User talk:JBW/Archive 72

• Addicted2sexx (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:AGuard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello there, Im writing about the AGuard article that I wrote earlier today. Didnt understand the exact cause of the declined submission. Whats needed more in order the article to meet your notability guidelines. There isnt much informationa about that software except that its the main successor of the old HLGuard and is widely used now by the old GoldSrc server owners, including me. Here are some of the servers using that AC - https://www.gametracker.com/search/?search_by=server_variable&search_by2=ag_version&query=&loc=_all . Do I need to add more quotes or ? Thanks for taking your time to see my message. Also I saw that HLGuard once had also a wiki page here, but it is deleted. Can you show me its page content to see what exact information I need to have in order the article to be published.

Wish you all the best. Addicted2sexx (talk) 11:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@

general notability guideline, which is a section of the guideline Wikipedia:Notability

. I recommend reading the general notability guideline for yourself, if you haven't done so already, but the essential point is that the topic of an article has to be something which has received substantial coverage in independent reliable published sources. A passing mention in a sentence or two, a mere inclusion in a list, or anything similar is not regarded as substantial coverage. Coverage in sources which are directly connected to the topic, such as the web site of the author, is not independent coverage, and gives no evidence of notability, as anyone can write about their own stuff. I'm afraid your statement "There isnt much informationa about that software" tends to confirm my own impression; if there isn't much coverage of a topic then it doesn't meet Wikipedia guidelines. You ask "Whats needed more in order the article to meet your notability guidelines", which is a question that is often asked by new editors in this kind of situation, but it is not the right question to ask. No amount of rewriting an article can change the notability of the subject that the article is about. The first question to ask is "Is the subject notable?" and only if that question has been answered "yes" is it helpful to move on to the question "How can I make the article show that the subject is already notable?" If the answer to the first question is "no" then any article on the subject, no matter how ell it might be written, is likley to be deleted.

My advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start.

You are, of course, free to choose not to follow that advice, and instead to continue to try to get your draft accepted instead. I think that would be a mistake, as you would be likely to put a lot of time and effort into something very unlikely to succeed, but if you do choose to do that then I suggest looking first at the general notability guideline and then at the

guide to reliable sources

.

I don't think seeing what the deleted article

talk

) 12:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi 'James'. Getting ACTRIAL finally through was the fruit of a 7 year personal challenge. I would personally like to thank you for your vote and excellent comment - from the bottom of my heart. Chris, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you advise me here James.
An increasingly recurring and widespread theme in user name generation over Wikipedia is a long string of numbers with letters and punctuation marks, very often for what I see is hit-and-run on the same or similar articles. For example, on the Henry Bessemer] article we have two, both beginning with '2602' (many of these start with '26'). How they can log-in remembering a particular string is interesting... I think they don't, they just register new ones for their drive-byes. I believe many of these are the same person (socks), with these strings possibly running against user name policy. If you can't investigate this, can you point me to where I can bring this up. There may of course already be a discussion somewhere... I can't think I'm the only one noticing this. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Acabashi: These are IPv6 addresses, the next generation of IP addresses. You're probably used to seeing IP addresses like 212.34.65.12. These are the same thing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I didn't know this! You live and learn. Such a long string would make it a bit more difficult to keep an eye on them I suspect. Acabashi (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes please, I want the page to be deleted C2216 (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks like the same editor is back using another sock:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bradshaw_Viscera

Agricolae (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@

talk

) 14:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, could you userfy this deleted article for me? I may be able to do some work to substantiate claims to notability. Chubbles (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@

talk

) 14:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

It is now at

talk

) 10:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I raised a query a while ago at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability of local elections in the UK which has attracted some discussion. On the basis of that discussion, and taking on-board the points raised there, I have drafted an essay here which might form the basis of future guideline/ policy. What I am unclear about are the procedural steps to get this accepted (or rejected) by the community. I am not asking for your views on the proposal - although they would of course be very welcome- but simply how to make procedural progress with this. There may , of course, be a community forum for discussing just such issues, but I couldn't find or recognise it in the dimmer ginnels of the Wikipedia structure. Any help would be very much appreciated. I did post this request on Oshwah's talk page but have since withdrawn it as I think this issue may have particularly British resonance. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Velella, It's lovely to find use of the word "ginnel" from the dialect area where I once lived. Do you (personally) pronounce that with a hard or a soft 'g'? And is their dimness due to gas lighting? Sweetpool50 (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Always with a hard "g". Probably most of them have gone now but there were many around Bigg Market and Pudding Chare and going down from the Castle to the Quay Side. Many also disappeared when they built the Eldon centre, but hopefully the word will survive. And yes, some on the way down to Quayside were still lit by gas!  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   18:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Velella: Ah, so that's where you are from! I became familiar with the word several decades ago when I was living much further south than that, in West Yorkshire.

On the subject of where to raise the question of your essay, I am really not sure what is the best place for it. You could raise it at

talk

) 12:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. There was an on-going discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability so I have linked the page to that discussion. I am still unclear where the process of getting formal acceptance of guidelines or policy exists in Wikipedia, but hopefully that may become clearer over time. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   12:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@

talk

) 13:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi James, can you please tell me which parts I need to remove or edit? Thank you! JasonLWriter (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi James, I do work in marketing, but Judge Graham isn't a client of mine. He's well-known in the Dallas area and I've been following his work for some time. I was doing a profile on him when I noticed he didn't have a page of his own, which surprised me. I wanted to add a page because I'm a fan. As a matter of fact, I modeled the page closely after Tony Robbins, whose work I also follow. The only language I see that could be construed as promotional is taken from the sources I linked to. Can you please help?JasonLWriter (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@JasonLWriter: OK, I'll say a few things which I hope may help.

It seems to me that the promotional impression comes mainly from two things.

1. Again and again there is wording which has the feel of trying to give the reader a positive impression of Graham. Many of the examples taken on their own would not be very significant, but there is a cumulative effect from reading a string of them. For example, there is "known as one of the foremost innovators". It may be true that he has that reputation, but expressing it in those terms gives a feeling that the writer agrees with that assessment, whereas a Wikipedia article should be written in such a way that nobody should be able to tell from reading it what the writer's opinions are. Similar remarks apply to "devised a new paradigm of marketing". "Ranked as one of the most creative work spaces in the world" also raises the question "ranked by whom?" For a statement of that kind it is essential to give a reference to a reliable source which supports the statement, as otherwise there is no way of knowing that it isn't just the opinion of whoever wrote that in the Wikipedia article.
2. The selection of what to write about him has the feeling of being like a resume, telling us the achievement he has made from the point of view hw might like us to see them. Unfortunately I find it impossible to give specific examples to illustrate that, because it is an overall impression, rather than being tied to particular details.

I have had a look at the article Tony Robbins, which you mentioned. Obviously, it is natural for new editors to look at existing articles to see what is acceptable, but unfortunately that is not always a reliable method. Vast numbers of articles are created, and many of them are then subject to hundreds or even thousands of edits. Amongst all that there is often totally unsuitable material. Much of it gets spotted and removed very quickly, but some of it doesn't, so that some articles persist for a long time with content which really doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's standards. Tony Robbins is nowhere near as promotional in tone as the draft you have written, but it is far from ideal.

You describe yourself as a "fan" of Judge Graham, and you also say that you work in marketing. Both of those facts are likely to contribute to making it difficult for you to stand back from your own writing about him and see how it will look to an impartial outsider. All of us tend to find it difficult to be objective about topics of which we are fans, or in which we strongly believe. In addition to that there is, as I have already mentioned, a particular difficulty for people whose work involves in spending hours at a time dealing with promotional language, because such language is natural to them, whereas it can at times seem very unnatural to others.

I'm afraid that experience of working in marketing can be a disadvantage in editing Wikipedia, because it can be necessary to make a conscious effort to learn to write in a different way than one is used to. However, if you can make that effort there is no reason why you shouldn't be able to make valuable contributions.

You may like to try editing your draft in line with the few pointers I have given you above. However, my advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start. Obviously, that advice may not appeal much to you if your only interest is in writing about Judge Graham, but if you are at all interested in contributing more widely then I suggest leaving the draft for now, and making minor contributions on other topics, preferably ones where you are not a fan, and perhaps coming back to your draft when you have more experience. That is, of course, just my advice, and you are free to take it or not.

I don't know how useful you will find those comments, but I hope at least some of it may help you. The editor who uses the pseudonym "

talk

) 20:43, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Wow, James, I really appreciate you taking the time to address my post. You are very cool for doing that. I am new to this and want to do a good job. You are also absolutely correct that working in marketing has most likely skewed my perception. Still, I would like to try to make it passable. And I do wish to continue to edit articles and produce non-biased content for Wikipedia long into the future, even if this page doesn't get accepted. Honestly, it was just an idea I had, but I had fun annotating all the sources in the Article Wizard. I want to create more pages. Your guidance will help. I get what you mean about Tony Robbins. He was the closest I could think of to Judge on a grand scale. Thanks again. I look forward to editing more and really appreciate your advice. I'll definitely be taking it. Take care. JasonLWriter (talk) 21:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

James, thank you for looking at my ANI. Upon closing I'm not sure I understand which comments from Legacypac are considered legitimate vs not. I don't consider the repeated accusations of whitewashing to be civil or acceptable. It's fine to say the edits or proposed edits are against policy but totally different to say the intent is whitewashing. Am I correct to say that comments like the ones I quoted are not ok but, of course, comments such as an edit on proposing is undue or lacks weight or (name policy or guideline here) is ok. I think Legacypac should at least respond to the ANI before the closing. Springee (talk) 10:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@

talk

) 10:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I was being a gentleman and ignoring the baseless allegations, but, since Springee insists on reopening the tread to get me to respond and because they seem unclear on how to define whitewashing I've supplied a few illustrative diffs for strictly educational purposes. I've also linked some media articles on his (and confederate editor's) activities least anyone think I'm seeing things others are not seeing. Of course it is a (multiple interleaved) DS area as Springee keeps telling me, so if his activity is found to be problematic that is on him, not me. Thanks JamesBWatson. Legacypac (talk) 11:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Whitewashing, according to Wikipedia, is "to gloss over or cover up vices, crimes or scandals or to exonerate by means of a perfunctory investigation or through biased presentation of data". It's not merely removing it, there is an allegation of bias. Using it implies an agenda, not an innocent removal. Its use is often a pejorative. This looks like one of those cases. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

JamesBWatson, is it appropriate to ask you to weigh in on the ANI thread? I would understand if you simply want to wash your hands of the whole thing at this point! Thanks Springee (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@

talk

) 14:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Well for what it's worth the ANI was closed [[39]]. I'm not sure I'm happy with the closing. Good because too much off topic stuff was getting dumped in there. Bad because I don't belive Legacypac went away thinking there was anything wrong with how they were replying to others. If the closing was inline with what you were thinking I'll assume my read was the one that's off and move on. Thanks Springee (talk) 10:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@

talk

) 10:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I would appreciate comments to the closing editor. Springee (talk) 11:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

This isn't my fight but the last sentence is the sort of thing I'm concerned about [[40]] Springee (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)I like Legcypac and I like a lot of what they do, but they really need to deshrill their interactions. And it's getting worse instead of better.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

JBW, would you please take a look at the ANI. I'm concerned it may archive before the close is reviewed. Thank you Springee (talk) 12:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I think the close was OK in so far as it went. What troubles me is that Legacypak appears not to have taken on board advice concerning their behavior.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Springee and Dlohcierekim:

1. I agree with Dlohcierekim that "the close was OK in so far as it went". I would have expressed various aspects of it differently from how Seraphimblade did, but obviously there are bound to be personal differences in details like that. The one thing where I differ significantly from Seraphimblade is that he made it symmetrical between Springee and Legacypac. I agree 100% with Seraphimblade that there were faults on both sides in several respects, including "And as a quick point of reference, if anyone can tell what your personal opinion is on a topic from the way you're editing or discussing it, you're doing it wrong", which seems to me to be fundamentally the crux of the dispute: both Springee and Legacypac are equally at fault there. However, I also think that Legacypac, unlike Springee, is guilty as charged of incivility, personal attacks, and unsubstantiated accusations, and I would have preferred that to be mentioned in the close. However, Seraphimblade closed it as he saw fit, and I accept that he did it in a somewhat different way than I would have done.
2. The edit linked by Springee above in the sentence beginning "This isn't my fight..." is not one I like, but it is very mild compared to many other things that Legacypac has done many times, and I don't see that there is any need for action over it. However, Dlohcierekim's concern "that Legacypak appears not to have taken on board advice concerning their behavior" is probably well-founded. The best I can suggest at present is that if Legacypac continues to show an unacceptable attitude to editors with whom he or she disagrees, it may become suitable to take some action. From the recent ANI case there is not only Seraphimblade's criticism of both sides, but also the critical comments from other participants in the discussion, and Legacypac also has two blocks in his or her history in which unacceptable attitude to other editors was all or part of the reason, not to mention other messages etc over the years. I therefore think that Legacypac has had plenty of warnings. The editor who uses the pseudonym "
   talk
   ) 19:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Just for clarification, the close wasn't just in regards to Legacypac and Springee. At that point, the ANI thread was a tangled mess that was itself degenerating into bickering and mudslinging. It's not the first time there's been an issue in that area, so it was more intended to put all participants on notice that anyone who continues to behave badly is likely to be taking a break from the topic. That very much includes Legacypac. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@

talk

) 21:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

JamesBWatson, would you please remind @Legacypac: about the civility guidelines in context of accusing others of whitewashing. Disagreeing with words is one thing but edit summaries like this one [[41]] are exactly the story of thing that was discussed in the recent ANI. Springee (talk) 10:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@

talk

) 11:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Can I just say thank you? I’ve been watching this whole thing without saying anything because I was uninvolved in the dispute, but as someone who feels like I got similar harassment (although not as prolonged or pronounced) from Legacypac stemming out of a completely unrelated saga, that got brushed under the rug so to speak, I’m grateful he has received a very strong reminder that that sort of behaviour is unacceptable. ... Thanks,   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  13:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I've lifted your block of Legacypac based on discussion with other admins. [42] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

User DasallmächtigeJ[43] is stating the on Mad Max video game page that's it's both a prequel and a sequel to Fury Road[44], however the source links on the page don't support that claim.

• "A Mad Max game is coming, but it's not going to be related to any of the movies, because of Avalanche's radical position that movie tie-ins are pretty terrible."

• "A Mad Max game is in development, but don't call it a movie tie-in. Developer Avalanche Studios is making it clear that their upcoming game, based on the long-standing franchise, is not tied to any of the films, particularly the upcoming Mad Max: Fury Road."[45]

• "The studio is very clear that this game is in no way associated with the upcoming Mad Max: Fury Road movie starring Tom Hardy, that it is very much an original, standalone story, set in a standalone world."[46]

The official comic book doesn't show the events of the video game[47] and the Mad Max wiki doesn't use the events of the game on the character's page, "Do not put information from the video game. It is not canon.".[48]

This is becoming an edit war and DasallmächtigeJ is only putting in links to opinions from people who didn't work on the game and had nothing to do with it.108.208.136.214 (talk) 08:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I expanded the article with several sources on how the film and the game are connected. The user appears to be some sort of errate fan, his only excuse for removing my content is that it a.) doens't appear in a comic book (because obviously you put out a comic book with the exact same content as a game and of course they can't have two separate stories) and his assertion that b.) because the developers stated that it is not a frame-by-frame reproduction of the movie it of course cannot be a prequel. I tried to reason with him, but he simply reverted the edit and cleaned his talk page. I actually don't like doing this, but I will have to report him now and suggest to protect the page.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• User DasallmächtigeJ is still not providing any real proof from the studio, the developer or from George Miller himself that would backup his claim that's it's connected to the film. The video game's story doesn't even fit Fury Road or any past Mad Max film. Mad had a baby boy, not a preteen girl, Glory in the game isn't the same from the movie and comic book (written by Miller). Max meets her and her mother differently, the car he has at the end of the game is not the same as the one seen at the beginning of Fury Rad. Like I said, user DasallmächtigeJ is just using a review's opinion and speculation, that's not how wikipedia articles work. The way he's editing the page, it doesn't make any sense, it's not connected the film... and yet... it somewhat is...108.208.136.214 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Chochopk • Coffee • Gryffindor • Jimp • Knowledge Seeker • Lankiveil • Peridon • Rjd0060

Guideline and policy news

• The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely
  restricted to autoconfirmed users
  .
• A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

Technical news

• AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash
  .
• When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
• The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
• There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee is seeking additional clerks to help with the arbitration process.

Obituaries

• Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.

Hi, JamesB. You should check out edits coming from 2607:fea8 when you get a chance. 2607:FEA8:A29F:FF2D:445E:A806:CD87:9EB2 & 2607:FEA8:DE0:9C0:29B2:6328:542D:9381, for example. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

You have a message at the top of this page about May 2016. Enigma^msg 17:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@

talk

) 15:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

1. I think it is irregular to close an AfD that has been open for 3 days as a G5 without indicating anywhere who the article creator was a sock of — usually there is a note for future reference of those who work at NPP or AfC and it is unhelpful when there is no such note)
2. In this case it is not even indicated as a G5 in the log, the only link is to the AfD discussion- this misrepresents to any editor who might want to recreate the article, such as myself, that this close reflects a community consensus about notability. Please be clear about this - if you are saying in the close that you are deleting this as a G5 then indicate that in the summary as well.
3. My understanding is that editors had worked on it since the nomination/creation and it was in substantially different from when it was created- were these edits made by the same editor or had multiple editors worked on the article? Is there anyway to view the history and confirm this? Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: First of all, my apologies for the long wait for an answer. For personal reasons I have not been able to edit recently. however, here at last are some answers to what you have said. I hope they are helpful to you.

• I have tended to work on the basis that if a page is deleted while a deletion discussion is in progress then a link to that discussion, and a mention on the discussion page about the speedy deletion reason, gives anyone who sees that the page has been deleted and wants to know why the opportunity to see both the speedy deletion reason and also whatever was said in the deletion discussion, which is likely to be more helpful than just the speedy deletion reason. However, you are right to point out that an editor who sees that a page has been deleted at XfD might not look at the discussion and see the speedy deletion reason. I shall re-delete the article mentioning both the AfD and the speedy deletion criterion, to make it clearer. Thank you for drawing my attention to this. (Obviously it is just as true that an editor who chooses not to look at the deletion discussion page will not be aware of why the page has been deleted under other circumstances, meaning that he or she will not know whether it will be suitable to re-create the article or not, but there is no harm in making the information easier to find in this case.)
• You are right to point out that I should have said what sockpuppet it was. I shall also add that to the deletion log.
• There was only one edit to the article by anyone other than its creator, and that edit merely added the AfD notice to the page.

One more small point perhaps worth mentioning is that it is usually better to mention what page you are referring to in this kind of situation. This time it was very easy to find it, as it was the last AfD that I had edited, but in the past I have sometimes had to spend considerable time searching through editing histories in order to find what page has been referred to. The editor who uses the pseudonym "

talk

) 15:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for changing the summary especially, so it doesn't create the impression of misconduct by recreating an article after an AfD I was involved in closed delete.Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:06, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Our old friend is back, this time as User:Jimmy Jam III, who barely let the paint dry on your announcement of reduced activity to do all the old edits again (of US presidents and anachronistic style and arms on the Byron family, plus some others). Since I saw you did an administrative action earlier today, I am raising the issue here first since you are already familiar with the scenario - if you have the time and inclination and you agree it is a sock, then if you flag the account I will take care of all the reverts. Otherwise, I will proceed to the more formal SPI process for a determination. Agricolae (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Agricolae you can do the reverts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

and done. Agricolae (talk) 04:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Is this another sockpuppet for User:Roosterknees? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not, but an indef for 'vansalism only' puts an end to this one. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Having trouble posting to the vandalism noticeboard so trying here instead. User Deworucijo is obviously

(talk page watcher) Another admin blocked the account, and I did away the copyright violations. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

JBW, a few months back I asked you about issues with editor civility [[49]]. After the editor didn't get the message you implemented a block (which was then reversed). The editor and I have largely not crossed paths in the mean time but recently the uncivil have returned. Here is an accusation of whitewashing [[50]], the exact accusation from last time. There is also this MfD an accusation of POV pushing against two unnamed editors (almost certainly myself given previous comments) [[51]]. Do you have suggestions for dealing with this? Thanks. Springee (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@

talk

)

JBW, thanks for the reply. I recall that unblock discussion and I sadly I think LP came away feeling like they did anything but wrong. At least NeilN showed their typical good sense and offered some level of warning. Hopefully LP and I simply won't cross many paths and it just won't be an issue. Take care! Springee (talk) 02:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello JamesBWatson, you might be interested in the issue I am reporting as you have already been involved in it previously. It is about a bunch of IPs which are very likely (99%) related to an old acquaintance of en.wikipedia: a sock-puppet abuser who created about 50 socks to disrupt IPA transcriptions, obsessed especially with Italian names and words. The investigation I am referring to is the following: 84101e40247. The new IPs from which similar or identical edits have been done recently are the following: 95.235.116.126 (see: Loayur, Duelai, Ddgfs), 87.17.102.163 (see: Sasalikasty), 193.204.194.210 (see: Dyukpore), 79.30.8.179 (see: Vufroled), 5.90.255.50 (see: Ksyru), 79.49.65.250 (see: Fruial, Kilorty); it is also possible that there are some more, but for the moment these are enough to care about, right? I hope that you or someone else will take appropriate measures against this recidivous vandal! Thank you for reading :-) 198.46.84.16 (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

It is very difficult to do anything useful in cases like this. Blocking IP addresses is likely to be futile, as the editor just moves to new ones. Protecting articles is not realistic, as there are numerous articles affected, most of them only occasionally at long intervals. Some of the IP addresses you have listed are in IP ranges which have sporadically been used by this editor over a long time, with very few or no other edits in the same period, and I have pout range blocks on those, but at best that will slightly slow down the activity, with other IP addresses being used instead. Not very satisfactory, but the best I can offer.

On another point, please don't post multiple copies of the same request for help to several administrators, as it can cause people to waste a lot of time checking up on something which is already dealt with. See also WP:ADMINSHOP. The editor who uses the pseudonym "

talk

) 15:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay for the multiple requests, I have understood. About the sockpuppetteer, you might do the same thing you did the last time you dealt with him: reverting his vandalisms concerning IPAs and blocking at least the last IP he has been using, there may be much less work than the previous time and I could give you a hand with that. Even what you have just said would be useful anyway, on my opinion. 198.46.84.16 (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Widr: JamesBWatson: Behavior sufficient to check for sockpuppet abuse? --JustBerry (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@

talk

) 20:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I would be inclined against that that alone is sufficient grounds to check, but I thought you may know something about the editor that may lead to there being sufficient grounds. I'll leave it to Bbb23, Vanjagenije, and Widr to comment. --JustBerry (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@

talk

) 20:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful request for comment, administrators are now able to add and remove editors to the "event coordinator" group. Users in the event coordinator group have the ability to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit. Users will no longer need to be in the "account creator" group if they are in the event coordinator group.
• Following an AN discussion, all pages with content related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, are now under indefinite general sanctions.

Technical news

• IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build
  the talk page
  .
• There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
• It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration

• A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous

• In early May, an
  two-factor authentication. A committed identity
  can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Is it worth taking this to

@

talk

) 20:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@

talk

) 11:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I saw the increasing hostility in the user's responses, so I'm not surprised that there was more COI than was being disclosed. Sorry you had to put up with the unpleasantness. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I know you are trying to withdraw from this. I just felt this comment was too blatant [[52]]. Calling other editors a "troll" is just over the line. Springee (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi since you've blocked User:Calton for personal attacks in summaries once upon a time I think it's courteous to let you know about this AE thread where he's subjected to. 79.102.176.21 (talk) 06:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey, perhaps

(talk page stalker) Nope, I would not treat undisclosed paid editors as legitimate new editors, particularly when this editor is not exactly new. Perhaps JBW could have nullify the template in the normal way as suggested by the template, but this is no biting. Alex Shih (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I accept Stwalkerster's criticism of me, and I don't agree with Alex Shih's defense of me. The edit summary here does disclose the paid editing, and although it is not done in the approved manner that is no doubt because the editor is unaware of all the relevant guidelines, policies, etc, rather than out of any bad faith. Any editor acting in good faith deserves courtesy, even if he or she is unknowingly doing things that are not approved of. I was irritated by finding I had spent time checking something that didn't need checking, and responded in an irritable way, which was not good. Thank you, Stwalkerster, for drawing my attention to it. I have rewritten my comment in a way which I hope is better.

The reason that I used "nowiki" tags rather than "the normal way as suggested by the template" is that I was not answering the request for help, which is what "the normal way" is about.

Having said all that, in fact it turned out that checking the "help me" request was not a waste of my time, as it drew my attention to other problems with the editor. The editor who uses the pseudonym "

talk

) 20:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps I am feeling grumpy after spending some time in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. My bad. Alex Shih (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks James :)

WP:AGF and a kind guiding word is much more likely to be effective in encouraging change and future productive editors, no matter how they start out. stwalkerster (talk

) 20:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	Hey sorry for dragging you into my help request, I am still trying to figure this out for some of my clients :) Any help would be appreciated. Mainly I would like to get the Rameses Nightingale page citations and errors complety gone so the page looks nice and clean.. Thank you :) Offthehooktv (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Broken block template on User:Caftaric

The block notice template you left on User talk:Caftaric is broken. I'd fix it, but the substituting would then assign my signature to it, after which I'd have to manually edit in yours—potentially leading to what I suspect is exactly the kind of confusion that's not needed when it comes to blocks/block notices. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 08:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello JamesBWatson, in regards to Caftaric's indefinite block for abusing multiple accounts, is there an associated SPI or ANI that links Caftaric with R567 or any other abusive accounts? None appears when searched for. Curiously, Loopy30 (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

No. The editor who uses the pseudonym "

talk

) 09:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Is that because the reasons for this block rely upon confidential information? I understood that blocking was a serious matter that should be

explained to both user and the community at large. Regards, Loopy30 (talk

) 22:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

How much explanation do you want? It is very common for block logs to give no more than the default explanation, which in the case of a block for sockpuppetry would be "Abusing multiple accounts", whereas I also provided the name of another account used by the same person. Most of the evidence is easily visible to anyone who looks, such as a considerable overlap in articles edited, very similar editing of those articles, including in some cases repetition of exactly the same edit, and other details too. Spelling out the exact details of evidence of sockpuppetry is often very unhelpful, as it warns the sockpuppeteer what give away signs to avoid with future sockpuppets. What is more, it looks to me as though precisely that may have already happened in this case, when earlier sockpuppets were blocked, which look as though they may be the same person as these accounts. The editor who uses the pseudonym "

talk

) 08:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for that. No need to give away the farm by providing any exact details. I had just thought that a user was blocked only as a result of a complaint/investigation and not summarily banished without any further process visible to the community as a whole. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Could you keep an eye on Smeef89? It may well be another sock of User:Danieleb82. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 04:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@

talk

) 11:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't seen this, but I came here because of this to let you know about my report Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Danieleb82. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@

talk

) 18:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

im off to bed now but see this[53] which made a major change with a bit of I don't know what (the "are were") - not just bad grammar but wrong, and deleted important information about open air activities. This is a site I've actually visited several times. Doug Weller talk 21:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed Hedgewars was deleted as you removed many links. Couldn't find any recent discussion on that. Either way, I believe hedgewars should have an article, could you please restore a copy to my user space so that I can work on it? thanks Shaddim (talk) 08:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I can, but can you provide any reason to justify doing so? That is to say, any reason to think that, contrary to the conclusion of two deletion discussions, the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines? The editor who uses the pseudonym "

talk

) 09:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

indeed, I believe there is enough notability for this game. I will extend the article accordingly. cheers Shaddim (talk)

Yes, obviously you believe there is enough notability, or you wouldn't have made the request. By "can you provide any reason" I meant "can you provide any reason for believing that it is notable". Simply stating that you think so is not very helpful: see

talk

) 11:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I will gather reliable sources and will not re-add the article before I come to the decision that the article has a serious chance for surviving a review. Currently, with the article and its history deleted, I can't review the source situation of the old one. (I think it is in general a bad idea to delete articles that way that they can't be reviewed via their history, but thats another problem.) So, could you please restore the article to my user space? thanks Shaddim (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Usually I am happy to temporarily restore articles to user space, but in the case of an article which has been to two deletion discussions, both of which resulted in consensus to delete, and two deletion reviews, both of which resulted in the deletions being upheld, and the article has again been unilaterally re-created, I am reluctant to do so without better reasons. However, since the reason you give for wanting the article restored to user space is so that you can "review the source situation", I have posted a list of all the sources from the deleted article at

talk

) 10:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

As I assumed there is indication of notability available in even the article before deletion. While I don't want to argue with you abbout notability, there are other indications of notability like pure usage & citation in common culture. Hedgware is one of the bigger open source games and most likely could have an article. Therefore, restore this article to my user domain that I can work on it and eventually bring it in for review. I think you can't & should not block my intention on working on this article. Shaddim (talk) 09:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I note that you asked that the article be restored to user space because you couldn't "review the source situation", but now that I have made the sources available you want it restored to user space for other reasons.

You are clearly well aware of the notability guidelines, and you must be aware that "one of the bigger open source games" is not one of the criteria. You have said that you "will gather reliable sources", and there is nothing to stop you from doing so: you don't need the text of the deleted article to do that. You say you "don't want to argue with [me] abbout notability", but if you have any evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines then you can easily tell me what that evidence is without arguing about it, yet you do not do so.

You are seeking to overturn the outcome of four separate discussions. The onus is on you to provide justification for doing so: I am certainly not going to do so simply because I am told to by someone who asserts that he "believe[s] there is enough notability", that he "assumed there is indication of notability available", and so on, but who after repeated requests does not provide any evidence. I will restore the article if and when you provide justification for doing so based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not just because you say that you believe and assume things.

If you believe that what I am doing is contrary to Wikipedia policies and guidelines then you are, of course, free to take this to a third deletion review, but doing so because you personally don't like those policies and guidelines is not a good idea. The editor who uses the pseudonym "

talk

) 10:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

As you said I'm well aware on the notability guidelines. I will review and expand the full article to the point where it has good chances of surviving a review. If I can't bring it to such state, I will not hand it in and scrap it. So, put it to my userspace that I can work on it. Shaddim (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for being an unconstructive blockhead and bureaucrat, I reconstructed the article on my own. Shaddim (talk) 10:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

thnaks again for being an unnconstructive asshead, misusing his administrative powers Shaddim (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC) I apologize for this unneeded confrontational reply in anger on the deletion of the with some work and time invested reconstructed draft article. Shaddim (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@

talk

) 12:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

While I appreciate that we found common ground on the way how we should talk with each other; in the core issue the blocking of user space drafting we have a severe disagreement. I believe, backed by many policies like even g4 of speedy deletion, user space drafting is an valuable and wanted mechanism in WP. Admins should not blocking authors in utilizing it, especially if the author ("me") is demonstratable productive and interested on creating content for WP (which should be clearly proven by my edit history). Shaddim (talk) 07:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@

talk

) 18:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

this is by no means a misunderstanding. User space drafting is encouraged in wikipedia and not limited by permissions of a council or individual admins. Again, there is no policy preventing me drafting this article. and I will do.Shaddim (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Now at

@

talk

) 11:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I motivated my demand: I said I want to do an draft and evaluate if the article has enough mass to survive an review. You did not gave me the benefit and doubt but outright rejected my demand, obviously not valuing draft works in user space. Shaddim (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at User:Kudpung/What do admins do?. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I noticed you deleted at least one of their stub-templates under G5. Fair enough, but considering they were also fairly prolific stub-sorting into such stubs including removing whatever stub-templates may have been present before, it's resulting in some stubs remaining out of stub-categorization and redlinked stub templates at the bottom of articles. I'm aware of Template:Tabanoidea-stub. (Its linked category Category:Tabanoidea stubs remains extant, though. Probably should be deleted too if the template feeding it no longer exists) and it's on my list of things to fix in mainspace. Were there any others you deleted, and if so, any chance you could send me a list so I can fix them? (Either by re-stub-sorting or verifying with WikiProject Stub Sorting & whichever is the relevant Tree of Life WikiProject whether it should be recreated if I suspect it may be a valid stub type, should any of the latter type even exist) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC) EDIT: I just found the full string of deletions today per your log. Is my presumption that the entire string of stub templates were Caftaric creations correct, and should I be looking into earlier days in your log, or did you only delete Caftaric creations today? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@AddWittyNameHere: I seem to have opened a can of worms there. Usually when a persistent sockpuppeteer keeps coming back one of the most effective tools to persuade them not to is to revert and delete everything they have done, so that they don't think they can just get away with block-evasion, and I started on that road here. However, I then realised that in this case there was a huge number of pages involved, and most of them looked useful, so I stopped deleting them. Adding to that what you say about the problems it has caused, it is clear that deleting them has done much more harm than good. I have therefore restored the Templates I deleted. Probably I should restore the categories too, but I am out of time now, so I'll have to come back to it. If I haven't done it within 20 hours from now, please remind me. (I suffer from attention deficit disorder, and things that I genuinely intend to come back to very often get lost, as my mind uncontrollably jumps off onto other things. Consequently if you do remind me I will regard it as help, not harassment.)

And I didn't delete any of Caftaric's creations before. The editor who uses the pseudonym "

talk

) 14:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear so, because yes, the sheer scale of clean-up (and frequently, re-creation) it'd have required wasn't exactly something I was looking forward to. A sizeable (albeit non-majority) number of their categories and templates probably should be deleted but it's unfortunately essentially impossible to tell them apart at a glance: whether they're useful or not tends to require significant time looking into things. Their stub categories and templates appear to have all been created without first proposing at WP:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals making it impossible to tell with certainty which would be considered valid, so I'll see if I can't find some time listing the entirety of their stub-category/template creations over at the stub-sorting project. Would be useful to have some help trying to figure out which are legitimate categories and should be kept, which should be turned into upmerged templates because they might become useful but currently result in an undersized stub category and which should be dumped over at TfD as not useful. (I could just dump the entirety over at TfD I suppose, but it's easier to filter out those that are almost definitely going to be kept by asking the relevant project. Post-Caftaric clean-up is going to be sizeable enough anyway that anything that can be fixed outside the slow bureaucratic processes probably is better fixed outside said processes).

Thanks for letting me know you wouldn't mind a reminder if needed! Always good to know beforehand that it won't come across as harassment. I have similar tendencies myself, except in my case it's more related to sleep-related issues leading to frequent exhaustion and distractability. Still, I understand where you're coming from. I suppose it doesn't exactly help that en.wiki has so. many. things that need doing, does it? (It's certainly my wiki-bane, at least) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Reminding you to un-delete Caftaric's categories. I know it's not actually 20 hours yet (18 or thereabout), but you appear to be offline anyway, so chances are that by the time you see this reminder, it's been 20h as asked, and I'm about to log off and may forget to remind you otherwise. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 08:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@

talk

) 13:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Eh, as all articles that may have been in those two categories no longer are anyway, there's no use in restoring those two as it'd do nothing in helping the post-Caftaric clean-up. (Chances are that in most cases, the now-redlinked category was simply removed rather than the relevant parent category re-applied but eh, so be it. Someone'll get around to recatting them some day I'm sure) On the other hand, I'd keep everything you've restored restored for now, as that allows for making informed decisions on whether there's use in keeping them (as it shows where in the categorization trees the various categories are slotted, how many and what articles are in it, etc.) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)