Jump to content

User talk:JzG/Archive 182

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 175←Archive 180Archive 181Archive 182Archive 183Archive 184Archive 185

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020

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

Guideline and policy news

  • There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.

Miscellaneous

  • The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Page protection

JzG, I just noticed this pair of edits from you: [1] [2] First you undid the other IP's edit, and then you locked the page so that IP users can no longer edit it at all. Aside from reverting the other IP, you also have been an important participant in the debate on that page more generally: [3] [4] [5] [6] For you to lock the page in this context seems like a violation of WP:INVOLVED, so could you please undo this action?

There was a recent discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Race_and_intelligence about whether to take the same action on the talk page of the race and intelligence article, and consensus was against doing so, so that's another reason you should not have undertaken such an action single-handedly in this context. @El C: @Guerillero: @Barkeep49: all of you were part of the AE decision that declined to take this action, so I would like your opinions here. 2600:1004:B124:9C00:D53:5F20:89F6:DB73 (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I could just rangeblock if you prefer? I'm easy. Guy (help!) 17:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
In the arbitration enforcement report, Sirfurboy argued that the 2600:1012 IP is a sockpuppet of Sprayitchyo. (Note that as pointed out by Sirfurboy, that IP is a separate user from me, with a different IP range.) I know nothing about Sprayitchyo so I can't say whether Sirfurboy's suspicion is likely or not, but if you suspect the same thing you should start a sockpuppet investigation. You shouldn't either block the IP or lock the page while in a dispute with that user.
To be clear, are you declining to undo this action? 2600:1004:B124:9C00:D53:5F20:89F6:DB73 (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Irrelevant. This was a generic action for edit warring by an IP. But I can rangeblock if you'd prefer? Just let me know. Guy (help!) 17:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
[T]hat IP is a separate user from me — IP, please just register an account. This has become too confusing. Enough is enough. El_C 17:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I've already tried once. But Wikipedia immediately logs me out as soon as I leave the login page, apparently because cookies are required to track logins beyond that page. 2600:1004:B124:9C00:D53:5F20:89F6:DB73 (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
You should have the option to allow for Wikipedia cookie as an exception. El_C 17:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
sure, but no third party cookies should be required, so just allow WMF ones maybe? Guy (help!) 17:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
No, I can't allow cookies at all. I accept that this means there are certain pages I won't be able to edit, although I still think the protection was done inappropriately in this case.
Do either of you object if I make a request for unprotection at this noticeboard? [7] 2600:1004:B124:9C00:D53:5F20:89F6:DB73 (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Not that it's any of my business really, but I don't understand: how are you able to read online journals if your device won't allow cookies at all? How do you log into any website like JSTOR or Gale or PubMed or anything? Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
When I'm on the device that I'm currently using, I generally get journal papers through Sci-Hub. I also sometimes have normal access to journals with other computers, but I can't use those to edit Wikipedia. 2600:1004:B124:9C00:D53:5F20:89F6:DB73 (talk) 18:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
IP, I wouldn't bother. If you really wish to edit the article, you're just going to have to log-in for every edit. If that's what it takes, that's what it takes. El_C 18:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
The issue is edit-warring by another IP. That's disruptive. Guy (help!) 23:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

This has reached the point of abject stupidity. I agree with Guy and El_C, get an account. If you can't use cookies with your current setup find a new browser from the last decade or find a new hobby. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm an IP user and came to the page to add some comments only to find it protected. Sirfurboy identified me as a non-SPA (true) in the posting he linked above. I don't mind waiting until the protection elapses April 1, but there is a possibility the RfC (which is currently a train wreck of confusion that needs clarification of several important points) will be closed by then. If you or the other editors/admins reading this can keep the discussion open I would appreciate it and I suspect other good faith IPs will also contribute when page is unprotected. Also, there should be a separate section to which all the "SPA or not" analysis going on at the page can be migrated --- it is long, off topic and very distracting as the walls of text are interspersed with other comments that do pertain to the RfC. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 04:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem arises when confusion between IPs results in difficulties distinguishing individual editors. I think it is within the purview of the DS to force a solution to mitigate that problematic. El_C 18:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Sure. But I'm referring to the duration of RfC, not the protection itself. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. Anyway, I wouldn't worry about it. The RfC is only half way through its ~30-day duration, so I think you're good. El_C 05:02, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Did not know the default is 30 days. There is some discussion of the meta-RfC issues (what I called a "train wreck" above) at my user page in case anyone here is interested. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Criswell.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Criswell.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Mistake in notification

Hello. I would like to note that the wrong notification was sent out to you. The notification says you are listed as a party, however, this is not the case. Apologies for any confusion caused. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 21:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Your multiple reverts at Climate Feedback

​This edit summary is more personal than content-focused, [8] which is inappropriate behavior as I understand. As for renaming/moving the article to Science Feedback, that seems fine, because there aren't enough sources to support more than one article. Please move it. Also note including IFCN assessments was brought up on the talk page in January 2020, and there have been no comments.[9] Lastly, given the overwhelming support for IFCN as a generally reliable source, completely deleting all their criticism, while leaving all their (Poynter aka owner of IFCN) "praises" is obviously non-NPOV. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Yae4, you have a very clear agenda with respect to Judith Curry, and earlier today you removed content form one article that was not about the article's subject, then you crowbarred in a load of negative content about an associated but different website into the article on Climate Feedback, against which the Curry faction have a strongly expressed beef. Your actions are inconsistent and the inconsistency appears to be driven by your obvious agenda. Guy (help!) 21:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Yae4, I'm responding to the ping. While the IFCN is a reliable source, the due weight policy requires editors to represent content from reliable sources in a proportional manner. The text in Special:Diff/948724289 § Annual International Fact-Checking Network reviews only mentioned the "Partially compliant" portions of the 2017, 2018, and 2019 assessments of Science Feedback while ignoring the "Fully compliant" sections. The article as a whole (in revision Special:Diff/948724289) also dedicated about 40% of the text to just the IFCN's feedback on Science/Health Feedback (some of which is not directly related to Climate Feedback), when there were other aspects of Climate Feedback that lacked such detail. The IFCN's assessments were under a "Criticism" section heading although the IFCN certified Science Feedback. WP:NFCCEG and MOS:QUOTE cautions against quoting excessively; long block quotations are usually not used unless absolutely necessary for a claim that cannot be paraphrased. Some of the content in Special:Diff/948724289 may be warranted in new articles on Science/Health Feedback, but any content must be appropriately balanced for neutrality, including due weight. — Newslinger talk 22:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger, and this might be relevant in an article on Science Feedback but less so on Climate Feedback because those criticisms don't appear to apply to Climate Feedback content either specifically or, if I read it correctly, at all. WP:SPLIT time? Guy (help!) 23:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the content would be relevant for Science Feedback but not Climate Feedback. However, I haven't found enough coverage to establish the notability of Science Feedback independently of Climate Feedback. I see a lot of brief mentions in news articles (mostly in the context of an abortion fact check on Facebook), but don't think this is enough to meet the significant coverage requirement in WP:GNG. — Newslinger talk 23:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Newslinger, Maybe Yae4 can help with this? He seems motivated. Guy (help!) 00:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
​Yae4 has already helped with this, as seen if you actually go back and review the article's relatively short edit history. About third or so of this recent, large deletion by JzG aka Guy (regarding Health Feedback taking the place of Health Review .org) was originally added by Yae4[10] and was favorable towards Science/Health/Climate Feedback. And now that I've reviewed even more, should we be concerned that Emvincent's User name bears a striking resemblance to Emmanuel Vincent, the founder of the subject of this article, and their edit history looks like a SPA?[11] Uh oh... -- Yae4 (talk) 01:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
​@JzG: Re this comment. You're simply mistaken regarding my recent edit history (before your comment). I have no idea what you're talking about regarding factions and agendas, but it sounds like a battleground attitude. If you could point to any particular criticism of my edits, that could be helpful, as I've just demonstrated (see edit history summaries) I will apply lessons learned. Otherwise, I'm asking you to stop with the vague personal attacks. -- Yae4 (talk) 10:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Yae4, of course, who could give a more objective assessment of how your edits appear to an outsider than you yourself? Guy (help!) 10:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Yae4 (talk) 00:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Questionable academic sources

Hi Guy - I've noticed in the past that you have some experience/interest in identifying dubious sources dressed up to look like academic journals. I'm looking at a new article which obviously has a load of problems with it, but there are some sources which, at least, are trying to present themselves as reliable scholarship. It's not an area I have any subject-matter expertise in, but the websites look very ropey and I find it very hard to believe that these are creditable journals; on the other hand, perhaps I'm displaying a degree of bias here, and these are actually decent Indian publications. I thought I'd ask whether you'd be willing to offer a second opinion before I go to RSN. The sources I'm questioning are the following:

  • "International Journal of Research in Social Sciences" - specific paper here, main site here.
  • "Historicity Research Journal" - specific paper here, main site here.
  • This 'conference paper'.
  • This PhD thesis.

Any thoughts would be welcome; if you'd rather I just take it all to RSN for comment, I'll do that. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 15:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, Your Spidey-senses tingle rightly. No legitimate publication puts "impact factor" in the title like the first one; I am confident it's a fake impact factor, and you'll see it listed at User:JzG/Predatory/I (there's a search box at User:JzG/Predatory). I don't have a record for the Historicity one, but it's basically unindexed and invisible on the usual reference tools. I have no specifics on the conference, but conference papers are not usually acceptable (not peer reviewed) and it looks like a scam conference. The thesis is just a thesis and might well be the article author. I would draftify. Guy (help!) 21:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
JzG, thanks for this - I'll explain the issues to the user. I'll discuss draftification with them, although I doubt they'll wear it - I already redirected to the stub we have about the Anukulchandra himself and the author reverted, so it might end up going to AfD, we'll see. Thanks too for the link to that searchable list - very handy, I can see myself using that quite a bit. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 08:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Girth Summit, Draft or AfD seem like the only options right now. Guy (help!) 08:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much

This was a voice of fresh air.

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
For exceptionally clear/concise opinion regarding the state of politics in the US and the foresight to know we're going to have to deal with it better than we currently are. Buffs (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Page May Warrant Protection

FYI, the Del Bigtree page has been getting a fair amount of vandalism/POV pushing by IPs lately. It may warrant semi-protection. Just a thought. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Grauniad

This takes me back. I've been living in the United States for nearly 20 years, and hearing The Guardian referred to as "The Grauniad" brings back fond memories of Private Eye. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Scjessey, I have a subscription :-) Guy (help!) 12:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Does Ian Hislop still appear on "Have I Got News For You"? Always loved that show. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Scjessey, very much so. This week's lockdown edition recorded from home was vintage stuff. Guy (help!) 15:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Question

What is your opinion about Craig Murray? Atsme Talk 📧 12:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, I don't have one, as far as I know. Guy (help!) 12:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The Epoch TimesRapidrider (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello JzG,

I am not sure I see what was wrong with trying to move to a more politically neutral tone on this article. Would you mind explaining why?

Regards, Rapidrider

also, this section adds current day reporting to the wikipedia page, which I feel is important.

In mid-April, 2020, thousands, possibly millions of home in the United States received an unsolicited copy of the March/April 2020, The Epoch Times, as part of their regular United States Postal Service delivery, that featured this headline: "How the Chinese Communist Party Endangered the World." The issue is dedicated to placing blame on the Chinese Communist Party for the spread of COVID-19. There are also subheads on the front page for articles with titles such as,"How China's Coverup Led to a Global Pandemic,""China's Attempt to Shift Blame for Virus to US, and "How China's Coverup Led to a Global Pandemic."

You've got mail

Hello, JzG. 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. Guy Macon (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Direct Guy-to-Guy communication. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 01:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Hah! I was just thinking that. El_C 01:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Hey Guys! (these two beat me to it, so I had to say something) creffett (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Got pinged you removed Wikileak's link due to "agenda- based source - not a reliable source of information", not sure if you realized this but the NYT's source you left is actually the same source. I completely agree that Wikileaks is an "agenda-based" site, but Wikileaks itself just happens to be the host of the non-Wikileaks source document. The source is the Department of Defense, and while I understand some people worry about the veracity of the leaked documents that Wikileaks posts, we can still be fairly certain that it is from the Department of Defense, if for no other reason than the fact that the US Government itself has not publicly questioned the veracity of the leaked documents. Like I said the NYT's link is a repost of the original leaked documents and the reason I included duplicate links of the same source documents is that, unlike Wikileaks which simply posted a PDF, the New York Time's "The Guantanamo Docket" included additional commentary on the documents that, unlike Wikileaks, I would consider a reliable source. However, I also believes its important to include the original source of the leak as well, since its mentioned in the article and is a significant event in the subject's life, as most of the subject's recent attention has been the result of the popular Radiolab spinoff The Other Latif, itself largely based on the leaked JTF files.
I would like to revert the edit and restore the link, but I'll wait to you respond and see how you want to handle it. Also I thought I let you know, especially since you're an admin, that the larger issue of Wikileaks and whether it should be linked, is being discussed by a number of admins here. I started the discussion, though I should point out I'm not an admin, and its turned into a pretty long discussion and I thought you'd want to make you're views known. --Kwwhit5531 (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Abdul Latif Nasir

Got pinged you removed Wikileak's link due to "agenda- based source - not a reliable source of information", not sure if you realized this but the NYT's source you left is actually the same source. I completely agree that Wikileaks is an "agenda-based" site, but Wikileaks itself just happens to be the host of the non-Wikileaks source document. The source is the Department of Defense, and while I understand some people worry about the veracity of the leaked documents that Wikileaks posts, we can still be fairly certain that it is from the Department of Defense, if for no other reason than the fact that the US Government itself has not publicly questioned the veracity of the leaked documents. Like I said the NYT's link is a repost of the original leaked documents and the reason I included duplicate links of the same source documents is that, unlike Wikileaks which simply posted a PDF, the New York Time's "The Guantanamo Docket" included additional commentary on the documents that, unlike Wikileaks, I would consider a reliable source. However, I also believes its important to include the original source of the leak as well, since its mentioned in the article and is a significant event in the subject's life, as most of the subject's recent attention has been the result of the popular Radiolab spinoff The Other Latif, itself largely based on the leaked JTF files.

I would like to revert the edit and restore the link, but I'll wait to you respond and see how you want to handle it. Also I thought I let you know, especially since you're an admin, that the larger issue of Wikileaks and whether it should be linked, is being discussed by a number of admins here. I started the discussion, though I should point out I'm not an admin, and its turned into a pretty long discussion and I thought you'd want to make you're views known. --Kwwhit5531 (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Kwwhit5531, WL is only ever a primary source and includes hoaxes and material published without regard to appropriateness. NYT is fine because it has editorial review. Guy (help!) 06:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC

This still had nothing to do with my point whatsoever.

My point is, and has always been, that Wikipedia has guidance on when self-published sources can and should be used: WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF. They're very restrictive for obvious reasons, but they cover all the situations in which it would make sense to me to use self-published sources.

Trying to insist that it's really an argument about whose burden it is to remove a source that you're claiming is unreliable when there is already explicit guidance as to whether the source in question is indeed unreliable and if, how and when it is appropriate to use it inevitably looks like you're trying to end-run existing guidelines and consensus because you don't like them. This is directly equivalent to trying to use "but I personally think it's unreliable, and you must prove me wrong without referring to the existing guidance on that very subject!" to avoid following an existing consensus about the reliability of a specific source at WP:RSN.

If you're now content to not remove self-published sources that are covered by WP:SPS and/or WP:ABOUTSELF (which you weren't at Bruce Elder (journalist)), we have no quarrel. If you're going to try to ignore those, we very much do. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Alas, still talking past each other. Guy (help!) 22:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
It can't be any more simple. Do you acknowledge that WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF exist? Do you agree to follow their guidance in future? If yes, no dispute. If no, dispute. You can dodge the question (which necessarily suggests that you're overtly refusing to follow them) and claim we're "talking past each other", but that's the crux of the dispute. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
I can't recall a dispute in which I've had such trouble getting such an experienced user to even acknowledge that the policy guidance on the subject of a discussion even exists. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG/Archive_182&oldid=952333304"