I congratulate your coolness, and have a better opinon on you that months ago, but did you sent this same warning to [[User:Marquardtika|Marquardtika]]? Because I believed a consensus was reached months ago, and this guy is the one that it´s breaking it. You yourself wrote the part that this guy is "objecting."
I congratulate your coolness, and have a better opinon on you that months ago, but did you sent this same warning to [[User:Marquardtika|Marquardtika]]? Because I believed a consensus was reached months ago, and this guy is the one that it´s breaking it. You yourself wrote the part that this guy is "objecting."
Look, I´m writing a book on the fraud done by CNN. You, wikipedians, could appear as heroes for the truth or manipulated yes men for them. Think about it, if you block me then I will appear not like a right wing conspiracy theorist trying to hack Wikipedia kind of guy, but a truth teller that CNN is scared to death to attemp to sue for saying they comitted a fraud, that is being censored by you.
Look, I´m writing a book on the fraud done by CNN. You, wikipedians, could appear as heroes for the truth or manipulated yes men for them. Think about it, if you block me then I will appear not like a right wing conspiracy theorist trying to hack Wikipedia kind of guy, but a truth teller that CNN is scared to death to attemp to sue me for saying they comitted a fraud, that is being censored by you.
Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia editors love to appear like the good guys, right?
Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia editors love to appear like the good guys, right?
I will keep defending truth at the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. See you there.
I will keep defending truth at the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. See you there. [[User:Tomoo Terada|Tomoo Terada]] ([[User talk:Tomoo Terada|talk]]) 02:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC) [[User:Tomoo Terada|Tomoo Terada]]
''[[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=Stop icon]] Your recent editing history at [[:Chloe Melas]] shows that you are currently engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit war]]; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] to work toward making a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See [[Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle|the bold, revert, discuss cycle]] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]].
''[[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=Stop icon]] Your recent editing history at [[:Chloe Melas]] shows that you are currently engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit war]]; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] to work toward making a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See [[Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle|the bold, revert, discuss cycle]] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]].
Line 496:
Line 496:
'''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]'''—especially if you violate the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which states that an editor must not perform more than three [[Help:Reverting|reverts]] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you do not violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> [[User:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:red;">Fences</span>]]<span style="background-color:white; color:#808080;">&</span>[[User talk:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:black;">Windows</span>]] 03:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)''
'''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]'''—especially if you violate the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which states that an editor must not perform more than three [[Help:Reverting|reverts]] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you do not violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> [[User:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:red;">Fences</span>]]<span style="background-color:white; color:#808080;">&</span>[[User talk:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:black;">Windows</span>]] 03:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)''
:Please discuss this at [[Talk:Chloe Melas#BLP issues]], [[User:Tomoo Terada]]. I am not going to block you, I'm an involved admin. I could see you were edit warring (and past [[WP:3RR|three reverts in 24 hours]] so I gave you a templated warning to ''avoid'' you getting blocked by continuing and not realising the risk. [[User:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:red;">Fences</span>]]<span style="background-color:white; color:#808080;">&</span>[[User talk:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:black;">Windows</span>]] 20:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
:Please discuss this at [[Talk:Chloe Melas#BLP issues]], [[User:Tomoo Terada]]. I am not going to block you, I'm an involved admin. I could see you were edit warring (and past [[WP:3RR|three reverts in 24 hours]] so I gave you a templated warning to ''avoid'' you getting blocked by continuing and not realising the risk. [[User:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:red;">Fences</span>]]<span style="background-color:white; color:#808080;">&</span>[[User talk:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:black;">Windows</span>]] 20:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate your friendly warning [[User:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:red;">Fences</span>]], but it´s true what I wrote you. I don´t have any fear of being blocked or even banned from here because as I already said to you and will keep saying it, some people here obviously are owned by Chloe Melas. If they were already bought by her, any reason will not change "their" decision. [[User:Tomoo Terada|Tomoo Terada]] ([[User talk:Tomoo Terada|talk]]) 02:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC) [[User:Tomoo Terada|Tomoo Terada]]
However, you just deleted the category pages, without emptying the category. That leaves ~125 pages still in the non-existent Category:Kentucky colonels, contrary to WP:REDNOT.
Yes, I just came here to ask the same question. You can't delete categories like you would an article or talk page unless it is empty. You either have to manually change each page in the category or have a bot do it. But it doesn't happen automatically. LizRead!Talk!04:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, BrownHairedGirl and Liz, I'd asked about this at VPT before and was given the impression this was done by a bot automatically at CfD. Is there a closing script to do this? I've added it now; does it work post-deletion? Fences&Windows11:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the bot works fine post-deletion. The bot just does what it's told at WP:CFDW, where your entry[1] looks fine.
@Fences and windows: I hadn't thought of the banned-user-rollbacks. But, to be honest, I deplore those speedy deletions of category pages cos they were created by a banned user. It's quite rare for a banned user to be the only person to populate a category, so it is a v bad idea to delete the whole show just because the category page creator has been banned.
Here is a brownie for you for all the immense amount of help you gave by reviewing my article on Puneett Chouksey and closing the AFD of Speedily delete on that article.
Have a great day Sir/Ma'am!--Aleyamma38 (talk) 10:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss with them on the talk pages, TylerKutschbach. Also leave a message on the IP's talk pages. I've semi-protected the pages for two days - that is not an invitation for you to revert again, as you risk being blocked for edit warring. You may already have breached WP:3RR. Fences&Windows01:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anything I can clarify for you?
Hi Fences and windows. I'm very concerned that your comments at BLPN regarding the Sasha Grey misrepresent my position, my comments, and the available references. If there's anything I can do to clarify my position, please let me know. --Hipal (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We can continue discussion at BLP/N; my comments my not capture your intent, but I believe they address the consequences of your position. I will edit to clarify. Fences&Windows16:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if that can work, as I don't think you understand my position despite my clarifications. Thanks for the refactoring. --Hipal (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I don't understand your position or the basis for your position, Hipal, but it's best not to fork the debate. I think consensus is against you at both the talk page and noticeboard so you need to better articulate 1) the grounding of your position in our policies and guidelines and 2) the practical consequences of your position for the article and its sourcing in order to persuade people. I'm really not aiming to be obtuse. Fences&Windows21:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a debate. There are no sides. I agreed to allow the article to be revised to whatever Morbidthoughts wanted, provided there are BLP-quality references backing them. He's done so as best he can, so that's resolved.
I've reached out to you to try to prevent misunderstanding and the problems that develop from working from misunderstanding.
I'd hoped that editors would discuss quality of sources, weight, and any other relevant policies, guidelines, or general consensus. It appears that will not happen. --Hipal (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your responses at BLP/N have been quite terse and you don't always clearly explain what you are proposing and what the policy basis is. If you could expand more on that and not take pushback personally (which I acknowledge is difficult, especially in light of some of my own rhetoric) then others might understand what you're aiming for. Fences&Windows00:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've put far too much time and effort into this already. At this point, I'm going to wait to see what the ip's do when the protection is lifted. --Hipal (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cadeken socks
Hi Fences and Window. I wanted get your advice and follow up on an issue we discussed at WP:AI#Incidents involving User:Sundayclose. I respect your opinion. First, thanks for the even-handed manner in which you handled that matter. I need advice about the IP socks of Cadeken (talk·contribs). As I said at ANI, Cadeken is a prolific sockmaster, using both registered socks and numerous IP socks. I'm almost certain that Cadeken's latest registered sock is Keith Ann Nikolas (talk·contribs) because of an identical editing pattern (articles related to mass killers and other violent crimes), but I'll deal with that at SPI. My concern is that inevitably when a Cadeken sock is blocked, soon after an IP located in central California emerges, making similar edits, often amid a registered sock edits. For example, here. Sometimes they are constructive edits, but often they are disruptive. To determine whether the sources are constructive, I would have to go to every source to confirm, and often these socks cite multiple sources. That's very time consuming, and with my limited time on Wikipedia, I probably would not take the time to do so. I could report the IP at SPI, but that often doesn't confirm sockpuppetry (and I understand why). So are those my only options? If so, I suspect the IPs problem edits will remain in articles for a long time, as they typically have in the past. I'm not complaining about how Wikipedia operates, but I want to make sure I have no other options before moving on to other matters here. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sundayclose, one thing I can do is semi-protect the usual/recent editing targets - let's put that together. I suspect they'll widen their target articles, but it'll disrupt their editing pattern.
If there is an obvious IP sockpuppet immediately after a block, reverting on sight and noting the block evasion in the edit summary and at the talk page seems reasonable. Fences&Windows23:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sundayclose, it's a DUCK case, but wait for the SPI close then revert en masse. You're not obliged to check each edit, though be careful not to restore BLP violations etc.
I am new to all of this BLP bullshit. But I really appreciated your edits on the BLP board for the porn star. (Remember the internet was built on porn!) But seriously it is cool that you want to save edits.
That’s OK, I think we should give a complete picture of any person's career including Grey's. My go-to response for most issues on Wikipedia is to hunt for sources. Fences&Windows09:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
me too. Anytime you need a second look at something or help finding sources, let me know. Is there a group of editors like you? I know that BLP Noticeboard tends to attract people that like to delete other people's work, is there a page that people who support edits gather? thanks again! have a great weekend! Infinitepeace (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It looks as if the editor whose IP 74.127.202.204 you blocked for block evasion after I raised their edits at BLPN[3] is back, now at 74.127.202.115, making the same categorisations on often flimsy evidence[4], Do you want to deal with it or should I raise it elsewhere? NebY (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They're back again on 74.127.202.46[5] categorising or (new) decategorising people as having a personality disorder, sometimes aligned with mentions in the articles and sometimes not, with facetious and serious edit summaries. NebY (talk) 10:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. I've discovered watchlisting categories works now, hurrah, so I've done that. They seem a bit of a BLP risk. NebY (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've revdel'd one article. I don't know if you want to go back so far, but I found the claim inserted into the articles's text in 2017[6]. I removed it last month without thinking to ask for revdel, sorry. NebY (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just over three months later, they're back as IP 74.127.203.206, adding disorder categories that aren't supported by article text in any I've sampled, mostly with the summary "i added him to another category". Some are BLPs again. Would you like to block them again? NebY (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Infinitepeace
Infinitepeace(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) seems to be inviting proxy editing on their talk page. I tried to post the actual policies, hoping to have a discussion as to whether what they are doing is allowed, but the links to the policies were deleted and I was asked to stay off their talk page (which of course I will do). I am still not sure whether the invitation to proxy edit is allowed, so I am reluctant to go to ANI. What do you think? Allowed or not allowed? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to just go ahead and delete the section where they invite proxy editing. If they revert again I will have to think of something else. If that happens, can a speedy be used for just part of a page, should I request speedy on the whole thing, go to MfD, or go to AE? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt anyone will answer the request to edit on their behalf or pursue their complaints, but a discussion about principles at AN wouldn't hurt. I think an editor who is blocked for a period of time might still legitimately prepare content in their talk page and discuss with editors things other than their block, but not an indef blocked editor - and especially not a sockpuppet of a blocked editor. Fences&Windows17:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I had submitted an article and it was deleted under Section G4 for speedy deletion on the basis of a discussion which was done in September, 2018. The Wikipedia page submitted in 2018 was not prepared by me. I had submitted the link to a forbes article on the company that was published on 27th January, 2021, was the article considered before deleting the page?
"The pages slugged ‘Brand Connect’ are equivalent to advertisements and are not written and produced by Forbes India journalists." Adv.devanshmalhotra, the article was written using promotional sources like this. We can’t use such sources, see WP:RS. Fences&Windows08:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Got it! I will go through the same for a better understanding. Can you please recover the article as a draft in my account so that I can continue working on it.
Thanks
--Adv.devanshmalhotra (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.
Technical news
When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)
Thanks for that, I appreciate it. When I get the time I may dig a little deeper into the LTA and into Wikieditorial101's contribs, just because it might come in handy if (when?) this editor re-appears. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gaetz AfD
HI. Just a heads up that there was a comment by David Fuchs on the above AFD, which i believe got deleted in the midst of it being moved. I noticed it because it was a short comment that was cited as 16KB in the history, which only had one entry. I think it's sort of an interstitial metaphysical space thing.--- Possibly (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
Thank you! I was really depressed when I saw that Guliolopez had continued his harassment of me (even after I took a long break), this time for what he called "implausible" redirects and dismissing as "linkspam" my work when many of these supposedly "excessive" alternative spellings were even cited if he had troubled himself to look closely. I was actually on the verge of giving up entirely but your interventions have made my day! Publisa (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Page Caesar DePaco victim again of edit warring, vandalism, and sanitization
have both continued to attempt to sanitize the page Caesar DePaco. Ive had to revert all their edits, since they were mostly deletions through false assertions. Ruimbarreira introduced a huge rant on both the english and portuguese wikipedia, about how the media is engaged in a conspiracy and acting against his client. He is the individual's lawyer, and threatened to sue people in PT wikipedia. In fact he did file in court agaisnt PT wikipedia. See this edit for the rant
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caesar_DePa%C3%A7o&oldid=1019985689
see this edit and the final paragraph of the introduction. The only reference to this is the individual's own assertions, which are fine to be linked and part of the article, even if they are completely and demonstrably false.
Gustav Benedictis is a new account, suddenly appeared, says they've lived in Florida and they are from Madeira... the same location as the person the article is about. (amazing coincidence). He also sanitizes the page for Summit Nutritionals Int., the company that's owned by Caesar DePaco. Another amazing coincidence.
Hope I can get your attention as this page is being constantly vandalised both here and in PT wikipedia, where I've contacted the admins there.
Hi, definitely not trying to make this a 'I know/am smarter than you' or anything, but I am very big into video games, especially Nintendo. This draft is definitely a hoax:
Also just found Draft:Game & Watch: The Legend of Zelda, another hoax... the two sources used in there are both regarding the recent Mario Game & Watch, not a Zelda one. Same draft also says it releases in November 2020 in the lead, and says in 2021 in the infobox. Same scenario regarding a comment on the talk page: "We need to update this article a lot if its real and please do not delete it if its not real. OK."
Note the usage of 'likely' and 'could' throughout the article
The article is from January 26, 2021. Note how one of the paragraphs starts off with, "February 21 marks the 35th anniversary of The Legend of Zelda series. If a Zelda 3D All-Stars exists, then it will likely be announced shortly before or on the anniversary." It's now May 2021, so clearly that did not happen...
TL;DR- game is definitely something not in existence currently, as in not announced by any means whatsoever by Nintendo. Article you linked to is purely speculation about it existing/what it could contain.
I think it's probably a hoax too, Magitroopa, but the existence of speculative sourcing for such a release makes it hard to apply the CSD criterion. It says "This only applies to cases where the deception is so obvious as to constitute pure vandalism" and WP:DWHOAX says "Hoaxes are generally not speedy deletion candidates". CSD is conservative by design. If you nominate at MfD, it'll likely not last long. Fences&Windows00:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FIA Drivers' Categorisation (Platinum)
Hi. Now I don't have enough time to be in Wiki, so I have missed your message. This site copypasted my list not vice versa, please restore. The major content was the list of actual drivers with the Platinum status and references, not the requirements for the platinum categorisation. Corvus tristis (talk) 05:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Corvus tristis, I've restored it and I'm sorry I didn't check more carefully. The Wikipedia page does precede that website. This was caught up in some pages AS19Portsmouth created. Fences&Windows20:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.
Arbitration
The community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.
Hello F&W, the discussion at AN was automatically archived again (shouldn't it wait a bit more after new comments? Less than 24h had passed I think). But I would really appreciate some guidance and an answer to my questions. Sorry to bother you specifically but nobody else took action (I really appreciate you did) and I don't know who to ask. I would rather not reopen that discussion myself if I can receive an answer in another way. Thank you. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk12:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gtoffoletto, you said at AN/I you want to "clear my name from this Sword of Damocles", however a topic ban is not a threat but protective. You've successfully edited for a year without impinging on your topic ban area so you may breathe easy.
You have a tendency to wikilawyer and bludgeon, being over-fixated on process and self-justification, which I believe leads you to not take on board what people say. In appearing to minimize the reasons for your topic ban and arguing with those opposed to it being lifted, you gave too many people the wrong impression.
The issue is not process but trust. An admin assessed that the community no longer trusted you to edit about UFOs and you have yet to regain that trust. Had I commented at AN/I then I might have agreed to lift the topic ban to give you a second chance, but I cannot override a lack of consensus. You might regain trust by self-reflection, e.g. accepting what JoJo Anthrax said, taking Wikipedia:Fringe theories to heart, and studying Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing and the other essays linked to in "More on civil POV pushing" for tips on following a more productive path.
You might lurk or engage at WP:NPOVN, or other noticeboards to get more of a feel for where community consensus lies on contentious issues. You engaged at WP:FTN briefly last year but it was always connected to UFOs, by your own admission engaging in "wild speculation" (see WP:NOTFORUM); [7][8] you might try again on other topics in the spirit of the board, i.e. dispassionately discussing how to write about ideas that fall outside the mainstream neutrally and based on high-quality, independent sources.
A topic ban appeal that might be more successful would acknowledge without spin where you went wrong before, why you want to return to this area, what particular articles you're interested in and what sources you might use to improve them, how you've edited in other (perhaps adjacent) areas without disruption, and how you'll avoid disruption recurring. Fences&Windows16:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your suggestions and explanations. I often edit about space and aeronautics in my time on Wikipedia (with some interesting detours into other topics) so that is why I feel this is a "Sword of Damocles" hanging over my head (although I don't intend to edit the subject area again given the excessive toxicity). I recognise my failures in dealing with past disputes and agree I could have handled them better. However, I reject accusations of POV pushing and find them unfair. Even the admin that blocked me reviewed the evidence and modified the reason for my ban to disruptive editing in the subject area. I agree I was disruptive as I have stated many times. However, I strive to always cite reliable sources and to follow them faithfully. And I believe my record shows that and that has lead the admin to change the ban reason. Is this a fair assessment of the situation in your opinion? JoJo Anthrax said I believe it is accurate to say that the basis for your topic ban was expanded, and not simply "changed.". But I don't believe that to be accurate from how I understand it.
I can see from my window the latin inscription on the Court of Milan which I will post here for you: "Sumus ad iustitiam nati neque opinione / sed natura constitutum est ius” We are called to justice since birth and law is based on nature, not on opinion.p.s. on a philosophical note: process is necessary to ensure trust. Without clear and fair processes people tend to make decisions based on opinion, which is affected by bias and is easily manipulated resulting in unfairness. This is a big problem for Wikipedia. And not an easy one to fix. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk21:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey F&W. Understand if you don't want to reply. But could you point me in the right direction to receive answers/guidance with questions like this? I am struggling to understand how all this works. Are there admins that volunteer to give guidance/coaching on such issues for example? I am lost here. Thanks. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk09:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel that way. I've greatly appreciated and read carefully all your suggestions and guidance. I'll do the same with your last advice and see if an admin has time to help me out with some of the questions that I still have. Thanks for the help. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk10:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday I replied to your comment here. Telmo6T has not edited since your warning, but shortly after my comments and a couple of article edits, a brand new single-purpose account UTorontoPHD was registered and emerged to the scene with similar behaviour; making promotional edits, including promotional edits like this.
I considered opening a sockpuppet investigation or another COIN discussion, but I realise that neither may not be an optimal solution in this case. Do you have a suggestion? Thanks, Politrukki (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Politrukki. It's plainly the same editor, but as they've abandoned that old account there's no call for SPI. I've reiterated the earlier warning, let's see if that and discussion is enough without needing to go to COIN. They appear to be engaging at the talk page. Fences&Windows22:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. User:SteveBenassi, whom I reported earlier and whom gave a final warning about edit warring and ArbCom violations (and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, has begun to post very POV and forum-like material expressing his opinions across Talk pages (relating to Jews and Jewish history/origins in ways that seem to go against WP:NOTAFORUM). Previously, he intentionally made disruptive edits and edit warred in order to, by his admission, "make a scene" in order to push his POV.
Here are his recent edits to the Talk pages of three articles so far, first at Zionism
[[9]]
And then at Italian Jews, here:
[[10]]
At Zionism, it seemed to be in response to a ref another user had added, but at Italian Jews it seemed to be for the purpose of calling attention to his opinion.
I warned him and removed his addition to the Talk page at Italian Jews, referring him to WP:POV and WP:NOTAFORUM but he has again posted similar material to the Talk page of Genetic studies on Jews, here [[11]], this time initially pinging a user who (a while ago) edit warred (adding fringe material) and with whom I had an exchange. His notifying of them also seems somewhat like WP:CANVASSING, since he would know they would be likely to agree with him.
SteveBenassi has a history of making intentionally provacative edits (by his own admission) and edit warring on purpose. Here is seems to again be pushing a POV, and it seems that he is interested in adding this materials to articles that concern Jews or Jewish history. His recent behavior could also be an ArbCom violation (but I am not as familiar with that).
This seems to me problematic and disruptive, and indicates, like the edits he was reported for before, that he is WP:NOTHERE and attempting to right WP:GREATWRONGS. It is also strange in light of his earlier statement that he would no longer edit Wikipedia ([[12]]).
Any attention to this issue is greatly appreciated.
Hello. User:Skllagyook You continue to try to block a new paper, The Geography of Jewish Ethnogenesis (2019), http://www.biblaridion.info/video/ethnogenesis.pdf , because it is opposite to your POV, and you try block my comments about it. I do not make edits on any pages now, I try to engage users on the talk section of the pages. I am trying to follow the "Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia". You don't like this paper and are still trying to suppress it. You do not like my analysis of this paper because it is anathema to your views. No one else is complaining but you three, who work as a team to block changes.
User:SteveBenassi I explained the issue with the paper repeatedly. The issue, as explained, is that it makes extraordinary claims strongly at odds with the mainstream (research both early and recent) and has received no engagement from the maimstrean (e.g. in the form of citations). This issue is not my personal opinions, and your repeated claim that it is (assuming bad faith) is less than appropriate (see WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:AGF. Adding variations of the same material accross Talk pages with your own POV, with headlines like "Are most modern day Jews or their ancestors indigenous to the Levant? The answer is no." (here [[13]]) and slanted, pov, and misleading descriptions of the "old" positions of "Ostrer and his camp" (here [[14]]), seems to suggest a battleground approach similar to that you admitted to in earlier instances (such as here [[15]]. Instead of editing the articles directly, you now seem to be posting opinionated material in the Talk pages designed to get others to make edits along the lines of those you prefer. Skllagyook (talk) 04:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Skllagyook Others disagree with your POV of me and my work, see RS debate ...
"I have read the paper of Yardumian and Schurr. It is a secondary source by two qualified authors published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. The authors openly disagree with the conclusions drawn by some of the papers they review and give reasons for their disagreement; this is how science works and it isn't our business to take sides. I don't want to comment on exactly how it is used in articles, but I don't see the slightest reason to prohibit its use. Zerotalk 07:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Neutral editors please note that the use of this perfectly normal academic article is being edited out of several pages: not only at the Eran Elhaik page, which is crammed with references hostile to the author (in violation of wiki bio's NPOV policy) but also at the Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry here by Skllagyook, and then by User:Shrike (here and at Genetic studies on Jews here by Skllagyook, and at Jewish History here, again by Skllagyook.
It would appear in all four cases that Skllagyook has taken it upon himself to disallow a new perfectly normal piece of academic research to be cited for its conclusions anywhere on Wikipedia; That they do so because they are convinced the majority view is tantamount to the truth and not a contestable opinion. That is not only abusive POV pushing. It is outright censorship of any dissonant voice, one in this case, coming from perfectly respectable scholars. I.e. we have the extraordinary phenomenon of a peer-reviewed piece of scholarship suffering interdiction from appearing on Wikipedia because an editor has arrogated the right to step in an assume the mantle of ultimate judge on what can, and cannot be thought, about the topic. An editor of unknown background is acting as if they knew more about the topic of population statistics, genetics and Jewish history than the scholars who specialize in it or the peer-review committee who approved its publication on vetting it. Nishidani (talk) 08:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)"
You lost the RS debate and are still trying to suppress me and this paper, get over it, and leave me alone.
So did the posts to the other pages, since they all contain the same statement:”Elhaik's paper was highly cited, it created a firestorm, many articles were written about it, because it threatens one of the justifications for Israel's right to exist in Palestine, DNA“. Even after being specifically told that these edits were a breach of sanctions he spammed it across multiple pages. I am genuinely curious why he is being cut so much slack, when it is abundantly clear that he is wp:nothere to build an encyclopedia. It would be different of he had a history of positive contributions, but literally the only edits he has ever made have been either to repeatedly insert his own original research (see his edits to wendigo) or inserting this specific rant about Elhaik’s work meaning Isreal has less of a right to exist (plus his rev-delled edits for “outing and off wiki harassment”) it seems like he is being given far too much leniency, and it is pretty much certain that as soon as this short block expires he will be right back at it. NonReproBlue (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NonReproBlue, I don't generally get involved in Arbitration Enforcement. I don't think a 72 hour block for talk page posts is lenient and if he returns to disruptive behaviour I am sure it will be dealt with. However, if you believe further action is needed, please go to WP:AE. Fences&Windows13:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that I wasn't thinking that it was solely under the purview of AE, as the ARBPIA violations are only a part of what I see as a very troubling larger pattern of WP:BATTLEGROUNDWP:PROFRINGE and WP:NOTHERE behaviors, but I apologize for bothering you and and will take your advice if it persists.NonReproBlue (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One last question; in their unblock request they said "Three Users of unknown background are consistently blocking me and others, Shrike, NonReproBlue, and Skllagyook. They are probably Israeli or Zionist trained SockPuppet civilians." What would be the appropriate noticeboard to bring this to? AE because of the content of the accusation, or general Incident board? Because this seems egregious to me. NonReproBlue (talk) 16:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.
Hi, can you renew the protection of the page "FOR TWO YEARS NOW" Sylvain Charlebois with ([Edit=Require extended confirmed access] like it was recently made in French to Sylvain Charlebois. The sockpuppet of Janvez is back again with the account Atkcp wich should be blocked too like on French Wikipedia.
Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.
Technical news
IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.
Arbitration
The community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.
Sorry, Kire1975, I forgot to reply to your message here. Thanks for the reminder. To appeal the topic ban, you need to go to WP:AN to ask for consensus for it to be lifted or modified. See WP:UNBAN for the policy. As this was a community ban I cannot unilaterally remove it. Fences&Windows21:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.
Technical news
Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)
A user with an IP 98.151.201.187 has been making nonsense edits on Saginaw Grant for the past day or two, a page for a Native American actor who has recently died. The user leaves no explanations and has now started reverting my undoings of his nonsense edits. After my experience with you blocking me last January, I won't dare try to get into an argument with anybody on any noticeboards or anything else. At the same time, this user has a history of vandalism and is being very disruptive and is now taking it to a page of a recently deceased person who is a beloved sacred elder/now ancestor in many communities. So my emotions are up. Can you please take a look at the edits this user made on this page and elsewhere and help me determine what to do next? Kire1975 (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kire1975, there's a talk page for each IP user: User talk:98.151.201.187. You can also explain in the edit summary and on the article talk, in case they miss the talk page comment. I think this user may be editing in good faith, but they appear confused and clumsy. Fences&Windows21:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I congratulate your coolness, and have a better opinon on you that months ago, but did you sent this same warning to Marquardtika? Because I believed a consensus was reached months ago, and this guy is the one that it´s breaking it. You yourself wrote the part that this guy is "objecting."
Look, I´m writing a book on the fraud done by CNN. You, wikipedians, could appear as heroes for the truth or manipulated yes men for them. Think about it, if you block me then I will appear not like a right wing conspiracy theorist trying to hack Wikipedia kind of guy, but a truth teller that CNN is scared to death to attemp to sue me for saying they comitted a fraud, that is being censored by you.
Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia editors love to appear like the good guys, right?
Your recent editing history at Chloe Melas shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Fences&Windows03:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your friendly warning Fences, but it´s true what I wrote you. I don´t have any fear of being blocked or even banned from here because as I already said to you and will keep saying it, some people here obviously are owned by Chloe Melas. If they were already bought by her, any reason will not change "their" decision. Tomoo Terada (talk) 02:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)Tomoo Terada[reply]
Administrator changes
Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Arbitration
Interface administrator changes
Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless
Miscellaneous
