User talk:Bradv/Archive 20
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Bradv. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
Thanks for cleanup and draftifying Jang Min-ho
I am grateful you figured out how to remove the article I inadvertently created while trying to help with cleanup. I know zero about trot music, but I wanted to help a new editor who had put lots of work into the article and was threatened with speedy. So many new editors stub toes on WP:PROMO, understandably so because many sources they start from are written like promo. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- Could you take a second look and see if you agree it is ready for mainspace? Thanks, HouseOfChange (talk) 02:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- HouseOfChange, before I go and check through all these sources written in a language I don't speak, which would you say is the very best source in the article? Then I can just look at that one. :) – bradv🍁 02:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- When I use Chrome browser, it gives me option to read English translation of pages. This one is in-depth especially about his work for charity. This recent one is from The Chosun Ilbo, big Korean paper. This one is in English. There are other English sources that talk about him and about trot music (popular with older people it seems) -- multiple spellings of Minho/Min-ho/Min Ho complicate finding them. I just found this which I am about to turn into yet another reference. Basically, he has in-depth multiple coverage and has won a major contest and placed in the final 6 of another. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- HouseOfChange, that's good enough for me. See Jang Minho. Thanks for fixing this up. – bradv🍁 02:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks so much, Bradv. We both did our good deed today. :) HouseOfChange (talk) 02:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- Go team. – bradv🍁 02:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks so much, Bradv. We both did our good deed today. :) HouseOfChange (talk) 02:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- HouseOfChange, that's good enough for me. See Jang Minho. Thanks for fixing this up. – bradv🍁 02:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- When I use Chrome browser, it gives me option to read English translation of pages. This one is in-depth especially about his work for charity. This recent one is from The Chosun Ilbo, big Korean paper. This one is in English. There are other English sources that talk about him and about trot music (popular with older people it seems) -- multiple spellings of Minho/Min-ho/Min Ho complicate finding them. I just found this which I am about to turn into yet another reference. Basically, he has in-depth multiple coverage and has won a major contest and placed in the final 6 of another. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- HouseOfChange, before I go and check through all these sources written in a language I don't speak, which would you say is the very best source in the article? Then I can just look at that one. :) – bradv🍁 02:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Special Barnstar |
| Amazing Writing as Philosophy, Geography, Linguistics, History, Culture!
Thank you. As a fairly new editor, nearing 500 edits, now at 450+/-, I connected with your conclusion that we are in a "revolution" in language and communication, in journalism, linguistics, geography, and you wrote such a beautiful essay. Wikipedia is most definitely and undeniably important. And I am referring to your superb reflection essay, reprinted below, so I will not forget to read again, and for others. I am going to email your essay to me, so I have your writing close at hand. Thanks again. Peace, 'Roy' Robert Jan van de Hoek Los Angeles, California Why do I edit Wikipedia? We are in the midst of the biggest literary revolution the world has ever seen. Not since the invention of the printing press has there been such a leap forward in humanity's ability to record, share, and transmit information. We read books, newspapers, online news articles, blogs. We write Facebook posts, tweets, emails, and text messages. All that time we spend staring at our phones? We're reading, writing, and sharing information with each other. As with any new phase in human history, we are having trouble adjusting. We used to get our news and information from sources we implicitly trusted – the bookstore, the newspaper, the government, the church. Now we struggle with knowing who to trust. A flood of information from many different sources can leave us confused just as easily as it can inform us and help us make good decisions. The struggle to adapt to all this new information is evident throughout our institutions. News articles write clickbaity headlines in order to get more ad revenue. Advertisers make false promises in order to enrich themselves. Politicians spread fake news to prey upon our fears and sow discord, hatred, and confusion. We are getting used to being lied to. Humanity is together getting better at sorting fact from fiction, and separating those who are seeking to inform from those who are seeking to mislead. And at the forefront of that effort is Wikipedia, a project to document the sum of all human knowledge using the power of the Internet. Never before in the history of the world has such a project been possible, but never before has such a project been so necessary. Is Wikipedia perfect? No, obviously not, it's a work in progress. Thousands of people come here every day to promote their own products, agendas, and ideas. But thousands of people are also working tirelessly to help improve the encyclopedia and achieve its vision. If you are reading this page we have probably interacted in some way. If you are here in order to promote a particular person, company, or point of view, I hope that this page will somehow help you understand why I do what I do, and maybe even inspire you to join me in building this encyclopedia. The same applies if you are a new editor, or if you haven't yet made your first edit – please join us in our pursuit to document the sum of all human knowledge. After all, it is a revolution. Robert Jan van de Hoek (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC) |
ANI
Just letting you know I've mentioned you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Interaction ban proposal. I don't know if you might have any suggestions to make? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- I've sent you an email. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Late apologies
Hello Bradv, I just wanted to issue an apology for previous edits I made on the Kim Jong Un talk page many months back. While the issue is over, I still wanted to issue a formal apology as I continue editing. Happy editing! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 01:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC) Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 02:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Lima Bean Farmer, I'm not entirely sure what this is about, but thank you for saying it. I hope you find satisfaction in helping to write an encyclopedia. Cheers. – bradv🍁 18:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Chadwick Boseman on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
WKWWK/Kosh
I knew there was something suspicious there - but couldn't put my finger on enough to do anything. Nice work. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
A beer for you!
|
Thirsty work, sweeping them streets :) ——Serial 18:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC) |
Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 17
News and updates associated with user scripts from the past two months (July and August 2020).
Hello everyone and welcome to the 17th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter:
|
|
|
Stay safe --DannyS712 (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
- A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors
must
orshould
use the articles for creation process. - A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.
Arbitration
- A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2020 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
- An open request for comment asks whether active Arbitrators may serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or Ombudsman commission.
Edit war warning
You claim that I am in an edit war when these edits have been on this page for weeks (some over a month) at this point. I have pointed to the other editor that they should be left (currently) due to edit consensus and I would be happy to debate on the talk page about their conclusion as well as the meaning of the article. No one has reached a consensus on either of these two things, and considering that these edits have been on this page for such a large length of time, the meaning of the article should have a consensus on the talk page before they are deleted. The other editor has continually deleted them while I have pointed them to this. I also pointed out to the other editor that I would be happy to debate on the talk page which I’ve been doing. However, no consensus has been reached and the other editor continually deletes these edits. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Lima Bean Farmer, please see WP:EDITWAR. You need to discuss this and not just continue reverting. – bradv🍁 21:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
This is ridiculous! I didn’t edit the page even once after you gave me the warning. Please give me back editing privileges now. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Please read the guide to appealing blocks, and then you can formulate an appeal on your talk page or at WP:AN. I'll be looking for two things: 1) that you understand why you were blocked, and 2) that you have a plan to edit constructively going forward. – bradv🍁 01:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- This block is ridiculous. After adding so many good edits to an article, this block should have never occurred. And, after you gave me a warning, I stopped editing it! I’ve been through the process before and it takes a few days if not weeks to get unblocked. However, I’m appealing to you directly that I’ve made so many good edits that a block is just ridiculous! You should overturn this block immediately. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 04:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
This response doesn't meet either of my criteria. – bradv🍁 04:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- I know why I was blocked, it was for edit warring. To go forward I will discuss before adding anything back so an edit war can be avoided. Does that meet it? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 05:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Honestly this is ridiculous. If I agree to not add this (or anything similar to this) back without discussion, will you please unblock me? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 22:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- The fact that you still think this is ridiculous is concerning. What assurance do I have that you won't immediately make a bunch of reverts to this article? Have you even tried to discuss any of your proposed changes on the talk page since I've issued this block? Regardless, my talk page is not the place to discuss this. Read WP:GAB, and post an unblock request on your talk page, or bring it to WP:AN if you still think I have this wrong. Good day. – bradv🍁 23:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- What I think is ridiculous is that I was blocked, not that what I did wasn’t wrong. I agreed not to do it again and if I did, I’m sure you and plenty of other editors would be happy enough to block me indefinitely or for a long time. It’s happened to me before. I haven’t tried to discuss it because I’m blocked from the page. I’ve made the last edit on the talk page but no one's responded. I’ve read that article before and tried to apply before but it takes weeks for an unblock to occur. If you won’t do anything, I’ll probably wait it out but I’d like my full editing privileges back. Thank you Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 00:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Possible battleground behavior
Hello Bradv -
I was recently observing RecentChanges and noticed a large number of edits going by within a few minutes on the page List of Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign endorsements. Upon heading to the page, I saw several users apparently arguing over what persons to include and what language to use in reference to them, notably a debate over referencing Nick Sandmann. One user, Lima Bean Farmer, was in favor of keeping language describing him as "confronting a Native American activist," and the other, Alexandre8, opting to change that to the reverse, "being confronted by a Native American activist." Since I believe both of those qualify as non-neutral POV, I opted to change it to "a confrontation with," which is in-line with the accepted description for the incident on the incident's page itself. The previously mentioned user of Lima Bean Farmer, however, then opted to knee-jerk revert my edit as well, requiring a "source" despite the fact that changing to NPOV - especially where the NPOV is used on the page for the incident in question - should not require a source of its own. I then observed that the user had been involved previously a week ago in apparent battleground behavior on similar pages to this one, and that you created the partial editing block on said user; so I thought I'd bring the info to your attention.
Thank you for your time. NomadicNom (talk) 01:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- NomadicNom, I recommend discussing your proposed change on the article talk page. And remember to discuss the content, not the contributors (e.g. don't reuse this section title). – bradv🍁 01:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- Bradv, I intend to do so there. I should note that my details here regarding the specifics of my interaction were only to give context. The reason I brought the info to you was not to resolve that individual edit conflict, but rather to note the continued battleground behavior from the user previously warned for it. NomadicNom (talk) 01:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- NomadicNom Thanks for the tag.! I've also noticed contentious reverts about David Horowitz too.Alexandre8 (talk) 10:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
New evasive IP
Hello. You CU-blocked IP 174.57.156.122 on September 1. There seem to be atleast 3 different IPs continuing World War II editing from this range: 2601:81:c400:3c70:60b9:2090:9d23:579/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). The ISP is the same, the geolocation is very close. In this edit, one of the new IPv6s is essentially re-doing 174.57.156.122's edit.
I'm not sure to which SPI this would belong so just letting you know. --Pudeo (talk) 06:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Pudeo, done. Thank you for your vigilance. – bradv🍁 19:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Asking for Wikipedia:Mentorship in relation to being able to constructively edit on Talk:Kiev
Hi User:Bradv. I am asking for Wikipedia:Mentorship advice in relation to being able to constructively edit on Talk:Kiev: there is a discussion right now here User_talk:Barkeep49#IP's behaviour at Talk:Kiev, which resulted in sysop re-blocking me a 2nd time. I explained myself User_talk:73.75.115.5 to User:Barkeep49, but he has not replied; I know that on enwiki there are sometimes arrangement when one editor takes mentorship over another (and even sometimes takes on responsibility to guide an editor as a condition for allowing him to be unblock), therefore I ask for your comment and Mentorship in this discussion User_talk:Barkeep49#IP's behaviour at Talk:Kiev (I do fully understand that per unwritten rules of enwii adminship, only the sysop who blocked a user can unblock them, so my request is not about unblocking but about Wikipedia:Mentorship advice that would allow me to continue constructively contibuting to Talk:Kiev discussion.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- I think you may be overestimating the amount of effort necessary to contribute to a requested move discussion. Personally, I try to make a single comment containing my !vote and a meaningful rationale, and leave it at that. – bradv🍁 18:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Bradv, I agree with you fully, hence my last comment to Barkeep49 on my TP diff. My ask of you was more around User_talk:Barkeep49#IP's behaviour at Talk:Kiev and today's reinstatement of my block by Barkeep49 (and as I said above, I do fully understand that per unwritten rules of enwii adminship, only the sysop who blocked a user can unblock them, so my request is not about unblocking but more of a request of comment here User_talk:Barkeep49#IP's behaviour at Talk:Kiev (plus mentorship, of possible) .--73.75.115.5 (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
An early nudge
...that I'd love to see you re-running in ACE20.
I certainly disagree with some of your viewpoints, but as an arb who actively engages with large numbers of editors (your participation in the drug pricing case particularly impressed me) I'd much rather see you again!
Nosebagbear (talk) 10:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- Nosebagbear, thanks for your support and your kind words. I don't recall ever getting into a disagreement with you, so I'd be interested to hear more about these viewpoints that you "certainly" disagree with. – bradv🍁 17:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- It's mainly some disagreements on your AC judgements - including on things like the disputed admin desysoppings earlier this year, usage level of DS (though I disagree with all but 1 arb on that, so that's not that surprising!) and so on. Actually editing around the site, and also on general policy stuff, we are usually reasonably in line. I'm interested on where you stand on the "editors who are accused are entitled to all information in all but the most severe cases (health, blackmail etc)" viewpoint that I seem to conflict with others on most frequently. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- Nosebagbear, I just see the campaign posters now. "Bradv: Wrong on admin desysoppings. Wrong on the usage of DS. Right for ArbCom. Vote bradv at ACE2020". Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC) Edit: to be clear these are not my views and was intended as a joke. I found it amusing that NBB went out of his way to nudge someone who he disagrees with so much though I too support Arbs who I disagree with because I value the thought, energy, and perspective they bring. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- It's tough to see why my marketing rotation at my job didn't go so well! Nosebagbear for Bradv's campaign manager! Nosebagbear (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Nosebagbear, I just see the campaign posters now. "Bradv: Wrong on admin desysoppings. Wrong on the usage of DS. Right for ArbCom. Vote bradv at ACE2020". Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC) Edit: to be clear these are not my views and was intended as a joke. I found it amusing that NBB went out of his way to nudge someone who he disagrees with so much though I too support Arbs who I disagree with because I value the thought, energy, and perspective they bring. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- It's mainly some disagreements on your AC judgements - including on things like the disputed admin desysoppings earlier this year, usage level of DS (though I disagree with all but 1 arb on that, so that's not that surprising!) and so on. Actually editing around the site, and also on general policy stuff, we are usually reasonably in line. I'm interested on where you stand on the "editors who are accused are entitled to all information in all but the most severe cases (health, blackmail etc)" viewpoint that I seem to conflict with others on most frequently. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I also think it'd be great if you ran again. Maxim(talk) 22:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Trump opposition page
Since you’ve blocked me on this page, it appears someone vandalism’s Larry Hogan’s name on this page. I ask that you please restore it since I am unable to. Thank you. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 01:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- Lima Bean Farmer, please provide a link to this vandalism. – bradv🍁 01:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- Link? It’s the latest edit on this page. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- Lima Bean Farmer, this is not vandalism. Please raise your concerns on the talk page of the article. – bradv🍁 02:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- Obstructing a link isn’t vandalism? Even if it’s not vandalism it’s disruptive. Please fix Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 02:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- Lima Bean Farmer, this is not vandalism. Please raise your concerns on the talk page of the article. – bradv🍁 02:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- Link? It’s the latest edit on this page. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Bradv, the week-long block on LBF from editing the page has expired. And, their editing behavior has resumed as it was pre-block. I can elaborate if you need me to. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- Not true. I admit, the additions of certain people like Upton should not have been added back. However, the additions I made were 100% based on the article qualifications. I added quotes and states all the info on Muboshgu’s talk page if clarification is needed. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- Did you block me again? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 04:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. See your talk page. – bradv🍁 04:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for your prompt attention. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- bradv🍁, I think I addressed this in my talk page if you could take a look at that. I know we had some disagreements on the Kim Jong Un page a while back but since then I’ve apologized to you and have tried to continue constructive editing since. As you can see I wasn’t attempting an edit war. Please remove my block. Thank you. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for your prompt attention. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. See your talk page. – bradv🍁 04:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Did you block me again? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 04:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Question about 1RR
Hi, Bradv - what exactly is the purpose of the 1RR sanction in the following scenario: an edit is made, and challenged as UNDUE in an article that is outdated and riddled with noncompliance to appear more as an attack page that pushes a particular POV, but one side refuses to accept that the article has issues, they outnumber the opposition and tag team to restore the challenged material - what purpose is 1RR supposed to serve? If the purpose is to prevent attack pages or whitewashing, it has failed because it opens the door to POV creep at the expense of NPOV. I also thought that when an edit is added and reverted as UNDUE in an article that is under DS, the ONUS to restore is on the editor who wants to restore it, which is more inline with BRD, meaning they must discuss on the TP and acquire consensus first. Instead, what I'm seeing is a bit of back and forth by opposing editors, each side reverting or restoring, while ONUS and consensus are ignored. What part am I not understanding about how DS 1RR is supposed to benefit the project? Atsme Talk 📧 11:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Atsme, the purpose of 1RR is to slow down the rate of edits and force discussion on the talk page, rather than through edit summaries. There will still be edits that people won't like, they'll just happen at a slower rate and allow more room for discussion. – bradv🍁 13:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Just an FYI - I am being followed by MrX as exampled by this diff, in red text nonetheless. I actually came here for your opinion based on this comment by Mr Ernie, and my 2 responses here, as well as this discussion. I don't want to make another mistake that I have to strike if I can avoid it. Is that too much to ask? I'm doing my best to adhere to our PAGs, but the harassment, bullying and aspersions are relentless WP:BAITING. I just want him to stop his highly disruptive behavior. It takes away from my enjoyment as a contributor on WP - and I'm not the only who is being treated in this manner. I have no desire to escalate it, and believe that a simple reminder to MrX to back off would prove helpful. I am to the point where I'm afraid to express my views for fear of being attacked and harassed. I can't even come here and consult you without being harassed. Atsme Talk 📧 15:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Atsme, I don't think it is any secret that several of those editors closely watch our edits and those of their "close collaborators," for lack of a better way to put it. In my case, one in particular has a peculiar habit of arriving at articles I've recently edited to simply revert me and move on. What I learned recently at the AN where we last discussed ONUS was that it's ok to not follow the policies if you are convinced the other side has a different POV. If the restrictions were to ever be enforced, those editors who restored the text while discussion was underway should receive sanctions. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) C'mom Atsme. Do you really expect people to believe that you came here about a discussion that has been stale for 11 days, and not the discussion on Talk:Steele dossier? Anyone can look at your contributions today and see that posted here one minute after I posted in the dossier discussion, and they can also see that you responded to my article talk page post eight minutes later. I really think you should stop pretending to be a victim. If you believe that you are being bullied, baited, and harassed, you can take your evidence to AE. I'm not going to stand for you casting aspersions about me or other editors. - MrX 🖋 16:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Atsme, I don't think it is any secret that several of those editors closely watch our edits and those of their "close collaborators," for lack of a better way to put it. In my case, one in particular has a peculiar habit of arriving at articles I've recently edited to simply revert me and move on. What I learned recently at the AN where we last discussed ONUS was that it's ok to not follow the policies if you are convinced the other side has a different POV. If the restrictions were to ever be enforced, those editors who restored the text while discussion was underway should receive sanctions. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Just an FYI - I am being followed by MrX as exampled by this diff, in red text nonetheless. I actually came here for your opinion based on this comment by Mr Ernie, and my 2 responses here, as well as this discussion. I don't want to make another mistake that I have to strike if I can avoid it. Is that too much to ask? I'm doing my best to adhere to our PAGs, but the harassment, bullying and aspersions are relentless WP:BAITING. I just want him to stop his highly disruptive behavior. It takes away from my enjoyment as a contributor on WP - and I'm not the only who is being treated in this manner. I have no desire to escalate it, and believe that a simple reminder to MrX to back off would prove helpful. I am to the point where I'm afraid to express my views for fear of being attacked and harassed. I can't even come here and consult you without being harassed. Atsme Talk 📧 15:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Brad, is it your position that reverts of different material don't actually stack, but are counted as separate actions and not considered 1RR violations
? Because that seems like a novel interpretation of WP:3RR as pertaining to 1RR... 1RR, as being analogous to the three-revert rule
highlights that an edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.
Or am I missing something else here? Many thanks! El_C 16:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- The quote in particular is "generally people are allowed to make multiple reverts provided they are to different content" and it is in Brad's first reply in this thread. This is where I am basing my interpretation from. The example in question, which I highlighted in my first post there, showed 2 entirely different reverts separated by other editor contributions. The discretionary sanction wording is "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article." Mr Ernie (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- That is how I choose to enforce it, but I am fully aware that is more lenient than policy actually says. By the letter of WP:3RR and the applied page restriction, Mr Ernie's latest series of edits, which constitute one revert, would be disallowed by the revert less than 24 hours ago. – bradv🍁 16:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Brad, those are not reverts. Deleting content is not automatically a revert. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Does it "undo another's actions"? I haven't looked into the history so I'll let you decide that, but by the letter of policy I suspect these edits count as a revert. – bradv🍁 16:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Well that content was by definition added at some point (in this case a while ago) by an editor's actions. If someone comes across a random, little-visited article and removes a poorly worded sentence added 3 years ago by an IP, you would consider that a revert? I have to say, the more you and I discuss reverts the more confused I become. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, but the letter of policy that would count as a revert. Of course, that is not an issue with the average article, but when an article is contentious and highly active, it is best to stick to one revert per day in order to allow for other editors to catch up and discuss. And yes, I know it's confusing – I would love to see the rules simplified, but the more I discuss it with people the more I realize that's impossible. Listen to other editors, take your time, and don't try to game the rules to gain an unfair advantage. The collaborative editing process works best when people work with each other, rather than against each other. The rules are designed to encourage that. – bradv🍁 16:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, well, this is kind of exactly the point Atsme and I are trying to make. I reverted material yesterday. Valjean followed the process and opened a discussion, which is still ongoing. SPECIFICO, MVBW, and VM all re-reverted to include that material before discussion had concluded, and only MVBW has joined the discussion. I and I think Atsme are contending that this is gaming the system if not an outright violation of at least ONUS. So what do we do now? Mr Ernie (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- In my opinion, this is a flaw in the restriction applied to this page. Anyone can restore contested material without waiting for consensus to develop, provided they don't do it twice in 24 hours. Awilley applied this restriction, perhaps they'll consider reevaluating its effectiveness. – bradv🍁 16:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- As to how to work within this particular set of circumstances, your best bet is to draw further attention to the dispute, either by means of an RfC or a noticeboard post, and hope that those who show up don't choose to just continue the edit war. – bradv🍁 16:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- In my opinion, this is a flaw in the restriction applied to this page. Anyone can restore contested material without waiting for consensus to develop, provided they don't do it twice in 24 hours. Awilley applied this restriction, perhaps they'll consider reevaluating its effectiveness. – bradv🍁 16:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) A removal of longstanding text is not a revert necessarily. It may be involve the removal of material added by many editors. That removal should not be seen as having undone the edits by all of those editors. El_C 16:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, well, this is kind of exactly the point Atsme and I are trying to make. I reverted material yesterday. Valjean followed the process and opened a discussion, which is still ongoing. SPECIFICO, MVBW, and VM all re-reverted to include that material before discussion had concluded, and only MVBW has joined the discussion. I and I think Atsme are contending that this is gaming the system if not an outright violation of at least ONUS. So what do we do now? Mr Ernie (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, but the letter of policy that would count as a revert. Of course, that is not an issue with the average article, but when an article is contentious and highly active, it is best to stick to one revert per day in order to allow for other editors to catch up and discuss. And yes, I know it's confusing – I would love to see the rules simplified, but the more I discuss it with people the more I realize that's impossible. Listen to other editors, take your time, and don't try to game the rules to gain an unfair advantage. The collaborative editing process works best when people work with each other, rather than against each other. The rules are designed to encourage that. – bradv🍁 16:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Well that content was by definition added at some point (in this case a while ago) by an editor's actions. If someone comes across a random, little-visited article and removes a poorly worded sentence added 3 years ago by an IP, you would consider that a revert? I have to say, the more you and I discuss reverts the more confused I become. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Does it "undo another's actions"? I haven't looked into the history so I'll let you decide that, but by the letter of policy I suspect these edits count as a revert. – bradv🍁 16:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Brad, those are not reverts. Deleting content is not automatically a revert. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Thanks for the background, Mr Ernie. Wow, Brad, I'm one of the most active admin (well, generally, but also) enforcing DS, and I have always viewed a revert as simply a revert when enforcing 1RR. I think it would defeat the potency of 1RR to have, for example, the following scenario: editor1 reverts content added by editor2. A few hours later editor3 adds different content — is editor1 allowed to revert this, as well? To be able to revert twice? El_C 16:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- If they're reverting back to the same revision, yes it is also a 1RR violation. This is how ANEW usually works. – bradv🍁 16:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- So they can only revert new material that was added without a history? Another editor can come along and revert that revert as long as they haven't reverted something else? Atsme Talk 📧 16:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- According to the restrictions on this particular page, yes, each editor gets one revert. That's because this particular page uses "Enforced BRD" rather than "Consensus required", so anyone can restore contested material except those who have previously added it in the past 24 hours. The "Consensus required" sanction would force the discussion to conclude before it could be restored, by anyone. – bradv🍁 16:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Well, revisions may evolve, but there would still be two individual reverts on the book, regardless. But the heart of the matter is whether 1RR should reflect 3RR, or be less strict. I think they ought to be equally strict. El_C 16:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Which brings the discussion back to my original question - how does that process benefit the project when the material being added back violates PAGs, but the number of editors available to game the system are skewed in favor of adding it back? Atsme Talk 📧 16:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- This doesn't strike me as a fair question – clearly you think the content is inappropriate, but others don't. Who decides whether it violates PAGs? Who decides who is gaming the system? – bradv🍁 16:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- It is a fair question because you just confirmed that we need consensus to decide what is appropriate and the 1RR DS that you described prevents that from happening. Do you see my point? Atsme Talk 📧 17:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- As I said in my first reply to you, the purpose of 1RR is to force discussion on the talk page, rather than through edit summaries. You can work it out on the talk page. – bradv🍁 17:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- It sounds good in theory, Brad, but that isn't what happens at controversial articles. When a small group "controls" an article, they don't have to discuss it - that's a fact - and therein lies the problem I've been trying to relay. I've made my point and all I can do now is hope you will give it a bit more thought because what we're dealing with in the trenches is not fun and it's not good for the project when you read the criticisms about WP in the media. It would be nice if Awilley weighed in here, too, since he has been in the trenches, and is close enough to it to understand it from a hands-on perspective. I vaguely recall reading something from DGG about DS and how they apply so maybe he can contribute as well. I think the dilemma El C, Mr Ernie and myself have described are closer to the reality that we experience - editors and admins alike - and why so many don't want anything to do with controversial articles. Burn-out comes quickly to volunteers who are just trying to get the article right but not so quickly when an editor has more at stake. Fewer eyes/editors working on controversial articles are not necessarily a good thing. Thank you for your input, and happy editing! Atsme Talk 📧 17:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- As I said in my first reply to you, the purpose of 1RR is to force discussion on the talk page, rather than through edit summaries. You can work it out on the talk page. – bradv🍁 17:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- It is a fair question because you just confirmed that we need consensus to decide what is appropriate and the 1RR DS that you described prevents that from happening. Do you see my point? Atsme Talk 📧 17:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- This doesn't strike me as a fair question – clearly you think the content is inappropriate, but others don't. Who decides whether it violates PAGs? Who decides who is gaming the system? – bradv🍁 16:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Which brings the discussion back to my original question - how does that process benefit the project when the material being added back violates PAGs, but the number of editors available to game the system are skewed in favor of adding it back? Atsme Talk 📧 16:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- So they can only revert new material that was added without a history? Another editor can come along and revert that revert as long as they haven't reverted something else? Atsme Talk 📧 16:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- If they're reverting back to the same revision, yes it is also a 1RR violation. This is how ANEW usually works. – bradv🍁 16:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- That is how I choose to enforce it, but I am fully aware that is more lenient than policy actually says. By the letter of WP:3RR and the applied page restriction, Mr Ernie's latest series of edits, which constitute one revert, would be disallowed by the revert less than 24 hours ago. – bradv🍁 16:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- there is no fair way to apply our customary edit restrictions without giving a first mover or second mover advantage The effect is much stronger with DS, because a removal on insertion that strikes any of the 500 active admins as improper can be changed without a long discussion. There are repeated topic questions in WP where a small majority is able to dictate content, by forcing an appearance of consensus. A true consensus is a wording or inclusion or deletion that every good-faith editor on either side thinks is fair enough to live with. They don't have to prefer it, they just have to accept it. I'll use myself for an example: The consensus at the schools RfC was interpreted in a way I thought profoundly wrong--I for a few weeks said I would fight every AfD until people realized it was wrong, but after month or two I decided I could live with it. It just affect inclusion, not NPOV. The consensus at some discussions in American Politics have been so wrong as to destroy NPOV, but those supporting one side (which in this case happens to consist of people whose politics I very much agree with in Real Life) is so determined that it isn't practical to fight it. (At least, not practical for me, working as I do, to fight it; all I can do is hide from the issue.) DS was originally instituted to prevent one or two determined admins from forming a ring to prevent blocking of a friend, and it has ending the sort of unblockable editors that were prevalent at the time. It has now reached the opposite direction, and permits one or two determined admins to force blocking of an opponent. The problem isn't WP, but the polarization of some real issues, which has led some people here to conclude that some views are so dangerous that they cannot be permitted in WP--at least not without conspicuous content warnings. What NPOV means is that we do not do that, but some people at WP no longer consider NPOV the highest value, but rather their own deeply felt POVs. The first and clearest and simplest step is to remove DS from the repertoire, as having outlived its usefulness. Many people will still prefer not to discuss AP on WP, but enough additional people will be willing that there's a chance a true consensus can form. I'm prepared to admit there may be situations that actually do call for direct action, but if we ever reach that point, those wishing to participate in it should do so outside WP. The basic principle remains, that WP should not be used for advocacy. At some demonstrations in my neighborhood in Brooklyn this summer, had I been 50 years younger I might have been out on the streets, but I wouldn't try to bring the streets into WP. DGG ( talk ) 20:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hazy times, for sure. El_C 20:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Responding to pings...let me see if I understand this.
- Valjean started the talk page discussion, and all of the editors named above participated in that discussion except SPECIFICO and Volunteer Marek. All the editors used reasonable edit summaries referencing policy or the talk page, although Volunteer Marek's summary "this IS a reliable source and it's properly attributed" was a straw man that didn't address the concerns expressed in previous edit summaries (notably WP:UNDUE). Also, at least 3 additional editors have chimed in on the talk page (MrX, Objective3000, JzG/Guy) all supporting the inclusion of the new text. So by my count that makes 7 supporting the text (Valjean, SPECIFICO, MVBW, VolunteerM, MrX, O3000, JzG) and 3 opposing (Mr Ernie, PackME, Atsme). Nobody has reverted anything more than once (yay), but the content has been through 3 full revert cycles (frown). Brownie points to Valjean for immediately starting the talk page discussion and to PME for attempting a compromise edit. Frownie points to Volunteer Marek for further extending a tag-team edit war with a drive-by revert.
- Responding to a couple of comments above: Bradv said,
"the purpose of 1RR is to force discussion on the talk page, rather than through edit summaries."
I would note that regular 1RR itself does not actually force talkpage discussion. It just slows things down (as Bradv noted elsewhere). The BRD sanction further encourages, but still doesn't force discussion, by making people discuss before making their second revert (even if that second revert is days after their first revert). The "consensus required" sanction goes further, requiring a discussion before any revert, partial revert, or any edit similar to the original "challenged" edit can be made. But in a case like this the end result of all 3 sanctions is the same...whenever you have twice as many people supporting as opposing something, the majority eventually wins out and the content ends up in the article. The difference is in how long it took to get there and how much discussion was required. - If people are asking to go back to widespread application of the "consensus required" rule, I would suggest that before doing that we try applying the rule to individual editors instead of entire articles. If editors like User:Volunteer Marek are abusing the system with tag-team edit wars and not following the spirit of BRD, then hit them with individual "consensus required" sanctions instead of punishing everybody in the topic area. ~Awilley (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- I object and resent the accusation that I am “tag teaming” or “abusing the system”. I saw a bad edit and I undid it (it’s also false to say that my ES was a straw man). All you’re seeing here is multiple editors disagreeing with one editor. If anything that means that editor is making edits against consensus, not that the others are “tag teaming”. Please don’t cast WP:ASPERSIONS. If there’s any “gaming” going in here it ain’t by me. Volunteer Marek 02:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- I had the same reaction as VM, but I just happened to see it a short time before he did. It is often the case that a single editor makes a "bad", revert, i.e. for no valid reason, and that when another editor undoes that the matter is resolved. After a number of editors joined Ernie on the talk page, it became clear that was not the situation. But a quick reinstatement of an invalid revert is the quickest and best resolution more often than not. In this case, the length of the article was the edit summary for the removal of a notable expert's comment. That is not, on its face, a valid reason to remove this particular content. SPECIFICO talk 16:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem if consensus turns out to be against what I think is best. What I have a problem with is regular, experienced editors ignoring ONUS etc. to simply revert because they say "this should be in." The process was not followed, starting with SPECIFICO's restoration. There have to be sanctions or enforcement if anything is to change. These editors know the rules very well (you can see them deploy them elsewhere). Valjean should be commended for following the process, which is starting to show a consensus. That is how it should work. The deeper issues with the article still need to be resolved. ONUS is black letter policy, and the BRD guidance should be followed. If it isn't, should there be more regular sanctions in the very difficult AP space? That is for the admins to decide. Thank you to those who have participated in this discussion, as I think it is helping to move things forward. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- I know Volunteer Marek disagrees with this, but when it comes to contentious articles especially, I think that, per WP:ONUS, the status quo ante version is the version that should be displaying while the dispute remains unresolved. El_C 20:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- I most certainly disagree with the contention that the “status quo” version should be privileged. There is no logical reason to assume that it is better and privileging it goes against the spirit of Wikipedia, where the whole point is to IMPROVE articles. If a “status quo” version is sub par and violates content policy then it is sub par and violates policy, end of story. Volunteer Marek 02:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- When the assertion about whether it is subpar is itself in dispute, then, yes, we go with the status quo ante version while the matter is being discussed. Free-for-alls are strongly discouraged. El_C 02:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- I most certainly disagree with the contention that the “status quo” version should be privileged. There is no logical reason to assume that it is better and privileging it goes against the spirit of Wikipedia, where the whole point is to IMPROVE articles. If a “status quo” version is sub par and violates content policy then it is sub par and violates policy, end of story. Volunteer Marek 02:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- I know Volunteer Marek disagrees with this, but when it comes to contentious articles especially, I think that, per WP:ONUS, the status quo ante version is the version that should be displaying while the dispute remains unresolved. El_C 20:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
If we stick to the four corners of the text of ONUS, it is telling us only that among the set of all verified statements relating to any article, the article will incorporate only the subset that editors agree conforms to NPOV, speicifically DUE WP:WEIGHT. ONUS is not about a general policy that we elevate pre-existing content. That issue is discussed in the essay WP:QUO, but it is a separate issue. In some high quality articles, existing content reflects longstanding sources and the partipation of a large number of editors over an extended period. In others, either on controversial topics such as American Politics or Gender, or -- as at Aziz Ansari -- both of those, the existing text is begging for improvement. While all sourcing and content policies must be followed, old versions are likely to be improved and it is false to cite ONUS as a mechanism to freeze whatever happened to exist before the improvement. If no improvement is needed, that should be addressed on the substance of the sources and article text. SPECIFICO talk 16:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- It's important to remember that in the beginning there was nothing, and then there was an encyclopedia. This did not happen by elevating the status quo over bold edits. – bradv🍁 16:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Right, but we are here discussing the misrepresentation of ONUS -- which actually is in favor of reworking text to sort out DUE WEIGHT from the much larger volume of facts and statements. ONUS is not a policy of freezing articles. And we don't know what would have evolved had American Politics, Gamergate, etc. been at play in the mid-2000's. We might have Dick Cheney on Mt. Rushmore. SPECIFICO talk 16:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I do believe we are agreed. The big picture of how to write an encyclopedia (or indeed, how to build a society) is important, and the overall trend has to be an upward one. It is easier to destroy than to create, so our systems and policies need to be biased toward continuous improvement. Therefore, crying ONUS at every change is detrimental to the project, and the burden is properly on all editors to work together to find compromise in order to improve the encyclopedia. The fact is, many of our articles are complete crap, and if ONUS prevents people from improving them it must be ignored. – bradv🍁 16:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- I feel that if disputed changes are made to text which has explicit or implicit consensus those contentious changes should not remain in place through a discussion and RFC process that could extend for over a month. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sure, if it's a legitimate dispute and not just one or two editors who don't like a new development. – bradv🍁 16:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Was the change that sparked this discussion a legitimate dispute? PackMecEng (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, BLP/N discussion. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure what conversation prompted this discussion, but I hadn't seen that one. I think this conversation is intended to be more general in scope, and I'd prefer to keep it that way. – bradv🍁 17:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Based on Awilley's comment above and everyone involved here I believe it is related to the little edit war at Steele Dossier and this discuss on the talk page. I will say in just about every dispute both sides probably consider their arguments legitimate. PackMecEng (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure what conversation prompted this discussion, but I hadn't seen that one. I think this conversation is intended to be more general in scope, and I'd prefer to keep it that way. – bradv🍁 17:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, BLP/N discussion. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Was the change that sparked this discussion a legitimate dispute? PackMecEng (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sure, if it's a legitimate dispute and not just one or two editors who don't like a new development. – bradv🍁 16:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- I feel that if disputed changes are made to text which has explicit or implicit consensus those contentious changes should not remain in place through a discussion and RFC process that could extend for over a month. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I do believe we are agreed. The big picture of how to write an encyclopedia (or indeed, how to build a society) is important, and the overall trend has to be an upward one. It is easier to destroy than to create, so our systems and policies need to be biased toward continuous improvement. Therefore, crying ONUS at every change is detrimental to the project, and the burden is properly on all editors to work together to find compromise in order to improve the encyclopedia. The fact is, many of our articles are complete crap, and if ONUS prevents people from improving them it must be ignored. – bradv🍁 16:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Right, but we are here discussing the misrepresentation of ONUS -- which actually is in favor of reworking text to sort out DUE WEIGHT from the much larger volume of facts and statements. ONUS is not a policy of freezing articles. And we don't know what would have evolved had American Politics, Gamergate, etc. been at play in the mid-2000's. We might have Dick Cheney on Mt. Rushmore. SPECIFICO talk 16:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm coming here from the talk:Verifiability discussion. I'm very sympathetic with the question regarding 1RR and cases where those pushing for a change have a few more editors than those saying no. Several of us have been involved in a recent case like this. There is an open request for closure since the talk page has not been able to agree that a consensus has been reached for inclusion. In the mean time the FOR editors have added the disputed content to the article. This appears to violate NOCON but as there are a few more of them than the AGAINST editors, any removal can be met with one or two editors who are happy to restore. I think this is the sort of case where 1RR fails and should probably be changed to mandatory BRD or mandatory consensus. Is it really the intent of things like 1RR or 3RR to effectively allow and disputed change simply by one side having an extra editor, or in the case of just two editors, A adds (not a revert), B reverts (1RR), A restores (1RR) now the disputed content is in even though per, NOCON, it should be out. Springee (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Here's another case study I stumbled on today at Nancy Pelosi.
- Mr Ernie adds new material about Pelosi's visit to a hair salon 14:11, 2 September 2020
- Calton reverts 15:38, 2 September 2020
- Mr Ernie restores 21:31, 2 September 2020
- SPECIFICO removes 03:18, 3 September 2020
- Rusf10 restores 03:49, 7 September 2020
- Muboshgu removes 03:51, 7 September 2020
I find it intersting that this is a mirror of the other edit war I analyzed above. The "teams" have switched places, this time with Mr Ernie's team trying to add new information over the objections of WP:UNDUE from the other team. Notably, Mr Ernie, who above said, "What I have a problem with is regular, experienced editors ignoring ONUS etc. to simply revert because they say "this should be in."...ONUS is black letter policy, and the BRD guidance should be followed."
is the editor who most violated ONUS and BRD by adding the material to the article twice in the same day without any talk page discussion. There's not a formal BRD sanction on the article, so it's not a blockable offense, but it still seems hypocritical to ask that other editors follow ONUS while ignoring it onesself. ~Awilley (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Awilley, if you think adding well sourced material and reverting a hard to understand edit summary with no cited policy, and then starting a discussion shortly after is disruptive, then I guess you must block me. What I argued against above, and indeed noted in my edit summary you quoted, was editors ignoring BRD and not participating in relevant talk page discussions to jump in and revert. I note your description of me as hypocritical, and simply have to laugh because you don't apply it to anyone else in your "mirror" situation. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Emmanuel Lemelson on a "Economy, trade, and companies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
BLP question
Hi Brad, I was reading through some WP:RFPP requests, and took a look at the one for Neil Nitin Mukesh. I noticed that subsequent to protection you removed this sentence, sourced to Youtube per BLP. I'm not going to dispute it; I find the caste-warring stuff on Wikipedia to be very tiresome, but for my own understanding of how we're applying BLP in general, is not not permissible to use a Youtube video in which a subject gives information about their family? Would it be different if the subject had published the words on a social media account or official website? Cheers, OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Ohnoitsjamie, I'm relying on WP:BLPRS to justify that removal, in that the caste information is both poorly-sourced and actively contested. While the page is protected, the interested parties can discuss whether this information should be included at all, rather than edit warring over whether the mother or father should come first. Once there is an agreement that the information is relevant, neutral, and properly sourced, it can be added back in. I have no preference – I'm just trying to offer a compromise and follow BLP policy. – bradv🍁 14:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
AfD Request: Jake Burns
Hi Bradv, I am asking that this page gets deleted rather than a redirect. A redirect causes for it still to index on google with a knowledge panel. I want stiff little fingers to index but not jake burns. i dont see the purpose of having a title page with no content. I apologise for editing when you are trying to help but i would be grateful if you could understand my objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiuser2020belfast (talk • contribs) 22:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- The redirect is still appropriate as Jake Burns is mentioned in the target article. Whether Google still indexes that is up to them. Also, please don't delete my comments at AFD, or your own comments once I've replied to them. – bradv🍁 22:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello BradV, the Hindu Kush article is constantly getting vandalized by IPs or new accounts who change sourced material, is there a way to protect the article again? At least from new members and IPs? Best regards --Xerxes931 (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Xerxes931, I've semi-protected the article for a month. For future reference, the usual place to request page protections is at WP:RFPP. You should get a better response time there, especially if I'm not around. – bradv🍁 20:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Malisevo closure
Hello Bradv. I saw your closure on Malisevo. You closed it as "no consensus", saying that "With the comments evenly split between the current name and the proposed name, with accusations of canvassing on both sides, there's simply no way to declare a consensus here". I think that both parts of your statement do not properly reflect the situation. Even with comments evenly split (one or two !votes more in the "support" side, if I am not mistaken), the consensus should be determined based on the weight of arguments against Wiki policy, not just the number of !votes. As for the mutual accusations of canvassing, it has become "normal" to see editors from srwiki coming to enwiki and "voting" out of the blue, and other editors in others discussions have raised concerns about that. Hence the number of !votes has not been that important in other recent Balkan disputes where roughly the same editors were involved (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myth of Tito, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demonization of the Serbs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destruction of books in post-independence Croatia). On the other side, one of the editors who accused the "Kosovo side" got warned for aspersions by an admin [8][9]. In any case, since mutual accusations are not sth to be taken lightly, another way to judge the situation could by weighting the comments by non-Balkan editors, ie editors who are not focused on the Balkans, and might be more neutral rather than canvassed or biased. There were five such editors in the discussion (Ortizesp, Red Slash, Roman Spinner, Bermicourt, Blindlynx) and all of them !voted "Support". It is very meaningful, and that alone shows that your closure does not serve Wikipedia as it should. I expect from an experienced and valuable admin as yourself to take more into account such things in the future, as what benefits Wikipedia does not necessarily depend on how many commented somewhere or how much a discussion might appear to have no consensus. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 07:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- The policy at play in this AfD is WP:COMMONNAME, and both sides presented arguments and evidence rooted in that policy. However, none of them were compelling enough to sway a significant number of editors, and therefore I could not declare a consensus in either direction. Your suggestion of ignoring all comments from editors of Albanian and Serbian heritage, or those who focus on the Balkans in general, is an interesting one, but not one that has a basis in policy or precedent. I would prefer to gauge all editors' contributions from the strength of their arguments, and not based on their ethnicity or where they come from. – bradv🍁 13:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hmm, nowhere did I suggest to ignore people. As I said in one of my comments at the RM discussion, all editors are welcome to comment regardless of their background, but just the number of !votes is never enough, as your closure wording implies. That is common practice, as seen from the closures of other discussions such as the recent Balkan AfDs linked by me above. If one side has the usual Balkan-focused editors most of whom roughly make the same !votes in every Balkan discussion they take part in, and the other side has among itself several editors who see things from a non-Balkan point of view, that is meaningful. As for the arguments themselves, the policy supports the usage of the name in the local language ("official language") if the common English name is unclear. Such dicussions might become lengthy; arguments and consensus might be apparent or not. Whether one is willing or capable of seeing them is another matter. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Although Wikipedia is no democracy this case has been dealt with just like that and not as the situation requires. It's sad to see that there is still no uniform way in approaching those kind of RM's and the outcome of such an important decision depends on the person who currently handles the case. Simple support and oppose votes had the same weight as votes with legit arguments which dealt specifically with the subject, although it was proven that many users came from other Wikipedias only to vote without ever editing English Wikipedia. Whether they were in support or oppose of the RM, arguments were not taken into account at all. I feel as if the RM was treated without taking it seriously. Crazydude1912 (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- To both of you: you are welcome to take this to move review. I simply don't see a consensus here, and no amount of insults or assumptions of bad faith are going to change that. – bradv🍁 19:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- I actually did not ask you to undo your closure. I know about the move review option, but based on the past, I think that the best way to proceed is to open a move request later, like a year from now. That would be another test for the community's stance on the issue. Several move requests on Kosovo were closed as "no consensus", just to be moved a year later. Time will tell. Also, I did not understand your last sentence. Where did I assume bad faith or insult you? All I said on your editing on Wiki in my comment above is that you are an experienced and valuable admin. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- To both of you: you are welcome to take this to move review. I simply don't see a consensus here, and no amount of insults or assumptions of bad faith are going to change that. – bradv🍁 19:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Although Wikipedia is no democracy this case has been dealt with just like that and not as the situation requires. It's sad to see that there is still no uniform way in approaching those kind of RM's and the outcome of such an important decision depends on the person who currently handles the case. Simple support and oppose votes had the same weight as votes with legit arguments which dealt specifically with the subject, although it was proven that many users came from other Wikipedias only to vote without ever editing English Wikipedia. Whether they were in support or oppose of the RM, arguments were not taken into account at all. I feel as if the RM was treated without taking it seriously. Crazydude1912 (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hmm, nowhere did I suggest to ignore people. As I said in one of my comments at the RM discussion, all editors are welcome to comment regardless of their background, but just the number of !votes is never enough, as your closure wording implies. That is common practice, as seen from the closures of other discussions such as the recent Balkan AfDs linked by me above. If one side has the usual Balkan-focused editors most of whom roughly make the same !votes in every Balkan discussion they take part in, and the other side has among itself several editors who see things from a non-Balkan point of view, that is meaningful. As for the arguments themselves, the policy supports the usage of the name in the local language ("official language") if the common English name is unclear. Such dicussions might become lengthy; arguments and consensus might be apparent or not. Whether one is willing or capable of seeing them is another matter. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Do I understand that you semi-protected my talk page for 48 hours due to stupid sockpuppetry? If so, thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Reviewing Kiev/Kyiv RM based on new evidence from Ymblanter
Hi, you might want to change your opinion of tje Sep 2020 Kiev/Kyiv RM based on this new evidence. An admin Ymblanter recently found out that user who started the RM was later CU blocked as they turned out a logged out user who was topic-banned from all topics related to Ukraine
, and Ymblater later also found out that it was most likely a user who was topic-banned by them earlier.
A friend already started a discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 September#Kyiv - you might want to take a look at that discussion regarding reviewing that move.--172.58.140.238 (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
LTA range
Hi Bradv--please see this, and recent edits to ANI. You left some instructions in your block notice, but I blocked account creation: four accounts were created from there, and I am not sure how to handle your request. Do as you see fit--but the note you dropped on my talk page the other day, that was the same person. They returned to file a fake complaint cause I told them to fuck off, which apparently violates something. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Ping ST47 for comment, as these were his instructions – I just removed the talk page access. And, to be honest, I haven't the foggiest memory of this. Hopefully ST47 does. – bradv🍁 19:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hi! The wikied dashboard uses the IPv6 address Special:Contributions/2600:3C03:0:0:F03C:91FF:FE08:7973 to create accounts and make edits on behalf of wikied students. If we need to place an account-creation block, we should exempt the dashboard's IP. Looking at the checkuser results for that /30, I think we can do that pretty easily. Let me calculate the range blocks. However, I would recommend that we remove the account creation block on the /30 right away, as it will be preventing wikied from creating new accounts. ST47 (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Drmies: @Bradv: So, based on linode's IP allocation, we only need to block two /96s:
- The latter is no problem. The former contains the wikied dashboard. I do not currently see any other activity on the same /112 as wikied, so we can place the following set of blocks to block account creation from everyone in that /96 except for wikied:
- Special:Contributions/2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:0:0/97
- Special:Contributions/2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:8000:0/98
- Special:Contributions/2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:c000:0/99
- Special:Contributions/2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:e000:0/100
- Special:Contributions/2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:f000:0/101
- Special:Contributions/2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:f800:0/102
- Special:Contributions/2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fc00:0/103
- Special:Contributions/2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:ff00:0/104
- Special:Contributions/2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fe80:0/105
- Special:Contributions/2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fe40:0/106
- Special:Contributions/2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fe20:0/107
- Special:Contributions/2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fe10:0/108
- Special:Contributions/2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fe00:0/109
- Special:Contributions/2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fe0c:0/110
- Special:Contributions/2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fe0a:0/111
- Special:Contributions/2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fe09:0/112
- If you want to go one step further and block every single IP in that /96 that isn't wikied, you can use these as well, but I don't know if Linode's addressing policy requires it.
- Special:Contributions/2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fe08:8000/113
- Special:Contributions/2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fe08:0/114
- Special:Contributions/2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fe08:4000/115
- Special:Contributions/2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fe08:6000/116
- Special:Contributions/2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fe08:7000/117
- Special:Contributions/2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fe08:7c00/118
- Special:Contributions/2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fe08:7a00/119
- Special:Contributions/2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fe08:7800/120
- Special:Contributions/2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fe08:7980/121
- Special:Contributions/2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fe08:7900/122
- Special:Contributions/2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fe08:7940/123
- Special:Contributions/2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fe08:7960/124
- Special:Contributions/2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fe08:7978/125
- Special:Contributions/2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fe08:7974/126
- Special:Contributions/2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fe08:7970/127
- Special:Contributions/2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fe08:7972/128
- If this is expected to be a long term problem, there are phabricator tickets documenting the problem here. But the best solution is probably for WikiEd to host themselves inside of WMCS instead of in a heavily abused webhost. ST47 (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- ST47, I appreciate your time and your expertise. All of this is going over my head very quickly, but whatever you can do to slow this down is great. Also, the WMF is well aware of this abuse. If you could drop me an email I'd appreciate that also, cause I have a few things I'd like to ask you. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- On further review, I can only see a handful of account creations from this range anyway. There are only about 10 in the CU window. So maybe they don't really use this range for account creation anymore. If they do complain, then we will remove the ACB on the /30, and place ACB blocks on the 92FF /96, and on the first batch of 16 ranges I listed. And go ahead and email me if you like, I'm working on some other stuff ATM but I'll reply when I get a chance. ST47 (talk) 22:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- ST47, I appreciate your time and your expertise. All of this is going over my head very quickly, but whatever you can do to slow this down is great. Also, the WMF is well aware of this abuse. If you could drop me an email I'd appreciate that also, cause I have a few things I'd like to ask you. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks ST47. Blocking those smaller ranges around the Wiki Education server would hopefully be a good solution that keeps this from coming up again for a while. Moving our server inside WMCS isn't a practical option for a few reasons; we're actually weighing an eventually move of outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org out of WMCS because it's running into some of the limitations of WMCS servers.--ragesoss (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Budoshin Ju-Jitsu
Hi Bradv. Thanks for your suggestions on Budoshin Jujitsu, which was declined but I believe has potential to be corrected to be acceptable. I understand your point about using independent, third-party sources, but can you please clarify what you mean about removing "external references"? Does this mean references to the website of Budoshin itself or something else? Most appreciated, 71.162.191.88 (talk) 23:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.191.88 (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- The draft is full of external links. If these are being used as references, please format them as references. If not, they should be removed from the body of the article, per WP:ELNO. – bradv🍁 00:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, Brad, I read what you wrote earlier about external links. Given that I'm new to this, would you please give me an example in my piece of what you mean by such a link? You mean links to the Budoshin site? Or to material to other Wikipedia articles? (Tried figuring out what you mean from Wiki help guides, without complete understanding.) I'm also revising the piece to emphasize third-party (non-Budoshin) support, as well as making the tone less promotional and more neutral. I appreciate your help. Thomas Dineen III (talk) 02:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Unblock request
Hello Bradv! I come to you with apologies. I appreciate that you blocked me on the Republicans opposing trump page, that conversation was getting just too riled up. I am sorry for edit warring and promise to not do it again, on any page. It seems like something that editors often get themselves into trouble for. I would appreciate if you could re instate my editing privileges to that article. I am also of the understanding that I must be very careful since another block could lead to even more editing privileges being taken away for a much longer period of time. To personally combat any inclinations I feel to edit war, I will 1) use the talk page, 2) get other editors involved using resources such as the tea house and an rfc, 3) if the first two don’t work, I’ll just step away from the article for a while. I appreciate your time. Happy editing! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Could you please honor my request? Thank you. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 01:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Lima Bean Farmer, we've been through this before. Although I'm glad you are apologetic, I'm still not convinced that unblocking you won't result in further disruption. But because I was the one who placed the block, I will leave it to another admin to review. Please place an {{unblock}} request on your talk page and someone will be by shortly. – bradv🍁 02:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Bradv, I completely understand. Especially since I can not promise no conflict, only that I will follow the above steps and use my own common sense to avoid it. Edit warring again within like an hour of my first unblock was probably the worst thing I could’ve done. I will follow the unblock procedures to gain privileges to this article again. Most likely the reviewing admin will ask you about it anyways. Thank you for your time! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 02:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).
Administrator changes
Ajpolino • LuK3
Jackmcbarn
Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM
There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely
1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created
.
- A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely
Technical news
- The filter log now provides links to view diffs of deleted revisions (phab:T261630).
Arbitration
- The 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place from September 27th to October 7th.
- Following a request for comment, sitting Committee members may not serve on either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee. The Arbitration Committee passed a motion implementing those results into their procedures.
Miscellaneous
- The Universal Code of Conduct draft is open for community review and comment until October 6th, 2020.
- Office actions may now be appealed to the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee.
What more could I do
What more could I do to get an unblock from the page? Not only have I laid out in detail my plan to prevent edit wars and to only add reliable and clearly opposing names, given examples of names, and agreed to the terms which every admin has set, I apologized and was friendly to everyone who I had previously bothered on that page, including yourself. Could you please be sympathetic and unblock me? I don’t know what more you’d like me to do. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:TransDigm Group on a "Economy, trade, and companies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Removed comment
Hello sir, May I know why did you removed my comment there? Thanks!196.152.71.206 (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comments that include private evidence about other editors may not be shared publicly. If you have private information pertaining to paid editing that you wish to bring to an administrator's attention, please email it to paid-en-wp
wikipedia.org. – bradv🍁 22:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- I did before and no action taken or even replied to my email. Thanks!196.152.71.206 (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- There is occasionally a backlog, and sometimes things get missed. Also, I should note that we occasionally get emails from paid editors anonymously reporting their competition, and those don't usually get a response. – bradv🍁 22:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- That's true, I have to state that I'm editing with a COI. Totally agree that it's not a welcomed thing here but, honestly I was new to Wikipedia once I got blocked in the past cause that wasn't aware of the Wikipedia terms of use and once I have disclosed they rejected my unblock request.
- There is occasionally a backlog, and sometimes things get missed. Also, I should note that we occasionally get emails from paid editors anonymously reporting their competition, and those don't usually get a response. – bradv🍁 22:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- I did before and no action taken or even replied to my email. Thanks!196.152.71.206 (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
The ugly truth that other paid editor taking the clean up work as a cover for their paid work. I'm not reporting competitors here, I'm reporting bad editors.196.152.71.206 (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Obtaining Knowledge
I understand the question I’m about to ask may be well above my security clearance & would perfectly understand if you refuse to reply me, but I’d have to take my chance & ask all the same, I’m a very active anti UPE editor & would want to understand what happened with the block on Lapablo, you state here that he was blocked for being a sock of Ukpong1 but I can’t seem to find an SPI case file substantiating this, if you could explain what transpired there id be grateful but if you can’t, I understand perfectly well. Celestina007 (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- Eisshh I just saw your post on ANB & now understand what did transpire. I’m quite dazed I must say. Celestina007 (talk) 21:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- There is an email address, paid-en-wp wikipedia.org, set up to receive reports of undisclosed paid editing, including reports based on private information that may not be shared onwiki due to privacy concerns. In this case, I investigated a report submitted to that email address, and looked at a combination of technical evidence, behavioural evidence, and offwiki evidence. There was no SPI created. As with any block that involved private evidence, this may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. – bradv🍁 21:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification it all makes a whole lot of sense now. Celestina007 (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- There is an email address, paid-en-wp
Jenny McCarthy
Hi, thanks for your help on Jenny McCarthy. However, I noticed the protection you put in is significantly shorter than the previous protection, which expired only a short time ago. The page itself has been protected more than once over the past month or so, actually. Would you please consider making the protection longer? 104.49.59.121 (talk) 21:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, I looked into the history a bit more, and this seems to happen every time the protection expires. I've set the protection duration to indefinite. – bradv🍁 21:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)