User talk:ST47/Archive18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tuesday
21
May
2024
21:04 UTC
Archives
0x00
0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7
8|9|A|B|C|D|E|F
0x10
0|1|2|3|4
This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ST47.

Wikimedia Foundation
Wikimedia Foundation

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

  • In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
  • Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RationalWiki AFD[edit]

Please review the rather lengthy AFD rational I added to the page. I was typing up the rational when you posted the comment. I did not expect anyone to comment on the page within 10-15 minutes, and merely used "Fails GNG" as placeholder text. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mosey is sexy[edit]

Hello ST47. I created a sockpuppet investigation before you blocked Mosey the sexy. Can you take a look at this? Sincerely, Masum Reza☎ 04:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP 185.11.18.74[edit]

Hi ST47,
on 4th May, you temporarily banned IP 185.11.18.74 for disruptive edits to Kevin Kühnert. The IP is back now and continuing to make similar edits without engaging in discussions on the article's or their own talk page. I've already reverted the most recent change but would like to avoid an edit war. Can you give some advice on what the proper procedure is?
Thanks, Destruktor5000 (talk) 07:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfCs started by sockpuppets[edit]

Thanks for your swift action at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Freeboy200. As you seem to have noticed, Johansweden27, the sock of Freeboy200, has recently initiated several RfCs at Talk:English people, Talk:Germanic peoples and Talk:Swedes. These RfCs were poorly framed, possibly for trolling purposes, and have resulted in endless fruitless discussions. As pert WP:BANREVERT, edits by socks may be reverted by anyone. Does any similar principle apply to the closure of RfCs initiated by socks? Krakkos (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 May 2019[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).

Administrator changes

removed Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

removed Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
  • An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
  • An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

  • The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
  • Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ziggy 2milli[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ziggy 2milli requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 03:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your close of List of last surviving veterans of military engagements[edit]

Hello, I recently nominated the above article for deletion, which you closed as keep here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of last surviving veterans of military engagements. I understand the raw vote tally in this AfD was lopsided towards keep, but I don't believe the keep voters were following actual Wikipedia policy. As I expressed to numerous keep voters as did the delete voters, this article clearly fails WP:LISTN and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This group or set is not a real topic in the real world, it was just an article created by a fan of a particular vein of scattered military related material. The whole concept of this article is WP:OR. Keep voters couldn't look past the fact that the events these people participated in were notable and that they got random coverage about being the last this or that, but not as a group. This group or set is military fancruft and just because some people have an obsession with military related topics, that doesn't mean Wikipedia needs to serve as a webhost for such material, which belongs on a fan site. I kindly request that you reverse your decision and delete this article, which doesn't belong on Wikipedia and sets a bad precedent in the longevity sphere (which if you don't know, has quite the troubled history on Wikipedia) that as long as disparate sources touch on the vainest of similarities, any list may be created. Sincerely, Newshunter12 (talk) 07:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Newshunter12:, I have re-reviewed the AfD debate and I will be leaving it as keep. The raw !vote tally was 3 to 8, and I see no evidence of sockpuppetry or improper canvassing in this case - it would take rather extreme circumstances indeed to close as delete when more than two thirds of the participants argued to keep. Further, multiple keep !voters did leave policy-based arguments related to WP:LISTN and WP:NOR.
One key part of the debate was sourcing - you argued (e.g. to Necrothesp) that there are no reliable sources that compile lists of the last surviving veterans of military engagements. Leaving aside whether that is true or not, the fact that there is individual sourcing for many of the list members is enough to satisfy both WP:V and WP:OR. As e.g. schetm argued, there is substantial sourcing for the fact that a specific individual is the last survivor of a specific battle. Now, I don't know, maybe there's a WP:ONEEVENT concern with many of these entries (is it really "notable" to be present in a battle and then be the last person to survive?), but inclusion in a list doesn't necessarily require the same level of notability as inclusion as a standalone article (WP:LISTPEOPLE) and it seems like sources exist for many people in this category.
The other main argument seems to be related to the notability of the list topic itself - you argued that it isn't a valid list because it doesn't really refer to a concrete group of people who are related in any particular way, citing WP:SYNTH. However, multiple keep !voters argued that both WP:LISTN and WP:LISTPURP allow lists for informational or navigation purposes.
If you still believe that the discussion was closed improperly, you're welcome to bring it to WP:DELREV, however, I believe that the keep outcome will be upheld. ST47 (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm disappointed but I respect your close and will leave it there. Thank you for re-evaluating things. Newshunter12 (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boards of Education in India[edit]

Thanks for closing the discussion. Boards of Education in India is still there, though. My apologies for the 'nudge' if you just didn't get around to it yet, but I saw the incoming links were deleted but not the article, so I wondered if it 'slipped the net'. Cheers. -- Begoon 19:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the heads-up - I've been noticing the occasional error while using the XfD closer script. I've deleted it now. ST47 (talk) 20:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I guessed it would be a script stuffing up because it did all the link deletions (except one in a hatnote which I found) but the article survived and I was pretty sure it's supposed to do all that in a "batch". Thanks for the quick response (and action). Cheers. -- Begoon 20:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Dario Hunter 2020 presidential campaign[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dario Hunter 2020 presidential campaign. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 73.75.84.123 (talk) 03:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Lil Nas X[edit]

You deleted Template:Lil Nas X despite the objections from me and another editor. In the recent discussion, only the editor who initially proposed deletion was in favor of it. A consensus was not reached yet. Compare it to the previous deletion... plenty more articles ("Rodeo" and "Panini") have been created since. Why not wait for the discussion to close before you decide to delete a template? You must abide by WP:CON, so I suggest restoring the template / talk page. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 20:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • A speedy deletion nomination does not require waiting for consensus, only an evaluation that the page currently meets the speedy deletion criteria. The previous TfD was the relevant consensus building exercise, and WP:DELREV is the correct place to go if you want to attempt to overturn the consensus that was established at the previous TfD. ST47 (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Love of My Life (South Korean TV series)[edit]

ST47:

You redirected a page that I had reviewed without leaving a reason. Is there something you feel I missed in my AFC review? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Train Master[edit]

Hi there. I see you recently tagged User:NorfolkSouthern523 as a sock. Could you please see User:AmtrakAcela2000. Similar edits at Hawaiian Railway Society and Auburn Valley State Park. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 09:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Akagunduzsa01[edit]

I messed up, I'm sorry. -- CptViraj (📧) 10:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment by Nickm57[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racial_discrimination&oldid=903968918

I recently made these edits. They are cited by this article (though you can find others):

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/are-jews-white/509453/

On the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Racial_discrimination

some seem to disagree that the Jews were discriminated against. These seem to be the same people who believe that the holocaust never existed. Nick is just a really bad person. At this point, I believe I need administrative help.

Nick has a track record of stalking and disruptively reverting my contributions to wikipedia. I was hoping Nick could be blocked from editing, or that a report be submitted against him, at the very least. His abusive behavior is getting out of hand.

People like him also launched several smear-campaigns, simply because I wrote about some things that are well-sourced and well-documented that does not fit their chauvinistic point of view.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Xinjiang_Pages_and_User%3AAlexkyoung

I appreciate your input on this urgent issue. Wikipedia has no space for such bullying and abuse.

Alexkyoung (talk) 05:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have replied on ANI, but mass-canvassing uninvolved admins with statements like Nick is just a really bad person. is quite irregular. I wouldn't be surprised to see this WP:BOOMERANG in some way. ST47 (talk) 05:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quite apart from the above and the user's subsequent blocking, I cannot help noticing a long essay "on free speech and wikipedia" now on the user's talk page. I'm pretty thick skinned, but I can't say I'm very happy about the further unjustified allegations of me and user Moxy stalking, being Sinophobic, anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic etc. Nickm57 (talk) 11:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The June 2019 Signpost is out![edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

another user?[edit]

User:War Operation Plan Response also seems to be from the redacted site and accused me of being a sick and twisted pervert. True crime is a specialist subject of mine, not an obsession. I am sorry. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since User:Option 16 and User:Heartworms were both checkuser-blocked, I'd imagine that any other socks would have been caught at the same time. (And in any event, I can't see the deleted edits anymore, so there's not much I can do.) ST47 (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Payne[edit]

You changed my alteration of footballer Jack Payne. I put that he is a free agent and added a weblink to the proof. You changed it so that it said he’s on-loan at Bradford which is not true anymore! He is a free agent! Dangills (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • A number of other editors were making changes to the article at the same time, and it looks like your changes were reverted here by CLCStudent as part of the cleanup. The only thing that I did was protect the page. You can ask CLCStudent to restore your changes, or see this page for instructions to make an edit request. (I'd do it, but I don't know what else in the article should be updated to account for his change in status.) ST47 (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).

Administrator changes

removed 28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam1 • Flyguy649 • Fram2 • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe
1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Guideline and policy news

  • In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

Technical news

  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about license plates[edit]

Not to be ungrateful, but shouldn't the block cover the full range from 112.213.221.0 (talk · contribs) through 112.213.221.255 (talk · contribs)? Thanks. Useddenim (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes. That's exactly the range it covers. (You should see a message saying that the IP is blocked on each contributions page for those IPs.) ST47 (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
TY. I misunderstood, and thought the notation "112.213.221.0/24" only meant the first 25 IP addresses. Useddenim (talk) 21:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh! CIDR, if you want the details on that notation. ST47 (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AFI follow-up[edit]

You commented at and closed WP:ANI#AFD & comment there. Related to that same thread, can I ask for your review of this edit and history here? — fourthords | =Λ= | 02:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it has already been handled. ST47 (talk) 02:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry ...[edit]

... for this clumsy misclick. I tried to revert immediately, but Ivanvector rightly assumed that it was a mistake and got there first. Regards to both, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it! ST47 (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We all have bad days :) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

R[edit]

Hi. The article "R" is simultaneously semi-protected and PC-ed for one year. If you meant to just semi-protect it, then you may want to reset the PC-protection setting. -- George Ho (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, never mind. I realized that PC setting is indefinite while the semi lasts one year, so that's good. George Ho (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I noticed that the previous protection was configured similarly, and didn't want to semi-protect indefinitely - but expect that the issues have been persistent enough that they'll resume once the protection expires. ST47 (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Go Grizzly Page Deletion[edit]

Hi, I would like to contest the speedy deletion (G4) for musical artist Go Grizzly. I believe the Go Grizzly page should be up, but I am not sure where to contest the deletion. As the page has been deleted, the talk page has been as well, which is why I am on ST47's talk page as they are the deleting admin. Please let me know if this is not the correct place for this comment/discussion. Thank you! Johnfrankel (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Johnfrankel:! The reason it was deleted was because there was a previous deletion discussion which decided that the page should be deleted, and (in my evaluation) the deletion reasoning back then still applies to the new article - it does not appear that the new article does a better job of meeting WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE than the old one did. The new article has plenty of inline citations, however, many are not sources that are sufficient to establish notability. In particular, the Genius links demonstrate that this producer is associated with these songs (or at least that a volunteer contributor to Genius thought so), but they are not significant coverage about the producer themself. The best way to proceed is to ensure that there are multiple reliable sources that provide significant coverage about this person and then go to deletion review. That is the forum for overturning past deletion decisions, such as the one at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Go Grizzly. Regards, ST47 (talk) 14:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ST47 - Thank you for the quick response & info. I gone over the notability guidelines and I see your point. Notability in real life ≠ Wikipedia-required notability. Thanks again. Johnfrankel (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Dujuan Thomas[edit]

Hi ST47. Would you mind keeping this on your watchlist for a little bit? I think this draft is being created by a new editor, who probably means well, but for obvious reasons is not to aware of things like BLP and BIO, etc. There is some discussion about this at User talk:John from Idegon#Removed Edit to MEL B as well as at Talk:Mel B#Assault allegations but I think tempers are might be starting to flare a bit. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might want consider stepping in when you get the time because NPA's like this are going to get even a new editor in lots of trouble fairly quickly. I know your involvement so far has been only to re-added a removed AFC template, but perhaps as an administrator you be able to get things to cool down a bit. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking a look at this. I think this is probably just a new editor still learning how things work on Wikipedia. So, things should hopefully settle down a bit once he/she slows down, starts to breathe a little and takes heed of the advice some others have already tried to give. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not especially hopeful, but trying to give as many chances as is reasonable. We'll see how they respond. Thanks! ST47 (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kendrick norton[edit]

Why did you protect the page, didn't see any bad vandalism besides one edit but doesn't seem that big of a issue to protect it? Scribbley (talk) 00:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be quite a bit of speculative or unsourced edits at the moment, as people rush to meet the WP:DEADLINE. (For example, a handful of edits back and forth changing him from "active" to "retired" in the infobox.) I semi-protected for two days to reduce the unsourced additions. ST47 (talk) 00:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's a first[edit]

I edit-conflicted with your decline on JetCity22. He's  Confirmed having created another sockpuppet. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect No.6 Collaborations Project[edit]

Can you semi-protect the page? Some IPs always added the false songwriter at seen on [1][2][3][4]. -- 2402:1980:8249:115D:B193:30AB:40A3:1C9F (talk) 07:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure,  Done for one week. ST47 (talk) 07:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser-tag[edit]

I wrote {{checkuser|2=Steph Goodwin}}; thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

you erroneously reverted a poorly sourced edit to an article and then semi protected it.[edit]

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

the diff listed here

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historical_Jewish_population_comparisons&diff=905016616&oldid=904909070

removes a poorly sourced figure. The source listed is essentially a blog post, with 0 academic oversight or notoriety. Poorly sourced information should be removed, shoudln't it? Then why side with the people continually adding poorly sourced data

  • I haven't reverted anything. ST47 (talk) 03:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ok, well you semi protected an article for "vandalism" when I attempted to uphold wikipedia's own standards for sources. Removing poorly referenced data is not vandalism

Andy Ngo[edit]

I received an email yesterday from a user asking me for advice on whether to self-revert due to editing restrictions on the article Andy Ngo. I noticed that you placed the restrictions, so I want to make you aware of the problem. (not asking for sanctions here)

  • 3 July Editor A adds material sourced to Twitter
  • 3 July Editor B user reverts the addition
  • 3 July Editor A restores the material
  • 5 July Editor C (IP) removes the material
  • 5 July Editor D restores the material
  • 8 July Editor E removes the material
  • 8 July Editor D restores the material
  • 8 July Editor D self-reverts (fear of sanctions)
  • 8 July Editor E self-reverts (fear of sanctions) Twitter material is now in article.

You placed the "consensus required" sanction on 8 July. The problem is, it's not clear whether removing the Twitter material is a violation of the sanction, or whether re-adding the material is a violation of the sanction. Since the material has been in the article for less than a week and has been challenged 3 times during that time, a removal could be considered the "challenge" under consensus-required, which would prohibit anybody from re-adding the material without explicit consensus on the talk page. The underlying question is: how long does something need to be in an article to be considered the status quo? Somebody's got to make that call. User:NeilN recommended something in the ballpark of 4-6 weeks if I remember correctly, but some discretion is needed, otherwise you could end up with editors boldly removing stable material while claiming that their removal is a "revert" or "challenge" which would prevent anybody else from restoring the material.

Full disclosure: for the past several months I have been trying to convince admins to move away from using the "consensus required" sanction, partly because of the ambiguity above, but mostly for other reasons detailed here. ~Awilley (talk) 13:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Awilley: Hello! As it happens, one of the editors involved also started a AE thread. I would argue that any action after the page restriction is in place would be a violation of the page restriction - in this case, it was present when the restriction was applied, so it should remain while the discussion proceeds. (The edit of "adding this information" has been reverted at least once, and the edit of "removing this information" has been reverted at least once, so either adding or removing this information would apply as "reinstating an edit that has been challenged (via reversion)".) Obviously The Wrong Version applies. I can certainly switch the sanction to enforced BRD based on the arguments in the page you linked; I was initially concerned that that sanction is far easier to ignore. Is there any middle ground that anyone has thought of that would prevent slow-motion edit warring without rewarding talk page stonewalling? Or does that not really matter, because the requirement to bring your reasoning to the talk page is effective? ST47 (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I didn't realize this was already at AE. Regarding "middle ground", there were proposals at Template_talk:American_politics_AE#Proposals_for_a_better_ruleset and Template_talk:American_politics_AE#Preventing_tag-team_edit_wars with User:JFG proposing various BRD-like rules that would also prevent slow tag-team edit wars involving multiple users. I didn't implement the proposed rules partially out of concern for personal accountability issues (punishing Editor B for doing something that would normally be fine except that Editor A did something yesterday that made Editor B's action illegal).
I suspect I'm in a minority among admins, but my own view on slow-motion edit warring is that it should be prevented at the editor level and not the page level. Sanction the few editors who regularly participate in slow edit wars, instead of sanctioning all the editors with a page-level restriction. And when page-level restrictions must be implemented I want them to allow the following (good IMO) behavior: 1. Editor A adds something to an article. 2. Editor B reverts the addition. 3. Editor C partially reinstates the edit, modifying it to assuage the concerns of Editor B (like adding a source, re-wording for neutrality, adding it to the body instead of the lead, etc.) ~Awilley (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to your last question (does that not really matter) I've been using the Donald Trump article as kind of a petri dish for the BRD rule that I applied there in January, watching it closely, as it's a hotly contested article. There have been a few slow-motion tag-team edit wars (2 or 3 that I can remember) sometimes over trivial issues like the capitalization of "President". From what I've seen the edit wars die out on their own after the involved editors use their first revert, and editors generally respect a mutual agreement not to revert anymore until they find a consensus on the talk page. ~Awilley (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Awilley: Yo, am I Editor A? If so it's kind of lit that my content got grandfathered in like that. I wasn't aware of this slow motion edit war that happened since I restored the material (which was before sanctions were applied). I'd be happy to discuss it at the talk page level to defend its addition if this is the case. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My question could have and was answered by me clicking the diffs. trout Self-trout –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you mind switching this back to consensus required? After looking at the AE thread, and then just now seeing the history at the AE log I'm significantly less likely to do an article ban if we actually had a sanction that prevents disruption rather than encouraging it. For full disclosure, I think Awilley should let other admins actually use their discretion rather than push something he made up one day to be universally implemented when it doesn't always work. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tony, I don't think there's been any further edit warring on Andy Ngo, and with regards to the AE report, both users had self-reverted their own reverts, so, it seems like we can let bygones by bygones. Given that there's been little activity on Andy Ngo and that several other articles where the editor has gotten into disputes don't have any restrictions at all (Laura Loomer, Milkshaking), would it be reasonable for us to agree on one set of restrictions to apply to all of the articles we're concerned about, and monitor from there? I don't really want to make a confusing situation more so by changing the rules again. ST47 (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for replying. I've taken it to WP:AN to get community consensus as to if there is a "preferred sanction" so to speak. My rough view is that in the Coffee-era Consensus Required was over applied, but that having EBRD is an over reaction to that, and that admins should look at articles on a case-by-case basis. I guess you can consider my request null since I went ahead and asked the community about the larger topic TonyBallioni (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding User talk:Useddenim[edit]

Hi, I'm sorry for bringing this to your attention, but Useddenim is editing his talk page to bring to attention my minor edit to my comment. I feel like his acting are violating the spirit of a talk page, and just done to highlight my mistake. Can you review it?

All the best, -- Rockstonetalk to me! 16:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We agreed to drop the issue under the terms of the olive branch on my talk page. All is good in the world. Waiting for @Useddenim: to follow through and delete/strike through the boomerang complaint on WP:ANEW. Best, -- Rockstonetalk to me! 18:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to reply on ANEW. I'm glad to hear that this has been resolved. Escalating this would not have been productive for either side. ST47 (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, all escalating this would have done is resulted in a lot more drama. Useddenim is a good person and I'm glad we were able to put this behind us. Hopefully people at WP:ANEW don't get upset about the complete bowdlerization of the page (or of his talk page), though. That's my only concern. Regardless, this episode of drama is over and my role is done. Thanks for all the help. Rockstonetalk to me! 18:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for WorldFest-Houston International Film Festival[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of WorldFest-Houston International Film Festival. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Viztor (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking of 'He's the Billy Australia Can't afford'[edit]

Hi, I just wanted to say thanks for deleting that, I'm trying to clean up his edits and hope to see less silly people like them around in future. I'll work to get rid of them and please block them permanently. Thanks, MetroManMelbourne (talk) 09:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

72.255.7.12[edit]

Hi, can you remember who 72.255.7.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is? They seem to be doing what they were doing before. I've seen one or two other IPs doing this, as well as a couple of editors who I can't recall at the moment. DuncanHill (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From the block log, [5]. I don't know if there was more to it than that. ST47 (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to revert any of their edits that you feel weren't productive, as they are a sock of a blocked user. I'll have a look and see if there are any other IPs doing the same sort of thing...if you notice any, feel free to report to that WP:SPI. ST47 (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll keep an eye out. DuncanHill (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Paweensuda Drouin[edit]

Please consider removing the protection, as the IP edits are not vandalism. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Train Master[edit]

Would you have a moment to look at this editor. This category was previously created by User:NorfolkSouthern523, a sock of User:The Train Master. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 July 2019[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
  • The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

    Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

I logged in today and saw I was subject to an AN/I thread to which I was never formally notified, however it looks like it's all been resolved appropriately, so thank you. Simonm223 (talk) 12:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yo ![edit]

Hi ! It seems I've been misguided: I thought this picture was a private picture of a deceased person. As such it would have mean this picture would fall in the public domain at the death of the person featured in it, according to the French law on the right of image. BUT, this is in fact a cropped part of a famous picture by Keystone Pictures USA/ZUMAPRESS, during the Algier Putsch in 1961 (there). Don't know if there is still copyright on it.

Oopsie ! CocoricoPolynesien (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User back at it after block expired[edit]

Hi ST47, you blocked 2A01:111F:E1A:A400::/64 for three months at the end of April. Since it expired, the same user is back, making the same unsourced changes to numbers etc., in the same articles. I added it again to the current SPI report, but that report has been open for a month now. I don't get why it's taking so long... I noticed you just closed the latest Shingling334 report the very next day - I wonder if I'm doing something wrong with the report or something? Sometimes it's kind of a mystery to me when nobody responds... --IamNotU (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SRG[edit]

It's basically my home. ;) It's already requested. Praxidicae (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Yeah, I figure evading blocks on multiple projects would be enough for global locks, but I don't know what crazy things go on over on meta these days... Thanks! ST47 (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've been contemplating requesting a glock for a few months because he's disruptive and spamming himself elsewhere, but the socking on top of it all (it's deliberate, not accidental on his part) just puts the disruption too far over the line, so I guess c'est la vie...Praxidicae (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
le sigh. Praxidicae (talk) 17:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

@ST47: I did that so the person would see my response I Should of put it in my first one my badJack90s15 (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Jack90s15:. I think that if whatever you have to say is too long to fit in a single edit summary, that's probably a good indication that it should go on the article's or the user's talk page. In any event, inserting random spaces into an article in order to extend your edit summary over multiple lines is definitely the wrong way to go about it, since making an edit to insert an extra space in the middle of a sentence is demonstrably incorrect, and only serves to clutter the page history and recent changes. ST47 (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Change Andy Yu to disambiguation section.[edit]

Instead of having Andy Yu as a redirect page, change Andy Yu to a disambiguation page. Then both the investor and the actor would have pages. The actor only had a supporting role in a small show while the investor is ranked as one of the top young investors in the USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The1337leet (talk • contribs) 03:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The1337leet: a subject is not entitled to a Wikipedia article. If the article subject does not pass WP:NOTABILITY, then any article of them would be deleted. See WP:AFC for a way to create a draft article and request feedback on it. However given your insistence on this one person having an article, I suspect you have a conflict of interest and should not be editing Wikipedia articles related to him at all. ST47 (talk) 03:32, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 August 2019[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User Kami2018 vandalizing WP articles related to Pashtuns (Pashtuns, Afghans and Afghanistan)[edit]

Hey! I understand and apologize for my conduct. However, I would like to bring this to your attention that Kami2018 has vandalized articles on WP and continues to do so. Since Im not an admin I cannot block this user. Can you do something about vandalism? This user seems to vandalize artciles related to Pashtuns, or Afghans or Afghanistan. Objective001 (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Their edits do not appear to be obvious vandalism as defined at WP:VANDALISM, and using that term without further evidence is a personal attack. ST47 (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And as much as I don't want to wade in to the ethnic POV dispute that you're obviously involved in here...this edit of yours seems to be outright deceptive. And you do the same thing here. Why do you link to the article pashtuns, but use the word afghans instead? ST47 (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would be more careful in future with the usage of that term- vadalism, however, I have only changed Pashtun to Afghan where source explicitly mentions the word Afghan and besides that in historical context such as in case of Lodhis or Qais Abdur Rashid the word Afghan is used to refer to Pashtun people. I would not the use Pashtun for Afghan if the source mentions Pashtun, NOT Afghan. This is pure case of prejudice. He is not alone there are dozens of other users who bring their political differences to WP articles and vandalize pages relating to Pashtuns or Afghans. This user has also removed the categories relating to Afghans or Pastuns. Objective001 (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
in historical context such as in case of Lodhis or Qais Abdur Rashid the word Afghan is used to refer to Pashtun people It sounds like you're saying that the terms Afghan and Pashtun are interchangable, but I don't think that's what you meant. What is the difference? I would think that Afghan refers to people who were born and/or raised in Afghanistan, and Pashtun refers to an ethnic group, so it might be possible for both terms to apply to the same person. Is that accurate? ST47 (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Objective001: Never mind, reading Afghan (ethnonym) answered my question. It seems like we agree that @Kami2018:'s edits were not vandalism, but that this is a content dispute that needs to be resolved through discussion to build a consensus. Has there been a centralized discussion somewhere to discuss which term to use in specific cases? If not, Talk:Pashtuns might be a good place to have one, and see WP:RFC or WP:CD for more information. ST47 (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i want to mention this to Objective001 if there are any disagreements with any edit please discuss that with me on a talk page rather than using abusive language. He has used abusive language against me multiple times which is not in accordance to the wikipedia rules. We all are trying to contribute positively to the platform but the abuses and harsh language used against my nationality and ethnic origin is just not acceptable. Please have a conversation with me on a talk page of a article before making any changes so that consensus is achieved. Kami2018 (talk) 06:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wmwmurray[edit]

Citing WP:NLT, you've prevented Wmwmurray from either editing their own user talk page or sending email. My own reading of WP:NLT is that people are given some freedom to blow off steam on their own talk page. If the legaloid argle-bargle is merely repeated, one merely ignores it. Only if it escalates, if worthless unblock requests become disruptively frequent, or if things worsen in some other way, does one remove talk page access. Also, note WP:Blocking policy: "When ['Prevent user from sending email' is] enabled, efforts should be taken to ensure that the user's talk page remains unprotected and that the user is aware of other avenues (such as the Unblock Ticket Request System) through which they can discuss the block." In your place I'd both (i) restore email function and (ii) either restore talk page access or explain one or more of the "other avenues". -- Hoary (talk) 22:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Since you haven't responded in any way, I've done the minimum. -- Hoary (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary: Thank you for resolving the issue. I have not been paying very much attention to Wikipedia this weekend. The user is already aware of OTRS and of WMF legal contacts, so I personally do not see a compelling need to allow them to continue to argue and troll via either their talk page or via email - if it's WMF legal the user wishes to talk to, then I think our engagement as volunteers is no longer required or advisable. ST47 (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abusive Harassment Investigation[edit]

Hi, its NicholasHui. I just want to inform you that the IP address user you blocked is the same person from 165.225.60.69 (talk). If you have any questions, please ask me on my talkpage.

I'm not sure who you're referring to, but since I've apparently blocked them, I trust this is resolved. ST47 (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ST47/Archive18&oldid=916282536"