6. I took their advice and removed the duplicate content, along with restoring my edit: [8]
  7. I add to the talk page and state that now is the time to have a discussion: [9]
  8. They revert my edit with the comment "better before": [10]
  9. They comment "Fixed. Returned to good." in the talk page: [11]

The thing I want most here is to move along the consensus process, but I also suspect the editor is in need of guidance on WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:STONEWALLING, and they have reverted me three times with apparently no intent to discuss the edit, so I'm not sure if we need an AN/I report or a dispute resolution noticeboard post or what.

Thanks, MarshallKe (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@MarshallKe: I'm watching Kombucha and I think I've done some minor editing or reverting there in the past. I haven't paid attention to what has happened in recent times. There may be some miscommunication because searching the article for "kombucha is not considered" shows that the text you added is already in that section (worded slightly differently). Your text made a statement in wiki-voice that is probably not justified as an established fact. The existing text gives it as an attributed opinion/conclusion which I would think is more appropriate. Unfortunately articles like that have seen a fair bit of boosterism and people are probably tired of discussing it so you might not have received an optimum response. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Point taken on making a statement, but I have also received criticism for saying that a systematic review concluded something, so I'm damned if I do, damned if I don't. Regardless, I am going to move the consensus process forward towards making some edit. What process would you recommend? MarshallKe (talk) 05:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Scientists rarely conclude something despite a heading such as "conclusions". The current wording seems ideal; it says "A 2019 systematic review confirmed the numerous health risks, but said...". From your quote of the review on article talk, it starts by listing a bunch of potential problems, and then says "kombucha is not considered harmful...". The sense of that is much closer to the current wording than your wording. As I understand it, you want to start the section with "Kombucha is not considered harmful if...". I don't know if you're aware, but readers don't always study everything in a section and someone wondering about this product may well stop reading after an introduction like that, and their take-home message would be "it's good!". The review you quoted is much more guarded. I don't have an interest in the article at the moment and don't really want to offer more opinions. Re a way forward, all that is available is WP:DR. I don't think you would get much response from a noticeboard so I guess that leaves an RfC. Johnuniq (talk) 06:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

My reply at ANI

I was using a bit of humor to highlight your point, rather than disagreeing with you. Hope that clears things up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: My apologies! I have a confession. I only had a very short time before needing to go somewhere and I wrote that message while thinking that you were the OP. Ouch. Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Maybe we should move you from just plain WP:Editors who may be confused to WP:Editors who may be confused#Editor who may be very confused. EEng 06:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
OMG, as soon as I find out who put my name there I'm taking them to ANI! Johnuniq (talk) 06:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Well, we could move you to WP:Editors who may be confused#Editors who don't want to be listed on this page. EEng 06:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
No worries. Happens to the best of us. The split attention, text only nature of discussion can lead to confusion like that pretty easily. Also, I should have checked if you were listed at WP:Editors who may be confused, so that's on me. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Racism talk page

Hi, Johnuniq, thanks for intervening to stop a discussion that had deteriorated into invective, mostly coming from one editor. I'm confused about the template you used. The message at the bottom says that "Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page." It's unclear to me what discussion page this refers to. Would it be allowed for me to open a new section on the article's talk page, proposing again that the phrase "physical appearance" in the article's lead sentence should be changed? If that is not appropriate, what other page would be the appropriate place to discuss the issue? Thanks in advance for your attention. Eleuther (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Eleuther: I used {{atop}} mainly because I have forgotten what the "collapse" template that is often used on article talk pages is (WP:COLLAPSE is about MOS). I can't say that I have studied the text at the bottom. I guess it is generic advice, for example, that an issue regarding an editor might be initially discussed at their talk followed by WP:ANI if necessary, or WP:DRN for a dispute where mentoring might be useful. By all means start a new section. It would be preferable to focus on a specific proposal: should certain text be added because a specific source says xyz, or should certain text be removed/changed because a specific source says abc. It's fine to ask a more general question to gather opinions but what was wrong with the discussion I closed is that when it is clear there is no agreement, it is pointless to continue bickering without a specific proposal and source. Johnuniq (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks much. I will proceed with a new section, using the most neutral language I can think of. Thanks, Eleuther (talk) 22:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

RE: Purpose of Wikipedia

OK Darylprasad (talk) 11:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, but you may need to re-add a comment at AN/I

Through some strange glitch, I appear to have made a very fucked-up edit on AN/I which erased tons of comments and sections at random; this edit, which you made right after mine, was reverted (that's the only way I could think to fix it before it got even more messed up). I offer my apologies! jp×g 04:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@JPxG: No problem, I have seen edits at ANI go crazy due to the frenetic activity. I restored my comment. Johnuniq (talk) 05:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Sudra kingdom

Hii sir, this page Actual name Sura kingdom but editor forcefully moved Sudra Kingdom again again idk why please look at this page विक्रम सिंह बनाफर (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I asked about the title at Talk:Sudra Kingdom#Article name and that is where discussion should occur. What is needed is patience and a willingness to engage with any issues raised. The situation will be resolved based on what reliable sources say. Johnuniq (talk) 02:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

includeonly?

Sorry, I'm still learning. I'm sure you have better things to do but if you can spare a moment to show me where to put the includeonly, I'd be most grateful. I have read WP:INCLUDEONLY but it is not at all obvious how to apply it within an expression. The template is already in use so I don't want to mess it up:

This is what I have atm:

{{{1}}}U ({{ #expr: {{{1}}}*1.75round2}} inches, {{ #expr: {{{1}}}*4.445round1}} cm)<noinclude>{{documentation}}</noinclude>

--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind but I removed some of your above comment to reduce the confusion on this talk page. The idea is that {{rackunit}} would have
<includeonly>Template wikitext</includeonly><noinclude>{{documentation}}</noinclude>
That means Template wikitext is only evaluated when the template is included (transcluded) in a page, so it does not show syntax errors on the template page. Johnuniq (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Not at all. I knew it was wrong (and the effect was ugly). I can also see my silly blind spot now (you don't want to know [or, more precisely, I don't want you to know, too silly]). I have updated the template accordingly and the red flags have gone. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2021

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

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Can I email you some diffs?

I believe I have recent diffs of bad article content from one GS account. But because the statements I left at AN/I yesterday seem to be weak sauce, I'm thinking it might be best not to go straight back there and post more in public. Geogene (talk) 05:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Geogene: Thanks for the offer but no, I don't want to start a private investigation unless there is an extraordinary issue such as a WP:CHILD problem. This concerns the long discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Havana syndrome and guerilla skeptics where people have expressed concern about possible COI problems from a group referred to as "Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia" (GSoW). I asserted that the discussion was pointless without clear examples of problems in articles. If there is some reason to avoid giving public diffs, surely it would be possible to give a permalink to how an article was and state what was wrong with the article at that time. By "wrong", I mean bad enough to justify a very long section at ANI, not just temporarily misguided or poorly sourced. Johnuniq (talk) 05:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Okay. But let it be known that the only reason I suggested emailing you is because of the chilling effect from you and Cullen. I'll file these away for later then. Geogene (talk) 06:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
"chilling effect"? For the record, the current ANI discussion is at permalink where I have made four comments. The diffs and comments are:
  • 02:31, 4 November 2021 • Can someone point me to an actual problem as opposed to a potential problem? There is a page of "research" at User:A. C. Santacruz/Research/GSoW by A. C. Santacruz but I don't see anything there that warrants alarm other than the use of Wikipedia to construct a list of bad people.
  • 04:32, 4 November 2021 • I want something much simpler. Is there an article which has had bad content in the last month and where any of the potentially problematic editors have contributed to the problems?
  • 06:40, 4 November 2021 • We don't normally debate what is inside people's heads—we don't know if it was a joke or an actionable threat. The important point for Wikipedia is whether anything actually happened. Apparently nothing has happened apart from moral outrage. It's up to the accusers to produce an example of bad content.
  • 04:23, 5 November 2021 • That's why standard procedure is to focus on problems regarding article content rather than hypotheticals (what if this group did something bad). I asked for examples of related bad content but haven't seen any. This entire discussion is pointless unless some examples can be produced.
Johnuniq (talk) 08:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
In case you would like to participate, followup seems to be resuming at WP:COIN, —PaleoNeonate – 22:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that but haven't been able to think of a contribution that wouldn't just prolong the pointless discussion. I might try again. Johnuniq (talk) 01:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

IP back at it

Hi Johnuniq. A new IP just made a edit where he changed the group of a Kurdish person to that of a Feyli [12]. He is in the exact same location as the previous IP who made the exact same type of disruptive edits [13]. This can't be a coincidence. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I left a warning at User talk:90.129.217.226. They probably won't see it but as they only have one edit, that's all that can be done at the moment. Johnuniq (talk) 22:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Problematic IP edits

The new IP editor Special:Contributions/31.200.158.217 appears to be targeting my contributions in the WP:ARBGWE topic area. They've reverted many of my recent changes, such as [14], [15], [16], and so on. The edits are mostly whitewashing of the German armed forces and the SS during the war. Here they claim to have forgotten their login: [17], but the nature of their edits suggests that they purpose of the IP being here is to troll my edits. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I warned them at User talk:31.200.158.217 and will have a look later. Let me know if I miss anything. A very quick skim of WP:ARBGWE (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort) shows mentions of discretionary sanctions but I don't see anything at Template:Ds/alert. That's not important at the moment but I should learn more... Johnuniq (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Sorry my message was unclear. There are indeed no discretionary sanctions under ARBGWE; I meant to indicate the topic area (Nazi Germany in WWII) where the IP was reverting my contributions. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
No problem. I might read WP:ARBGWE more slowly later. Johnuniq (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
As noted above WP:ARBGWE does not provide any discretionary sanctions. But WP:ARBEE is broad enough to apply to the actions of the German Army during World War II. This arb case is widely used, as you can see by the list of sanctions in WP:Arbitration enforcement log/2021#Eastern Europe. Using the EE sanctions to constrain an IP editor might be overkill, but the idea could be kept in mind for the future if registered accounts show the same behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! Johnuniq (talk) 06:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

November songs

The memory of SlimVirgin is pictured again today, in the context of my dangerous thoughts about arbcom. I mentioned you here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Genesis Park

Why did you revert my edit to Pterosaur? God did create Earth, Earth is only 6,000 years old, and humans did live alongside Pterosaurs. Please look at the site Genesis Park, so you'll believe in God too. 166.216.158.93 (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Deicas AN closure

Saw your comment after I closed the section on AN. Edit conflict occurred. If you want or oppose the block, I'm willing to undo the close. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Sorry, I know last-minute comments can cause trouble. Thanks for your close which I fully endorse. Johnuniq (talk) 05:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Roger that! And for even offering Deicas a chance to respond you deserve an award for patience. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Succcculent block settings

Hi, idly curious what brought on the change to block settings for [[User::Succcculent]]. Agree they're probably a troll but can't spot what they did after the initial block that caused TPA and email removal. Just wondering what I'm missing. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to be obscure—the obscurity was my desire to not feed the user per WP:DENY. The first of their seven edits was to post 1,245 copies of {{Whale}} at the Teahouse. Their second was to attack the user who warned them about the first edit. I'm possibly too jaded but after that, their final comment (with "that's not fair to assume that I will be unconstructive") makes me think the aim is to waste people's time by pulling the AGF card and watching us squirm. If you think I'm over-reaching, by all means say so and I'll adjust the block to enable email and talk. Johnuniq (talk) 08:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Sent you an email, but essentially just asking in case I'd missed signs of sockpuppetry or LTA. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Replied. Johnuniq (talk) 09:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thank you for the block of that vandal on my userpage. It means a lot. --InternetScavenger89 17:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2021

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

Administrator changes

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration


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

Request for administrative assistance

Dear John,

I will start by saying that I do not wish anything I write down here to be copy-pasted, condensed and/or rephrased for article talk pages. That has unfortunately been happening.

I made one edit to Ian Hislop on 1 December. User:Mervyn, registered in 2003, later re-added the category Category:Alumni of Magdalen College, Oxford[18] with the edit-summary re-add univ educ - standard to show this.

I requested advice from you by gmail. Beyond suggesting I request help on User talk:BrownHairedGirl for questions related to categories, I have done nothing. With BHG I briefly chatted about categories in a tl;dr section entitled "Extended content on writers, broadcasters and comedians from Britain and Ireland". I then wrote a little about Magdalen College, Oscar Wilde and Ian Hislop. BHG responded and in one sentence I thanked her for her explanation. My request was as follows:

Dear BHG, I have a question about Ian Hislop and the categories that apply to his BLP.
Extended content on writers, broadcasters and comedians in Britain and Ireland

For satirists, comedians or broadcasters of a certain age, often grammar/public/state school and university are added as a category. Sometimes also religion. That applies to Richard Ingrams, Eleanor Bron, Paul Merton, Sandi Toksvig, Peter Cook, etc. Also Evelyn Waugh and Auberon Waugh. For the broadcaster Clive Myrie only his university appears as a category; "English people of Jamaican descent" appears. For the Irish comedian and broadcaster Dara Ó Briain, the categories Category:People educated at Coláiste Eoin, Category:Alumni of University College Dublin, Category:Former Roman Catholics and Category:Irish former Christians have been added. For Terry Wogan, the categories Category:Irish atheists, Category:Former Roman Catholics, Category:People educated at Belvedere College and Category:People educated at Crescent College. For Graham Norton, the relevant categories are Category:Alumni of the Royal Central School of Speech and Drama, Category:Alumni of University College Cork, Category:People associated with University College Cork, Category:People educated at Bandon Grammar School and Category:Irish Anglicans. Ian Hislop is extremely well known in Britain and the Island of Ireland: he spent his formative years as a head boy at a public school and at Magdalen College, Oxford; later his Anglican religion, both in writing and broadcasting, is mentioned in the article. Very recently, without any type of explanation, education and religion were removed.[19] Because of his notability as main editor of Private Eye, writer and broadcaster, I have re-introduced 3 categories, streamlining place of birth (Mumbles, Swansea) and abode (Sissinghurst), and re-adding Category:People educated at Ardingly College and Category:Alumni of Magdalen College, Oxford, as well as Category:Anglican writers. [20] These changes were reverted[21]. No general justification was given for these repeated deletions on Talk:Ian Hislop. It doesn't seem like gnoming; nor does it chime with any consistent wikipedia policy or guidelines.

Johnuniq mentioned in private that you were an expert on sorting out categories. Arguing about "categories" can be time-wasting; where sourced articles such as BLPs provide reliable information that is not WP:UNDUE, wikipedia editors over the years have communally worked out consensus for obvious and uncontroversial categories. How would you deal with these recent deletions on Ian Hislop with no discussion on Talk:Ian Hislop? For Magdalen College, Cambridge, Hislop is listed as "famous alumni" (reading English).[22][23] Oscar Wilde is also in that list; but the categories for him are much longer—unsurprising given his extraordinary legacy. The current culling of categories for Hislop thwarts the educational purpose of this encyclopedia. What do you think? Mathsci (talk) 07:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

For Talk:Ian Hislop, the content above and BHG's reply were completely cut. Here is the original material on User talk:Mathsci

Extended content from User talk:Mathsci

Not stalking my edits and not talking behind my back? If you disagree about my clean-up, you're free to object to it (if there are valid reasons: reading index term, WP:DEFCAT and WP:NONDEF might help see where I'm coming from), ideally without deliberately ({{noping}}!!) not including me in the discussion? Cheers (if somewhat less jovial than usual), RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be good if you could discuss this here directly with User:Johnuniq. I don't make that many edits. Dealing with George Frederic Handel and the slave trade was the only non-trivial thing to fix. In that case, controversial content on the Royal African Society had to be summarised without unbalancing the article. As a useful guide, other wikipedians had already worked out how to fix that for Samuel Pepys.
I noticed the deletion of good faith content about Christoph Graupner: Gerda Arendt had already discussed Rnklupptaylor's proposed content elsewhere but not directly to me. Content about Graupner and Jesu meine Freude has not been deleted. OTOH it's certainly worth noting that Florian Heyerick [nl] is a world expert on Graupner's music. In 2012 he contributed on wikipedia [en, de, nl] as User:Floxoip, particularly this astonishing edit.
The current discussion of categories seem to be an example of WP:REICH, focusing on Albert Einstein and Johann Sebastian Bach. Categories are decided cumulatively by multiple editors over a long time period by consensus/discussion. An administrator noticed the deletion of categories for Einstein. User:ZH8000 was one of the editors who also noticed that for both articles. I watchlist William Shockley.
For British satirists and comedians—Ian Hislop, Richard Ingrams, Eleanor Bron, Peter Cook, David Frost, John Cleese, Michael Palin—education almost always appears as a category where it is known. It's true of the Aussie Barry Humphries. It's true of Paul Merton, Caroline Quentin, Sandy Toksvig, Alan Davies, etc. Mathsci (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Dealing with George Frederic Handel and the slave trade was the only non-trivial thing to fix. I don't see why you're bringing this up. Händel has nothing to do with this (I have not even edited that page recently...). You're good at deflection. Anyway.
I noticed the deletion of good faith content about Christoph Graupner. Weren't you the one who complained that Graupner might be UNDUE (and on top of that, it was based on primary sources, which is a major issue, no matter the good-faith nature of it)? Again, not the issue here.
The current discussion of categories seem to be an example of WP:REICH. Beyond being an unwelcome insinuation, your comment seems somewhat lacking in other aspects, too. Categories are rarely 'decided'. Most often, someone just comes along and adds one, and there's very little discussion (especially since categories are usually not something worth having a fuss about, unless there's excessively many, like, for ex., Einstein (85 categories!!! really?). And admins don't have super-powers (WP:NOBIGDEAL), so that's also irrelevant. Again, it would be best if you could actually respond to my arguments (you of all people seem like someone who would've surely done academic research at some point? you know about keywords, right? if you're looking for something about, I dunno, Bach, you're not really interested in a book about Mozart which happens to mention Bach on one page about the anecdote of Mozart hearing Bach's motets, are you?)
Education almost always appears as a category where it is known. Argumentum ad populum non mihi persuadet. Long-standing pages (or categories) being deleted is not unheard of, and this might be a case where this option needs to be exercised. I'm not feeling inclined to keep quoting WP:NONDEF, but it's clear that if you're looking for keywords to describe Ian Hislop (or any of the other examples), "alumni of X college" is not one (see also the Caravaggio example of the guideline, or the thought experiment I propose on Einstein's talk page [what are the first few words that come to mind when thinking of/which would best summarise X?]) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
*You've written "you of all people seem like someone who would've surely done academic research at come point?" I've temporarily logged into mathscinet (131.111.184.3) and, yes, it does seem to be true. On my main gmail account—not the wiki gmail account one you've used—I am frequently asked on Academia.edu whether papers I wrote are by me.
*For Handel, I created some detailed articles including Organ concertos, Op. 4 (Handel). My editing related to Handel & the Atlantic slave trade is a serious matter. All over Britain re-evaluations are being made (the cockerel in Jesus College, Cambridge is one example). I wrote content about the Harp concerto HWV 294, in Alexander's Feast, premiered by a Welsh harpist. Cleopatra's seduction aria V'adoro from Giulio Cesare depicts the nine muses with a ravishing obligato part for baroque harp. The organ concertos were performed on a single manual chamber organ without pedal. An example can be found in St George's, Hanover Square next to the Handel House in Brook Street. Good for cake and/or ale.
*Ian Hislop is regularly on the telly (eg documentaries about the two princes). Richard Ingrams still has some attachment to Private Eye: his categories remain intact. I also checked David Conway—same college as Nicholas Wade.
*In principle Lilypond coding is not hard. BWV 39 was tricky, adding all the texts, balancing five different lines. The closing chorale of BWV 39 involved a positive organ.
*In the past I have attended general lectures about Einstein's legacy.
*For Graupner, the only relevant comment is about Florian Heyerick and his global wikipedia contributions as Floxoip. He is well-known as a scholar, performer and conductor. I've listened to some of his Graupner cantatas on spotify.
Mathsci (talk) 13:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Much of your comment is still off-topic to the reason why I'm here. you of all people seem like someone who would've surely done academic research at come point? - you've missed the second (and more substantive) part of this mostly rhetorical question... For Graupner, the only relevant comment [...] - what does someone who last edited here in August last year have to do with the recent edits (from a few days ago), which were problematic the addition of content based on primary sources? Ian Hislop: was my previous comment too long? is that why you missed (or at least, do not appear to have responded to) the most important part of it. Other pages being similarly wrong is not a reason to copy them. i.e. two wrongs don't make a right, or, as I was saying, argumentum ad populum non mihi persuadet RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Below, for Talk:Ian Hislop, a condensed version was created, freely adapted from my diffs without my permission. This gives a misleading impression of my own edits, with major omissions and changes in formatting:

Bowdlerised version

If you disagree about my clean-up, you're free to object to it (if there are valid reasons: reading index term, WP:DEFCAT and WP:NONDEF might help see where I'm coming from), ideally without deliberately ({{noping}}!!) not including me in the discussion? Cheers (if somewhat less jovial than usual), RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

For British satirists and comedians—Ian Hislop, Richard Ingrams, Eleanor Bron, Peter Cook, David Frost, John Cleese, Michael Palin—education almost always appears as a category where it is known. It's true of the Aussie Barry Humphries. It's true of Paul Merton, Caroline Quentin, Sandy Toksvig, Alan Davies, etc. Mathsci (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Education almost always appears as a category where it is known. Argumentum ad populum non mihi persuadet. Long-standing pages (or categories) being deleted is not unheard of, and this might be a case where this option needs to be exercised. I'm not feeling inclined to keep quoting WP:NONDEF, but it's clear that if you're looking for keywords to describe Ian Hislop (or any of the other examples), "alumni of X college" is not one (see also the Caravaggio example of the guideline, or the thought experiment I propose on Einstein's talk page [what are the first few words that come to mind when thinking of/which would best summarise X?]) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Ian Hislop is regularly on the telly (eg documentaries about the two princes). Richard Ingrams still has some attachment to Private Eye: his categories remain intact. I also checked David Conway—same college as Nicholas Wade. Mathsci (talk) 13:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Ian Hislop: was my previous comment too long? is that why you missed (or at least, do not appear to have responded to) the most important part of it. Other pages being similarly wrong is not a reason to copy them. i.e. two wrongs don't make a right, or, as I was saying, argumentum ad populum non mihi persuadet RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The two passages are completely different, even the font size <small>, </small>. The original diffs of mine and the pseudo-diffs bear no resemblance. I have only made one minor edit to Ian Hislop. But on my talk page, on BHG's talk page and on Talk:Ian Hislop, the "condensed" pseudo-diffs were misrepresented, completely out of context. In addition, my statement on BHG's talk page was omitted (see above). In the circumstances, the hatchet job on Talk:Ian Hislop is better off being replaced by something with no reference at all to me. At the moment, it seems I am being singled out. One anodyne and neutral edit to a BLP seems to have been blown out of all proportion. What do you think?

There have also been a long series of edits to BHG's talk page, in which I did not participate. BHG had already explained that, according to WP:BRD, the status quo should be maintained to allow discussions. There were grumblings about forum-shopping. Multiple alphabet-soup criticism was presented

The discussion of the article page was compromised by 3 edits, as explained above.[24][25][26] Some form of RfC would have been preferable, neutrally phrased and succinct. From the point of categories, e.g. Category:Alumni of Magdalen College, Oxford, a one-line neutral and unambiguous question in plain English would suffice. The edit-warring on the article raises other issues. Mathsci (talk) 01:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Mathsci: Would you mind not admin-shopping so blatantly? If you don't like that I only quoted the relevant portions of the discussions (the bits about Graupner, or your long digression about Händel, are not relevant to the Hislop page), would you also mind telling me directly?
And mild detail, re. "I do not wish anything I write down here to be copy-pasted, condensed and/or rephrased for article talk pages": If you contribute text directly to Wikipedia, you thereby license it to the public for reuse under CC BY-SA and GFDL (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).. I have abided by the terms of that; and did not alter the text of your comments (which were helpfully separated into paragraphs). If you wish to put the whole comments on the talk page, you may do so, but as most of them don't deal with the Hislop page, that would be a disservice to others trying to join in on this discussion.
Final: FWIW, since I'm ostensibly being accused of giving a misleading impression (I'll reserve comments on the opposite, since this is not supposed to be a battleground and we all have smarter things to do), the "bowdlerised version" is contained in between a {{ctop}} and {{cbot}}, with the following comment in the header of the first one: "For context: extracts from previous discussion - moved from User talk:Mathsci, where the full comments [which deal with other matters too] may be found."... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Glenn Jacobs talk page

Hello! Sorry to clutter your talk page, but I wanted to bring this to your attention; an IP address that you warned for edit warring, edited a new section on Glenn Jacobs talk page, here [27]. I didn't want to remove it myself, and wasn't sure how to report it, so I figured I'd turn to you for help since you're an admin. Let me know if there's a better way for me to handle it, just wanted to make sure it got noticed. Thanks!! Spf121188 (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Spf121188: Thanks for reporting. I removed the nonsense and warned the IP at User talk:86.152.210.110. Let me know if problems continue. I had a very quick look at the article and cannot see what the IPs are complaining about. If the article makes a claim of "retired", and if there are further comments on that question (civil comments), you might add a brief explanation about why the article is the way it is. That helps people like me. Johnuniq (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
yeah I saw nothing in the article that would provoke that kind of comment. I know some users get very offended by minor instances on WP, but I wasn’t sure how to address the nonsense in this case, I just wanted to make sure an experienced admin had eyes on it, since I’m still relatively new. Thank you for your response, I do greatly appreciate it! Spf121188 (talk) 02:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Block of IP vandal

Hi. It seems you placed a "blocked" template on the talk page of 2603:6080:EA40:7D9:611A:7DAF:F32E:C19E (talk · contribs · WHOIS) but did not block them. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's stale TornadoLGS (talk) 03:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Ouch, I'm afraid that sometimes happens. Johnuniq (talk) 03:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Io, Saturnalia!

Io, Saturnalia!
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Happy Holidays all! Johnuniq (talk) 23:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to help

Thankyou for trying to help. That is all I really can say for now. I had no idea what I was getting into with these edits. I thought I was being careful but clearly rushed those edits. I had no idea they involved religious figures because I was narrowly focused on altering the style of referencing the name and adding the birth and death years in parentheses. Thankyou for your help, even if it seems not to have really worked.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Well at least the sock who opened the ANI report has been indeffed. Johnuniq (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
This whole thing has gone off the deep end. I have now proposed a block on my editing through the end of 2021 by UTC. It is so frustrating to tell the absolute truth about why I did what I did, and have people use it as an opening to say very unkind things about me. In 2 cases I was focused on the name issue, as it says in the Wikipedia biography Manual of Style, one should put William Henry Gates in the full name reference not William Henry "Bill" Gates. I see now I rushed it too much, and am very, very sorry about that. The second case involved the article using the form of the name without only an initial, there was no reason to again state after giving his name that he used that form. Both of these were edits focused solely on the name and based on the nature of the name giving. I was not trying to evade or go around any topic ban, I was just so focused on fixing that one thing that I did not look anywhere else. On the third edit I was adding the birth and death years. These were from the categories. I may have also glanced at the article to verify they were in the body of the article. The lead of the article and the categories only identified the person as a politician, and I unwisely did not even think that it was possible that his career outside of politics might cause him to fall under the topic ban. These were 3 edits done with no intent to violate the topic ban. I am just hoping that my proposal of a specific length of blocking editing will work. I deliberately chose a length longer than the intended length of the last block. I really want to fix this, and I in no way was trying to evade the topic ban.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Maddie Ziegler

The entry for Maddie Ziegler has been getting a lot of IP vandalism and unconstructive editing. Can you semi-protect it for a couple of months? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:32, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

For the current level of problems, I think one month is all I can manage, done. Johnuniq (talk) 06:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, and best wishes for a happy, healthy and successful 2022! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

AN notification

AN. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Merchandise giveaway nomination

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

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

Huh, as if admins would ever accept bribes! Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Johnuniq/Archive_30&oldid=1063068004"