User talk:Andrewa/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

Your work on a long-running dispute about French universities

Hello Andrewa. Happened to see some of your edits about this difficult topic, and you are trying to do all the logical things that an admin would do. Since I did issue one 3RR block some time back, my name is sporadically mentioned in the thread. At one time I was hoping to get to the bottom of this, but the volume of material is large. Let me know if there is anything I can help with.

If you want to propose an action and need one or more other admins to review it, I am ready to do that. Blocking people for WP:Tendentious editing is a thing, and could be an option. Legal threats, not so easy, because these cases are borderline. There is also a clause of the WP:COI guideline, that could apply: "Accounts that appear to be single-purpose, existing for the sole or primary purpose of promotion or denigration of a person, company, product, service, website, organization, etc., and whose postings are in apparent violation of this guideline, should be made aware of this guideline and warned not to continue their problematic editing." This means that the COI rules can be invoked on behavior alone even if the person doesn't have the type of a business connection that could disqualify them from making edits. I can read French, if that helps. Thanks, and good luck with your work, EdJohnston (talk) 02:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement, EdJohnston, and those are very interesting points indeed. I also read and love French, and as I said recently, I think my French may be better than their English. The other possibility is that they're playing wp:IDHT, but that's the beauty of our guidelines etc... we don't need to decide that. A block isn't about justice and punishment, it's just about protecting Wikipedia. Disruption is disruptive even if unintentional. We do not need to speculate on motives.
I don't pretend to have enough competence in French to get involved in a controversial issue there, and think that neither of these accounts is showing the competence to be similarly involved here. But how exactly to fix it...
Bigger picture is that, as you said, there is a lot of material involved, much of it missing the point completely. I think this is part of a chronic problem with ANI. These walls of text are clogging the system to a standstill. Andrewa (talk) 05:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
This edit seems to be an example of casting WP:ASPERSIONS: I'm not saying that Launebee personally did it, because I can't rull out that s/he is has been working with a larger group and/or company (because creating 2 accounts to target 2 version of Wikipedia clearly indicates that some level of organisation and/or experience is involved : these actions were carefly planed). Does that read to you that Launebee was part of a careful plan to create two different accounts to target different versions of Wikipedia? And that he was working with a larger group? Someone could ask the editor to either withdraw the charge or be blocked. By continuing his campaign against Launebee, I think the editor is reopening the case for a sanction for his comment from September 15 calling Launebee a 'criminal'. EdJohnston (talk) 12:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
With regards to the comment, in my opinion, what it looks like is; I'm not saying [you're involved]; I'm just saying [you might be]. I think it's best to let the rope run taught on its own. There's a better chance of dealing with the whole situation, if the whole issue is dealt with in a single blow, rather than dealing with individual issues piecemeal. That is, add it to the list of reasons to act. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Trying to close the entire thread would be exhausting. But we do see some bad faith editing by participants which admins could take action on. Aspersions are not acceptable, or hinting at violations of the law. If either side of the dispute could write briefly, the thing might be over by now. EdJohnston (talk) 13:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I asked XIIIfromTOKYO to withdraw their aspersions against Launebee. Some his statements appear to be accusations of criminal misbehavior. If he leaves his charges in place on our talk pages, the policy of WP:NLT may apply. EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
If either side of the dispute could write briefly, the thing might be over by now.... Exactly. But that's not entirely their fault. Stonewalling, wikilawyering and rantstyle are rife and IMO increasing, particularly on ANI as I said above. And there is even an open RfC at wt:talk page guidelines that seeks to make discussions longer and more difficult to follow, IMO, and seems likely to close with overwhelming support.
Perhaps it is not coincidence that the affected articles concern law schools, or that one of the panel that presided over the NYRM2016 fiasco is a lawyer! But perhaps this is also an inevitable disease. Is Wikipedia merely showing the first signs of senile dementia? Andrewa (talk) 20:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
So far I don't see any controversial edits by the precocious newcomer at Panthéon-Assas University. On the whole their changes seem to be an improvement. EdJohnston (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Interesting. There are a couple of arguably bad ones to other articles that I can see, not sure I'd call them controversial. And as Launebee has repeatedly pointed out, most of their edits are constructive too. But Benmit is new... possible meatpuppet? Worth an SPI I wonder? Andrewa (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
You would need to show content similarities (or some kind of a pattern) if you want to have SPI be interested. Also, when there is no abuse the matter is lower priority. EdJohnston (talk) 18:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I do see some similarities, and some differences, as you would expect of a meatpuppet IMO.
It will be difficult, even impossible, to prove either way, I guess it always is. Doing a lot of reading on it, and there is lots to read!
See also this heads-up from Launebee to Benmit, to which Bemmit later linked from ANI. If it's sockpuppetry it's sophisticated, give them that. Andrewa (talk) 23:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, I can point to one similarity. This user isn't a native English speaker either, though it's harder to detect, it was this edit that tipped me off. There's a number of other little hints as well; erroneous edit, chose then should be then chose, in which, not on which, and this improperly phrased edit. You're right though that meat is more likely, and there's not much to do for now because their edits are mostly constructive. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
The issue is how much weight to give this edit supporting Launebee, and the only one yet to oppose the proposed TBAN on them. This conversation proves nothing. An SPI closed as Likely or even as Possible in terms of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Administrators instructions#CheckUser cases would have some weight, however. Andrewa (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Have a look at the last paragraph of this edit. I think for the moment that might be sufficient. Andrewa (talk) 07:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Tonmoypaul.71

Hi, how can I help?

Tonmoypaul.71, please feel free to speak your mind here. I can see that your English is poor, and that you do not have a good understanding of English Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which are of course written in English. I will make allowances for that and request others to do so too. Andrewa (talk) 04:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Redgro vs 67.162.25.59 (IP disruption - Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents)

Just curious as to the result of your investigation. I can't seem to find it in the revision history of the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page. If it is too much work, don't worry about responding. 2602:304:415C:4B69:3C2A:160B:C0AD:17DA (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I think this refers to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive966#IP disruption. Does that help? Andrewa (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks2602:304:415C:4B69:3C2A:160B:C0AD:17DA (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
That thread has been archived without closure. This is unfortunately common at ANI owing to the large volume of material and the finite time that admins have to deal with it. (It might have been done automatically by lowercase sigmabot III which patrols the page, or manually by a registered and uninvolved user, and either is quite valid if a thread is going nowhere, and not ideal but there we are.)
In that the user who raised the issue gave evasive answers when I asked for details of the charges, and no answer whatsoever when I upped the ante and said that they were themselves risking sanctions by this, I would regard the charge as withdrawn with no trouble found, and I think they might not be so lucky next time they waste ANI time like that. Andrewa (talk) 23:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Topic ban?

Hello. Did you mean that both editors are now topic banned? ("They are topic banned too"). I didn't follow the ANI closely, so can you confirm? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

EdJohnston, yes, that's the current situation as I understand it... see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive966#Repetitive accusations of antisemitism and homophobia, and threats and personal attacks by XIIIfromTokyo. Andrewa (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. It would be helpful if someone logged these bans at WP:EDRC. EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Done. EdJohnston, could you check that I've done it correctly? Andrewa (talk) 06:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, that looks correct. EdJohnston (talk) 13:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The diffs you asked for

Three diffs for discussion

This heading added to make editing a little easier. Andrewa (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

[1][2][3] The reasons are in the ANI request. --Launebee (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you.
Looking at the first you cite, at 07:12, 12 October 2017, the first part could be seen as a personal attack on myself but does not seem to concern you. The second part reads Only Launebee has edited the article (102 times as of today". S/he did try to write in the introduction that the institution provided "fake education". Many contributors have tried to stop that beheaviour, but have been legally threaten, harrassed, and disgusted away by that contributor.
The ANI request was made here with the edit summary (→‎Page moves to different names)... That is, no relevant edit summary at all. It contains the charge 3. personally attacked me by writing "Many contributors… have been legally threaten, harrassed, and disgusted away by" me. [4] That of course is the same diff we are looking at here.
You should first ask that the statement Many contributors… have been legally threaten, harrassed, and disgusted away by be either substantiated by evidence or withdrawn, IMO. Have you done this? Where?
I'm also interested that the idea of fake education has come up again. Did you insert this text into the article? When? Andrewa (talk) 02:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I answered your first question on the ANI page.
I never wrote that it provided a fake education, as a fact. However, many reliable books, newspapers etc. report that the institution is often criticized as being "Sciences Pipeau" (or Pipo), even the former president of SP states that it is an enduring criticism,[5][6][7][8][9][10][11] and pipeau has been translated in the beginning by "fake"[12]. We have now a better translation with scam.[13]
XIII knows very well I never accused the institution of that. It has been discussed intensively in the relevant talk page (it was actually quite hard because like with other pages, he has never been there to improve the article, but only to do personal attacks, and it was difficult to concentrate on the discussion).
--Launebee (talk) 08:54, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

XIII knows very well

he has never been there to improve the article, but only to do personal attacks

@Launebee:, you have been warned very clearly a few days ago "against comments addressing the motive or character of other conversants". Do you understand what it means ? Do you think your last comments are acceptable ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
No, only you have been warned for personal attacks. And I was answering a question of Andrewa. --Launebee (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
No, only you have been warned for personal attacks. Correct. XIIIfromTOKYO, please take note. Andrewa (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
True. My bad. That's only a violation of WP:5P4 and of Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I'm therefore asking @Launebee: to aknowledge these violations by striking these comments. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Do you think your last comments are acceptable ? I can understand your objection to them, I have problems with some of them too. Andrewa (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
like with other pages, he has never been there to improve the article, but only to do personal attacks - This is a very serious accusation. It should be easily tested.
Perhaps XIIIfromTOKYO can provide up to four diffs (and no more, so please pick four of your best) of constructive edits they have made to that particular article?
And Launebee, can you provide at least two (more is better) examples of other pages that XIIIfromTOKYO has edited but has never been there to improve the article? Andrewa (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
That part is very easy. As I have already told you, I haven't done a single edit to that particular article. My only edits are on the talk page to show the problems with some of the references. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, I was forgetting! Very interesting. Andrewa (talk) 15:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

A fake school and a financial loophole

As Andrewa has requested the diff showing that @Launebee: wrote that Science Po provides a fake education, here it is :

On top of being a fake school and being a financial loophole for France, (...)[14]

The Issue has been raised on the talk page [15], and the only change after the "discussion" was to add On top of being criticized for being a fake school and being a financial loophole for France. Two references were provided, but I can't find what is used to back what's on the article. Maybe Launebee could give the exacts quote(s) used to support the claim. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The quote is obviously cut, the complete sentence show that it was part of a criticism, because it seemed unclear I precised it, and then we found with other contributors a better formulation. --Launebee (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
You did introduce the phrase, and the phrasing has been problematic from time to time, and was always going to be tricky as the nuances of English can be subtle. In hindsight you should not have been editing the article on such a controversial claim. More evidence that the TBAN on yourself is appropriate. Andrewa (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I did not request the diff showing that Launebee wrote that Science Po provides a fake education. I asked specifically whether Launebee had inserted the text fake education into the article at any point, and for the diff if so. They have not answered this very simple question, but one of your diffs (or more precisely this one which was half of a two-edit diff you provided) shows them doing exactly that. Thank you.
So having now answered that, Eh bien, continuons. Andrewa (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Three or four

We have looked at only one of the diffs so far (originally four, reduced to three here and also at ANI). Andrewa (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Content problems with articles under the TBAN

Launebee and XIIIfromTOKYO (the order is alphabetical and has no other significance), this is an invitation to discuss with me any outstanding issues you see with articles from which you are now both TBANed.

Please edit in your own section below, and not in that for the other. Read both by all means! But if you feel that it is helpful to reply here, please do it in your own section.

You are of course not banned from discussing on the article talk pages. If you wish to discuss with each other that is a good place for it. But you might get faster action by raising issues here. Or that is my hope.

Feel free to comment in English or French (but I will most likely reply in English), and to link to articles in French Wikipedia or sources in French. Note that French Wikipedia is not itself considered a reliable source here, but of course the sources cited there are themselves likely to be. Andrewa (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Currently, neither user has contributed at en.wikipedia since 15 October, although XIIIfromTOKYO has contributed at French Wikipedia but Launebee has not.
And of course neither has replied here! Andrewa (talk) 03:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Issues raised by Launebee

Anything that needs fixing? Andrewa (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Issues raised by XIIIfromTOKYO

Anything that needs fixing? Andrewa (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for trying

Even though it ended as it always does.. thank you for at least trying and not being silent about it... —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I am disappointed with the result obviously, but not at all surprised nor all that unhappy with it. Even the closing comment, which I see as sarcastic and disrespectful, is an interesting example of the culture in which we currently work, and available for future consideration.
And has since been changed. Andrewa (talk) 05:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
And it is not anyone's fault if they reflect that culture, but if they fail to rise above it there is nobody else to blame. They choose to reflect that culture. It is all in the archives, and will perhaps be there until the sun explodes, perhaps even longer. And in any case it is permanently in the ultimate archives kept by the Universe, see my essay on the subject if you wish to study some real philosophy.
(Which I have studied under the best, Brian Birchall obituary commentary archives partial bibliography does not even have an article yet but he will some day I predict be ranked alongside our fellow Australians John Anderson and Vic Dudman. I studied final year ethics under Birchall and three years of logic under Dudman, and by sheer coincidence my mother studied ethics under Anderson.)
We are only responsible for taking the opportunities we have, never for creating ones we do not have, but we are fully responsible for doing that. Or in other words, there are two rules of mental health: Never take responsibility for what you cannot control, which is often quoted as the only rule, and the equally important Always take responsibility for what you can control.
Thanks again for taking the trouble to write here. Andrewa (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

International trucks

About the e-mail, I wanted to share my opinions with you, let you judge my bias without offending anyone. I have made a horrible mess and was trying to give you an overview. Between the garbage there is an actual discussion, sort of, and I didn't think you could see it. I didn't want you to throw the baby away with the bath water. Eddiado has put a good timeline up as "A new Summary".

I think we have an excellent position but have not overcome "inertia". The subject has a very small group and even if somebody showed up I have made it impossible to understand. And there aren't any "edit" places, you have to scroll all over the place.

When you Oppose and sort of dismiss it that hurts. And people who know have already talked about redirect and link stuff. There are effective people from both positions here. Is there any chance I can get you to put a line through that "Oppose"? Thank you for your time. Sammy D III (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Sammy D III. The email was fine. It's not harassment or canvassing or even forum shopping in my opinion. Those are the things you need to be aware of. (And even if it had been I would not likely take action. Feel free to email me in good faith any time and in any terms, I even invite you but not necessarily others to ignore the wp:no personal attacks rule and say what you feel.). And thanks for bringing it here as I suggested in my reply.
There are two ways in which you could get me to put a line through that "Oppose". The easiest is to make a case that the move complies with the Wikipedia:article naming policy. I don't think anyone has done this, but perhaps that is because there are so many irrelevant arguments there that I've missed the relevant ones. That's always a danger.
For example, there is considerable discussion about whether the badges say International or International Harvester and similar appeals to primary sources. I think this is both original research and irrelevant to the discussion. Not you?
The second way is to make a case that Wikipedia will be improved by making an exception to the rules. I don't think there has been a case made for this either. Do you? Andrewa (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I think I have "it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article" absolutly covered. Have you checked my source list? Why won't people look at that?
I could not find a link to vehicle names, is that necessary? Virtually all vehicles are named "Brand Model". There was talk of some "(truck)" labels on some models. I would think that would be done individually. Later Navistar (new name of reorganized International Harvester) built (in the same factory) trucks are International ProStar, International DuraStar, International MXT-MV, and International 3000. Why should the older trucks be different?
The badges just make me shake my head. A common Oppose position has been "The hood ornament...(personal opinion)!" I think others refute it because it is all there is to refute.
I don't see this as "an exception to the rules", it is making the article form match every other vehicle article here. The articles will have the vehicle name, not the manufacturer's. The only place in the world these trucks are called "Harvester" is right here. It should be the name the manufacturer sold it as, the name on the grille, instead of the current hood ornament. Not an argument, just an opinion, I think some HD leads might get really fixed up. Cross your fingers. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I thought this was fun to start with. You said you would consider two different ways, I gave you both. I thought the Navistar/IH link like that was a neat trick. It would have been nice if you had even acknowledged it. Sammy D III (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
There may be valid points mixed in there but... Your source list (permalink), for example. The first six are all primary sources. You do not seem to realise it, but you are just wasting everyone's time. Nobody can be blamed for failing to wade through the rest of it. Andrewa (talk) 03:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Why won't people read my sources?

I have provided International Harvester and Navistar documents as well as published books showing continuous use of the name "International" between 1914 and 2017. What more can I do? Sammy D III (talk) 03:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

That source list was pretty fun, I was very proud of it. I worked on it for a while, this is the final version. I even bought DanTD's stupid rag to refute him with. What a waste of $12. One "Oppose" challenged one page of the Wisconson Historical Society stuff once, no other Oppose has ever even acknowledged that the list existed. That was frustrating.
Well, I tried. A simple "oops" expanded into this, and it still won't get fixed. At least I won't have to listen to adults argue about hood ornaments, saying "is so" without source. I just can't out-stupid that. Gotta go, Sammy D III (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions and efforts Sammy D III. And I'm sorry about whatever it is you find stupid. But that's not the way to change anyone's mind. Andrewa (talk) 05:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

As to why people don't read your sources, I at least do, but I can understand it if others don't bother. See reply above. Andrewa (talk) 03:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Arseitraunnit

Hello Andrewa. Could you please verify the IP address of User:Arseitraunnit? As I suspect it may be related to User:Launebee. Thank you in advance.--Marco Carrasco (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't myself have the access required to do that, not all admins do. I would need to request it at SPI which you can also do.
But I'm happy to do so if you provide the evidence.
They have only two contributions to date, the most recent does look very Launebee-like. The other was long before Launebee was TBANned.
That one edit would not be enough evidence to ask for a checkuser in my opinion. Feel free to raise it here if there is any more. Andrewa (talk) 03:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
They have now provided more evidence. This edit shows a similar lack of English competence to that which was a major factor in TBANning Launebee. After now seven edits they are still a single-purpose account but that's not surprising with so little edit history. Now borderline IMO. But I'm new to SPI and my first attempt at using it has resulted (disappointingly) in no action at all so far, so I'm reluctant to raise another until I see how the previous one goes.
Marco Carrasco, does the user name mean anything to you? Andrewa (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello Andrewa. As you said, User:Arseitraunnit editions are very Launebee-alike. I have already discussed with User:Launebee before, regarding his very subtle, but still biased judgment on certain French universities. For instance, favoring one university (such as Paris II) over another (Paris I), he never applied his same view "neutrality" in the same way to all articles. In this context, he has never allowed anyone to even try to improve the article on Pantheon-Sorbonne_University. Since a year ago, I have tried to start improving the article, however with a user like User:Launebee around it is practically impossible. I am not sure about this new User:Arseitraunnit. However, due to his quick response, his proficiency editing in Wikipedia, as well as due to his Launebee-alike style and English mistakes, I do think a verification of the IP address must be done. --Marco Carrasco (talk) 04:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I may get around to it if the evidence continues to mount, but there is nothing stopping you. Suggest a careful reading of wp:checkuser first. Andrewa (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Andrewa. You have new messages at TonyBallioni's talk page.
Message added 08:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Regards:) Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 08:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Trucks help

Your kind offer to coach us through a page move(s) to its conclusion is very welcome to me, I need it. What do I do next? Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 03:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC) (I hear the Jacarandas are looking good)

OK, good. Watch this space. Andrewa (talk) 04:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Just came back to check in case I've missed something. Currently have too many commitments outside WP but keen to keep the ball rolling and see it to whichever goal, in other words just get the job done. Eddaido (talk) 03:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Also busy in real life. But we'll get there. Andrewa (talk) 06:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Behavioral and content dispute

Hi! Im contacting you because you are listed as an editor willing to provide behavioral and content assistance. I would like you to take a look at the content dispute and the behavior of the editors Katolophyromai, Khirurg and Dr. K as well Kuru, the administrator that backs them .

The full content dispute of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pythagoras is found here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=811537461 since a fellow friend editor Dr. K who seems to be a meatpuppet of the editor I am having the dispute with erased my last entry. I would like you to look at the sources I have provided and my analysis on the source his has provided (which leaves out plenty of ancient biographers that state Pythagoras's father was from Tyre) and to bring an objective view into this discussion.

I would also like you to look into this editors behaviors as him and fellow editor friends (Dr K and Khirurg) seem to be meatpuppets as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppetry. When editor Katolophyromai felt like he was losing the debate he resorted to accusing me of sockpuppeting to his fellow meatpuppet Dr. K which you can look at here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dr.K.#ViamarisBalbi_is_back_under_two_new_sockpuppet_accounts

This is the second (or perhaps third) time Katolophyromai and Khirurg has gotten help from his fellow friend editor Dr. K who does not participate in the discussions/talk page in a productive/objective way but is always ready to take their side and game the system as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system to support his friend editors with their edit reversals. The previous time they accused ViamarisBalbi of personal attacks against the editor he was having a content dispute and got him blocked when in reality if you look at his appeal on his talk page he really wasnt making personal attacks. Dr. K always resorts to administrator Kuru who always takes their side and does not seem to care that editors Katolophyromai, Khirurg and Dr. K are involved in the edit reversal of sourced contents which is obvious vandalism and POV pushing. You can see previous examples of their meatpuppetry in the following cases:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thales_of_Miletus#Phoenicia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thales_of_Miletus#Trash_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thales_of_Miletus#Ancient_sources_and_19th_century_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Euclid#Arabian_sources_of_Euclid https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Euclid&diff=810206844&oldid=810205477 (Here Dr. K supports Khirug act of vandalism in which Khirug puts down a statement from a very legitimate source and adds his own and removes an important blue link in the sentence) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atomism&diff=809056910&oldid=808621458 (Here Khirug removed ViamarisBalbi edit that has a legitimate source and later here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atomism&diff=810213721&oldid=810211103 Dr. K helps him doing the same Khirug does it again here without a legitimate reason/discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atomism&diff=810230721&oldid=810221056

Katolophyromai, Khirurg and Dr. K as well Kuru, all edit on similar articles related to Ancient Greece and Greek nationalism. It also happens that their usernames all sound Greek and start with letter K which makes their connection seem a bit too obvious and suspicious. I would highly appreciate your time and help on looking on this. ViamarisBalbi and I believe that legitimate sockpuppeting might be the only way to stop this harassment since filling ISP reports for meatpuppeting sometimes get lost in limbo or take too long to be reviewed and these editors wont stop Wikihouding as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding and continue their witch hunt as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Witch_hunt to prevent ViamarisBalbi and CalinicoFire from making sourced contributions. Thanks CalinicoFire (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Andrewa. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Please be aware this survey will close Friday, Dec. 8 at 23:00 UTC.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Your essays

Hi Andrew.

The reason that I didn't "mostly like all" of your essays is that I hadn't found them all. I find them all worth reading. Early finds were User:Andrewa/Consensus is consensus, which I found quite educational, and User:Andrewa/creed, which I quite like. I think I have found them all (below)? Thanks. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe There are some there I haven't looked at for a while, and I see I should merge the purism and purist essays. And I think you've missed User:Andrewa/silly ideas at least.

There are two links on my main user page

that might be of use.

Or if you're interested in some online but off-wiki views there are also links there to

Happy reading! Andrewa (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Our friend Benjakob

He keeps writing and "we" keep reading: Talk:Linda_Sarsour#Headline_in_Haaretz:_Sex,_Lies_and_Wikipedia It´s interesting. And Happy New Year! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorbonne University

Hello,

you might want to take a look at Sorbonne University. As far as I can see newly created accounts is focused on heavily using PR references to write the article, focusing on a lot of use of the "Sorbonne" wordings. Some references are falsified (this references clearly says that the university is created, in no way it's the reopening of an older structure). XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 08:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Same is happening in the University of Paris, with same users involved. Please have a look at its talk page Talk:University_of_Paris.

--SirJamesMcBiscuit (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paracas culture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cerro Colorado (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Small group (Christianity) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Small group (Christianity). Thanks! Legacypac (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Page hits

I notice your dislike for the page view stats, particular with regards to RM discussions. I'm very dubious of them as well. I think there is the potential to gather data to demonstrate the fallacy around relying on them. I did a small experiment with Plymouth during/after the last RM on that topic, which seemed to show near zero harm from having the "wrong" title at the base name. I can discuss that further with you, and thrash out ideas for other experiments, if you are interested. If so, on the talk of your Page View essay?--Nilfanion (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

My dislike is for the misuse of page view stats. They do have some use, but in my experience like all statistics they are generally misunderstood and therefore misquoted by all but the specialists in the field, and often also by the specialists! Your contributions on the talk page would be very welcome. Andrewa (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
The big problem being "A has more than B, therefore A is primary" (and similar crude arguments)?--Nilfanion (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Probably the biggest problem, yes, but even A has ten times as many as B so A is primary is not always the full story, see the examples section.
See also User talk:Andrewa/The Problem With Page Views#Empirical evidence. Andrewa (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
And the reverse is true as well of course (eg B+C > A, so A not primary). I've described my little experiment there now. :)--Nilfanion (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
My test: does everyone who knows of B also know of A? If yes, then A may be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; if no, then definitely not. For a recent example, see Talk:Poppy#Requested move from Poppy (disambiguation) to Poppy, which got WP:SNOWed. Narky Blert (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
That's an excellent test IMO, and should be included in the guideline. It might have reversed NYRM2016, assuming that there were no as-yet-undisclosed COIs involved (the whole thing still really stinks IMO). And it's got more teeth than are at first obvious... It would confirm base name DABs at Corvette and Other, almost trivially. But I suspect it's too sweeping to get up! It's almost as good as abolishing PT.
The RM is good for a laugh and a cry. Love the image. Andrewa (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I remember New York and Other (both 2017). I hadn't come across Corvette (2018). I'm thinking of posting once I've read the new and the old discussions.
I've nodded sagely at some of your comments in RM discussions. We seem to have similar views on overuse of PT. One factor worth bearing in mind: WP:DPL is on the way to becoming a maintenance task (see WP:TDD Table 1); so that major link-breaking moves may in future cause fewer outbursts of profanity.
There's a related problem in WP:FIXDABLINKS. It's grossly unfair to require an RM closer to single-handedly fix all the links after a major move. It's also unfair to dump the whole problem onto WP:DPL (some of whose members are also admins). My suggestion: the closer should invite the !support voters to lend a hand. They are likely to know the topic, and so find it easier to fix the links than WP:DPL generalists.
I too thought the poppy pic excellently-chosen. Narky Blert (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Agree.
Particularly agree that It's grossly unfair to require an RM closer to single-handedly fix all the links after a major move. Frankly, sometimes I just don't. I always have a look, and have occasionally posted lists of links that might need fixing if I didn't have time to look at them, taken before the move(s) removed the chance to use What links here to find them and pasted into the wiki.
But if it's a choice of doing that or leaving an RM which has a clear consensus in a large backlog (which hasn't been common lately, thankfully) and which requires a lot of admin-only work even without fixing the links, I do sometimes do the move(s) and leave the link-fixing to the Wikignomes.
And I have in such circumstances pinged some or even all of the supporters. I do always Wikilink to any saved list(s) of incoming links from my closing comments. But not for a while. And one of the pinged supporters once (only, so far) threatened me with de-sysop action for doing it, but they took it no further AFAIK. It's in my talk page archives somewhere, from memory. Andrewa (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
WP:FIXDABLINKS is both idealistic and unrealistic.
"Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name, to move an existing disambiguation page to that name, or to redirect that name to a disambiguation page), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links and repair them."
How? By creating a thousand or so redlinks to a page which doesn't exist yet? Narky Blert (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. But This page documents an English Wikipedia editing guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. (my emphasis)
The goal is to write the best possible encyclopedia, which doesn't mean writing a perfect rulebook, see User:Andrewa/Rules, rules, rules. Maybe we can improve on that one, but it's not my top priority right now. Andrewa (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Nowhere near my top priority, either. Whatever gets the job done, i.e. helps readers. Robert Watson-Watt's motto (needs sourcing) – "Second best tomorrow".
(The day I broke 250+ links by a move creating a DAB page in violation of WP:FIXDABLINKS but complying with WP:IAR was (of course!) the same day that some BoN clown vandalised Wiki and landed me with an IP {{block}} which took me a couple of hours to get lifted while I was in the middle of fixing those links.) Narky Blert (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Never a dull moment. Andrewa (talk) 05:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The 'what readers type in the search box' test is overstated in my view. My theory is that most users come to articles through Google, which already shows them disambiguators and takes them straight to the right article. And of those who do start typing into The WP search box, many will click on an article from the drop down rather than ending up on a dab page. Page view stats tend to mostly corroborate this theory I think.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)title,

Exactly. See User:Andrewa/Let us abolish the whole concept of primary topic#Easier searching, which applies both to Google, DuckDuckGo etc and to the Wikipedia search box. Andrewa (talk) 05:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, I think we've had that discussion before, and I wouldn't personally go that far, at least not while the format of article titles is "Page name (disambiguator)". It just opens up cans of worms about which exact disambiguator is used (see Talk:Sarah Jane Brown for exactly such a long-winded debate), which in most cases is unnecessary. I don't know what percentage of our article titles have to be disambiguated against some other title, but I reckon it's small. The vast majority are just straight titles, with only one topic, and thinking up disambiguators for each and every one would be a mammoth task. That said though, Britannica online does do exactly that, through the "subtitles" system. Every article uses it's main name, but there's a subtitle in smaller text below, explaining in a bit more detail about it. That serves as disambiguator too, and looks neater on the page than putting parentheses after the title.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Whoa whoa whoa, I think there's a major misunderstanding there that might explain a lot. The vast majority are just straight titles, with only one topic, and thinking up disambiguators for each and every one would be a mammoth task. I never meant to suggest that (or if I did it was a bit of a brainsnap that I will happily revoke). If a straight title is unambiguous, then there is no need to disambiguate it. Agreed.
Where did you get the idea that I was proposing such a thing? Because I've obviously been very misleading there, and I'm very eager to clarify it. And it might explain some of our past discussions! Andrewa (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I see, whoa accepted. Thanks for clarifying and sorry, perhaps I was being dense as well in thinking you meant that. Well that makes some sense then. I probably still do like primary topics myself notwithstanding that though, but I can see where you're coming from, at least we only have to think of disambiguators for a smaller number of articles then. Michael Jackson (American singer) for example...  — Amakuru (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I wonder, are there others who think that's what I'm suggestin? How can I clarify things?
Michael Jackson (singer-songwriter) would be my choice, and I've just created it see its talk. But in a way I'm cutting my own throat by doing so... such redirects would remove one of the justifications for abolishing PT. But they also suggest a better way of implementing the change if it ever does gain consensus... Yeah I know, pulled by a team of flying pigs... Andrewa (talk) 05:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Editing News #1—2018

Read this in another language • Subscription list for the English Wikipedia • Subscription list for the multilingual edition

Did you know?

Did you know that you can now use the visual diff tool on any page?

Screenshot showing some changes, in the two-column wikitext diff display

Sometimes, it is hard to see important changes in a wikitext diff. This screenshot of a wikitext diff (click to enlarge) shows that the paragraphs have been rearranged, but it does not highlight the removal of a word or the addition of a new sentence.

If you enable the Beta Feature for "⧼visualeditor-preference-visualdiffpage-label⧽", you will have a new option. It will give you a new box at the top of every diff page. This box will let you choose either diff system on any edit.

Toggle button showing visual and wikitext options; visual option is selected

Click the toggle button to switch between visual and wikitext diffs.

In the visual diff, additions, removals, new links, and formatting changes will be highlighted. Other changes, such as changing the size of an image, are described in notes on the side.

Screenshot showing the same changes to an article. Most changes are highlighted with text formatting.

This screenshot shows the same edit as the wikitext diff. The visual diff highlights the removal of one word and the addition of a new sentence. An arrow indicates that the paragraph changed location.

You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use the visual editor.

Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has spent most of their time supporting the 2017 wikitext editor mode, which is available inside the visual editor as a Beta Feature, and improving the visual diff tool. Their work board is available in Phabricator. You can find links to the work finished each week at mw:VisualEditor/Weekly triage meetings. Their current priorities are fixing bugs, supporting the 2017 wikitext editor, and improving the visual diff tool.

Recent changes

  • The 2017 wikitext editor is available as a Beta Feature on desktop devices. It has the same toolbar as the visual editor and can use the citoid service and other modern tools. The team have been comparing the performance of different editing environments. They have studied how long it takes to open the page and start typing. The study uses data for more than one million edits during December and January. Some changes have been made to improve the speed of the 2017 wikitext editor and the visual editor. Recently, the 2017 wikitext editor opened fastest for most edits, and the 2010 WikiEditor was fastest for some edits. More information will be posted at mw:Contributors/Projects/Editing performance.
  • The visual diff tool was developed for the visual editor. It is now available to all users of the visual editor and the 2017 wikitext editor. When you review your changes, you can toggle between wikitext and visual diffs. You can also enable the new Beta Feature for "Visual diffs". The Beta Feature lets you use the visual diff tool to view other people's edits on page histories and Special:RecentChanges. [16]
  • Wikitext syntax highlighting is available as a Beta Feature for both the 2017 wikitext editor and the 2010 wikitext editor. [17]
  • The citoid service automatically translates URLs, DOIs, ISBNs, and PubMed id numbers into wikitext citation templates. This tool has been used at the English Wikipedia for a long time. It is very popular and useful to editors, although it can be tricky for admins to set up. Other wikis can have this service, too. Please read the instructions. You can ask the team to help you enable citoid at your wiki.

Let's work together

  • The team is planning a presentation about editing tools for an upcoming Wikimedia Foundation metrics and activities meeting.
  • Wikibooks, Wikiversity, and other communities may have the visual editor made available by default to contributors. If your community wants this, then please contact Dan Garry.
  • The <references /> block can automatically display long lists of references in columns on wide screens. This makes footnotes easier to read. This has already been enabled at the English Wikipedia. If you want columns for a long list of footnotes on this wiki, you can use either <references /> or the plain (no parameters) {{reflist}} template. If you edit a different wiki, you can request multi-column support for your wiki. [18]
  • If you aren't reading this in your preferred language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly. We will notify you when the next issue is ready for translation. Thank you!

—User:Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Mount Macedon Memorial Cross

I've tried egging on a Melburnian friend to write this needed article (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Mount Macedon Memorial Cross), but doubt he ever will. I think an Aussie should write it – not me, nor any other Pom. There's some stubby info in Mount Macedon and Mount Macedon, Victoria. Is this within your area of interest, or do you know of another editor to pass the task on to? Narky Blert (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I've been there but didn't take any photos... emotional experience as it was possibly the first memorial in Australia to explicitly mention my age-mates who died (521 in all, mostly of my age) in the Vietnam War, which in Australia was politically denied to be a war of course and returned servicemen were for example denied the right to march on Anzac Day but were given tax concessions as having served in a war zone. Still a political mess here! I've boldly redirected Mount Macedon Memorial Cross to one of the sections you mentioned. Better than nothing IMO. See its talk. Andrewa (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
I've added {{R with possibilities}}. Narky Blert (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, should have done that myself! Andrewa (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Neutral notice

A move request regarding Deadline.com / Deadline Hollywood, an article whose talk page you have edited, is taking place at Talk:Deadline Hollywood#Requested move 11 March 2018. It is scheduled to end in seven days.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andrewa/Archive_12&oldid=835988659"