Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard |
---|
This page is for posting information and issues of interest to administrators.
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose. Sections inactive for over six days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) |
|
Open tasks
V | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 15 | 0 | 15 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 14 | 0 | 14 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
- 10 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 4 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 0 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 1 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 56 sockpuppet investigations
- 25 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 6 Fully-protected edit requests
- 1 Candidates for history merging
- 2 requests for RD1 redaction
- 22 elapsed requested moves
- 12 requested closures
- 69 requests for unblock
- 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 18 Copyright problems
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
Report
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Clarification on lifting of BLP ban
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Good day editors
Just over a year ago I wrote about sensitive aspects of Belarusian politics and did not provide acceptable sources for some of my statements. I appealed my ban about a third into it which was not well received. I understand that any statements, regard living persons especially, in all namespaces, need to be appropriately sourced and not contain a non-neutral point of view. I want to stress that I am a long term contributor to Wikipedia, having focused the majority of my contributions to the Icelandic Wikipedia, but have increasingly switched to the English one. I do understand BLP policy, I made a mistake and furthermore in trying to defend my original mistake rather than accepting criticism. I see that clearly with distance on it. My suggestion for anyone sceptical of my integrity would be to look at my edits to 2011 Minsk Metro bombing, a sensitive topic but you could also look at Alexander Lukashenko, Constitution of Belarus.
I have adhered to the ban for the past year. Mostly contributing around the important Belarusian historical figure, Konstanty Kalinowski with one accidental breach, see Talk:Soft_Belarusization.
Pinging @Nick, @El C, @Bbb23, @Robert McClenon, @HighInBC, @Deepfriedokra, @Ncmvocalist, @Celestina007, @Jackattack1597, @Meters, @Cullen328, @Pawnkingthree, @Isaacl
My question is simply if the ban can be lifted and I am allowed to edit BLP.
Thanks for your time, Jabbi (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Jabbi: You edited Alexander Lukashenko? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:42, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- Now I remember . . . -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- I support lifting the topic ban. BTW, couldn't you have started off with "Hello editors"? GoodDay (talk) 12:53, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- Support lifting the topic ban, regardless of whether it is about to expire anyway. There have been no new issues in about a year. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- Support lifting the topic ban. It has been more than one year, and the user's limited editing on English Wikipedia during that time shows no problems. Meters (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per my original reasoning in the ANI thread that resulted in the ban. I don't see any engagement with other editors wrt solving conflict and minimal edits in general during their ban. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- Not so sure The problem is, you haven't done anything here or on the Iceland Wiki to judge by. 20 edits in the last year? That isn't enough of a measuring stick to feel warm and fuzzy about it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:07, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose at this time. I, too, feel that 20 edits in the last year isn't a good enough measuring stick to confidently tell whether we'd be spared another episode. I suppose that, practically speaking, since the ban is gonna expire soon, anyway, it doesn't really matter. But I still think this point needs to resonate. El_C 20:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- Neutral I was pinged, but there is not enough to go buy.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- Procedural questions. I'm not sure why I was pinged, but, more important, I don't understand the ban. The only thing formal I've read was that Jabbi was banned until "at least July 26, 2022". Isn't that kind of odd ban language? What happens after July 26? Why do editors say that the ban is going to "expire soon"? Just in case anyone is curious, today is August 22. :p I guess I must be missing something.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- The closing statement suggests that the ban is an indefinite one appealable after one year, but reading through the discussion it seems pretty clear to me that the proposal being supported is
Jabbi is banned from making any edits anywhere on Wikipedia that concerns a living person or recently deceased person for one year
(which you proposed, incidentally!) There's an alternative proposal for an indefinite ban appealable after nine months, but that doesn't seem to attract any support. (And Wug's message on Jabbi's talkpage notifying them of the re-imposed ban saysI closed your AN appeal having seen consensus to essentially reset your one year topic ban
. - So my understanding is that the ban has expired, and Jabbi is free to make edits relating to living people once again. (The alternative interpretation would be that Wug's ANI close statement is the canonical sanction, the ban is indefinite and therefore will not expire soon. But either the ban has already expired, or it won't at all; I can't see any reading by which it will expire soon!) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- The closing statement suggests that the ban is an indefinite one appealable after one year, but reading through the discussion it seems pretty clear to me that the proposal being supported is
- Moot The best I can tell is that they were under a 1 year ban, violated the ban in july of 2021 which reset the clock on the 1-year ban. But it is now August 2022, and unless there was another extension of the ban, the ban has already expired. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- Unless someone shows up in the next 24 hours to argue that the ban has not expired, I will close this as moot (AmEng sense). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 07:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
WPWP photo contest again
Just a heads-up that #WPWP is coming to a close (ends Aug 31) and so we’re seeing an uptick in submissions. Might be worth keeping some eyes on filter 1073 lest we get any more… er… pickle images. firefly ( t · c ) 21:29, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Here we are, yet again, having to clean up after a poorly run and poorly executed contest. Can we just ban this already? I've removed dozens of copyvios and there are several examples of badly placed images, images added to BLPs that aren't of the person in question and just general bad BLP images that are outright creepy and/or useless. PICKLEDICAE🥒 21:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) A contest that requires volunteers to review an abuse filter to ensure incorrect, BLP-violating and copyright-violating images are not shoehorned into articles in order for editors unfamiliar with our local policies regarding images to win prizes should be banned from the project. You can make a bunch of rules for participation but if the organizers don't actively monitor the additions then what's the point of making the rules? It's a drain on local resources and the cost/benefit ratio is wholly unbalanced. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- More to the point: they should be banned, at least here. There is almost no benefit to this contest, as shown year after year. PICKLEDICAE🥒 21:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Every time this runs it causes problems. When we have to have an abuse filter for a contest, we shouldn't permit it. Hog Farm Talk 22:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- The rewards should go to the editors who revert the most image additions. -- ferret (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- well sign me up. PICKLEDICAE🥒 22:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- I can donate a box of old RadioShack CueCats as rewards. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- The rewards should go to the editors who revert the most image additions. -- ferret (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Every time this runs it causes problems. When we have to have an abuse filter for a contest, we shouldn't permit it. Hog Farm Talk 22:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) A contest that requires volunteers to review an abuse filter to ensure incorrect, BLP-violating and copyright-violating images are not shoehorned into articles in order for editors unfamiliar with our local policies regarding images to win prizes should be banned from the project. You can make a bunch of rules for participation but if the organizers don't actively monitor the additions then what's the point of making the rules? It's a drain on local resources and the cost/benefit ratio is wholly unbalanced. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Serious question, can't we just set the filter to disallow all these edits? It's the nuclear option, but it's more and more clear it may well be necessary to prevent sustained disruption from these contests. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Filter 1158 (hist · log) enforces a limit of 25 images per day. It was enabled after this discussion. Straight-up disallowing would require a new poll. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Anybody know how many good additions this contest brings? Picklivich 22:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- I'm struggling to find any. PICKLEDICAE🥒 22:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Huh? I just checked the most recent edit by the last ten people flagging that edit filter, and they all appeared constructive. Sometimes the formatting is wrong, in one case they used an already existing image that's since been tagged for deletion (they didn't upload it), and sometimes it's just rearranging, but they seem to be consistently doing what they're supposed to do: using already-uploaded photos on Commons in Wikipedia articles. Friendly reminder that nobody here is obliged to clean up, and newbies don't have to get it right. This kind of noticeboard panic seems to happen for every contest, absent any sort of systematic analysis, based on a subset of problematic edits. Oppose any sort of kneejerk intervention. Has anyone actually pinged the organizers to ask what their process is for review? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- The problem is in between their ok edits, there are a lot of really bad ones, which are also BLP violations, including adding photos of people who are not the subject, blatant copyvios and creepy candids or blurry photos to the point it's worthless. We've been going through this for more than a year now and nothing ever changes. PICKLEDICAE🥒 22:36, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Also the bulk of the people participating (particularly the ones making problematic edits) only edit for these contests. That alone imo is problematic on the same level as paid editing since they're doing it for a monetary outcome. PICKLEDICAE🥒 22:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) This isn't an image upload drive. We already tell people -- all new users -- that if there are free images available (especially on Commons), then use them in the article! That's what these users are doing. If there are bad images, it's because someone else, unrelated to the contest, uploaded it. Yes, ideally they'd all learn all about copyright, check for copyvios, and improve the articles to FA while they're at it, but that's not the scope of what's happening.
Here's the point: if the majority of these edits are indeed bad (not just imperfect), then yeah, we have a problem that needs intervention, but there needs some systematic evidence of that when we're talking about this kind of scale. So let's answer this: what proportion of edits in a contest/drive/campaign need to be positive and how do we measure it to avoid weighting for, say, one or two bad actors? [after edit conflict]: If contests with prizes that engage people who aren't already really experienced Wikipedians are inherently problematic, that needs its own discussion. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)- I'm not talking about uploads. I'm talking about users finding any random image on commons that matches a word in an article and using it, without care as to whether or not it's acceptable or useful to readers. There's a problem here. It's been discussed endlessly, that you are not agreeing with or seeing it is not the problem nor does it mean it doesn't exist. As far as pinging the organizers, I believe that was done in the past when this was discussed, but it isn't the job of volunteers to make sure a prize/paid campaign that values quantity over quality is up to snuff when the organizers can't be bothered to communicate with the community in the first place. PICKLEDICAE🥒 22:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Simply: If you want to ban a contest, provide a systematic review of contributions, along with evidence the organizers aren't going to be involved with cleaning up. Do that and I'll be right there with you calling for a ban or some other intervention. What I'm not going to do is support shutting down a large outreach event based on anecdotal catastrophizing without systematic evidence. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- This was put together by somebody who can't clean up, because they're topic banned from working with images on enwiki. MrOllie (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) In the same thread where you chided us for a complaint - a valid one that has been discussed for years and provided multiple diffs in past discussions, you also demand all the diffs, instead of looking for yourself while asking us why we're not reaching out to a banned organizer who is responsible for many of the issues from WPWP and WPNG. Irony. PICKLEDICAE🥒 23:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- I started this with my own spot check. Not systematic by any means, though, no. I dare say the burden is on those calling for a ban to substantiate it properly. Valid point about the organizer being banned. My hope is they have non banned users doing maintenance, because certainly we can't have banned users solely responsible for bringing people to enwp. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- omfg til WMF gives grants to sitebanned editors wtf, they're actually paying sitebanned editors to edit, how is this happening. Levivich 23:37, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- They've given him multiple grants, as well as this user, @Levivich who is arguably much worse with respect to T Cells since his ban from bnwiki and bnwv was about basically taking funds in the name of BNwiki without their knowledge and misusing/taking money improperly. But you know, we totally need #WPWP. PICKLEDICAE🥒 23:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- I'm reading and just whaaat. The WMF paid T Cells $7,200.00 to run WPWP2021 (click through to the expenses documentation). Let's see them put THAT in the fundraising emails! Levivich 23:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe for the next WPWP we can ask Lugnuts to coordinate for all the footy photos. PICKLEDICAE🥒 00:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- I'm reading and just whaaat. The WMF paid T Cells $7,200.00 to run WPWP2021 (click through to the expenses documentation). Let's see them put THAT in the fundraising emails! Levivich 23:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- They've given him multiple grants, as well as this user, @Levivich who is arguably much worse with respect to T Cells since his ban from bnwiki and bnwv was about basically taking funds in the name of BNwiki without their knowledge and misusing/taking money improperly. But you know, we totally need #WPWP. PICKLEDICAE🥒 23:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Simply: If you want to ban a contest, provide a systematic review of contributions, along with evidence the organizers aren't going to be involved with cleaning up. Do that and I'll be right there with you calling for a ban or some other intervention. What I'm not going to do is support shutting down a large outreach event based on anecdotal catastrophizing without systematic evidence. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about uploads. I'm talking about users finding any random image on commons that matches a word in an article and using it, without care as to whether or not it's acceptable or useful to readers. There's a problem here. It's been discussed endlessly, that you are not agreeing with or seeing it is not the problem nor does it mean it doesn't exist. As far as pinging the organizers, I believe that was done in the past when this was discussed, but it isn't the job of volunteers to make sure a prize/paid campaign that values quantity over quality is up to snuff when the organizers can't be bothered to communicate with the community in the first place. PICKLEDICAE🥒 22:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- If we're talking about WPWP generally rather than WLA specifically, is a "Plaque award & WPWP Souvenirs + Certificate" really more of a "monetary outcome" than barnstars or whatever recognition Wikicup is giving nowadays? The only question seems to be what those souvenirs are since I'm far from convinced a plaque award and certificate are more monetary just because they're physical. Nil Einne (talk) 23:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne there's money involved. PICKLEDICAE🥒 23:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Praxidicae: but that's only for WLA as I already acknowledged. Anyone who isn't participating in WLA, including anyone who does not use the WLA hashtag (Meta:Wiki Loves Africa 2022/WPWP) is not eligible for those prizes. If the problem is specifically with WLA then we should talk about WLA rather than WPWP generally. We need to be clear since the pickle example does not seem to be WLA, nor was Deogratias20. And we could for example ban the WLA hashtag without banning the WPWP one. And indeed the premise of your claim, that people are solely after the prize and do not contribute anything else seems faulty, since you need 300 mainspace edits to some Wikipedia before 1 June 2020 to eligible for WLA. 300 edits is not a lot, but it's enough that it's questionable to say they've contributed nothing else. If editors are making botlike edits to some project to become eligible, this should be something that someone can document to demonstrate the problem but I don't see anyone has. Instead there just seems to be an assumption people are after the gift card without any real evidence and when the examples people throw out don't generally seem to be eligible. Nil Einne (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Also as I understand it, the images must have come from some year's WLA and the pickle image doesn't seem to have. Note this also means people cannot be adding their own photos unless they uploaded these photos earlier (I think the main WLA ended on 15 April 2022 or of course some other year) to take part in WLA and are now trying for the WPWP WLA part. Nil Einne (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Praxidicae: but that's only for WLA as I already acknowledged. Anyone who isn't participating in WLA, including anyone who does not use the WLA hashtag (Meta:Wiki Loves Africa 2022/WPWP) is not eligible for those prizes. If the problem is specifically with WLA then we should talk about WLA rather than WPWP generally. We need to be clear since the pickle example does not seem to be WLA, nor was Deogratias20. And we could for example ban the WLA hashtag without banning the WPWP one. And indeed the premise of your claim, that people are solely after the prize and do not contribute anything else seems faulty, since you need 300 mainspace edits to some Wikipedia before 1 June 2020 to eligible for WLA. 300 edits is not a lot, but it's enough that it's questionable to say they've contributed nothing else. If editors are making botlike edits to some project to become eligible, this should be something that someone can document to demonstrate the problem but I don't see anyone has. Instead there just seems to be an assumption people are after the gift card without any real evidence and when the examples people throw out don't generally seem to be eligible. Nil Einne (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne there's money involved. PICKLEDICAE🥒 23:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) This isn't an image upload drive. We already tell people -- all new users -- that if there are free images available (especially on Commons), then use them in the article! That's what these users are doing. If there are bad images, it's because someone else, unrelated to the contest, uploaded it. Yes, ideally they'd all learn all about copyright, check for copyvios, and improve the articles to FA while they're at it, but that's not the scope of what's happening.
- I've just indeffed User:Deogratias20 for adding their own uploads at Commons which clearly weren't their own work. Black Kite (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Courtesy ping for @Deborahjay:, the "Campaign Communities Liaison" for this event.[1] – Joe (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- And other active enwiki editors listed there as having some responsibility for it: Sadads, Anthere, ToniSant, Camelia.boban, علاء, Jamie Tubers, Romaine, Ammarpad. I don't think it's right that, year on year, uninvolved volunteers are having to clean up after this, while so many of you are silent. – Joe (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- I am completely uninvolved in WPWP. Apparently someone had added me to the list of organisers... :-( Romaine (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Well, that's not a great reflection on the level of organisation... – Joe (talk) 09:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- I was on the international committee for WPWP last year but I too am completely uninvolved now. Not sure how and why I or any community I formally represent still appear in any list for WPWP 2022. From an AFG perspective, the organizer's intentions are good, as are the complainers' on en.wp about cleaning up. Respectfully, the community I work with and I have other priorities. -- ToniSant (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- Well, that's not a great reflection on the level of organisation... – Joe (talk) 09:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- I am completely uninvolved in WPWP. Apparently someone had added me to the list of organisers... :-( Romaine (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Per @Rhododendrites-- I just spot checked 15 from different users, and they all looked reasonably good content, based on the descriptions in Commons. Blocking individuals that don't following warnings, and doing the work to educate users on formatting seems like the right step -- but as someone who supports organized activity across the movement: even with experienced editors, there is rarely a guarantee contributions will be consistently perfect. All newcomers have a learning curve, even you when you first started editing; our rules aren't intuitive and formatting and standards for quality are complex, Sadads (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- No one is asking for perfection but encouraging mass editing where the only time said users contribute is during contests isn't usually helpful. For an example, there were a lot of errors from this user, who I'll note, has an editing history of only editing during contests and quite a few others that were also bordering on BLP violations but also lacking in common sense. I'm with Joe here, we're doing a lot of clean up and way too much checking behind them when it should be the coordinators ensuring that their edits are correct (and you know, not adding copyright violations even if they aren't the ones uploading them. This is common sense stuff.) I think a lot of the people saying it isn't disruptive are missing a key point here too. Something can still be in good faith but disruptive. This is very much the case for this contest and a fair amount of users participating in it, in particular
- What is the point of WMF funding these things if the bare minimum of guidance isn't even being given? What is the money actually going to? This is less of a concern overall (for me, but still a question I have regardless.)
- But I honestly don't expect this discussion to go any different than the last few, I expect the status quo of concerned editors being blown off as being "bitey" or not understanding, so this is all probably moot anyway. PICKLEDICAE🥒 14:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Sadads
All newcomers have a learning curve, even you when you first started editing; our rules aren't intuitive and formatting and standards for quality are complex
. I entirely agree. And this is why I am dubious about a contest that has cash prizes for the volume of added images. While your average newcomer can probably make basic edits, images are often more complex - involving issues such as the biographies of living people policy and copyright. The fact that people can win prizes for 'adding the most images' seems to lead to people shoving images haphazardly in order to make 'number go up'. - I also agree that many (possibly most) of the image additions are individually net-positive - unfortunately the sheer scale of the additions makes the error rate problematic. In the past ~3 days or so around 500 additions have been logged by the filter. That's 166.66.. per day, or 10,000 over the ~60 days of the contest. That's a lot of additions to sift through - and a lot of the pages edited are low-traffic ones (naturally, as high traffic ones will probably have images) where issues might take longer to spot.
- I really want to like this initiative - adding images to articles is worthy work and we need people to do it, but I'm not sure a contest judged on scale is the way to do it. firefly ( t · c ) 15:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you @Joe Roe:. We have revised the rules as well as made several other changes for this year to mitigate these issues. I believe most of the problems are arising from users who are not even eligible to participate in the first place (we are checking this now); just like the Deogratias20 and Ogunwele examples that are mentioned above. – Ammarpad (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- And other active enwiki editors listed there as having some responsibility for it: Sadads, Anthere, ToniSant, Camelia.boban, علاء, Jamie Tubers, Romaine, Ammarpad. I don't think it's right that, year on year, uninvolved volunteers are having to clean up after this, while so many of you are silent. – Joe (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
OK. I am running a check on the impact of WLA WPWP over the English Wikipedia. If I look through the hashtag tool between July 1st and August 24 [2], I find 62 revisions to 57 pages by 6 users. Unless the hashtag tool is buggy again, the damage can clearly not be huge.
Users concerned are
- User:Accuratecy051, quick look... did not see anything wrong at first sight
- User:Tarih, - I do not see anything wrong here...
- User:Afí-afeti - the user used cp images, but none of those images were uploaded during WLA (though he used the WLA hashtag). But 4 images altogether...
- User:Acaalexaca - nothing wrong there (and pictures not from WLA...)
- User:Kwameghana - main contributor. I checked 1/5 of them. I saw nothing wrong at all (except I could complain most are tagged WLA even though they are NOT from WLA). The positioning is logical, the description as well.
- User:Mijesty (all good).
I do not really see reasons for the fuss with regards to those pictures tagged #WLA. Anthere (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- This is not limited just to WLA though. PICKLEDICAE🥒 15:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Good. But at least, it is not related to the WLA tagged ones. And WLA above was pointed at because it offers a small prize (when the person is joining a wikimedia event, typically data gift card for attending wikiindaba). So please... I fully understand that some people are doing it wrong in some cases, and that’s upsetting, but I do not think money is the key responsible here. Anthere (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- New editors face a steep learning curve, no doubt, and it's difficult to navigate all the various requirements, such as BLP and copyright, no doubt. So why are we encouraging new users to add as many images in 60 days as they can? Is speed and volume really something we want to encourage from new users? Last year, over 1,000 WPWP participants added over 250,000 pics, which means we will never have any idea how many are "good" or "bad". All of the samples we've looked at are tiny and unrepresentative, and we'll never go through and check 250k edits. So: let's get people who have never done this before to try and do as much of this as they can, incentivized by cash and other prizes, and never quality-check their work, and never be able to quality-check their work, because there are too many pics added. Doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Levivich 16:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- The above is essentially my view on this as well. WPWP inherently stresses quantity over quality, which is never good, as the goal of adding the most essentially incentivizes doing things hastily without checking. This is basically the image equivalent of all those mass-produced geostubs we've been cleaning up for years. Hog Farm Talk 16:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm@Levivich @Firefly you have to remember that a bulk of the images being added, are images that were already added on one language Wiki and taken to another language wiki. These images often already have been checked for context by at least one or two other contributors, and it is a very low complexity task to add it to a low visibility Wikipedia (i.e. <200 pageviews a month). The risk for mistakes is relatively low, and if someone is demonstrated to be consistently putting bad content on the wiki, you should feel free to slow them down or stop them. There are a number of different ways in which newcomer edits are patrolled and reviewed, its not on any one person or one system to catch all the mistakes, Sadads (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- No, it is not on any one person or system, but in this case it really ought to be the contest organizers who bear the brunt of the work. The mess wouldn't be there without the contest. MrOllie (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Just want to make one point here: spreading the work around is part of why these contests are good -- because the contest participants are who "bear the brunt" of it. "The work", after all, is improving Wikipedia. Just like it's not any one person's responsibility to participate in clean-up tasks, it's not any one person's responsibility to build up articles with illustrations. Adding illustrations is just as much a part of "the work" as cleaning up when people try to do so and fail (or spam/vandalize). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Sadads: re
a bulk of the images being added, are images that were already added on one language Wiki and taken to another language wiki
, so how many images were not already added on any language Wiki? 50k? More? reThe risk for mistakes is relatively low
How do you know? Relative to what? The risk for mistakes is high for new users, we all agree on that, so what makes it relatively low for the tens of thousands of images that new users are adding for the first time to any article on any project as part of WPWP? Levivich 21:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC) - @Sadads:, I think part of the problem is that a lot of the catching of mistakes is getting pushed onto a project that isn't organizing this and who has actually banned from images on enwiki. There are a decent number of legitimate edits here, but too much junk. I remember before the filter was instituted last time, I'd frequently find duplicate images added to articles I was watchlisting, as well as copyvios and irrelevant images. Proper image licensing and relevance (not to mention layout) can be hard, and the project is basically telling newbies to go forth and massively edit in what's a hard area. The enwiki project overall hasn't felt that it was properly consulted with these, and even if more edits than not are good, a lot of editors still resent that we're stuck with a lot of cleanup when an outside contest is telling editors with minimal knowledge/training to do something that has a high error rate if you don't know what you're doing. I'm not inherently against image-related contests, I just see sizable issues with the way the current one is run. Hog Farm Talk 23:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- No, it is not on any one person or system, but in this case it really ought to be the contest organizers who bear the brunt of the work. The mess wouldn't be there without the contest. MrOllie (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm@Levivich @Firefly you have to remember that a bulk of the images being added, are images that were already added on one language Wiki and taken to another language wiki. These images often already have been checked for context by at least one or two other contributors, and it is a very low complexity task to add it to a low visibility Wikipedia (i.e. <200 pageviews a month). The risk for mistakes is relatively low, and if someone is demonstrated to be consistently putting bad content on the wiki, you should feel free to slow them down or stop them. There are a number of different ways in which newcomer edits are patrolled and reviewed, its not on any one person or one system to catch all the mistakes, Sadads (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- The above is essentially my view on this as well. WPWP inherently stresses quantity over quality, which is never good, as the goal of adding the most essentially incentivizes doing things hastily without checking. This is basically the image equivalent of all those mass-produced geostubs we've been cleaning up for years. Hog Farm Talk 16:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- A couple things regarding money. Any event organizer should know that money makes things more complicated. Putting aside the motivating factor, it can easily make volunteer Wikipedians skeptical/resentful. In this case, though there are several mentions of "cash prizes" above, the prizes are plaques, souvenirs, and certificates. The prizes with a monetary value are limited to Wiki Loves Africa and take the form of a pretty small ($80/$50/$30) scholarship to a Wikimedia conference, not cash. The other thing: I didn't even realize the WMF granted funds for project managers for something like this. Given that's the case, it seems entirely reasonable to expect a quality review at the end. It would be unreasonable to say organizers should go through each and every edit as they happen (or even afterwards), but we should wind up with some big picture statistics beyond "images added". It would be good to know how many hundreds or thousands of articles are illustrated now, and weren't before, thanks to the WPWP participants, but also do a systematic spot check to see many edits were reverted or otherwise look bad? The key for something like this (as with any contest, upload drive, edit-a-thon, class project, GLAM event, or outreach campaign) is to make sure people are set up for success to the extent possible, evaluate the results to make sure it was effective, and modify based on feedback from both the community and participants. I'm not convinced that's not happening, but we could use more information from organizers here, too. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: - I think the whole cash prize thing is a mixup related to the original 2020 edition offering $500, $400, and $300 USD "gift vouchers" as prizes, which seems to have been (IMO wisely) changed in the more recent running. Hog Farm Talk 23:57, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- $200/$150/$100 in 2021. This year it's a "scholarship" to a Wikimedia conference, but I'm not sure what that means. (A discount on the ticket price? A reimbursement?) I guess we'll see if that change has an effect on the contest. Although honestly, the WMF can easily afford to give an $80 scholarship to all 1,000 participants, and frankly to anyone else who wants to attend, so I'm not sure why they're being so stingy. The point is: either we're giving something of value to a person for adding the most images, to incentivize people to add a lot of images, or we're not. I think it's a bad idea to do so, whether the thing of value is cash, a scholarship, a thing, or whatever. Levivich 00:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- To put things in perspective, this is the page where all scholarship requests to participate to Wikimania are listed. Wikimania 2022/Scholarships. A data voucher is usually appreciated by African participants in particular as few of them have communication contracts with big amounts of data. There are three conferences before the end of 2022 to which many regular wikipedians interested in WLA might join, wikiindaba, wikiarabia and wikiconvention francophone. Anthere (talk) 10:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- The editors I see who are particularly problematic and participating in this only participate during contests. But putting that aside, I have no issue with awarding scholarships to people - just do it. I (and I think others here) have issue with awarding scholarships/prizes to people for low quality, disruptive editing with no meaningful cleanup or supervision and the expectation, because despite claims otherwise in this very thread, I can't imagine anyone would believe that other editors would just let these poor edits rot away in mainspace. PICKLEDICAE🥒 11:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- To put things in perspective, this is the page where all scholarship requests to participate to Wikimania are listed. Wikimania 2022/Scholarships. A data voucher is usually appreciated by African participants in particular as few of them have communication contracts with big amounts of data. There are three conferences before the end of 2022 to which many regular wikipedians interested in WLA might join, wikiindaba, wikiarabia and wikiconvention francophone. Anthere (talk) 10:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- $200/$150/$100 in 2021. This year it's a "scholarship" to a Wikimedia conference, but I'm not sure what that means. (A discount on the ticket price? A reimbursement?) I guess we'll see if that change has an effect on the contest. Although honestly, the WMF can easily afford to give an $80 scholarship to all 1,000 participants, and frankly to anyone else who wants to attend, so I'm not sure why they're being so stingy. The point is: either we're giving something of value to a person for adding the most images, to incentivize people to add a lot of images, or we're not. I think it's a bad idea to do so, whether the thing of value is cash, a scholarship, a thing, or whatever. Levivich 00:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- The 2021 contest report mentions things that didn't go well including "Inability of campaign participants to adhere to campaign rules" and "Hostility from Wikipedia admins" among others. I haven't found the grant proposal for 2022 to see how these points were addressed for this but it strikes me that any future grant application should be pushed back against if it doesn't have some robust proposals on how to achieve quality, not just quantity. I don't know if proposals can be commented on by community members but (re)acting at the outset, rather than once the competition is announced should be the way to go. I'm not against these types of contexts in principle but they shouldn't be happening if they don't have quality standards defined. That means that objections to proposals also need to be quality based as well and not just anecdotal. Nthep (talk) 08:23, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- I found the 2022 grant application and it's disappointing to see that none of the issues raised by the organisers of the 2021 event were addressed or even mentioned. Did either the organisers of this year or the people giving the grant ever look at previous contests to see what happened? Nthep (talk) 11:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Nthep not sure if you saw the talk page which outlines more of the funding and...it leaves me with a lot more questions. PICKLEDICAE🥒 12:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Despite two years of issues, someone managed to write a project proposal without a single mention of actually checking any edits made. That's remarkable, even on its own merits as a project proposal. The entire data evaluation seems to be "we can collate the overall pages improved with photos using the hashtag tool", which is purely quantitative and promotes spamming. CMD (talk) 12:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Those damn hostile Wikipedia admins, always getting in the way of people trying to make some money. —Cryptic 12:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Cryptic and totally relevant selfies! PICKLEDICAE🥒 12:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- I found the 2022 grant application and it's disappointing to see that none of the issues raised by the organisers of the 2021 event were addressed or even mentioned. Did either the organisers of this year or the people giving the grant ever look at previous contests to see what happened? Nthep (talk) 11:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- This is the sort of thing that is causing issues. Article = A city in Nigeria. Image which was addded = A tree in the countryside somewhere near the city. It's obvious that some editors just search Commons for something vaguely relevant and bung it in the article, often with no caption or explanation. From the same editor, this is a building in a completely different city from the article, but it would appear in a search because of the name of the road it's on. It's just sloppy work, yet that editor has a number of good additions as well, which makes it far more tricky to identify the bad ones. Black Kite (talk) 10:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- I can provide at least 50 more examples of such things, and worse if you give me a few hours. This isn't a small margin of error that's happening. I'll note again, that a lot of people here seem to be confusing the complaints with us implying bad faith. No, I think these are good faith editors but incompetence and disruption doesn't require malice. Good faith editors can still be disruptive. PICKLEDICAE🥒 11:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Related to this discussion, I have opened a thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)#Should the WMF have rules or policies for when banned users apply for or are part of the team that administers grants?. I think banned users getting money is a serious problem and I solicit others comments. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Comment - I reviewed the campaign project page last night and it does look like the organizers have revised the eligibility criteria, and this has impacted on the volume of contributions this year. This year less than 3,000 contributions have been made, as against last year where more than 28,000 contributions were made to enwiki. This year, only existing users who have been around for at least one year are eligible to participate in the campaign. This means that new users are not eligible to participate at all. Since many of the users that are being disruptive, including the ones listed in this thread, are newcomers or new editors, we can adjust the edit-filter to disallow participation from new editors. Other changes made were restricting the gift items to plaque awards, souvenirs, and certificates. This is not different from the barnstar we give to users here on a daily basis. I understand the concerns about having User:T Cells to coordinate the contest on enwiki, but the campaign is multilingual and does not focus on enwiki only. It does not look like T Cells is solely responsible for coordinating the campaign in all languages, at least not on enwiki. I reviewed past threads, and I haven't seen a single thread where T Cells commented on this campaign on enwiki. They have a co-coordinator, liaison officers and other members of the organizing team who are active contributors to enwiki, and are probably responsible for managing the campaign here. This year, the coordinator was also revised, partly due to the concerns raised here the previous year. User:T Cells stopped coordinating this campaign last year, and the new coordinator is User:Ammarpad who is another active enwiki editor. No one has deemed it fit to leave a note on this user's talk page. Calling out T Cells when it's pretty clear from the campaign project page that he no longer coordinates the campaign is unfair, and close to mockery. SuperSwift (talk) 08:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- Hi all, I am Ammarpad and I am the central coordinator for this year's Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos Campaign. I'd like to note that, we are aware of this thread and have taken note of all the issues raised. However, I'd like to make some clarifications.
- On the issue of the referenced user who is banned from English Wikipedia, please note that he's neither the grantee for the 2022 edition of the project nor actively involved in the implementation of the project.
- On the issue of users adding wrong images and other infractions, we acknowledge that the campaign is not perfect and we did anticipate this risk and clearly explained mitigation plans both in the grant and I further elaborated on this when Redrose64 asked on Meta in May before the program begun. Among the changes we made, to mitigate thse issues, we raised the eligibility bar to disqualify account that are less than a year old. This is not a perfect threshold but we found it good enough to start with since from the previous edition evaluation report we found majority of the issues to have to do with users that are relatively new or created accounts with the sole purpose of participation in the campaign. For instance with the revised rules, Deogratias20 (talk · contribs) who is now blocked by Black Kite in relation to this campaign, is not actually even eligible to participate in the campaign.
We communicated these changes (and other organizing team changes) early to the local organizers of the program and hoped it would work. However, in restrospect now we understand that neither we, the central organizers (nor the local organizers) have the technical mechanisms to enforce this eligibility rule. We innocently hoped it would work, and that local organizers would educate their participants to not participate if they're not qualified (and people would oblige). This is our fault and we regret it. We will surely learn from it and work to make amends.
- Then the issue of prizes and effect on inducement. We have substantially reduced these too to the minimum now. Some of the examples of hundreds of US$ gift vouchers quoted above were all for the previous editions. For this year, the 2022 edition, the main WPWP campaign is only giving souvenirs, plaques and certificates. No direct monetary reward to any participant. Thank you. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- Is there a good place to report editors adding images without adequate research on if those images are appropriate for the article? Obviously here or ANI is an option (and AIV for obvious cases), but I'm kinda hoping there's an amazing option I haven't considered that will get editor ignoring warnings to change their ways. (And yeah, I've got a bridge to sell ya as well... Ravensfire (talk) 13:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- I appreciate the changes this year's organizers have made to address issues from prior years. Is it possible to set the edit filter to disallow #WPWP-tagged edits from ineligible editors (less than 1yr account age, I guess)? Levivich 18:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Criticism of Buddhism
This article is now a useless stub, following the deletion of most of the content by TrangaBellam. It was subsequently restored by دانيالوه, and promptly deleted again by WikiLinuz. I have today restored it, and TrangaBellam has again deleted it, with the comment "Criticism removed", as if criticism is inappropriate in an article with the title "Criticism of Buddhism".
I think there might be a colourable case that the article shouldn't exist; I'm in favour of deletion, provided a home is found in the main article for the most notable criticism.
I'm an experienced editor, but I'm not experienced in dealing with editors that repeatedly delete 90% of an article without discussing it.
I wonder if someone could come along and suggest how we might proceed?
MrDemeanour (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- HandsThatFeed wrote a month ago,
Looking through the removed text... honestly, it's probably better gone. The vast majority of it was "This one person said this about Buddhism, and then this other person said this about Buddhism..." It was a mish-mash of various complaints, rather than a coherent description of academic & religious critique. It really read like a holdover article from Wikipedia's early days when standards were lower. I'd assume there's enough reliable sources available to make an article which fits modern Wikipedia article standards, but we'd have to build it from the ground up.
- Which part of this did you fail to understand?
- Further, can you link to the edit-summary wherein I had deleted your restoration with the comment "Criticism removed"? TIA, TrangaBellam (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- So, first of all, MrDemeanour needs trouted and/or warned for WP:NPA. From the article's Talk page:
I fully expected you to revert my revert, and I didn't expect any talk-page comment from you to be constructive.
- This entire issue should have been resolved via discussion on the article's Talk page. Instead, MrDemeanour has decided to climb a prominent building in a superhero costume in a misguided attempt at forcing the issue, then insulting people who point out that this is poor behavior.
- This article needs rewritten from the ground up. I personally do not have the time, due to my other life obligations. But that doesn't mean the old, poorly written article needs immediately restored to its former inglorious state. It can be a stub for now until people have time to write a decent article.
- Or it can be deleted and started from scratch. Either way. I simply do not agree that it should be restored into its former state, as noted above. Regardless, aside from MrDemeanour's PA above, this is not yet a matter for Admins to resolve. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- @MrDemeanour: This is a WP:CONTENTDISPUTE and you must try sorting it out on the talk page, or consult dispute resolution processes if you're not contented. You describe yourself as an experienced editor but you haven't done the preliminaries prior to opening a thread on Admin's noticeboard. --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 20:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Let's stop with the petty squabbling and please take this to the article talk page. Please. Snippy remarks aren't the same as personal attacks, although neither are helpful here, so lets just focus on setting some standards and rebuilding using scholarly sources, or leave it as a stub. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Removing inappropriate material from an article is a perfectly legitimate way to edit; if there is a disagreement over whether or not it belonged in the article or not, the article talk page is the correct place to discuss that. That the article is left in a stub-like state is irrelevant. (saying that, I am not saying that it actually should have been removed. I am saying it is possible. Not everything currently existing at Wikipedia really belongs, and removing the bad stuff is as important as adding new good stuff.) If none of the existing text is appropriate, then that's just where we are. If it is possible to have appropriate text in the article, go an add that. If the text really belonged as it was, establish consensus on the article talk page The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Establish first that it belongs, then re-add it. If consensus cannot be established that it belongs, then leave it out. You can also always just add things that are appropriate. That's always encouraged and rarely controversial. --Jayron32 12:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- On this point, this is generally why we discourage "Criticism of X" articles or sections, as they tend to draw minor conflicts (like opinions of one or two people, which likely are undue, or situations and editor wants to treat as criticism but really isnt). Criticism should be integrated throughout the text of a topic. Removal if these trivial criticisms is completely correct and if that leaves a stubby page with only a couple actual criticism, then consider merging that content. That is not saying there cannot be a criticism page but it really be based on good academic scholarship for a topic like Buddhism. Masem (t) 12:28, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- And that objection was why the article got stubbed, it was not
based on good academic scholarship
. The goal is to eventually build up an article based on those sources, but for now there's no reason to leave the poor quality article up. - MrDemeanor has submitted the article to AfD now, so we'll see how that goes. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- Well, it got snow-closed as keep. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- And that objection was why the article got stubbed, it was not
- On this point, this is generally why we discourage "Criticism of X" articles or sections, as they tend to draw minor conflicts (like opinions of one or two people, which likely are undue, or situations and editor wants to treat as criticism but really isnt). Criticism should be integrated throughout the text of a topic. Removal if these trivial criticisms is completely correct and if that leaves a stubby page with only a couple actual criticism, then consider merging that content. That is not saying there cannot be a criticism page but it really be based on good academic scholarship for a topic like Buddhism. Masem (t) 12:28, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Feedback on Vector (2022) conversation
Hello! On behalf of the WMF Web team, I wanted to draw your attention to a conversation currently underway on WP:VPR (see the beginning of the discussion) around adopting Vector 2022 as the new default skin. We have been working on the new skin for the past three years, collaborating with the English Wikipedia community as well as other wikis where it's already the default to ensure that the skin performs better qualitatively and quantitatively for readers and communities than the previous Vector skin.
For the past couple of months, we have collected thoughts from the community on what changes need to be made to the skin prior to it being considered ready for deployment. Our next step would be to start an RfC to assess whether the community considers the skin ready.
Prior to the beginning of the RfC, we wanted to encourage your feedback on the skin within the current conversation. Apart from introducing a new look and feel, the skin has not made any significant changes to admin tools or gadgets. However, we are eager to learn more about how the changes will affect your workflows, or any other concerns you might have. We would also like to confirm that we will continue to maintain all existing skins, including the current version of the Vector skin and Monobook. No changes are expected for users of these skins. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 12:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Is disclosed paid editing allowed?
Refering to something that happened today I'm asking if it is ok to edit Wikipedia articles if you are a paid Wikipedian who discloses the COI and tries to follow the Wikipedia policies as well as they can? I get that it is "strongly discouraged" as most of the paid editors are newbies who don't know the policies yet. But as a long time editor I think I know *something* about good sources, copyrights, wording and such. So there's a discussion on going about wether I should be blocked now, assuming the reason being I'm not using AFC process. Quite often I'm translating the Wikipedia articles from Finnish to English and the translation tool suggests that the articles go directly to the main space, not to draft-universe. Jjanhone (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- You know the answer to this, as it's been discussed before. The issues with your editing aren't that you're paid, it's that you refuse to actually follow other editors suggestions, you frequently create copyright violations and violate NPOV. And lest we not forget the canvassing and sock puppetry that resulted in your 2021 block.
- This was discussed thoroughly in 2020 and 2021. Links for those unaware: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1062#Misuse_of_the_Paid_template, Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Jjanhone, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive325#Blocking_a_paid_Wikipedia_editor.
- I don't know why you can't follow the instructions we give to all paid editors, it would save a lot of time for everyone involved including yourself if you'd just go through the review process, so we don't wind up with complete cruft like this in mainspace.
- Also pinging those involved in the last few discussion: @Athaenara:, @Deepfriedokra:, @Beyond My Ken:, @Blablubbs:, @GeneralNotability:, @Joe Roe:. Sorry if I missed anyone. PICKLEDICAE🥒 17:57, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- This is also yet another example of you WP:FORUMSHOPPING as pointed out in another AN/ANI thread. PICKLEDICAE🥒 18:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- As well as you can? The instructions are quite simple. It's a pity if you are being paid to edit Wikipedia as you seem unable to follow the same rules as every unpaid editor of Wikipedia, let alone WP:PAID. SMDH. @Praxidicae:. I've no recollection of this user, of course, but is there a need for a WP:CBAN? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- The issue isn't necessarily that they are paid, it's more so that they are not competently able to edit and do so in a way that is disruptive, including creating blatant PR spam and copyright violations. But this was already explained to them and seems to come up every few months when they do not get their way. PICKLEDICAE🥒 18:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- As well as you can? The instructions are quite simple. It's a pity if you are being paid to edit Wikipedia as you seem unable to follow the same rules as every unpaid editor of Wikipedia, let alone WP:PAID. SMDH. @Praxidicae:. I've no recollection of this user, of course, but is there a need for a WP:CBAN? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- This is also yet another example of you WP:FORUMSHOPPING as pointed out in another AN/ANI thread. PICKLEDICAE🥒 18:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Also for posterity, they have been told and asked by multiple editors to stop editing directly for their clients: User_talk:Jjanhone#Paid_editing, User_talk:Jjanhone#Ken_Banks, User_talk:Jjanhone#October_2020, Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_165#Neste due to their inability to competently edit said articles but continue to engage in Wikilawyering instead of making simple requests. So tl;dr, this is a case of rehashing the same thing every year and WP:IDHT. Quite literally this has been discussed wrt their comments about translation going into mainspace as well as many other pseudo-concerns they've brought up. They've even been warned multiple times on their home-wiki in their native language see here PICKLEDICAE🥒 18:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- The bottom line is that disclosed paid editors are tolerated, but if they step out of line, which includes taking up the time of volunteer editors, they are not. It is your job, for which you are paid, to make sure that you follow all relevant policies. Why would anyone pay you if you do not do the basics of your job? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- I honestly fail to see why we continue to tolerate Jjanhone's editing, I would agree with Deepfriedokra's proposal for a CBAN. They have made an enormous mess of promotional, copyvio rubbish by copying and pasting material from various companies press releases because, per their own admission, they struggle to write things in their own words in English. I had a look at one of their articles a while back, and found it to be essentially an advert - it was extremely promotional and in need of a complete rewrite, see here. They also seem to mistakenly think that the fact that they have declared that they are paid for editing means that they cannot be criticised, and that no-one else is allowed to revert, delete or touch their edits. I too have noticed the constant WP:Wikilawyering, constantly pushing right up to the limit of what is allowed regardless of whether it's in the best interest of the project and disregard for advice offered in good faith. I honestly think that the amount of volunteer time required to clean up after them far outweighs the promotional junk they add for their clients. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed, and their fiwiki talk page is even more telling. This is the definition of WP:NOTHERE - they are here to promote only their clients (and themselves as per their self disclosed accounts on their userpage). PICKLEDICAE🥒 20:16, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Then let's make this a formal discussion. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Unless I'm missing something isn't much of this disruptive even without the WP:PAID angle? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, which is more or less what Smartse pointed out a year or two ago. PICKLEDICAE🥒 20:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Praxidicae; have there been any copyvios since the CCI has opened? Because we may have to extend Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Jjanhone with all the edits up to now in that case. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Praxidicae was there anything other than minor close paraprasing? (do you have actual examples which can be diffed or copy pasted from version history of deleted articles) -- Zache (talk) 10:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Zache; see the CCI I posted one comment up. Sennecaster (Chat) 15:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Sennecaster Yes, I meant specifically that CCI. Afaik all of the documented examples there were about close paraphrasing at most. Now that CCI as proof for significant copyvio problems [3] and constant copyright violations [4] as the basis for the permanent CBAN which is pretty much a false argument based on the proof. -- Zache (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- I can strike that from the argument, but the pettifogging and incompetence still remain, and those are themselves reason for a CBan. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 16:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for striking it. About the rest, I think that situation is more complex than just pettifogging and incompetence. Jjanhonen has been editing for 14 years and at that time she has organized workshops, written articles about Wikimedia for newspapers, volunteered in Wikimedia events, been active in social media communication of Finnish Wikimedia groups, etc. As long as I have known her (I met her first time 2013 on Open Knowledge Foundation's tour when she did a Wikipedia presentation) she has been an open data and open source enthusiast. She has also been very open that would try to earn living from it. I think that she is genuinely trying to figure out what the best practices would be. Paid editing, however, is complex least to say and I agree that if one does paid editing then it is the writer's responsibility not to leave articles to be fixed by volunteers. If the editor fails to do so then the community has the right to limit the editing. However, A permanent full CBAN feels like the wrong tool in this case when the editor is a good faith editor and personally I would just give a topic ban not to do paid editing in enwiki. Ban could be reconsidered after two years if the user has proven that the editor can write proper articles. etc. -- Zache (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- As Jjanhone has said herself, 95% of her edits are paid. Regardless of her activity in other areas of the movement, she has made practically no constructive contributions to this project over the last ten years. Monitoring that she is sticking to a topic ban would just be yet another waste of volunteer time. – Joe (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for striking it. About the rest, I think that situation is more complex than just pettifogging and incompetence. Jjanhonen has been editing for 14 years and at that time she has organized workshops, written articles about Wikimedia for newspapers, volunteered in Wikimedia events, been active in social media communication of Finnish Wikimedia groups, etc. As long as I have known her (I met her first time 2013 on Open Knowledge Foundation's tour when she did a Wikipedia presentation) she has been an open data and open source enthusiast. She has also been very open that would try to earn living from it. I think that she is genuinely trying to figure out what the best practices would be. Paid editing, however, is complex least to say and I agree that if one does paid editing then it is the writer's responsibility not to leave articles to be fixed by volunteers. If the editor fails to do so then the community has the right to limit the editing. However, A permanent full CBAN feels like the wrong tool in this case when the editor is a good faith editor and personally I would just give a topic ban not to do paid editing in enwiki. Ban could be reconsidered after two years if the user has proven that the editor can write proper articles. etc. -- Zache (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- For the record, in case anyone else is confused that is not even the primary reason I suggested for banning Jjanhone - it's a combination of everything, leading ultimately to severe incompetence on her part which volunteer editors are spending their valuable time cleaning up. The fact that she's paid certainly compounds that but this would be a significant issue, with the same outcome even if she weren't. PICKLEDICAE🥒 14:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- I can strike that from the argument, but the pettifogging and incompetence still remain, and those are themselves reason for a CBan. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 16:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Sennecaster Yes, I meant specifically that CCI. Afaik all of the documented examples there were about close paraphrasing at most. Now that CCI as proof for significant copyvio problems [3] and constant copyright violations [4] as the basis for the permanent CBAN which is pretty much a false argument based on the proof. -- Zache (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Zache; see the CCI I posted one comment up. Sennecaster (Chat) 15:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, which is more or less what Smartse pointed out a year or two ago. PICKLEDICAE🥒 20:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Community ban discussion - Jjanhone
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I argue that, due to the obvious incompetence of Jjanhone's editing (including but not limited to constant copyright violations and the constant pettifogging about them) we should be removing Jjanhone from the project entirely. Any other user who repeatedly commits copyright violations on this scale would already be indefinitely blocked, and it's clear they have no interest in listening to valid criticism. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Support a full cban is what is needed - Jjanjhoe has had more than enough time and experience that they should be competent enough to make reasonable edits, but they demonstrate time and time again that they can't and that they are WP:NOTHERE. Their talk page on fiwiki is full of the same warnings and their refusal to work with other editors and instead default to constant wikilawayering is a time sink and requires too many editors to waste their valuable time cleaning up after them. PICKLEDICAE🥒 20:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Support as I said I would above, per the long history of problematic and disruptive edits. There are two fundamental issues with Jjanhone's editing in my opinion: They lack the English and editorial skills necessary to contribute here, resulting in them constantly producing promotional Marketing speak in mangled English, and they persistently disregard any concerns raised or suggestions about their editing and push right to the limit of what is allowed, despite it often being obviously a bad idea or disruptive. While this would probably eventually lead to a block for any editor the fact they are paid for their contributions here only makes it worse in my view - the first of these issues requires that unpaid volunteers have to spend time cleaning up a mess another editor was paid to make, and the second issue massively frustrates any attempts to help Jjanhone improve. Look at the issue that stated this thread for example, it is completely reasonable to expect an editor with a history of NPOV and copyright issues to use AFC, but Jjanhone's attitude is that unless it is a hard line requirement in policy they are not going to do it and will fight tooth and nail to avoid it. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Support as WP:CIR especially if you have decided to take the money. Also support a community wide discussion of giving Admins discretion to deal with problemntic Paid editors specifically main space bans and mandatory AfC submission sanction. Neither which would help here, but could reduce time sinks in the future. Slywriter (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Support. This kind of editing degrades the quality of this encyclopedia as well as creating one timesink after another as basic policies and guidelines are asked to be thrashed out yet again. – Athaenara ✉ 21:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- To be clear: I support a permanent block from editing, I am not opposing a "ban". – Athaenara ✉ 01:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- This case seems to be one of the reasons I'd prefer more "must" and less "should", more "prohibited from" and less "strongly discouraged from", in the COI guideline. If there is the tiniest bit of allowance between bolded requests not to do something, it will be taken disruptively proving all of the concerns correct, and there will be attempts to have endless, one-sidedly financially influenced, arguments about the guideline. One of these attempts involved the creation of this noticeboard section, and it should be closed with a community ban to prevent further disruption. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Support after reviewing their total *.wikipedia history. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Responding to the question " If my edits are that bad, how come my stats show that I have "Live edits 3,802 (98.6%)" vs "Deleted edits 55 (1.4%)"?", the number of of live vs deleted edits isn't relative to quality of work. People who spend their time tagging poor articles for CSD will have a high proportion of their edits as "deleted", people who only copy edit will have a low proportion as "deleted". Both are equally worthwhile activities. Almost all vandalism is not deleted, so a long time vandal will have a low proportion of "deleted" edits. I have 7.8% of my edits deleted, for that matter, due to tagging for AFD and CSD, as well as deleting things. Your argument is invalid, Jjanhone as the ratio of live vs. deleted edits is useless in determining the worthiness of a person's time at Wikipedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Support and, given years of patrolling CAT:UNBLOCK, I think ToBeFree has a very good point. This discussion isn't the place to change that policy but if there's ever a serious attempt, I'd be on-board. --Yamla (talk) 22:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- I did some digging, and it seems that there was a proposal a couple years ago to require the use of AfC for COI editors here that was never "officially" closed. I have not read the entire discussion but numerically there appears to have been more opposition than support. The main argument in opposition was that making it a firm requirement would only discourage disclosure. HouseBlastertalk 00:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Support a longterm block, rather than CBAN, to start.The problem here, as I see it, dovetails with ToBeFree's comments; Jjanjhoe just hasn't crossed any brightline rules clearly enough to warrant a CBAN as the first line of action. At least, not as has been demonstrated here: I have not had the opportunity to explore their edit history in great detail, only doing a quick census of some randomly selected recent edits. This certainly was enough to suggest to me that there are definite issues with their prose, which are clearly attributable to their promotional objectives. And I am by no means opposed in general to supporting sanctions on a pragmatic/no-red-line-crossed basis, if I think it is overwhelmingly in the interest of the project to err on the side of saved volunteer time. Especially as our work falls on fewer and fewer shoulders in terms of regular veteran editors.
- But in these circumstances, I'm not sure I can agree that a CBAN is the right balance, when paid editors are kind of channeled somewhat into these situations by our own half-measure guidelines, as they currently stand. I think there's a chance that this editor (who does at least approach their COI transparently and politely, as far as I have seen so far) might adjust their approach to be more in line with what we expect of COI editors, after
a six month block. Otherwise, I suspect they might just be encouraged to try a ban evasion and start up with a new account, since they don't seem to have one major client to be linked to and thus easily caught for socking for. And after-all, that's kind of why we have the COI policy that we do now. Not because many of us think it is a good thing they are here, or that paid editors should be allowed just because of how WP:ABOUT starts, but because it keeps these otherwise problematic editors working within a framework with better oversight. SnowRise let's rap 23:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)- Ah, a little embarrassing, but I didn't chase down the SPI report before commenting, and looking into the details a bit, it seems a very convincing case of some combination of socking and meatpuppetry operation. I'm frankly surprised they got off as lightly as they did: GN must have been in an optimistic disposition that day. This casts a new light on/combines with the other significant concerns to create a pretty bad picture. I'm afraid I must therefore support the CBAN. SnowRise let's rap 23:55, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Support This editor has subjected this encyclopedia to 14 years of stubbornness, wikilawyering, copyvios, poor quality writing and promotional content, all in a desperate attempt to make a buck. Enough is enough. Cullen328 (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Support - Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Support - an editor with Jianhone's experience (both with editing and being explained en.wiki policy) should be displaying a higher degree of aptitude and WP:COMPETENCE. This is evidently not the case, and instead their edits (evidenced by the various discussions linked) have instead been a drain on some editors' time, bringing Wikipedia:Buy one, get one free to mind. Jianhone's pointing to their use of the translation tool as their reason for their publishing of articles in the mainspace smacks of WP:WIKILAWYERING, and is flimsy given they wrote many of the articles on fi.wiki that were then translated. En.wiki does not need to maintain this type of editor per WP:NOTHERE and this behavior is not constructive in the long term. SamHolt6 (talk) 00:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Support per SamHolt6. Our long-suffering community need not endure this ongoing problem. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Time is the community's most valuable resource. Anyone who insists on wasting it time and time again due to their own incompetence cannot be permitted to remain a part of the project. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Support. 86.23.* put it extremely well above. The problem with Jjanhone's edits are not that they're paid per se, but that she makes a habit of
constantly pushing right up to the limit of what is allowed regardless of whether it's in the best interest of the project
. Previous attempts to get Jjanhone to stay within the same guidelines we expect other disclosed paid editors to respect always end up like this, with deflection and wikilawyering. However after literally years of sapping volunteer energy over the same repeating issues (which many other disclosed paid editors seem to have no problems with), it should be obvious that Jjanhone is a net negative and that a ban is overdue. – Joe (talk) 08:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC) - Against, Jjanhone has been transparent on her paid editing and easily well enough if the paid editing is allowed all. The negative side is that if you do so then you will be targeted by DIE-SPAMMER-DIE style editors and articles are flood flagged with Cleanup-PR and other problem templates without any actual review with the only reason that it was edited by a paid editor. (I think that the COI presented was not problematic as presented but needed some actions, copyright violations presented were close paraphrasing of short texts or not even that) Also, a paid editor cannot remove those templates then the editor is required to ask for input from other users. However, it is not much else that the editor can do than start discussions that are felt as disruptive and Wikilawyering. --Zache (talk) 10:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Support per Joe Roe, Premeditated Chaos, SamHolt6, & Cullen328 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepfriedokra (talk • contribs) 12:24, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Support Not much has changed in the last two years since I requested that they stop editing articles directly. They continue to introduce promotional content and are seemingly unable to change. Whilst some of their content is okay, the net contribution is negative due to the amount of time that others have to spend tidying up after them. SmartSE (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Administrative comment: Jjanhone has made the following statement on their user page and asked it to be copied here. Sandstein 12:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Jjanhone |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Thanks - it appears that Jianhone has been indeffed by Athaenara independently of this discussion? Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Of course, this discussion is still valid, as this is a different sanction for a long pattern of abuse. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks - it appears that Jianhone has been indeffed by Athaenara independently of this discussion? Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Support The IP 86.23 puts it very well here - volunteers should not be expected to clear up after paid editors. They are producing too much poorly written and promotional content.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Support CBAN and endorse Athaenara's block, which I was also prepared to make. Long term time sink with no net positive value. Star Mississippi 17:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Support ban based on everything said above, especially how their presence undermines the volunteer collaborative efforts here. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Support CBAN Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- While the conclusion here is foregone, the ban seems entirely punitive. A block from main space would be enough to reduce wasted volunteer time while also forcing her to go through the requested methods to edit as a paid contributor (edit requests on talk page and AFC). Isabelle 🏳🌈 23:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Support. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 05:59, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Block on Dracula (1897) for 2 weeks
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"However, when summarizing a plot and choosing what details to include, editors should use discretion. The advantages of exhaustive coverage of the work are in dynamic tension with the desire to preserve the artistic qualities of the work for readers. Wikipedia should contain potentially "spoiling" detail where it substantially enhances the reader's understanding of the work and its impact, but be omitted when it merely ruins the experience of the work of fiction for our readers."
I felt I was quite civil in my edits, never resorting to insults, or name calling, and open to discussion. Perhaps I should have taken the discussion to the talk page, but really, my concern was for Dracula itself. Guidelines aside, is it necessary to ruin the novel for thousands upon thousands who click on this page? In the very first paragraph on the page, mind you, is it essential to the quality of the article to give away key moments in the plot? Where is the tact, and respect to the work itself? Wikipedia is better than this. Michael0986 (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- There is no "perhaps". You should have discussed it on the talk page instead of engaging in an edit war. Schazjmd (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Pinging Premeditated_Chaos who may want to be aware of this, as the admin who instituted the action Michael0986 seems to be alluding to: possibly Michael is unaware of the normal WP:APPEAL process, being a newish user and, and given no notice of the block appears on the talk page, presumably because it was a pageban and not a standard block. I will add only that it seems Michael was in no way blocked for their take on the issue (or incivility in their comments insofar as the block log reveals), but rather for repeated edit warring. SnowRise let's rap 00:42, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Edit warring aside, my edits were not made for the sake of starting controversy. I provided a logical explanation on each edit as to why I made the change. I don't edit for the sake of "warring" with others. My edits were for the benefit of the page, well, I think so anyway, others obviously don't. But I stand by that the spoilers in the first paragraph on that page is unnecessary, it goes against what a good lead should provide to an article of fiction. Michael0986 (talk) 00:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- WP:SPOILER. Plain and simple. Even if you weren't edit warring, you were flat wrong. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I'll take you at your word as to all of that, but edit war you did, and according to the blocking admin, it's not your first instance of this--nor your first warning, according to your talk page. Edit warring is not considered a trivial matter here, I'm afraid: the collaborative process is held central to the functioning of this project, and edit warring WP:disruptive of its functioning. If you're interested in appealing via the WP:UNBLOCK process, you'll have to give believable assurances it won't happen again.
- Edit warring aside, my edits were not made for the sake of starting controversy. I provided a logical explanation on each edit as to why I made the change. I don't edit for the sake of "warring" with others. My edits were for the benefit of the page, well, I think so anyway, others obviously don't. But I stand by that the spoilers in the first paragraph on that page is unnecessary, it goes against what a good lead should provide to an article of fiction. Michael0986 (talk) 00:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Regarding your policy argument itself, although this is not really the place to be discussing content issues or policies, I will say this: the problem with your rationale, as considerate as you are trying to be of those readers, is that I think you will find that, in your own terms, almost all veteran Wikipedians consider a fulsome discussion of the plots of most works of fiction almost always "substantially enhances the understanding of the topic" for readers, broadly speaking. And that any person coming to an encyclopedia article for a narrative work of any sort can probably be presumed to understand that they will likely find a description of its content which may ruin dramatic tension or shed light on almost any aspect of the work.
- My perception is that this is the overwhelmingly prevalent view here, though I will admit to sometimes, in very rare circumstances, having personally exercised nuance in how I described certain elements, along the same lines of your logic. But there's no policy-consistent way to enforce that standard, and I think that's for the better. In any event, what you'll want to do is discuss this matter on the relevant policy talk pages (see WP:SPOILER/Wikipedia talk:SPOILER, for a start, and I forget the relevant WP:MOS section, but that's another touchstone, as I recall. Or at WP:VPP. But I can't say as you're likely to have much luck moving the needle on this one. SnowRise let's rap 01:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Shame, well, I won't even bother wasting time with this then. The work itself is more important than any of our opinions, and seeing as Wiki has a prominent place in modern society, as to encyclopedic research for millions, it's such a pity is all I can say. I feel for all the people who never read the work before, who click on the page, and read those spoilers in the very first paragraph. Surely, the Plot section is where such descriptions should be left, but oh well. Michael0986 (talk) 01:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- My perception is that this is the overwhelmingly prevalent view here, though I will admit to sometimes, in very rare circumstances, having personally exercised nuance in how I described certain elements, along the same lines of your logic. But there's no policy-consistent way to enforce that standard, and I think that's for the better. In any event, what you'll want to do is discuss this matter on the relevant policy talk pages (see WP:SPOILER/Wikipedia talk:SPOILER, for a start, and I forget the relevant WP:MOS section, but that's another touchstone, as I recall. Or at WP:VPP. But I can't say as you're likely to have much luck moving the needle on this one. SnowRise let's rap 01:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Snow Rise, this is largely moot since the above is closed, but I did tell the user they were blocked on their page page, right under the warning template for edit-warring. I just did it in plain text rather than using a template. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:45, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Documenting UPE/spam blocks based on off-wiki evidence
Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Documenting UPE/spam blocks based on off-wiki evidence. – Joe (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Repeated Harassment
Myself and some other editors have been repeatedly harassed for supposedly supporting Israel in a vote on the Jerusalem talk page, trying to intimidate us into stopping our edits. [5] four IPs and one account have sent threats to my page, all stating they will kill me because I'm a Jew, or because Israel is full of Jews who are "apes and pigs", and how they will rape every woman and girl who survives after they slaughter every Jew they see, among other things. Obviously these people are not going to lay a finger on me, I hope, but they have also spammed other editors with threats (you can check their contribution histories) including the IPs whose threats were deleted from view. An additional fifth IP mass reverted my edits [6] and the same might have occurred to other editors. Bill Williams 15:48, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Many claim to support Hezbollah, but regardless, I think it is very abusive to try and change votes on consensus needing issues by harassing any editor that these harassers believe supports Israel. Bill Williams 16:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Most likely it's just Icewhiz, Yaniv or some other pro-Israeli LTA having fun with new proxy. Real Lebanese militants have other things to do than intimidating some random guys on the English Wikipedia. Arado Ar 196 (C✙T) 16:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- I hate this for you, but I'm not sure what we can do. Playing whack-a-mole with disruptive IPs is a continuous problem for admins, dedicated trolls can (and do) overwhelm the system, and what we can really do is limited: We can block the IPs when they poke their heads up, we can institute some edit filters to try to catch certain editing patterns, we can semi-protect pages to keep them from overwhelming specific discussions but to pre-emptively stop this from happening at all, I'm not sure what can be done. I don't know if any other admins have other ideas to help ameliorate this problem, but other than responding after the fact when another of these trolls shows up, I don't know what can be done to make Wikipedia a more collegial place when someone like this gets a bug up their ass and decides to make an enemy of someone like yourself. On behalf of all of the good people around here, I apologize that you've had to deal with this, and I also apologize that I don't have a solution that's any better than what is already being done. --Jayron32 16:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Well, these activities should absolutely be reported to meta:Trust and Safety insofar as they involve repeated and unambiguous threats of violence against community members. . Actually, probably also emergency@wikimedia.org, per WP:EMERGENCY (
"Many threats are empty, but leave that evaluation to Wikimedia Foundation staff."
) I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this will not be the first time they will have seen similar threats on that particular talk page, and their technicalability to prophylactically guard against this is not much deeper than administrative/oversighter tools, I'm sure--but there's still a huge multitude of reasons why they are meant to be informed. So, Bill Williams, I'd really encourage that, or to request than an admin report it, if for whatever reason you are not 100% comfortable with making the report yourself. - As for what we can do preventatively, I actually do have an idea here: pending changes could be applied to the talk page so that comments from IPs/non-autoconfirmed users have to pass clearance from regular editors. It's a pretty aggressive step for a talk page, and could create lag and issues in the flow of discussion, but this is an extreme situation and I dare say, probably cause for an exception. Obviously this is a deeply important article we're talking about, that attracts (almost bar none) more controversy than any other, thus making it a dubious target for an exception of the standard approach to page protection on talk pages, in terms of even semi-protection. But pending changes could really thread the needle, and this is not garden variety disruption: putting aside the fact that people's actual safety and mental well-being could be at stake here, this kind of thing could also have a deeply chilling effect on the collaborative process. I think it's worth considering. SnowRise let's rap 00:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- Pending changes protection is unavailable for use on talk pages or anywhere within the user space. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- Regardless of any protection I reported it to the emergency email address, they also threatened my Wikimedia account talk page [7]. Bill Williams 16:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- [8] and eighth account mass reverted edits of the same people who were harassed by self declared Islamic extremists. Bill Williams 16:47, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm pretty sure if you review my post you will see that I noted that is typically the case. However, the page protection policy does expressly contemplate the exceptions in edge cases, and if ever there was a scenario where it would be justified, this would certainly be it. Also, pending changes protection would substantially mitigate the downsides while completely arresting this atrocious behaviour. I'll say again, I think it's very much worth considering as an exception. I'm actually struggling to see a very good argument against it. These are threats against the lives of community members, which even if just noxious cowardly keyboard threats, can be expected to have a profound impact upon the discussion. I almost never invoke WP:IAR as a matter of principle. But if not here, I don't know where it might be valid. In any event, I for one wouldn't mind hearing a more principled reason for not to do it than "we don't do that".SnowRise let's rap 02:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- Pending changes is literally not available. Compare Special:Protect/User talk:Zzuuzz with Special:Protect/X. It would require a phab ticket at least. However, that's not a solution: If threats are the purpose, pending changes will not prevent the threats. I say just semi-protect stuff where it repeats. BTW, it might be useful for someone to compile a list of socks and IPs for the purpose of implementing range blocks and filters. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Snow Rise. It’s not technically possible. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- Pending changes protection is unavailable for use on talk pages or anywhere within the user space. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- Well, these activities should absolutely be reported to meta:Trust and Safety insofar as they involve repeated and unambiguous threats of violence against community members. . Actually, probably also emergency@wikimedia.org, per WP:EMERGENCY (
- What Jayron32 said. There isn't much that can be done preemptively. Sorry. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Is there a way to hide the discussion page (i.e., talk page) from the general reader's view (for encyclopedic readers only need the article, not the talk page discussions) for articles on controversial topics like this? Only editors actually ever need access to the talk page for taking part in the discussions to improve the article, not the IPs or general readers. This may sound a bit weird, but just checking since this, I presume, could solve the problem to some extent. Rasnaboy (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- The talk page, and its visibility and availability to all, including the casual reader and the IP editor, is a vital part of how this website operates. This kind of garbage is the price we pay for that accessibility. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:15, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- The problem appears to be less to do with the article talk page and more to do with user talk pages where the threats are being left. In extreme cases, we can semi-protect the user talk page and create a sub-page for non-autoconfirmed users linked from the user talk page. It would at least prevent the orange bar lighting up each time a post was made. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- Is there a way to hide the discussion page (i.e., talk page) from the general reader's view (for encyclopedic readers only need the article, not the talk page discussions) for articles on controversial topics like this? Only editors actually ever need access to the talk page for taking part in the discussions to improve the article, not the IPs or general readers. This may sound a bit weird, but just checking since this, I presume, could solve the problem to some extent. Rasnaboy (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
[9] [10] [11] [12] a ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelth account/IP harassed me and other editors in anti-semitic and anti-Israeli threats claiming to want to murder/harm me, saying they would rape my family etc. in supposed support for Hezbollah. There is clearly a massive amount of sockpuppeting that is occurring (I reported this to the Trust and Safety Team as well). Bill Williams 12:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- What I did on my talk page was request protection from IP users. It didn't help fully, but at least I'm not getting harassed by IP users. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
I dealt with similar for years, and it stopped when semi-protection was put in place on my talk page (and I am grateful for that). I dont know of many reasons why an IP or brand new account needs to comment on my talk page, Im not an admin, and any dispute with an IP can be handled through pings on their own user talk or at the article talk page. Same for all these users, if any of them wants it I dont see why an admin should not extend indefinite semi-protection to their user talk pages. Can create a subpage for IPs if they want, but that doesnt even seem all that necessary. nableezy - 18:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
My user account was deleted without an explanation. I've been editing for several months. Don't know where to get help.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
My user account was deleted without an explanation. I've been editing for several months and my edits no longer needed approval. My user name was Chico1112 and you can see my edits here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_most-liked_Instagram_posts&action=history and this is the deletion log: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=User:Chico1112 Please help. I don't want to lose my several month history of edits that you can see on the Revision History page in the first URL above. My computer recently shut down and I had been logged in on a Firefox private page browsing page? --47.20.33.233 (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC) 47.20.33.233 (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- already answered at the Help Desk. [13] Please don't raise the same issue in multiple places. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Im sorry. I don't know the ropes around here at all. Will not do that again. Thanks. 47.20.33.233 (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Disruptive, non responsive beauty pageant editor (26 August)
- IWakeeVibwike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I filed before on 8 July. The complaint is a disruptive beauty pageant SPA who as far as I can tell has never responded on their talkpage or any talkpage about disruptive editing. They have been warned by me five times in July and August: [14][15][16][17][18].
I'm asking for a block or other appropriate action under the beauty pageants general sanctions. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- They are on mobile, so they probably have not seen any talk page comments (it's a bug that the Foundation hasn't fixed because they are too busy trying to raise more money). Sometimes, the only way to get their attention is to block them to get them to ask "why?". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Getting their attention in any way would be appreciated. Since I filed, they added another Facebook "source" to the pageant article [19]. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- I've indef blocked them. Any admin can unblock without consulting me once they communicate and understand what is going on, as the block is only for that purpose. It is disruptive at this point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- Getting their attention in any way would be appreciated. Since I filed, they added another Facebook "source" to the pageant article [19]. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Bri, just for the record, there is no such thing as "beauty pageants general sanctions" for blocks (or any other action than indefinite semi-protection). This is a common misunderstanding. The community has authorized one very specific measure, indefinite semi-protection of articles edited by sockpuppets, not the usual "discretionary sanctions". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:12, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Possible Sock Farm at List of colleges in Mumbai
I've protected the page. But someone with access to a magic 8 ball might want to have a look at the recent activity at List of colleges in Mumbai: Revision history - Wikipedia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- I only just found this notice. I found one of them on my watchlist; it seems to be a colossally ill-conceived student project that made all sorts of useless drafts. I went and indefblocked all the associated accounts until we can get a handle on exactly what's going on; see the relevant part of my block log. Graham87 10:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- Let's add SIES Nerul to the list. I briefly consulted a magic 8 ball, and there's no real clues, other than the guess about students looking about right, nor any complaints about the current block situation. There's a handful of spare accounts, some have edited, perhaps similarly, I haven't blocked them. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:54, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Graham87 @Zzuuzz Many thanks for the backup. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jonathunder closed automatically
An arbitration case regarding Jonathunder has now closed. The Arbitration Committee resolved by motion in February to suspend the case, which could be unsuspended on request by Jonathunder within six months. Jonathunder has not requested that the case be revived, and therefore it has been automatically closed. The motion triggering this process is available to read here at the case page.
For the arbitration committee, firefly ( t · c ) 09:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jonathunder closed automatically
Authority control - ISNI in Wikidata but not shown
Jean-Paul Laurens#Further reading - ISNI in Wikidata but not shown in English Wikipedia. 77.191.176.0 (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- No idea why this is on this noticeboard, but for art and artists there is a subtemplate of authority control (Template:ACArt) which suppresses all less relevant links (for enwiki) from the quite bloated authority control template. They are, as you found, still available on Wikidata, together with many links which are never shown in authority control in the first place. Fram (talk) 14:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- Fram, thank you. It is here, because I had no idea where else I could get help. The art-specific one is clearly mislabelled if it runs under the same label as the general one. I now asked there to stop supressing the number one international identifier for "notable" humans. 77.191.176.0 (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Talk:Zabukh
Why I can not express my opinion on the Talk page of the site in the subject. 194.135.153.161 (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- See WP:NOTFORUM, which specifically addresses this. --Yamla (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zabukh 194.135.153.161 (talk) 09:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: notified as (partial) blocking admin. Favonian (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Did I break AIV?
Not sure if I did something I shouldn't have. But after going through a backlog at AIV and coming back a bit later, I am seeing the backlog still there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- I removed all of the user-submitted reports and the bot appears to be working again. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 18:40, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- I think this report might have something to do with it -- they used the Vandal template wrongly by including "example user":
{{Vandal|M Hasnain Mirani|Example user}}
— Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 18:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)- Thanks. My command of tech peaked with the electric pencil sharpener. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- Is there something that's even better at sharpening a pencil (younger readers may not know what that is) and easier to use than the manual pencil sharpeners that I have always used? I thought we had reached the limits of technology when they replaced the pen-knife. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- Of course they know what a pencil is @Phil Bridger - it's one of those rods used to control tablets for people who don't like using their fingers! Nosebagbear (talk) 19:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- I remember a time when everyone had a pencil sharpener mounted somewhere in their house. They were the Amazon echo of their time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- We still have! (my partner is an artist in her spare time). Black Kite (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- Our kids still use the yellow #2 pencils and a mounted hand crank pencil sharpener. The school board association recommended going to mechanical pencils last year but we kept the standard #2's. They are a little easier to get here and we can use them for other purposes if we have to. --ARoseWolf 18:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- We still have! (my partner is an artist in her spare time). Black Kite (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- I remember a time when everyone had a pencil sharpener mounted somewhere in their house. They were the Amazon echo of their time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- Of course they know what a pencil is @Phil Bridger - it's one of those rods used to control tablets for people who don't like using their fingers! Nosebagbear (talk) 19:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- Is there something that's even better at sharpening a pencil (younger readers may not know what that is) and easier to use than the manual pencil sharpeners that I have always used? I thought we had reached the limits of technology when they replaced the pen-knife. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. My command of tech peaked with the electric pencil sharpener. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- I think this report might have something to do with it -- they used the Vandal template wrongly by including "example user":
File uploader is requesting it be removed from servers
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can an administrator take a look at User talk:Spookcentral#File:Blackorwhite comparison.jpg and see whether they can help this user out? Basically, they've uploaded a derivative work they created as non-free content and now want it removed from Wikipedia's servers. I'm not sure whether that's possible and posted that I would ask an administrator to look into things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly seems like they already have the advice, they can tag it for CSD or FFD, or at this point just wait and it will get scooped up in orphan non-free cleanup. — xaosflux Talk 22:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you Xaosflux. The seem to want to the file removed from the servers. Is that possible? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly operationally, no. But once it is deleted it will no longer be published for everyone to be able to download (which will include all of the versions seen at File:Blackorwhite_comparison.jpg). However, please note that this file is also no longer orphaned. If you want to help that user out at this point, opening a FFD on their behalf is probably the best way to get this dealt with. I wouldn't delve in the technicalities of the differences between being 'deleted' / 'suppressed' / 'physically removed' - for practical purposes deleted would suffice here - and I certainly wouldn't invite them to start a DMCA proceeding or go to WMF legal -- if they wonder their on their own so be it. — xaosflux Talk 00:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you Xaosflux. The seem to want to the file removed from the servers. Is that possible? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
User:Olatant2!
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Olatant2! seems to only be making disruptive edits on this encyclopedia. It is probably best to block them. TheFishDude539 (talk) 21:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- Already indeffed, by Dennis Brown. Deor (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, I meant to come back and say that, got sidetracked with a customer call. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Deceased banned users
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Good morning,
I apologize in advance if this is the wrong place for this - please don't hesitate to move it to a more appropriate place upon replying if necessary. Anyway, I would like to seek clarification on what the appropriate procedure/policy is for banned users who are deceased (full disclaimer: I'm a relative of a recently deceased but also banned user). Obviously most of the stuff at WP:RIP doesn't apply, since "memorializing" user pages etc should only be done for users in good standing. However I was curious if perhaps there is a more subtle way to indicate a banned user as being deceased, primarily so that any active investigations can be closed and to prevent any other accounts from being blocked as socks of the deceased user? (Since any accounts that were blocked as socks of a deceased user are obviously socks of someone else in actuality). I fully understand if this isn't possible, though I would assume that there has to be at least a way for admins to privately document such a situation in order to avoid new blocks under the deceased user's name. I thank you for your time. God Bless. 2601:18C:8B82:9E0:3805:7DDA:30F2:5C0F (talk) 11:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- Unless you can provide convincing proof that a username was linked to a person, and convincing proof that the person is deceased, it's probably not going to happen. If you want privacy, as you seem to already know, contact Arbcom. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Violence against men AfD could use additional eyes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Looks like the AfD for violence against men has attracted a lot of SPAs recently, and has led to edit warring on the article itself. Posting here instead of RPP because it looks like both pages could use additional eyes (and perhaps a snow close of the AfD to avoid further disruption). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- It's also led to a considerable improvement in the article, which is a win. I'm not sure a SNOW close will be helpful here, though there does seem to be a strong consensus at this point (disclaimer: I've !voted in the discussion). I'm a bit concerned at the way the nominator (User:Tambor de Tocino) is policing the discussion - this might well be removing WP:FORUM violations but it's still not a good look for someone who is clearly INVOLVED. GoldenRing (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
TTP1233 Unblock Request (unarchived)
The following is an unblock request placed on behalf of - @TTP1233:. It is an unblock request that has now been open for a considerable length of time and warranted additional community consideration. The user was blocked for socking in November 2021. When the most recent appeal in May was made, they were given a clear checkuser so that (technical) aspect is already concluded. I would also advise participants to take a look at their user talk page for a broader context. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Appeal Text
|
---|
Greetings Sir/Madam, I do like to re-apply for unblock in Wikipedia. It is to inform you that after reading blocking policies and conditions of Standard Offer, I have,
Also,
To continue, I think I have aware myself of my misbehavior to the community and I will not continue to do so, henceforth. I also want to assure you that if I be unblock, then I will be working on the basics, means what a normal editor usually do. I will fully focus on creating, editing and updating articles that are completely based on India-related topics. When I will gain experience on the user rights, I will apply but after few years, as my unblocking immediately will not grant me that right. To conclude, I want to contribute many things and not to spoil the community. I will try my best to get back trust everyone. I hope you will not abandon me. I would request you to please consider my review and then unblock me. If any conclusion comes regarding my un-block, please inform me. I look forward to your response regarding the request. Thanking You, Yours sincerely, --Jyoti Roy (talk) 12:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)}} [Addendum by TTP 19th Aug] "Extraordinary Writ advised me in an e-mail to get involved in other wiki projects to convince other users that I'm worthy to join or not. Currently I'm working in Simple English Wikipedia as rollbacker. Also I made almost 1800 edits by now and created over 45 articles. My aim in working there is to fight against vandalism and create articles (when the activity in editing is low in simple wiki)."
|
- Just because May was a while ago, I did run a new check and do not see any new activity. So checkuser remains all clear. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- Regarding the username being used for the appeal, they've noted: "I cannot access my master sock account User:NS Dibyojyoti because I have forgotten the password of it. I have tried to reset the password but it failed anyhow. So I chose to request here." Thus any appeal would unblock this specific account. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- Unblock per Simple Wiki.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
bloody sigmabot keeps archiving-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Request for lifting topic ban user Wickey
Hereby, I request to lift the topic ban on the Arab-Israeli conflict. As I have never used a sockpuppet to evade the rules – which has falsely been suggested and for which you will nowhere find any evidence – and only wish to contribute to Wikipedia in a positive way, I have no problem with promising that I will abide all the rules. Wickey (talk) 09:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- I would appreciate an overall review and valuation of my contributions to articles, not stick on a single incident. I have been editing for more than 10 years on WP in several wiki's, without being blocked. So, what I ask is to give it a try.--Wickey (talk) 13:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose Not editing when blocked is a rule, and the public note on your UTRS appeal notes that you accepted the tie between the two accounts when in your AE case you stated User:Wickey-nl is another user. So to be holding the position that you weren't even now discourages me to remove the restriction. Your content work over the last six months, however, seemed reasonable to me and not in the field. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- I guess this is the link to the topic ban. There is more detail at user talk:Wickey. I don't see where this request addresses the original issues. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. Thanks User:Deepfriedokra for posting the links. Wickey's topic ban was mainly on the basis of a combative attitude, with accusations of bias/corruption and elements of edit warring thrown in. So to overturn it, we'll need to be convinced that this attitude has changed. On that basis I decided to take a look at their edit history on talk pages, and the very first page I looked at, completely at random, was Talk:ThorCon nuclear reactor. There I see all sorts of accusations flying around concerning bias, promotion, edit warring and an editor being hounded away from the topic; I'm not seeing any evidence that the required lessons have been learned. WaggersTALK 11:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. seems quite the opposite. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose The combative, uncollaborative attitude on display at Talk:ThorCon nuclear reactor shows that it would be a mistake to permit this editor to return to the Israel/Palestine topic area. Thanks, Waggers. Cullen328 (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- In this revealing 2018 conversation, Wickey wrote
User:Wickey-nl is another user, who is not even active. Moreover, I do not have any intention to edit in an area which is terrorized by a pack of mad dogs.
So, we have overt lying combined with a terrible attitude about the I/P topic area. Cullen328 (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- In this revealing 2018 conversation, Wickey wrote
- Oppose Wickey was not a constructive editor last time they were allowed to edit in the Israel/Palestine topic area. Number 57 18:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose In order to remove any editing restriction with regard to our perhaps single most contentious content area, the community should expect to see rather a fulsome acknowledgment of why the TBAN was found necessary in the first place and a decent explanation of why the restriction is no longer necessary. That's the baseline for the determination, before we even add the additional concerns raised above of continued combativeness and borderline (at least) disruption in other contentious areas. But though these reasons would have been sufficient in and of themselves for me to oppose the request as a concerned community member, it is Cullen's discovery of statements that directly indicate that the user is lying in regard to statements regarding socking in this very thread that really seals the deal. That is deeply concerning and leaves no question about our inability to trust any assurance the user gives us here for the purpose of assuaging concerns. SnowRise let's rap 19:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose @Wickey:Please describe how your edits merited a TBAN and what you would do differently. Setting that aside, you have claimed to be unconnected with Wickey-nl, claimed to have stopped using that account, and now claim to have had two accounts ab initio. Can you reconcile these divergent statements in a manner that would regain the Community's trust? You are quoted above as having written, "I do not have any intention to edit in an area which is terrorized by a pack of mad dogs." What has changed? Do you still regard editors in that content area as before? Are you now happy to edit in such an area? Can you answer the concern in a prior post that you continue with a, "combative, uncollaborative attitude?" Thanks.(fixed ping) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Article neutrality
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Why is article neutrality not being upheld? Standards are being allowed to slip and it is not acceptable and I want to complain.
Rules explicitly state that all article information must be factual and none-biased, therefore opinions regardless of source are not relevant or required. If an author has given an opinion on a subject this can be referred to via the relevant link or citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:AB80:8001:85CA:64C7:5D2:E5F1 (talk) 11:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Specifically this page:
It is not ok and it is not needed they are biased opinions and the article reads fine and dandy without them. Breach of neautrality! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:AB80:8001:85CA:64C7:5D2:E5F1 (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- IP, you'll need to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. It is not yet something that needs admin intervention. Primefac (talk) 11:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- Admin have already apparently intervened that is why I am complaining about it and bringing it to attention.
- Those opinions are not necessary or needed the article reads fine without them only neutral facts are needed. Opinions can be viewed by clicking the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:AB80:8001:85CA:64C7:5D2:E5F1 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- Debates amongst academics are absolutely fine for an article. Regardless, this doesn't require admin input. Secretlondon (talk) 11:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
WMF account holder blocked for vandalism through sockpuppet accounts
This is being discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)#ABorba (WMF) blocked. Since it seems appropriate that the wider community be aware of the circumstances, I am posting a link here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Muhammed images Discretionary sanctions
Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case ("Discretionary sanctions") is rescinded two months after this motion is enacted. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure.
Support: Barkeep49, BDD, Donald Albury, Enterprisey, Izno, Maxim, Wugapodes
Opposed: CaptainEek, WormThatTurned
For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Muhammed images Discretionary sanctions
pre-RfC mass-article creation discussion has begun
As part of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case, the Arbitration Committee decided to request community comments on issues related to mass nominations at Articles for Deletion in a discussion to be moderated and closed by editors appointed by the committee.
Workshopping for the first of two discussions (which focuses on mass article creation) has begun and feedback can be given at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale. As previously announced, Valereee and Xeno will be co-moderating these discussions.
For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)