Jump to content

User talk:SpacemanSpiff/Archives/2015/October

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Ban Query

Hello! All the admins had problems with my History editing relating to Indian kings, dynasties and empires. But none has ever expressed any issue regarding Jainism or Digambara. The ban as you've informed has been imposed for Indian religions. I did not do anything wrong with the same, did I? I think the ban, if you feel is necessary, should be on Indian Royalty or History or something. Please reconsider. Thanks -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 07:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Technical means to enforce 500/30

Regarding WP:AE#Caste articles and talk pages. I looked at Special:AbuseFilter/698. I see you have the 500/30 mechanism all worked out, and the filter seems to work. (It is disallowing edits, apparently without the need for any admin participation). Would your version of the caste article filter check each article for whether it's in the category? So the only maintenance is for admins to keep the category up to date? Thanks. EdJohnston (talk) 23:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's a random thought, if you are concerned that POV-minded editors could play around with taking articles out of the category. WP:Editnotices for articles and article talk can only be edited by admins and template editors. Maybe the filter could check for the article having a particular editnotice. EdJohnston (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
EdJohnston, we seem to have come up with something at NeilN's talkpage -- User talk:NeilN#Caste AE. This is likely going to be using two filters per the suggestion of MusikAnimal. We'll continue to use Special:AbuseFilter/698 and probably convert that to a more generic DS-500/30 filter instead of the current gamergate specific theme and run it off a template transclusion (the details of the specific aspect of this transclusion still have to be worked out but {{Ds/talk caste}} is a starting point for it but it'd need a rename and also reference the specific DS code so that it can be made to scale to other areas if needed, per Floquenbeam's suggestion) and another filter to ensure that that template can only be added/removed by admins. It's probably the best way to go without having to depend on an admin and an edit filter manager always having to work together to update the filter. As for the edit notice, I thought of it, but apparently the filters work only on diffs and not content, so it may not work as the edit notice is placed far away in template space -- Category:Pages with editnotice article probation as an example. Paging Bishonen as she's also interested in this. —SpacemanSpiff 03:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes all of that sounds right. The template approach just seems favourable since we can create a little padlock icon for it. Once ArbCom gives the okay I'm happy to implement it. Cheers — MusikAnimal talk 17:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Going forward only needs WP:AE, not Arbcom itself. But anyone who is not happy with the decision has the right to appeal to Arbcom. EdJohnston (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2015

Capankajsmilyo

Thanks for explaining to Capankajsmilyo about the block. It was a very good explanation, even though it doesn't seem to have worked much. About Draft:Vishuddhasagar: edits to it are covered by the topic ban, I suppose, but for my part I can't make myself care about them, as long as he doesn't re-submit the article while he's banned. Bishonen | talk 11:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC).

I think it's a lost cause now, I thought diverting him to the topics of his educational specialization might present him with an opportunity to get an understanding of WP:RS, but seems like he's not interested. The draft space contributions would normally not be a problem, but he's done some weird stuff on there too, e.g., after Draft:Smilyo Educational Charitable Society was declined multiple times he went on to copy paste to the new version Draft:Smilyo, in effect wasting the time of many editors at understaffed AfC. And then there's this yellow pages -- Draft:List of Delhi NGOs which provides his email and phone number (though these drafts are other forms of COI). That's the reason I flagged the specific issue related to his tban rather than the general problem of all these which would cause more IDHT problems. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 11:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I think so too. WP:CIR. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Interesting move requests

I see that you have dealt with the Tobias Conradi situation in the past (and I know that WP:SPI won't say anything about IPs), but are the current requests at WP:RM/TR part of the Tobias Conradi situation? There were also a bunch of similar move requests yesterday (which were moved), and some last week as well. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 17:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Niceguyedc, that's him alright. I'd just flagged a couple of socks to Ymblanter yesterday as I wasn't entirely sure, so the SPI hasn't been filed yet, but I think it might be time to get that going now. @Bbb23: this looks like a duck to me but no IP activity in a week and for some strange reason whois isn't working for me, you have access to the magic regarding the IP as well as greater familiarity with the range. I'll file the named accounts on SPI soon. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what I looked at earlier, but I've now blocked 91.9.115.31 as a sock of Tobias. —SpacemanSpiff 18:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
There's another similar move request at WP:RM/TR by ‎User:Alejandro M. Rodríguez. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 06:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Removed and blocked. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 06:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the best place to mention it, but since you blocked the previous IP, I just wanted to point out that it looks he's now editing as 91.9.112.110 (the summary of [1] stands out in particular, it seems to be a response to someone having reverted one of his other socks' edits). - Nikki (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Nikki, that's Tobias for you, when his socks get laundered he launches those edit summaries. —SpacemanSpiff 17:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Shiva

Dear Sir,

I have removed what you refer to as "analysis". My contribution to Wikipedia is to advance correct Sanskrit grammar and pronunciation. I do not go looking for things to do, just correct errors and inexactitudes when I see them. The IAST forms used in the article have led many to misunderstand and mispronounce the name of Lord Shiva. This is an important matter in Hinduism, which has essentially an oral tradition, in Sanskrit, in which pronunciation is taken very seriously. (The Vedas and other sacred works are "shruti", which means "heard", not "scriptures" as in the Western tradition; the science of phonetics and other aspects of grammar were invented in India to ensure correct pronunciation and understanding of the Vedas.)

I think it is important to provide the correct pronunciation of the name in an article on Lord Shiva. Do you disagree? If so why? If not, do you think that the article on Shiva should reflect your particular cultural perspective as to what is deserving of mention.

I believe that my additional explanation of the reasons for this error are helpful to the reader. it is not exactly "research". This happened before my eyes in my lifetime. I have nonetheless removed it as a concession to you because I do not care to carry on an argument.

By the way, are you the arbiter of who is to edit Wikipedia? I think not. I am sure that if you were, you would take greater care to write with courtesy. Harsh words are not the mark of scholar.

Nakashchit

Nakashchit (talk) 09:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

You have been alerted to this in the past, you are adding what is indeed original research into articles. If you wish to discuss something please do so at the talk page, not within articles. —SpacemanSpiff 09:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


Why do you not respond to my questions? I am happy to discuss the appropriate content of an article and to defend my edits as a scholar. Why are you not?

I think that you are the one who should be blocked from editing Wikipedia. It does not belong to you. It belongs to the world, and should represent the consensus of scholars, not the fiat of one person. And being clever at manipulating Wikipedia does not make you a scholar.

You can keep this page as you wish, because it does not matter enough to me to quarrel over, but you should be ashamed. You represent the exact opposite of what Wikipedia should be about. People like you will eventually destroy Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakashchit (talk • contribs) 10:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

There would be something to respond to if you discussed it on the talk page providing reliable sources that discuss it and consider it important enough for inclusion, but when there's just pure opinion that's being pushed in to article space that makes any sort of discussion ineffective and unnecessary. —SpacemanSpiff 11:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems like another example of Hinduphobia on the part of SpacemanSpiff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdulgoswami (talk • contribs) 16:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Bias

Why is this website being biased? The word "myth" is not used when describing Christian and Islamic beliefs so why use the word in pages dedicated to Hindu beliefs? Can you explain this to me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdulgoswami (talk • contribs) 03:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

See WP:Systematic bias. The English Wikipedia is going to be biased towards the English cultures and norms, and requires more effort to be balanced on Middle Eastern/African/Asian-based articles, such as Hindu-related articles, African mythology.
Hope you don't mind me replying Spaceman. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't mind you replying, but that isn't the problem here. The OP has been edit warring to change articles to suit his POV and covering that up as bias. He has been making diametrically opposing POV edits to articles on different religions in a WP:POINTY manner, so it's his behavior that was the problem here, not the systemic bias on en.wiki. —SpacemanSpiff 02:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Just checked their history and talk page ... yeesh, and good luck. I'm gonna back up about 10 metres (33 ft) and walk away slowly before I get stuck with a pointy argument . Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Same batch?

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

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

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

Editing like them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thakur_Abha_Singh_Makwana

--1.39.137.35 (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Right, that's part of one of the two groups for sure. I'll file the SPI, thanks for alerting. —SpacemanSpiff 03:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
SPI filed. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 03:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Ajit Nazre

Hello. You might want to block Luckysonal1234 per WP:DUCK, a new account that added refspam to Nazre's private sites on John Doerr, Ellen Pao and Buddy Fletcher. Thomas.W talk 11:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. —SpacemanSpiff 12:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Recent userbox addition

You wouldn't be implying Aussie English is "bad" would you? I might have to take mock offense at the userbox then. LOLing, Drcrazy102 (talk) 23:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't want copywriters who clean up after me to say that I didn't provide fair warning! Canadian, Aussie, Kiwi, a lot to choose from for that red link!—SpacemanSpiff 03:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

List of centuries in women's ODI cricket

Are you ever willing to take this to FLC? The article looks in good shape! —Vensatry (ping) 05:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me, meant to do it a few years ago! Will update it and take it this week! cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Block of one year was a good call

Thanks for your recent block of 195.210.39.132. Considering the history, I think one year was a good call, if a little lenient. I've summarized the event here, on my user page. I can't decide whether this IP is high maintenance or low maintenance. Cheers, Willondon (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

A lot can happen with corporate IPs in a year, so anything longer could potentially inconvenience other users. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 15:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Hobby or paid editing?

As it seems that you have been dealing with lot of such cases lately I thought of pointing it out to you. This has been on my mind since long but I don't know how to catch this or what actions should be taken. Many articles related to Shreya Ghoshal have been created by Bubaikumar. They very dedicatedly edit the song lists, create new articles for songs and albums and additionally also create articles on upcoming films which feature one or two songs by the singer; be it any language. It's hard to believe that the dedication is just coming from being fan of singing and more like being promotional. Have a look and then lets see what you think. Let me know what can be done here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I've also tried to figure this out, but this isn't uncommon, take the case of editors who like Priyanka Chopra, they purposely go remove positive content from Katrina Kaif and Kangana Ranaut etc, so I can't really say what the line is between fanboy and COIN. Brianhe is good at identifying some paid editing traits, so pinging him here. The Shreya Ghosal one is an extreme though. By the way there's also another COIN that I opened regarding an agency Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_89#EveryMedia_Technologies and that had film clients, so could be related. —SpacemanSpiff 05:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Funny you should ping me at this moment, I was just writing a manual on how to do this so I can train up some more Wikipedians. Contact me via email if you're interested. Anyway, to the case at hand: don't his contribs at Commons look like something other than amateur/fan material? I think he might have some connection to bollywoodhungama.com — Brianhe (talk) 05:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Will wait for Brianhe's manual. Meanwhile will just keep cleaning articles case by case. Not that his creations are all vandals, but many are not notable. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Email him first, he can't send you an attachment through Wikipedia email and I'm sure WP:BEANS would apply here. —SpacemanSpiff 11:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

On similar tracks, do you know of any tool or list from where we can get names of nominators and reviewers of GAs? I have been seeing damn poor quality Bollywood/TV related GAs these days and I suspect tag teaming here. I caught one probable such case and its mentioned here. Hence I wanted to study the trends and if such log exists then it would be easy. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

That seems to be a problem with Indian film and TV related reviews but I have no idea about the cause etc. If you find a few that are bad, you can try asking Drmies to see if they should go for a GAR, that's probably the best way to address it instead of trying to match nominators and reviewers, which should be done only if you find problems. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 09:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay! Will look it that way. Or make my own log. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:AE#Caste articles and talk pages

Hello Spaceman. This is your request. You ask that uninvolved administrators be 'empowered' to place the 500/30 limit. Is it sufficient for an admin to close this thread with only a general statement about empowering? Or should it include something specific like the Nair article? We need to make some entry in WP:DSLOG. It will be best if we make separate entries there for at least the first couple of articles that will be placed under restriction. In my opinion the mechanics of any edit filter don't have to be entered in the log; we can leave that as an implementation detail for any admin who is setting up the restriction. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I think a general closing that this sanction is an option for uninvolved administrators to place would be sufficient IMO (but I'm not overly familiar with the mechanics of AE, so feel free to modify as such). We currently have Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log#India-Pakistan with a section to document page level sanctions (two 1RR sanctions currently listed), so adding there would probably be best until a suitable alternate mechanism is available. Those of us who had worked on this had some agreement on starting this off with article sanctions Nair, Jat people, Vanniyar, and Bhumihar along with talk page sanctions at Talk:Nair. On approval I think we can go ahead with placing sanctions on those articles and log it at that spot. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 15:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Page protection

Can you please protect the Chase Utley page? Thanks.-KH-1 (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

KH-1, sorry, was cleaning up another mess and didn't check my talk in the interim. I see that Materialscientist has already protected it. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 October 2015

List of Hindu Nobel laureates

I just had a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of atheist Nobel laureates (2nd nomination) and saw that even the list for Christians, Jews and Muslims were deleted at that time. Any reasons for deleting only List of Hindu Nobel laureates under G4? Bharatiya29 (talk) 11:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

This article was tagged {{db-g4}} by I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc when I found it and and the rationale from the earlier AfD was still applicable with not a single source added to refute that earlier rationale. In addition there are twothree BLP violations in the list with two subjects being identified as Hindu despite no reference; in addition, Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar being identified as Hindu when he has clearly identified as atheist. These are all issues that highlight the problems identified in the old afd. As for the rest of the articles, I can't comment, I did not patrol those pages and did not do a comparison of the new with the old stuff. —SpacemanSpiff 13:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I am working on the other pages. It looks like out-of-process recreations happened on all of them, but there were some contested CSDs that indicated that a proper deletion review was not undertaken. @Bharatiya29:, I would recommend that if you want the List of Hindu Nobel laureates to be recreated that you file a proper deletion review. jps (talk) 13:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I would rather like to try and solve the issues SpacemanSpiff has raised (they are quite legitimate). It would be a favour if you can userfy the page. Bharatiya29 (talk) 13:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Bharatiya29/List of Hindu Nobel laureates. I have removed the four (yes, not two or three as I had earlier thought) BLP vios, but the rest is also clearly unsourced. But if you wish to move it to article space, please take it to WP:DRV to get consensus. —SpacemanSpiff 13:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Can you please tell me the exact BLP vios so I can try to just fix them somehow? Bharatiya29 (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
You can not just say someone is a Hindu without them saying that they are. See WP:CAT/R. —SpacemanSpiff 17:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Admin's Barnstar
For taking the time to carefully consider the issues surrounding the previous CSD you userfied and coming to a satisfactory conclusion for all involved, I award you this coveted barnstar. jps (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Time for a block

Hello. Pebble101 (talk · contribs · count) needs a block for repeatedly removing content from Indian people with a fake reason, since he's not removing a copyvio (the copyvio that he's referring to was actually added by him, as a number of IPs, and then removed by Doug Weller...). He was flushed out from his hiding place by a semi-protection of the article that I requested, and I was about to file an SPI-report against him, since it's obvious from the page history that all of the 117.* IPs are him, but noticed there already was one. Thomas.W talk 12:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not IP hopping, I have mentioned a few times on here i cant edit logged on in Uni during the day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pebble101 (talk • contribs)

I've recused myself from admin action related to Pebble for some minor and unrelated activity, maybe Bishonen can help, she's practically moved to {{WP India}} now. —SpacemanSpiff 12:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Now that he has admitted being the IP-hopper I'll take it to the edit-warring noticeboard instead, because he's at four reverts now, and has been given a 3RR-warning. Thomas.W talk 12:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

David Godman

It looks like we've had some sort of edit conflict at David Godman. The article now seems to be blank (here, at least) after my last edit and that roughly coincided with you doing some sort of history merge fix. I'm not sure what is going on but given that a few minutes earlier I mentioned to Hoary that I was pondering sending it to AfD, this is a somewhat serendipitous even if unorthodox way to effect my musings! - Sitush (talk) 18:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Purge your cache, there was database lag that caused a lot of pages to go blank. I deleted a page at that time and then CAT:CSD went blank for me, and I thought I'd done the new "delete the main page"! —SpacemanSpiff 18:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
This is the last edit I see from you and one on the page. —SpacemanSpiff 18:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Seems to have righted itself now. Some sort of propagation issue? Can't be my cache because I went from a full article to just the title, and now back to a full article. Weird. - Sitush (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

just replying

Dear friend,

I simply edited in Rise of Indira section in Emergency in India article, the content where opposition leaders referred to Indira Gandhi as Durga is a false story as only our former Honorable Prime Minister Sh. Atal Bihari Vajpayee was credited with this statement specifically which he has categorically denied in Aap ki Adalat.You can watch the full episode on YouTube. I am perplexed at your request of not posing any defamatory content. I cannot possibly fathom the defamation in this honest effort of mine. Requesting you to please enlighten me. HimachalPradesh (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Replied here. —SpacemanSpiff 18:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

indian race wiki change

australoids are a separate group of people in andaman islands. negritos are found in papua new guinea. that article is built on the concept of aryan invasion theory which was proven false long ago. modern day Indians are not separate race;they are all caucasoids, their genetics are same mixture of ANI & ASI. you can read more on south asian archaeogenetics wiki page. which part of this is not constructive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.253.176.155 (talk) 05:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

What you are doing is removing sourced content and adding stuff that directly contradicts the source with nothing more than an opinion in the edit summary. That is problematic and is considered vandalism. If you wish to present sourced arguments, you are welcome to do that, following our other policies of course. —SpacemanSpiff 05:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Velaga Venkatappaiah

You are invited to join the discussion at Velaga Venkatappaiah. Participate in AfD Discussion Thanks. KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 15:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

About the edit of one page

Some informations provided on the page of bhumihar are totally incorrect and improper.please delete these false and improper things from this page Wizard710 (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

You are repeatedly removing sourced content from the article, the talk page consensus is against your view. If you have any sources supporting your argument then you are free to discuss it on the talk page with other interested editors. Please stop removing stuff that you don't like or you will be sanctioned. —SpacemanSpiff 18:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

Hello, I'm Ashim ,I think i have fixed the issue regarding Sankalpa(film-architecture) and Sankalpa now. Thank you AA 06:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Ok its up-to you guys (admin) to decide if i am worthy or not .As if you guys were Patrolling all articles written by me ,But any ways i don't care about the auto patrolled status ...Thank youAA 06:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Provide proof

Hello, you accused me of leaving that post on the talk page. Please provide proof that I did such a thing. ThanksBurbak (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Your next edit is sufficient. —SpacemanSpiff 18:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

It is not sufficient at all, I agreed with his statement but that doesn't mean that I made the statement. I am asking you to provide me with with proof and you have failed to do so.Burbak (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Whether you made the edit or said that you "concur completely" is irrelevant. The fact is that both are disruptive. —SpacemanSpiff 03:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

No because your original accusation was based around me making that post which I did not. I agreed with someone else's post which is my right to do so however I did not make the post. Please try to understand the difference.Burbak (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Why putting Gowhar Naz in proposed deletion

why are you putting Gowhar Naz in proposed deletion. All the references given do back his notability & neutrality by the information provided. He is no way common but a famous writer know nationally. There becomes no issue getting it deleted. Rest you explain your position in this matter. I may say improve it.Joebee 6:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC) 

Jou bee (talk) 00:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Please read our notability guidelines and get an understanding of it. —SpacemanSpiff 15:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review for Bharat Ratna

Hi. Hope you are doing well. I have listed Bharat Ratna for peer review. Its currently a GA and I would like to take it FAC in the near future. I would really appreciate if you could find some time and provide your comments here. Thanks in advance. - Vivvt (Talk) 09:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Will take a look in a few days, cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 15:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

sock

166.176.56.20 final edit before being blocked, to me suggests that they may be User:DN-boards1. [2] It was to remove a PROD from an article that User:DN-boards1 created.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

166 has a long history, Ricky81682 is aware of it more than I am. As for the PROD removal, I think it may just be the standard WOP obsession, but I think Ricky may be able to provide a better answer on the actual sockmaster etc. —SpacemanSpiff 20:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
166.171.121.14 seems to be the ip this user moved over to. In addition to restoring the PROD that I had restored here, they are also taking part in AFD's using similar language and rationale to the ip you had just blocked [3].There's also the similar ip.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I've blocked this IP and reverted the AfD participation. Feel free to remove/strike out any AfD participation from future 166s related to the WOP topic ban (referencing the topic ban, link in the ANI closure). I'm not going to be on much longer, so AIV referencing the topic ban might be the best option for blocks. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 20:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Letting NeilN know as he closed the topic ban discussion. —SpacemanSpiff 20:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I think this is another sock... Canadian Paul 21:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I think this is a rotating mobile user in the LA region (same as me). Seems like they moved to WOP issues trying to annoy me further I guess. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Canadian Paul, I seemed to have missed your post above; I see one of those DRVs has been closed and I've left a note on the other suggesting it be closed. Ricky81682, you may want to take a look at that DRV as it's regarding an AfD close of yours. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration appeal Notification

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#India-Pakistan and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Js82 (talk) 09:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Page Protection

Page protection required for the following pages: Shresthas, Shrestha, Newar caste system, Newar people

106.51.132.199(talk) has been incessantly vandalizing these pages and with zero reference and citations. It is clear as day as to the fact that he is asserting his edits in adamantly self-aggrandizing the (Chhetri) caste while seemingly inserting wrongful and doubtful (even if they are true he presents no citation, and has horrible grammar) against anything to do with Newar community and especially against Shrestha caste. It seems he is on a personal vendetta against this caste. This sort of racial and communal hatred in no way should be allowed and hope you will reprimand the user appropriately.

Nepalichoro255 (talk) 06:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Why are there so many overlapping pages? On first look I'm not sure they need protection but rather some sort of an expert view. I've watchlisted the articles for now but I suggest you get some help from other interested editors on the content of those pages.—SpacemanSpiff 10:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Multiple tags placed without reason or discussion

Hi, multiple tags have been placed on the Bihari Rajputs page and the user who placed them refuses to take part in a discussion to give his reasoning. Can you please look over the tags? Thanks Burbak (talk) 11:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I see discussion on the talk page and at least one uninvolved editor (LjL in those discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 14:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2015

@Bastollah edits

@SpacemanSpiff: See this. Inserting text such as "scum of the Sikh..." is just not okay. The User talk:Bastollah page has caution/warning by @Kautilya3, @Thomas.W and I. Tried welcoming @Bastollah to the Sikhism's talk page, received no response. @Kautilya3: is there an easy way to cleanup the Sikhism article off unsourced or undue text by @Bastollah? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Good lord, I think you may have to look at edits in other articles too. I'm leaving a final warning now, this is clearly unacceptable behavior, not just disruptive. —SpacemanSpiff 14:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
@Sarah, the easiest thing to do would be to revert (restore) to the last clean version such as on the left here [4]. But whatever edits you may have done would get lost. Good luck cleaning it. I gave up following this article a few days ago because there was just too much activity. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Just revert back to the best pre-Bastollah version you can find. I scanned their edits and they are entirely unsourced personal opinions. --regentspark (comment) 01:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hobby or paid editing?.. part 2

I boldly went ahead and GARed as this one was really a shabby one. Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sargun Mehta/1. Btw, the creator here seems to be an SPA mainly editing Mehta and her husband Ravi Dubey's articles. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

May be paid, may not be, but it's COI editing for sure as it appears to go above the fan editing. If it's just these two articles then the best option would be to ask the editor to declare what kind of COI they have. I think {{uw-paid1}} is a good option. —SpacemanSpiff 11:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Done that. Wasn't aware of such set of templates. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Dharmadhyaksha, the more I look at it the more I think it could be linked to EveryMedia Technologies, and it's not one account, it's two; look at various COIN posts on this. I'm pinging Brianhe for his opinion. —SpacemanSpiff 16:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for inviting me to look. It's an unusual case. The paid editors usually don't become confrontational and abusive like this; instead they usually reply through a flood of sock/meatpuppets. I'll have to give it a more thorough look. Dharmadhyaksha, I think you made a good call in challenging the many low-quality websites used. – Brianhe (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I suspect Spiff's instincts were right, there is promotion going on here, specifically around the India's Dancing Superstar show which the editor(s) seem especially keen to keep returning to the Sargun Mehta article. It's a Star TV show and they seem to have had some extensive PR at work on Wikipedia. I added one editor who created India's Dancing Superstar in 2013 to the case at WP:COIN#‎Indian television production and actors PR but hey are blocked for some time, there's probably some more work to do. Oh, the GA reviewer seems to be unencumbered by COI, but isn't reacting well to the GAR, obviously. – Brianhe (talk) 18:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
You think the link might be to a different agency then? Not Everymedia? It's very difficult for me to keep track of all these! —SpacemanSpiff 18:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
One of the risks of doing this kind of investigation is your brain can recognize patterns that aren't there. That said, I think it might be so. From a press release, "The agency's [Everymedia] clientele includes names like Yash Raj Films, Dharma Productions, MSM Motion Pictures, Viacom 18 Motion Pictures, Fox Star Studios, Sanjay Leela Bhansali Productions, Hyundai India, Nadiadwala Grandson Entertainment, Ashvin Gidwani Productions and Prime Focus." It's entirely possible they are behind much of of the TV work recently reported at COIN. They certainly haven't been at all shy about self-promotion on WP. Another thing I have mentioned to you elsewhere, I've learned never to underestimate the scale these guys operate at: if you suspect two COI editors, there are probably 20. And if you suspect two PR agencies there are probably 20 of them as well (see Zee's agencies listed here for instance). - Brianhe (talk) 02:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hobby or paid editing? #3

Hello. Would you mind taking a look at Sargun Mehta? There's an SPA there who does nothing but add promotional trivia to the article (having edited nothing else since the account was created more than eight months ago...). Thomas.W talk 16:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

This is related to the section above, #2. I think there may be some COI issues, and have invited Brianhe to take a look at it to see if it matches Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kabir Vaghela. We have a fair few sets of TV/film PR agencies, but that's the one that's been most troublesome and active. I've added the page to my watchlist now and the good doctor seems to have reverted, will step in in case of any further edit warring. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 18:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Thomas.W talk 18:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I was looking around this mess and I found Portal:Sargun Mehta. This obviously goes back to some serious COIN promotion issues, I'll wait for Dharmadhyaksha to follow up on what Brianhe has suggested. —SpacemanSpiff 18:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Noticed that portal too, and was going to bring it up somewhere or other. Also: check out {{Star Plus Shows}} and {{Balaji Telefilms}}. - Brianhe (talk) 02:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I have seen Mehta's portal. But MFDs are very inclusive of portals. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Priyanka Chopra is currently there. Not related to any of these COIs, just probably fan made.‎ §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll take a look at this, it appears to be some sort of good hand bad hand collaboration going on here and is very likely two people at an agency. —SpacemanSpiff 17:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding 'Chinna Jeeyar' wiki page

Hello, I'm SpacemanSpiff. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Chinna Jeeyar seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. It is also clear that you are now returning under a different account to perform the same edits, if you continue to do so you are likely to be blocked

Hello

In reference to your reply, I am not sure what you mean a different account, it might be that I added edit once without logging in and second might be from my official wiki login userID.

Regarding your question, I am not sure why the content is being removed as I added the references even. Maybe you are not liking it because it uses some sanskrit terms, that I am not sure. If grammar is a concern, maybe you could suggest some edits. But all the information that I posted in my edit is true and I can confirm that. Now the page has absolutely no information at all and it feels empty.

Regards Kalyan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krushna7 (talk • contribs) 09:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Please read our policies and guidelines: WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS. Your edits have been in violation of all those. —SpacemanSpiff 17:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (awards)

Following discussion has been moved to Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(awards)#Revival_of_this_guideline. Please make your further comments over there for simplicity. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Instead of taking it up directly to the village pump I wanted opinion of few more experienced editors on the subject topic. The subject is an inactive page which should be worked up on and brought back to life. We face various claims of notability by people backed for being award-recipient and I don't know why this page was left alone. I assume the idea was that GNG covers it all. But we do need some specific guidelines to point IDHT-editors to point to when non-notable award pages are created or when people claim to be notable for winning one of those trophies.
Although currently my interests in this page is to make my life simple in dealing with in-house glam awards, it does cover other people too. See Talk:N. R. Narayana Murthy for lengthy discussions on this topic. Also, #AwardWapasi being a trend it would be good to note which Awards when returned should be considered more notable rather than when received.
If you are not interested in the topic, do direct me to some editor who likes to write such essays enthusiastically. Talk page stalkers are also welcome. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a perennial problem. Take a look at Ambarish Srivastava. Looking at that article you'd think he's the new Munshi Premchand and Edwin Lutyens in one person. The AfD deletion was reversed at DRV because he won the Indira Gandhi Priyadarshini Award which is run by some minor Congress politician. You have this on one extreme and then you'll regularly see Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri recipients being taken to AfD, and worse, tagged A7. I think since this involves BLPs and stuff you could ask TheRedPenOfDoom for their opinion as it might be of interest to them. I don't mind being a casual participant in a discussion on this but I expect it to be a time sink so I will not be an active participant. Also, typically Drmies has the answer to everything and you could ask him too. I think Hoary also has an interest in some awards (visual arts) and could possibly offer you some suggestions. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 14:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh, there's a ton of awards that are nothing--I'm thinking especially of industry awards in K-pop and those kinds of things. And yes, they're used to establish notability, and unrighteously so. What gets my goat especially is the explosive proliferation of "List of awards received by Person X": revolting, and just another example of fan trivia and table porn. But I don't have that much interest in the topic: it's a fringe interest to me. I have written up a couple of award articles, for awards that I know to be notable and I think I usually have decent sourcing for it. But that's really what it requires: good third-party sourcing, not notes in the tabloids that someone received this or that. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, all of the India television stations have their own "awards" shows that they distribute like candy on their productions and actors and are actually the equivalent of "employee of the month" /advertisements with no actual merit for establishing notability. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Lots of things could be used to test the effectiveness of a awards notability guideline. Here are some suggestions of pages I've come across lately. Wheels (film), Furlenco, Easy Taxi, Rayat Shikshan Sanstha, BabyChakra, Sobha Ltd., Nasscom Emerge 50. - Brianhe (talk) 01:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
@TheRedPenOfDoom: What do you think of the articles on the TV awards themselves? I just noticed that many of them have been created by a known sockfarm, or operators who match the same general profile:
You (RedPen) actually were contacted by one of these editors at one point [5], maybe you remember? - Brianhe (talk) 03:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
In-house Indian TV awards
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

These are in-house awards. Am not implying that other awards from Category:Indian television awards are notable. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I concur with User:TheRedPenOfDoom. The Indian TV awards are iffy because they're basically individual TV networks patting themselves on the back. The problem for us is that these awards sometimes do get covered in print and web media, which at first glance may seem to confer notability. In some cases the coverage may be from sources owned by or affiliated with the networks; in others they're just cheap gossip rags which will report on any content involving celebrities. In any case, it can be difficult to assess the reliability of the sources. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Pinging some editors I think might be interested in the reviving of the subject inactive page. @DGG, Piotrus, Thomas.W, Tokyogirl79, and Ryan Vesey: @Sphilbrick, Dennis Brown, and Bbb23: And now, if our "cabal" is big enough, should we move to a bigger better stage for our drama? Don't want to flood SS's talk page and then repeat all sayings on Village pump or elsewhere. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I think that it should definitely move somewhere else, just because this will obviously become bigger. I'm absolutely down for helping to make this guideline more clear for others. I know that I typically give the same spiel about awards whenever they're mentioned at AfD or elsewhere: that less than 5% of awards are notable, less than 1% are completely notable (ala Oscars or Golden Roosters), yadda yadda. The reason I do this is because it's necessary and there isn't entirely a wholly clear guideline on this specific aspect. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • On Tokyogirl79's suggestion, perhaps this could be moved to Wikipedia talk:Notability (awards) as a prelude to a VPP discussion. I don't mind hosting the discussion here, but I don't have the time to get involved in this discussion. Anyone can feel free to copy paste there (or another appropriate location) and close it here. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A cup of tea for you!

With this ever dramatic world including WikiDrama, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! This e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks SwisterTwister, I do need a drink of tea, if not something stronger! —SpacemanSpiff 05:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 October 2015

Donated artwork

Hello, my friend. How about a wikideal? If you could help nail down the text at Wikipedia:Donated artwork/Artists' welcome page based on your and Moonriddengirl's notes, I would do any dirty work you say. And I mean low work. I'll even go through articles you say and put references after punctuation. :) I mean it. :) The thing is, I am ready to just replace most of that page with "Read the CC license" and leave it at that. What do you think? Do you have any good friends over at commons who really know policy? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak, I'll get it to it in a few days, buried in with work and have bills to pay. —SpacemanSpiff 05:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Anna Frodesiak, I've made some changes and added a couple of examples for artists to check out. Feel free to clean up and/or cull. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Marathas and Marathi people

Hello. Would you mind taking a look at Marathi people? AFAIK Maratha and Marathi people are not synonymous, with Marathas being a "warrior caste" that can be found in several states in India, not just Maharashtra, but an editor is now trying to let the entire Marathi people "bask in the glory of the Marathas", by adding a large chunk of text about various Maratha achievements to that article. And I quite simply don't know enough about it to enter into a long discussion with him... Thomas.W talk 19:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Uninvolved opinion: At first glance it appears that the lines are quite blurry here and it's more a case of WP:SYNTH and WP:DUE. I'll ask Kautilya3, Sitush and Abecedare to take a look at the content as they are quite familiar with these areas. —SpacemanSpiff 02:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Maratha is indeed a "caste," as the top note says (finessing the fine details of the Indian caste system). Marathi is a language. Both the terms presumably derive from Sanskrit Maharashtra. I will watch list the pages. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Mahadeva Achchirama Children Home

Is it possible you to fix the above copyvio problem?UmakanthJaffna (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It will be handled as part of the copyright violations queue. Unless there's some real urgency, there's no need to jump that. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 02:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protection request

Hello, I noticed Semi-protection for Dravidian peoples page is suppose to expire tomorrow. I request long term/indefinite Semi-protection for Dravidian peoples page to stop any form of disruption or vandalism from unregistered users in the future. Thank You. Kannadiga (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

If there is sufficient disruption then it can be protected again. At this point, I don't see that need. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 02:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Kangana Ranaut-Wikipedia Image

Hi,

Can you please specify the reason for changing the image of Kangana Ranaut. The image which we had uploaded was more reasoned and looked much better. It would be great if you would revert back the changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veena Lobo (talk • contribs) 09:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Veena Lobo, can you clarify who you mean by "we" above? Can you let me know which agency you represent? —SpacemanSpiff 09:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

We are from Kangana Ranaut's team. And she wanted to change her wikipedia image. It would be good if you change the image again or you can select any image from her official website : http://www.officialkanganaranaut.com/ and uplaod the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veena Lobo (talk • contribs) 10:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you also on Kartik Aaryan's team? And Zubaan? You've uploaded official images for them also, so it'd be nice to know about all the images you are talking about. —SpacemanSpiff 12:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

COI editor found

Hi! I haven't really dealt with any verified COI editors till now. Happened to discover one and have written to him at User_talk:Manojche#COI_on_Devita_Saraf. Can you, or your stalkers, please intervene if need be or if I am not doing what I should do. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

So far it seems ok, but if the problematic edits continue then {{Uw-advert3}} and so on would be appropriate. I deleted the copyvio from the user.—SpacemanSpiff 12:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tobias Conradi

I tried to post a comment but Salvidrim! was too fast for me. Now if he would just FIX that *@#$ problem with the SPI table, I'd forgive him almost anything. Anyway, my comment: Too many SPIs, too many range blocks, it does start to blur sometimes. Thanks for taking care of the decision making.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I saw the case when you commented first and held off archiving for SpacemanSpiff to reply, but once he had replied and marked the case for closure, I could no longer hold back my neurotic urge to archive the case. ;) Also, what's wrong with the SPI table!??!?! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I see now. I think it's more than time to take it up with the bot operator so she can look at her code directly and find out why the bot detects these cases the way it does. I've fixed the two for now, but next time, we'll ask her before fixing it. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Salvidrim!: It doesn't look fixed to me. Purging it caused one of the two archived cases marked as open to disappear, but not Scibaby, which, btw, has bounced back and forth more than once between not being present and being open, even though the whole time it's been archived. Maybe you could talk to the bot operator now? Don't you have a neurotic urge to do that? :p --Bbb23 (talk) 13:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Your AE request about 500/30

The 500/30 restrictions are now enacted at four articles and a talk page per my closure. Can you do anything further you believe is appropriate? Like apply templates? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks EdJohnston, I'll go about it within the next few days, real life/work has caught up with me so this'll have to wait a couple of days unless Bishonen or NeilN get to it before I can. —SpacemanSpiff 05:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll have a crack at it within the next day. --NeilN talk to me 05:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm definitely going to leave the templates to people who're on good terms with templates. Wasn't there also something remaining for MusikAnimal? Might be as well to ping him, anyway. Beautiful black labrador, Space! Bishonen | talk 09:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC).
I was just going to ask if we were still doing this. I can get to this today I think... I'll get the padlock added to {{Ds/talk caste}} then we can update the filters. About the template, is that the name we want to go with? This should be for general use for this editing restriction, the other example being GamerGate. Also, should we add a url= parameter to link to the ArbCom discussion? — MusikAnimal talk 14:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
If we're going to go with a general use template that can be repurposed then I'll leave that in your hands. I was just going to modify what we have for GG. --NeilN talk to me 15:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
An edit filter means that editors and admins don't need to police and revert edits from those users who don't meet the editing restrictions. It's also useful to have an edit notice like Template:Editnotices/Page/Gamergate controversy. Otherwise, you face a lot of questions from editors asking why their contributions have been reverted. Liz Read! Talk! 15:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
If you're replying to me, I think I was the one who suggested an edit filter in the first place :-) We also need a template message for the talk page. --NeilN talk to me 15:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm just joining in on the discussion, I wasn't responding directly to you. But this one is a response and I see you already suggested adapting the GG notices.
I created the categories mentioned in Template:Ds/talk caste like Category:Wikipedia articles under discretionary sanctions (caste) and Category:Wikipedia article talk pages under editing restrictions (caste) but the parent category, Category:Wikipedia pages under discretionary sanctions, uses "pages" not "articles". A similar category though is Category:Pseudoscience articles under discretionary sanctions if you want these categories to adopt a similar nomenclature. Liz Read! Talk! 15:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, here's what I came up with: User:MusikAnimal/pp-30-500

This template provides a way to show a talk page notice, whether or not to activate the editing restriction (enforced by edit filter), and if so whether to use the padlock. I haven't wrote the doc yet but it would be something like:

  • banner=yes Show the banner
    url=Special:Diff/12345 If the banner is shown, specify a URL to add the message "More information can be found [here]", linking to the ArbCom decision, for instance
  • active=yes Whether to invoke the editing restriction on the page this template is on, enforced by an edit filter. This also puts the page in the categories Category:Wikipedia pages under discretionary sanctions and Category:Wikipedia pages under 30-500 editing restriction
    small=yes If the editing restriction is active, whether to use a padlock icon or show a banner

So for instance on GamerGate we would have {{pp-30-500|active=yes|small=yes}}. On the talk page we would have {{pp-30-500|banner=yes}} (since we just want the banner notification that the article page is protected). If we wanted the talk page to protected too you might use {{pp-30-500|banner=yes|active=yes}}. This will show the notification banner and a full-width banner about that the protection is active on that page.

You might want to change the wording, but I think this functionality encompasses everything we need. What do you think? — MusikAnimal talk 16:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

See a change to Talk:Nair which I made while blithely unaware of this whole conversation. Anyone may replace my talk page notice with an improved version. I based this one on the existing notice at Talk:Gamergate controversy. At the latter article we also have a 1RR and semiprotection which has not yet been applied to Nair, though this might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Quick replies: MusikAnimal: The diff should be linked to the entries at WP:DSLOG. EdJohnston: 1RR isn't necessarily an issue at articles such as this as it mostly isn't about edit warring but about POV pushing via multiple SPA accounts (that aren't necessarily linked to each other) at different times which the 500/30 would likely take care of. Caste system in India on the other hand is a candidate for 1RR if and when activity picks up as there it's established accounts that aren't SPAs in the sense of individual castes but more of an ideological bent. NeilN: edit notices don't like me, could you look at edit notices for these articles; I think the text at {{Ds/talk caste}} may be appropriate here as the other template from MA is more general. Detailed replies later. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Lengthy replies:
    • @EdJohnston: I have now modified {{Ds/talk caste}} to mirror the note you placed on Talk:Nair and also modified the locks etc to suit our existing design hierarchy (and MA's sensibilities). It has now been placed on Talk:Nair, Talk:Jat people, Talk:Vanniyar, and Talk:Bhumihar. All have article editing restriction notifications while Nair also has talk page editing notifications.
    • @MusikAnimal: I have placed the current template for now; we can change to the new generic version when we have the new filter ready. Can you make the modification to Filter #698 to include Nair, Vanniyar, Jat people, Bhumihar, and Talk:Nair. Likewise, an editnotice to mirror the template and GG editnotice would be good.
    • @Liz: I'm not familiar with the category structures for these, I used names that appeared logical but if you think that needs changing then feel free to do it.
  • If I've forgotten something (which is very likely), please remind me :) cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 13:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

(←) Okay, the filter has been updated to impose the editing restriction on all the aforementioned additional pages. It's currently in log-only, though, so you might see some edits come through. I'll set it warn/disallow when I'm convinced it's working as intended (it checked out with the batch testing, but no harm in being extra cautious :). We'll look into the template implementation later. Best — MusikAnimal talk 20:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Alrighty I did a bunch of manual testing and I think we're good, so I've enabled it. The warning if you are interested is at MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-500-30-restriction. Feel free to reword it. — MusikAnimal talk 21:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks MusikAnimal. I did a couple of test runs using SpacesockSpiff (talk · contribs) and tripped the filter at Talk:Nair, so it looks good. On creating an edit notice (to show when the edit button is clicked as opposed to after trying to save the edit), can we have one for all the articles or do we need to have separate ones for each page? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 03:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
The way that edit notices work you'll have to create a dedicated page for each (e.g. Template:Editnotices/Page/Nair), but you can use a template and transclude it on each page. I noticed at Template:Editnotices/Page/Gamergate controversy it's using Template:Ds/editnotice. We probably want a standardized discretionary sanctions editnotice like this, but we should create another one for the 500/30 restriction that we can transclude. — MusikAnimal talk 03:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
MusikAnimal, I've created one at Template:Editnotices/Page/Nair using {{Ds/editnotice}} and you can see it when you try to edit Nair. I had to play around with the words so as to not upset the source template (which seems to have been created primarily for 1RR restrictions). We can either use this everywhere, or modify Ds/editnotice to have a restriction code "500-30" to include this as an option, but that's beyond my skill levels. Pinging NeilN, Bishonen, EdJohnston to see if they would have a preference for one or the other (others feel free to chime in too, don't want to randomly ping). I would prefer a modification to Ds/editnotice as that would mean a single template with different restriction codes (looking at the GG editnotice, we might need to allow two restriction codes).—SpacemanSpiff 03:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Er… I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're asking there, Space. But about the Nair edit notice — is the filter working now, catching the naughty little MusikPuppet sock? If it is, I'm not sure about saying "if you breach the restriction" etc. How're they're gonna breach it? They can't — the filter will get them. Shouldn't the edit notice give some indication of that instead, for when it comes as a complete surprise to them that they can't edit the article? I mean, if it was me, I'd be non-plussed, and run complain in any venue I could find. ("Wikipedia is broken!") I know it says "may be removed" on the talkpage, but still, maybe in the edit notice as well? I do believe they're more likely to read the edit notice, because frankly, there's a lot of stuff on talk. (I wish we didn't have to have all the mostly useless WikiProject advertising at the top of talkpages.) And genuinely new users will perhaps not even know there is a talkpage.
Another question: does the talkpage warning, Accounts editing this page must follow policy and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page, mean there's no need to give individual ds alerts to disruptive accounts? It doesn't, does it? I think they should still have one. Bishonen | talk 09:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC).
Hi Bishonen, AFAIAA, having edited in a few different topic spaces covered by DS, it is still necessary to give individual DS alerts. I wonder if that would be something bot-able? First hurdle would be suppressing repeat alerts, I guess. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 09:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Apologies for the interruption. Just wanted to add support to the idea of formalizing these restrictions as much as possible. FWIW, I think enforcement through allowing reverts is a sub-optimal method; especially for Talk pages - in effect, it is an enshrining of incivility - which can bring more heat than light to discussions in contentious topic spaces. (It can become another battleground or opportunity for a "win"). Blocks are also sub-optimal and not really what we should be doing in response to good faith edits, which are not innately disruptive.
Enforcement through a filter seems very much the best option - and in terms of technical implementation, it may be best to look at how semi-protection is done. It might be possible to use essentially the same mechanism, but with 500/30 instead of 10/4. This might also assist admins with implementing the restriction - as page protection seems more intuitive than setting up edit filters. Thanks for your time taken in reading. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 09:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Bishonen:: The edit notice is currently on only at Nair, not at the other four pages (incl. Talk:Nair) -- I'm waiting for feedback before I place it on those. I tried editing with SpacesockSpiff at Nair and here's what I saw: (1) when I click "edit" I get to see Template:Editnotices/Page/Nair at the top, above the edit window; (2) despite seeing that if I make an edit, then the filter is tripped, disallows my edit, and gives the message that is now at MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-500-30-restriction. If I understand you correctly, you'd like to modify it to something to the effect of "...than 30 days old. Edits made by accounts that do not meet these qualifications may be removed. Accounts editing...". Part of the issue with the wording is that I've tried to use {{Ds/editnotice}} which is currently framed with 1RR in mind (there's too much template stuff in that for me to attempt any change). I've made the above change now, but we do need to modify the Ds template to make it cover all varieties of sanctions. The talk page warning is just a standard reminder that's part of all Ds talk page warnings and doesn't change the necessity of notifying accounts individually. {{Castewarningtalk}} that EdJ removed when adding the ds notification at Nair was similar and this one incorporates content from {{Ds/talk notice}} which is in use at over 2000 talk pages now. As for the wikiproject clutter, I think we probably can add a banner shell every time we add this template.—SpacemanSpiff 12:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • It's big enough, and bold enough; unlikely to be missed, which is desired. If there's not yet an edit filter which prevents the actual edit, would it be worth including that the "changes may be reverted by any other editor"? To save on angst associated with reverts & undos. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Ryk72: That probably would be the way to go iff the current remedies prove to be of some use and there's a larger scale usage for these type of sanctions than the current estimate of maybe 20 such sanctions. It would involve a new group of editors that'd be a hybrid between WP:Autoconfirmed and WP:Template editor so that protections could be set based on the user group, but I think it's early days to think of that right now. And on your other point, repeat ds alerts are currently flagged by an edit filter and you're asked to check before you leave one. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 12:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The stock edit notice is now active at Nair, Bhumihar, Vanniyar, Jat people, and Talk:Nair. We can change it to MusikAnimal's new notice when the other modifications (filter, template) are done. —SpacemanSpiff 04:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
    As I've said before, I'm a big fan of the template idea with the padlock (which I demoed here User:MusikAnimal/pp-30-500, though there's no doc yet), but again that requires an additional filter to only allow admins to add/remove it. Right now Special:AbuseFilter/698 is only a few characters longer than it used to be, and not difficult to manage. I am leaning more towards holding off on the padlock idea until more pages are put under this editing restriction, simply because we want to minimize filter usage for overall site-wide editing performance. Do we anticipate there being more any time soon? Or do you think you'll want to remove the restriction from the current pages? — MusikAnimal talk 16:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • MusikAnimal, as far as this particular restriction relating to WP:ARBIPA covered caste articles goes, I don't see it being used in more than 20-30 pages at peak with pages being added or removed. At this point I don't see the sanction being removed in the foreseeable future at Nair but we could consider removal in 6-12 months time at Bhumihar. Also, in the near term, say 3-6 months or so, I don't think we'll add more than another 10 pages to the list, if that. However, I haven't considered another similar sanction that could potentially result in a wide net of articles as that is way beyond my pay-grade, if you don't want to get directly involved in that then I'd suggest checking with the listed clerk or drafting arbs on the expectations there. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 16:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Amendment request archived

The amendment request has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Amendment request: India-Pakistan (October 2015). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 16:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Miniapolis, there's something goofy going on with the archive box template there owing to qoute boxes I presume -- the archive box stops midway. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 16:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Uploaded photos

Hi, this is surprising to know that some of the photos which has been taken by myself have been removed from the pages. I believe I hold the copyright for those photographs and I have mentioned it in the licence too. One of the photos which you have deleted "ActorKTSPadannayil.png" has been now uploaded in wikipedia common and I am adding it to the wikipedia page K. T. S. Padannayil as well. I am confused here as the photograph has been taken by myself only. please guide me.Rajeshbieee (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Your old account Rajeshbiee was blocked for exactly this reason, you've been uploading clips of images as your own work, so please do not say that you don't know why. You've been warned on your talk page. Continuing to reupload these images here or on Commons is going to result in you getting blocked. —SpacemanSpiff 15:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Just saw the warning on copyright violation, but see I have taken several photographs of many people as I am working in film industry and I hope to upload more photos with right license. Expecting your guidance here.Rajeshbieee (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Please stop claiming copyright ownership when you are clearly not the copyright owner. You've done this here and to circumvent the deletions here, you went and uploaded on Commons. Any further such activity is going to result in you getting blocked. —SpacemanSpiff 16:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I am really disappointed by your reply as I am unable to prove that the photos are taken by myself only as I am working in film industry and I do have the opportunity to get closer to many actor/actress/directors/technicians. Please don't bring here the comparison of any other accounts here. See you have mentioned that I am doing good with my account and I am having it for more than 5 years. I still have many photos of many celebrities with me and I would like to upload those as well in future, but "How I will prove to you that, I have taken those photographs?" Please let me know the path to make you understand the genuinity of those photos? I request not to compare me with any other accounts or its bad history. If I am a rule breaker, I would not have got the opportunity to complete 5 years of editing successfully. Please guide me and believe me and please don't compare me with any previous accounts.Rajeshbieee (talk) 01:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
    • You've already been told that being in possession of a photograph does not mean copyright ownership, yet while the deletion discussion was going on (on Commons), you went ahead and uploaded another copy under a different name to circumvent the discussion. Over here you've uploaded a crop of a publicity still and claimed it as your own work. These are just two examples. Given these, in addition to the prior history, the statement "I own the copyright" isn't going to be taken at face value. —SpacemanSpiff 02:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I am dejected to know your point just because you have brought a different account history, anyhow I would like to get your personal e-mail address, so that I can send the photographs which I have taken to you for the verification and to get your approval from you before uploading it in wikepedia or commons.Rajeshbieee (talk) 05:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Any sort of discussion is only possible when you stop claiming copyright ownership when you clearly don't have it. While I can accept errors in the past, doubling down with the sort of statements you're making is indicative of the fact that you have scant regard for our policies and have no interest in abiding by them.—SpacemanSpiff 14:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SpacemanSpiff/Archives/2015/October&oldid=1139038703"