User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 66

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60 Archive 64 Archive 65 Archive 66

User conduct

You had asked me last month about user Radiant Fellow [1]. At the time, I had opinions from his history but tried to see things as "half full". That was probably the wrong answer. His pattern of editing is trending NOTHERE (specifically "pattern of disruptive behavior" and "no interest in working collaboratively") and seems to be getting worse. He only edits a couple of specific articles in an SPA manner and his history indicates OWN by constantly re-editing to his preferred version. He does this "stealthily" - burying it in the middle of small changes making it difficult to notice. Most recently, he was edit warring with Alaska4Me2 on List of The Chosen characters. He does not participate in discussion, which causes conflict with the other editor (see the section I collapsed as offtopic). I tried to intervene, and he seems to have capitulated this time, but even though this instance has stopped, I fully expect a recurrence of the same pattern later.

On a related note, I tried my best to point Alaska4Me2 to a more appropriate venue for discussions of user behavior and was once again accused of "lecturing". I just don't know whether to blow that off or what. There is no discussion with her that doesn't end up degenerating into that kind of result. I have tried to limit interaction as much as possible to avoid it. Maybe I just need a thicker skin?

I hate to bug you with this, but it's just been a frustrating day for me... If you don't have time or inclination to look at it, I understand. TIA. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Butlerblog I will but it’s evening here and my wife and I are watching tv. Soitwil probably be 14 hours or so. Doug Weller talk 19:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
No worries! Enjoy! (maybe I will do the same) ButlerBlog (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I hope you're doing well after today, Doug. Would you be able to look at this additional activity from User:Radiant Fellow with regards to List of The Chosen characters that occurred after our previous messages? If you're not feeling up to it, just say so, and I'll understand.
  • He reverted all of Alaska4Me2's edits again, to which she objected. He marked all of these as "minor".
  • I reverted those, with an edit summary asking talk page discussion and posted a notice to his talk page about not marking edits as minor, especially reverts.
  • He responded by blanking his talk page with the summary "understood and resolved"[2] and immediately reapplied all of his edits to the list article.[3]
  • I reverted back to status quo ante, noted this in the edit summary and again asked him to discuss it with Alaska4Me2 on the article talk page to get consensus, also posting a notice on his talk page.
  • He blanked the page again with the edit summary "The consensus is given"[4] and then reapplied his edits with the summary "As far as I understand, it corresponds with everything given"[5] - whatever that means.
I am not reverting back to status quo ante again, not just for 3RR reasons, but because it's going nowhere. I think at this point, he's WP:NOTHERE - not just with disruptive editing but with a clear battleground/ownership mentality. I also have to call into question his use of marking all of these reverts as "minor". I'm willing to AGF on that and say it's possible he didn't know, but combined with all of the rest, it could be construed as gaming behavior. Am I off base here? ButlerBlog (talk) 02:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
@Butlerblog Good day. I'd like to apologize for my supposed attitude. I'll explain everything I did and give the details of the reasons for the revisions. I don't want any conflict and I'll address this with the other user. Thanks. Radiant Fellow (talk) 02:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Doug - I posted this last night after being gone all day. After I quit for the night, I thought better of it based on your health, and so I just moved it to an ANI discussion. If you're up to looking at it, great - but if not, I've moved it accordingly with apologies. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
@Butlerblog I’ll try. Slept well last night bit although it’s only 1:30 pm here struggling to keep awake. Not feeling at all well bit it’s what I expected and hopefully I’ll still get my treadmill work in. Doug Weller talk 13:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Hope you're back to feeling better. The ANI report on this did not get an admin response (other than yours) and ended up archived. Should I re-post? Thoughts? ButlerBlog (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
@Butlerblog I think you can unarchive it. Not sure though. Doug Weller talk 13:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I wondered about that - I'll look into it. Thanks! ButlerBlog (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Myth

Hey Doug, I noticed you left a message on my talk page. You said that my comment didn't seem very civil, so sorry if it came across that way, but I am simply wondering if Wikipedia is supposed to offer a neutral stance why can't they simply change flood myth to religious belief to reflect the fact that some people believe it and some people don't. While you might cite scientific concerns, I would just like to say that we can never prove whether not there actually is a God, and there is much evidence for and against the flood, so we should be sticking to Wikipedia's neutral view policy and change it to religious belief. Savagecrybaby (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It seems you may be interpreting the use of the word "myth" in the sense of "imaginary", which of course is one definition of the term (see a dictionary for the multiple definitions of "myth"). When one refers to "myth" in an academic sense (which would be the case here, in an encyclopedia), it means "a traditional story". It means exactly what you defined - "some people believe it and some people don't" - something that may or may not be true, depending on who hears it. There are several flood myths, and that's the generally accepted academic term for it. It's the absolute most neutral way to define it. ButlerBlog (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Hall of Records is now a GA.

I've wanted to fix up that article for a long time, having learned about the concept from a fun but very stupid adventure game that was one of the formative influences on my interest in ancient Egypt (something I'm writing more about here). I know that the Giza fringe theories of the '90s were one of your major adversaries in your early days as an online skeptic, so after I read about your prognosis—well, that's what motivated me to take care of it now, sort of as a tribute to you and your long, tireless efforts to combat misinformation. A. Parrot (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@A. Parrot That is really kind. Did we meet on Usenet? Doug Weller talk 16:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
No, I was a kid back then! :D
We only met on Wikipedia when I was a newbie—2008 or so—but afterwards, somehow or other, I learned a little about your pre-WP career, maybe initially by coming across old pages on the Hall of Maat site. A. Parrot (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
@A. Parrot Yes, probably Maat. Doug Weller talk 17:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
@A. Parrot I forgot to say how interesting that page is. I didn't know that so many games were based on fringe theories. But then I haven't looked at adventure games for decades. Doug Weller talk 13:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Glad to hear you enjoyed it. It's even more an odd niche interest than writing about Egyptian religion for Wikipedia—those particular adventure games weren't even played by that many people, so probably nobody else is going around analyzing them for Egyptological accuracy. My next blog entry is going to be about the genealogy of the ideas that went into the Orion correlation/Sphinx erosion/Hall of Records convergence in the '90s, but it's taking a while, because the topic is pretty sprawling. A. Parrot (talk) 14:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Harvici

Hey Doug , It may be early to ask you, but I can remove the block since I did a good job on Draft:December 2023 Libya Migrant Boat Disaster, and I am promising not to revert edits until I get an ECP from WP. PERM.Thanks. Harvici (talk) 10:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Harvici There's no rush. You'll benefit from working on a few more projects with User:Toddy1. I'm sure they will let you know, maybe me, when you are ready. Doug Weller talk 13:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Ok Harvici (talk) 16:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Indef?

A permanent block for Radiant Fellow seems over the top harsh to me, especially with no previous blocks. Why not a topic ban with a strong warning that if he violates the ban, then there will be an indefinite block? What I think will now happen as a result of the permanent block is he will create a sock account or evade with a non-account. It could all end up worse than what's been happening with this guy since he created his current account. His edits weren't horrible, or even bad. What was bad is him believing he could continue to edit war and own articles. That was the result of him being allowed to do it over and over again in spite of other editors complaining. The reality is where he got to was the fault of more experienced editors turning a blind eye. Why not try to teach instead of punishing in such a drastic manner? As it is with the permanent block, and because human nature is what it is, with this removal and exile, he's now being set up for failure. If he'd been topic banned, then the teaching/learning would start and he could reshape his perspective as well as his mindset about editing. Create a reason in him to start hating and the anger will turn into more of a reason to game us and become vengeful in action. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Alaska4Me2 If you read the blocking policy, then it would explain that administrators don't block users as punishment; it's only to prevent any damage or harm from being done to Wikipedia. Even if the user creates a sock account, the site has a lot of CheckUsers who can detect any sock and block them indefinitely. Speaking of which, he is not blocked permanently, he is blocked indefinitely. Indefinite only means that the user is blocked for an unknown duration of time. This isn't to annoy you or anything, it's just a heads up. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I understand the concept of blocking and that it's not to be punishment. At the same time, administrators are human and I think at times they forget the "why". Also at the same time, because editors are as equally human as administrators, when back into a corner or even rejected and banished from something they like/love/enjoy without being given a chance to show they can turn things around, they make rash decisions based on the emotion they feel from the banishment AND the love/enjoyment of what they were doing before the removal from it.
Attempts at prevention should come in the form of teaching, educating, and grace. If THAT is not taken seriously and the grace provided is abused, THEN banish, exile, remove access. Because no warning of indefinite blocking was provided before it occurred, punishment is what this has turned into and what will be perceived. Adults don't respond well to being punished in such a permanent manner without, what seems to be, a reasonable explanation. Again, I think this will turn into more of a problem because of the harsh suddenness and no warning of it coming. So yes, punishment is what the block is now, regardless of what policy states it's supposed to be and not be. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Again - "indef" does not mean "permanent" - it just means that it has to be manually lifted, as opposed to automatic expiration. Any blocked user has the opportunity to make their case in a request to be unblocked. There is also a more formal process including the "standard offer". There's always a pathway forward for those that want one. An indef puts a stop to any further action until the editor makes their case for being unblocked. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Whatever. HE is going to see it as permanent. And, in reality, it IS permanent. How many indefinite blocks imposed by a long time administrator have you seen overturned? I haven't been here long enough, or paid attention enough, to give any kind of experience-based guesstimation, but I'm going to wager it happens very, very rarely. Even if he does make a case for himself, I don't forsee the block being reduced or removed altogether. Considering how the editor was allowed to continue violating policy on edit warring and ownership for so long, I can't support the indefinite block. It's equivalent to a recent, quick application of a full body cast on a laceration that has been getting worse for a long time because of neglect. It's overkill, it's unfair and will likely cause more problems than the edit warring and ownership ever did. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
@Alaska4Me2 You are entitled to your opinion but it doesn’t match my experience at all. A convincing argument might even convince me to unblock, probably with some conditions though which I hope they will suggest. Yes, it might not be removed altogether. Are you arguing that I’ve blocked a good, constructive editor? Doug Weller talk 19:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
@Alaska4Me2 Just for clarification, if you looked at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Long term battleground pattern of NOTHERE, you would notice that this user made 76% of their edits in WP mainspace, and not only that, but this user reverted in extremely rapid amounts. Finally, he also participated in incivility by adding demeaning edit summaries, and since he also reverted edits rapidly, this is considered edit warring. Because of this user also failing to properly respond to other users on the talk page, they were indefinitely blocked. In general, when an editor persistently makes disruptive edits, an administrator is forced to place a block on them. Again, as I mentioned above, administrators generally only block accounts to prevent them from causing any damage. On some circumstances, administrators are generally hesitant to place blocks, but since this user refused to heed any warnings from their reverts, they were indefinitely blocked. In addition, User:Butlerblog HAD warned him on his talk page, but the user decided to blank it. Since the user had been considered to make long-term disruptive edits, he was blocked. I know this might seem like punishment, but there was nothing Doug could do since the user had the WP:IDHT attitude. I can still agree with your opinion, but the part where you explained that he was blocked as punishment doesn't seem right. Also, when a block is imposed, the user can't edit anywhere except for his talk page. Again, I bring this up since even if he creates a sockpuppet account, there are CheckUsers who can stop this behavior from happening. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Oops. I mean 76% of edits in the page The Chosen (TV series). NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
@Alaska4Me2 I literally just agreed to an unblock for some else I blocked indefinitely because they recognised their problems and showed what they would do moving forward to become a better editor. I’ve also told Radiant Fellow I could entertain an unblock with conditions. How about you go advise them on what they should do to get the indefinite block modified? Doug Weller talk 19:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
@Alaska4Me2: In bringing up this issue on my talk page, you stated I think at this point it's pretty clear he doesn't have the best interest of the article or Wikipedia in mind. If he doesn't have the best interest of Wikipedia in mind, then he's WP:NOTHERE, which generally is going to result in an indef. Doug's been at this a very long time - I trust his judgement on it. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
@Alaska4Me2 Even I agree. Before I even STARTED Wikipedia, I had seen this guy before. He knows what he's doing, and he has over 257,000 edits under his belt. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
@Alaska4Me2 Huh? You complain about this editor saying that you “ think at this point it's pretty clear he doesn't have the best interest of the article or Wikipedia in mind. " and complain when I do something? Doug Weller talk 19:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) In a lot of cases I know an indefinite block can feel like it is permanent so I understand what A4M2 is saying, however, I've known Doug on wiki for some years now and he has never been unreasonable. If he says Radiant Fellow can be unblocked provided there is communication that provides a convincing argument for unblock by RF and there are some conditions that are agreeable then that is what he means and it is not permanent but is contingent on those criteria being met. I think at the very least RF needs some guidance and they should avoid the topic where their disruption has caused the most damage.--ARoseWolf 21:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf Considering nothing has happened to this editor previously, even after or along with several warnings, guidance and a topic ban is exactly what should have happened. THIS time. If it continued after someone was kind enough to make the effort to "help" him when a topic ban was imposed, THEN the indefinite block would have been the right, appropriate course. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes Doug, I did complain with those words. I expressed my opinion then and I'm allowed to change that opinion. Especially when I see an action taken that isn't equal to the no punishment rule and nothing has been done to help steer him the right direction. If anyone had done what you did with an adult employee or a child in the home, someone would be called on the carpet at that job, that parent would have just inflicted a traumatic scar on the child. Your action was over the top inappropriate in my opinion. It could have been done in a way that taught the offending editor something valuable and, if he had an opportunity to turn it around based on a "lesser sentence", everyone would have benefitted. As it is, your choice to indefinitely block just stirred an already bubbling and overflowing cauldron of icky stuff. Mock me if you feel you must, but I know I'm not wrong that there was a better, softer solution that would have made a much better point to him. Unless something proves me entirely wrong, I'm going to stick with where I'm at on your decision. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Just wondering if you read the notices, such as the ones that were posted warning the user - the part where it says "you may be blocked from editing". The user was duly warned multiple times of that as a possible outcome (including from you [6]). The fact that so many other editors view this completely differently than you should give you pause to consider where the disconnect is. I'm not suggesting that you're not entitled to your opinion - you most certainly are. But you should take some time to reflect on what you might be missing here. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I saw them. And looking back, nothing was done for more than a year to help this guy truly get a clue. To take teachable moments and turn them into something that might create for him a different set of behaviors and desire to choose the right rather than the wrong. As I said to you elsewhere, the editor in question was given silent permission to continue making bad choices by everyone's non-action in-between notices. I think to many, "You may be blocked from editing" usually means 'temporarily', like what happens when one is edit warring. THAT should have happened a LONG time ago. "So many editors"? I don't see so many truly agreeing with the block, just that they are on Doug's side. I don't need to pause or reflect about anything. You have been trying hard to get me to subscribe to the Wikipedia Group Think and Hive Mind Tribe, but I don't need to do that to abide by the rules and edit collaboratively. There's nothing I'm missing other than why you seem to have a continuous need to imply my cognitive abilities regarding Wikipedia "culture" are substandard and my unwillingness to be part of the club is some sort of defect in thinking. With that, I'm hopeful we're done now. Can't say that being repeatedly railed at for having a difference in perspective, opinion, and behavior management style is giving me a very good taste in my mouth. Perhaps you should consider (and accept) that I just have a different palate than you and a few others choose to have, Butlerblog. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I think I got your message the first time. All you are doing now is showing lack of good faith at best. Doug Weller talk 09:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
@Alaska4Me2 In fact they've responded politely. I've made some suggestions, eg a partial block from 2 articles but not their talk pages. A topic ban wouldn't give them the chance to show they can collaborate. Doug Weller talk 14:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
@Doug Weller Time will tell. Hopefully they will find other articles and article topics to work on which will better show they can collaborate and do it outside their usual SPA bubble. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 20:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
I would like to say I support Doug's block and I support Doug. I also support the editor receiving the ability to edit again provided they acknowledge their errors, accept the guidance others are giving them and the restrictions that may be placed on them until they can show the community they can edit without causing disruptions. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but everyone is not entitled to edit however they want. Ignorance of the rules is not an excuse nor does it entitle one to special privileges.
If any new or experienced editor believes that "You may be blocked from editing" means 'temporarily' then you do that at your own risk. I have always assumed it to mean that you may be blocked from editing for an undeterminable amount of time. In this world we are in control of very little and when we violate the rules we potentially remove that portion we control and place it in the hands of admins and the community.
I saw good points in what A4M2 has stated but I do not think Doug acted inappropriately. I do not portend to know what anyone should or should not take from this discussion and will leave that up to your better judgements. --ARoseWolf 14:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 24

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Meh

I see unblocked users clearing their talk pages as a way to clear away the old and restart anew. To leave the past behind. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. But they started doing that by reverting my asking whether they had a relationship with the person they wanted to have an article. Still, I've told them not to worry about past reverts. Doug Weller talk 16:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Suspected sock, again: User: Joshi punekar

Hi Doug, please consider this only if you are feeling well! Otherwise, I have already initiated an SPI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joshi punekar. Brittlee1990 is very likely a sock from the same sockfarm. Take care. Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@ We can't check back more than about 90 days. So I can't compare with the master you cite. You mention some other socks, those need links. IPs are always an issue as we are not meant to link IP addresses with accounts. ~!Doug Weller talk Doug Weller talk 15:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Recent socks are Acchuta Sharma and Editor3131. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
This SPI is still pending, and the user Brittlee1990 is active again! But once again, please devote your time only if you are fine. Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 13:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I keep asking about it but for some reason no block yet. I've asked again. Doug Weller talk 14:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Meant to say that I was told they were a sock by another CU. Doug Weller talk 14:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you so much! Waiting for the block by someone from the CU team, so that the typical POV edits by the sock can be reverted. Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Revdel request

A marginal case of doxing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATown&diff=1211254928&oldid=1208950973

Pls let me know if this would [not] normally be considered worth bothering about. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

RD3 if I recall what I clicked on - "purely disruptive". Thanks. I've blocked the IP also, they'd also hit an edit filter 3 times. Doug Weller talk 17:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I may have missed the possible doxing, but I don't think I need to suppress. Doug Weller talk 17:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Tyvm, I thought it probably wasn't but then realised that I don't act know where the margins are. When does adolescent silliness stop and invitation to stalking start?
Tyvm. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
@JMF I think it would help if you email me so you can be more explicit. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Making Everest out of an ant hill. Afaics, it was just some kid putting another kid's phone number on wikipedia "for the lols, it's just banter, innit Sir!" Unless it is bullying. I drifted into WP:RGW territory, so best we let it drop. I really don't think it merits any more time than you have already spent on it. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Ok. Odd though that I didn’t see a number. Still I think this is sorted now. Doug Weller talk 21:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Deleting Wahakadha mustakhdim's redirects

I noticed that you mentioned on Wahakadha mustakhdim's talk page that most of the redirects he created would have to be deleted. I was already trying to figure out how to do that. If I follow normal procedures it looks like I would have to put a {{Db-r3}} tag on all 179 of them, which is much more work than I want to go through. Can I bypass this and oh, I don't know, ask you to delete them all? This is the list.

Failing that, do you have any other suggestions? Thanks, Dan Bloch (talk) 19:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@Danbloch It’s too late in the evening for me right now but there is an Admin tool I can use if I can figure it out. Doug Weller talk 20:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Speedied the bunch (WP:G5). First time mass-deleteing, IIRC; so hopefully didn't break something and make matters worse. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks!
(both of you) Dan Bloch (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
@Abecedare Great. Damn socks. Need to see how I can find the next one, I’m sure they will be back. Doug Weller talk 21:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 March 2024

Harvici's edit request

Hey Doug , I have put an edit request on the talk page of Shakespeare plays. Would you review it, tell me whether it is suitable for the article, and do the needful to include it in the article? Thanks. Harvici (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Harvici Someone who knows the article needs to make that decision, and if they agree they would normally add it. Doug Weller talk 15:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Tech News: 2024-10

MediaWiki message delivery 19:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 61

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 61, January – February 2024

  • Bristol University Press and British Online Archives now available
  • 1Lib1Ref results

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Please edit per the following

Gooday Doug - I would very much consider it a favour if you would add the following to 2024 East Midlands mayoral election#Conservative Party which you protected.

existing

The Conservative Party selected the MP for Mansfield and Nottinghamshire council leader [[Ben Bradley (politician)|Ben Bradley]] as their candidate in September 2023.[5]

then adding:

Bradley suggested that, if successful, he would only act as Mayor in the future.<ref>{{Cite web|url= https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/local-news/ben-bradley-would-probably-stick-8571310 |title=Ben Bradley would 'probably' stick to one job if he became East Midlands Mayor| date= 3 July 2023 |access-date=5 March 2024|publisher=[[Nottingham Post|Nottinghamshire Live]]}}</ref>

I have added this to Ben Bradley (politician) (here) and re-added the basic gist (as an asterisked footnote) to Mansfield (UK Parliament constituency) (here) following a vandal, sending a level 3 to where there are numerous existing warnings; I only found the deletion as I wanted to expand the others today, and being logged-out don't have a watchlist. You may want to look at 193.117.187.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I am mainly gnoming around randomly and can keep an eye on the IP if you don't want any sanction.

I am not a sock/IP block evader, having declared off-wiki to an American cu in Feb 2023. Thanks and regards.-- 82.13.47.210 (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

See below. Doug Weller talk 20:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
.--82.13.47.210 (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
My point was that I was tired and going to bed. Nothing to do with the dispute. Doug Weller talk 08:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Apology

I've been meaning to apologize for not replying to a message you left on my talk page a while ago. Désolé EvergreenFir (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir I'm sure I've done the same. No problem. Doug Weller talk 13:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Requesting a little guidance

I had hoped that after resolution of Radiant Fellow's disruptive editing, Alaska's combativeness might subside. Unfortunately, it only took a day or two for me to be proven wrong in this discussion that ends up with her telling me I guess it's true then. You DO see "helpful" and condescending rudeness as one in the same. I try to limit my responses to only what's relevant, but there just is no possibility for constructive dialog on the article when she makes everything combative. As a result, I prepared an ANI report of her most recent history, requesting a TBAN, narrowly construed to The Chosen and associated list articles, with the possibility for appeal at some predetermined point, noting that I have seen constructive editing by her elsewhere. But before I post that, any thoughts or guidance on that? Or do you think I'm wrong on this (which is, of course, a possibility)? TIA for your insight. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Butlerblog Lots of exercise today, too tired and it’s us time with my wife. Maybe in 12 hours, sorry. Doug Weller talk 20:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
No rush - the linked interaction was from Sunday - I took since then to think about it before doing anything. It's not pressing.
Hope you got some treadmill in! ButlerBlog (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) User arrogance, wp:ownership and hostility is why I stopped logging-in and abandoned my account and 2.5K watchlist of then-nine years after being attacked (the last of quite a few - it goes with the territory) in November 2022, being called a troll, then for clarity a piss taker, and finally when I mentioned that Packjerkins was obviously Jack Perkins (racing driver) writing about himself, I was accused of insuffcient GF in that it could've been a fan with a hommage/pen-name.--82.13.47.210 (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
This is a misunderstanding of my comment to the IP above, which was meant to indicate I would respond today. Doug Weller talk 13:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Really, Butlerblog? You want me topic banned because you don't like the things I said about you? If you think my editing at articles related to The Chosen have not been constructive, why not just say that to me instead of talking about me elsewhere? As I've pointed out to you and Doug over the last week, teaching moments are to be taken and used constructively. Not thrown away with banning and blocking editors instead of trying to work things out. Now, if you want to talk to me about something I said to you, that you didn't like, just tell me. Ask me questions. Don't assume bad faith. And let's settle this once and for all. Do you really think keeping me from editing articles about The Chosen is going to truly solve anything in a way that works for both of us, for the betterment of those articles? I don't. But I'm certainly willing to work with you and talk with you, not just about you or behind your back. Let's do this the right way, not through a neighbor's back door. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 01:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Butlerblog, reading again what you wrote above, you left out the following comments I wrote to you at the same article talk page a couple of days ago, the place where you only pulled out a short bit of my comments. I think this [13] (starting with "For clarification, I want you to know that being in the camp of good faith...") shows I really am trying to make things work with you. That, and what I wrote on your own talk page earlier this evening. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
To be clear, my post linked to the entire discussion for context. I realize that what I'm asking about involves you, but right now, the question isn't specifically about you, it's an ask for insight on how I am viewing this. And it's not "behind your back" (obviously, or you wouldn't be here). So, if you would hold off so that Doug can respond to what I originally came here to ask, I will respond to your questions/concerns on my UTP after that. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
If it involves me and our head-butting, and you haven't responded to me trying to work things out with you, two full days before you came here, then I can't see why you would think I shouldn't comment until Doug responds. You seem so sure everywhere you go around Wikipedia when you comment, therefore, it doesn't make sense to me that you would ask for someone else to "interpret" my pretty straightforward comments to you. You portray me above only as combative, leaving out in that characterization how I am clearly hoping for a good working relationship with you and want that, based on my last comments to you at the article talk page. Leaving that part out of your posting here also doesn't make sense. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 14:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
I wrote a fairly lengthy note to Butlerblog about our head-butting and my thoughts on how it's evolved, but also that I'd love to see it resolved (and why). Here is the link to the comments: [14] A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Butlerblog and Alaska4Me2: I think this argument belongs some place other than Doug's talk page. - Donald Albury 16:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Which is why I wrote what I did at Butlerblog's talk page. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
@Donald Albury: As I stated above, the question I came to ask was a guidance question - for me (i.e. a "can you review my conduct" question). There was no need for any other responses outside of that. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi please intervene and protect the article immediately, in the above article stop his Wikishovel nonsense, and false alarms. This is not the first time he is doing it, this has become a habitual to him nominating speedy deletions, and creating double work to other editors. (talk) Fostera12 (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

You are in the wrong here, Wikishovel is well within their right to nominate an article for deletion and in this case the rationale is correct too. You shouldn't be removing the speedy tag, that is disruption. —SpacemanSpiff 13:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Then you SpacemanSpiff take responsibility, check article, do the needful, remove tag and protect the article. This is my right to contest which i did already in talk page. This is a false alarm, alot has changed in that film festival in past few years. Fostera12 (talk) 13:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Doug Weller pls check the article. It is notable.Fostera12 (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Fostera12 I'm not interested although I would like you to tell me how you know that "This article is completely different from previous context. ". Doug Weller talk 14:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Because I have no idea who created it earlier. In addition to that, the subject matter is well reported by all national media houses in India (Times of India, Indian Express, The Hindu, Hindustan Times etc). A lot has changed since 2019. Since past 5 years the festival is consistently reported in national media, and telecasted in television. And I know this film festival space very much, I am well aware which festival deserves an article.Fostera12 (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Fostera12 has been blocked for a month by SpacemanSpiff, after which they deleted most of their talk page. Doug Weller talk 17:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Persistent Sockpuppetry

Hi Doug, I am getting tired of Joshi punekar's sockfarm; they are coming up with a new sock almost everyday. After I posted here and requested you, Brittlee1990 was blocked. Another admin has intervened recently and blocked some of the IPs, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joshi punekar! A new account has been created today, Gaur Samrat Muhammad Gauri and directly started editing (unlike a new user) the article on Gaur Brahmins! Can they be blocked as per WP:DUCK? Also, can you please protect these articles, which have consistently been targeted by these socks? Here's the list of the main articles: Gaur Brahmins, Marathi Brahmin, Chitpavan Brahmins, Saraswat Brahmin. One is already protected (ECP) , Gaud Saraswat Brahmin. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 14:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Blocked, CU blocked, also on a blocked range. I don't know if I have time for the ECP have to go fix dinner! Doug Weller talk 17:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Doug. Cheers! Ekdalian (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Chemo successful!

Looks like I'll be around for quite some time still. Chemo held the cancer back and my Oncologist is very pleased. He says I look very well and that the cancers are still very small. So I'll have some time off and then back on chemo. Blood tests every 2 months to check. His guess was that my prognosis is the same as last year, another 18 months is quite possible. Who knows, if things go well, maybe more. In any case I'll see 82, Christmas, and the inauguration of the next American president - two pleasant things at least! Doug Weller talk 16:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  • Very happy news! Hope you and yours have something fun planned. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Doug, Very pleased to hear that good news. As ever, David, David J Johnson (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  • This is excellent news. So happy to hear this, Doug. You'll be wanting those Christmas decorations back. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
@Sirfurboy You remembered! Nah, we still have a lot. Doug Weller talk 17:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Delighted to hear, Doug. Longevity, in whatever form it is granted us, is a many-splendored thing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  • That is great news! ButlerBlog (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Excellent. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Well done on fighting your cancer. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Hooray! Donald Albury 17:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  • My best wishes for continued improvement over the ongoing treatment...but is looking forward to the inauguration of the next president a bit tongue in cheek? Sweetpool50 (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
@Sweetpool50: Ha. Three things I'll see, only 2 pleasant. I shudder to think of what could happen with the presidency. Doug Weller talk 17:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  • That’s fantastic news Doug! Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Good to hear. All the best, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Great news! Congratulations! Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Awesome news, Doug! --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  • That's wonderful news, Doug! EvergreenFir (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Great to hear, Doug! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Excellent news, Doug! So happy for y'all. Haploidavey (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  • More than thrilled to hear that, Doug. Godspeed on recovery. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  • This is amazing, Doug! Very happy to hear :) Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 20:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Doug, this is great news! I'm so happy to hear it (and let's hope against hope that the election results will be good news too). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Fantastic news, Doug!-- Ponyobons mots 22:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Yay, congrats!! DanCherek (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  • (Talk page enjoyer) Thanks for sharing this great news Doug! StonyBrook babble 00:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Sorry happy to hear your good news. Hope you get to relax and celebrate! Yuchitown (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown
  • Great news! Carlstak (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
  • That's fantastic, Doug. Really great. Thanks for sharing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Wonderful news ! Hoping for three pleasant things (and many more !). Rsk6400 (talk) 06:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
So good to hear! Make the best of life. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
  • That's the only news that has brought a glow to my heart today. Forget about setting your sights on catching the outcome of the McDonald vs Bidet rope-the-dope battle on Nov 4, 24, far too shortsighted. Think of the long term, and do us all a favour by hanging in here at least till Nov.4 2028. Best Nishidani (talk) 08:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Great news, Doug! I am really glad to hear this. Best wishes for you. God bless! Ekdalian (talk) 08:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Doug, I am thrilled by this news. Know you are continuously on my mind. Here's to the wholeness that I hope takes root and blossoms in you, my friend. --ARoseWolf 14:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Wonderful! Dronebogus (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
  • That's cheered me up enormously. And on International Women's Day, big thanks too, to your wife, who I'm sure is the biggest element in your progress. And don't forget the NHS! (but one thing you can safely ignore, and should, is the US presidential election) --NSH001 (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Nice news, Doug! - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Great news. Congratulations Doug. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Wonderful news! Ravensfire (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Congratulations!! Fionaussie (talk) 01:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Excellent! Scorpions1325 (talk) 05:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  • So glad to hear it, Doug! This modest uprising should demonstrate something of your place in our community. BusterD (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  • This is the news we've been waiting to hear!! You mean so much to this community, Doug. Generalrelative (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  • This is wonderfully good news! Thank you so much for letting us knoiw. NebY (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  • So happy to hear the good news! Thanks for keeping us in the loop. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Very glad to hear this excellent news! Congratulations to you, your family and your medical team! Netherzone (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Congratulations, Doug! I appreciate everything you do, and I'm glad the treatment is working well for you. — Newslinger talk 08:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

does not have ECP yet.

I think it does fall in that area, but I am far from competent in that. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Anonsfd37383321

Anonsfd37383321 sounded like a WP:ROPE and I have reverted the AIV report for now (which in retrospective should have been posted in ANI). Thanks and happy editing. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@The Herald Thanks. Hopefully happy editing, oncologist today. Doug Weller talk 14:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Update:They are at it again. So I am going to ANI now. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Tech News: 2024-11

MediaWiki message delivery 23:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

My sincere thanks to you for your thanks message, dear Sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genuinewikiuser (talkcontribs) 01:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
With all the health challenges and continued commitment to the 'pedia one can't help but be impressed. Keep on with the winning struggle!! Unbroken Chain (talk) 01:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Strange user page creation of someone you've blocked

Hello! See Special:Diff/1213385400, where a user creates the user page of a blocked user for no reason (with absolutely no way that they'd have interacted). Typing style is somewhat similar. Both editing at Timeline of the far future. Could be nothing, but nonetheless strange. Schrödinger's jellyfish  23:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Schrödinger's jellyfish I think I'll wait to see if they respond. Odd, but the edits are so very different. Perhaps they looked at the blocked editor's edits on the Timeline article and then posted the notice. Doug Weller talk 12:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Reply here. Schrödinger's jellyfish  21:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Reasonable I guess. He’s changed the user page post to say Doug Eller did the block.😁 Doug Weller talk 21:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

  • Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
  • Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
  • Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
  • Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
  • Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
  • Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
  • Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
  • Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
  • Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
  • Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
  • Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
  • Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
  • Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
  • Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
  • Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
  • Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
  • Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Tech News: 2024-12

MediaWiki message delivery 17:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit war

Editor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nyxaros is violating 3RR by my count. She's edit-warring on the the Oppenheimer film page. Same editor has been blocked in the past for similar behavior during her tenure. Asking for intervention to give other editors a break to also contribute to said article? Regardless of possible grievances she may or may not have with anon editors, the content in dispute isn't disruptive in nature, so motivation appears to be personal. CC 208.46.64.50 (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Months later, nice change of IP. Colorado is where it's at! Should check your maths, though. ภץאคгöร 20:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

ygm

Hello, Doug Weller. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

GSS💬 19:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Doug Weller. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.JeffSpaceman (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Revdel request

Hey could I trouble you for a revdel on my user talk page? That tedious Stonetoss obsessed troll sock farm continues to be annoying. Simonm223 (talk) 11:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you!Simonm223 (talk) 12:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Tech News: 2024-13

MediaWiki message delivery 18:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

See this (Large scale vandalism)

Hi ! @Doug Weller , Kindly , see this user with different ids i.e @/Andey_murrey and @/Mahishya vandalism the same subjects without checking the sources and starting the edit war with every new id. All his edits are same like this user @/Gaur_Samrat_Muhammad_Gauri and this one also @/Ministerofunderworld. I am not posting this with my id as I don't want to indulge in edit war because he checked by user contributions and start writing random things on other user talkpages. I request to kindly do the checkuser test as I think they both are the same person. 103.81.156.158 (talk) 06:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Grievance Regarding Revocation of Extended Confirmed User Rights

  • I am writing this grievance to express my deep concern and disappointment over your recent decision to revoke my extended confirmed user rights, while revoking you given the following quote "gaming by racing to get 400 with a lot of mostly minor edits" However, i would like to mention here that my minor edit count is only 1.8% [35] of total edits. I edited a total of 131 pages since March-2023. I believe this action was taken without due consideration of my active contributions, dedication, and adherence to the community guidelines throughout my time as an active user since last 12 months.
  • As an active contributor to Wikipedia, I have consistently demonstrated my commitment to the platform by providing valuable content across various articles, engaged in talk page discussions, created articles etcetra.
  • I have always respected and adhered to the policies and guidelines laid out by the Wikipedia community. I have also made a conscious effort to engage with other users on talk pages in a constructive and collaborative manner, resolving disputes and addressing concerns in accordance with the community's best practices.
  • The revocation of my extended confirmed user rights has not only undermined the value of my contributions but has also affected my ability to effectively participate in the Wikipedia community. This decision has left me feeling demotivated and disheartened, as I have always believed in the mission of Wikipedia to provide free, reliable, and accessible information to the world.
  • I kindly request a thorough review of this decision, taking into account my months of dedication & adherence to policies. I believe that reinstating my extended confirmed user rights would not only recognize my efforts but also encourage other users to continue contributing positively to the Wikipedia community.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I hope for a fair and just resolution. Sincerely, BlackOrchidd (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I would take this more seriously if you didn't use AI here and when requesting rollback. Doug Weller talk 16:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
@Doug Weller Well, I copied and pasted the text, and zerogpt.com says that the text was "most likely" human written, with some parts containing ChatGPT in it. The percentage shows that 36.02% may have included parts by the bot, as shown if you copy the text and then paste it. I'm not sure, but it seems somewhat accurate to detect this. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, but if you leave out the first paragraph, it's 91.83%. Not surprising if someone using AI also adds text that they wrote themselves. The rollback request[36] comes out at 73.36 with zerogpt.com, 97% using [37]. Doug Weller talk 17:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Dang. It is hard for me to even estimate how much text was copy and pasted. I never realized how much was done like that. Pretty disappointing if you think about it. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
  • I can see a change in the goal post here, sir Mr @Doug Weller, Earlier, it was "minor edits," now AI. It seems that when i gave stats above for my minor edits, you have switched to AI. By now, It is evidently clear that you have revoked my ECU rights in error.
  • The request above is in my own words and used AI for grammar checks. Kindly point out if the use of AI for grammar checks is prohibited here.
BlackOrchidd (talk) 05:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Well, I, for one, cannot agree with your statement I have consistently demonstrated my commitment to the platform by providing valuable content. I think you haven't; see only User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Plz follow NPOV at article Ram Mandir. Your own talkpage is also telling; for someone with so few edits you've got a disproportiantely large number of warnings. I think that's predictive; I expect you to either be blocked sometime in the future, or to give up on Wikipedia because your pov-pushing will not be tolerated here. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
@BlackOrchidd Why should I believe you only use AI for grammar checks? Show me the initial text and the grammar checker you used. And how about showing me where I mentioned minor edits for a start. Doug Weller talk 09:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
"Minor edits": diff. But, see also the smaal edits: 40%. In class, a smart kid would come up with a lot of arguments , bending the message to it's literal meaning (+1 for the list of problematic behaviours); a wise kid would hear the intend, understand their behaviour is deemed problematic, and step back. Acting smart adds to the overall impression... (and yes, I'm aware of WP:GOODFAITH. Ah, another one to add to the list). Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
@Doug Weller Here you go [38]. I am surprised to know that You dont even remeber why you revoked my ECU rights. I have engaged you on your talk in most civil way to point you a possible error you have made. But you didnt even acknowledge my points, instead you have changed the goal post to AI just to make sure that my ECU rights remains suspended. I dont even know what is the criteria of having a sustained ECU rights in terms of counts of big, small or minor edits (if they really exisits). BY now i am pretty sure going through this I wont be going anywhere untill I involve other admins. BlackOrchidd (talk) 11:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
True. I agree they weren't marked as minor edits, my wording was bad. But this isn't taking us anywhere. If another Admin agrees that you should have ECP restored, fine. I was planning to suggest just 100 standard edits (not testing) but using AI always raises doubts whether the editor using it actually understands what the AI wrote. So I don't know what you would have written in your own words. Your recent accusations of hounding by other editors (not me) aren't encouraging either. Doug Weller talk 11:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I am glad that you accepted your mistake, Thats not bad either. I have a big concern for your health issue too. I welcome your plan of suggesting 100 standard edits. ECU must be given as per set standard criteria established over a very long consneus discussion involving a spectrum of editors. The current various rights granting criteria are not in a good shape (in my personal opinion).
  • Well regarding hounding, its a long sad story. There are gazillions of noting here [39] [40] [41] and comments in various talk pages of especially India related pages. The editing pattern are non-neutral (Politically-Left biased to be precise) and honestly speaking, I didn't like it either. So I tried to balance [42] the articles in terms of neutrality [Talk:Narendra Modi#Covid management under Modi - Successful].
  • India is a big consumer of wikipedia with its 1.5 Billion population. And, neither the majority Indian population like the wiki pages to be biased.
  • Routinely Jimbo Wales made donation appeals for wikipedia. As a popular X user i have pretty good sense that Indian users didnt like wikipedia being biased. And intermitently there are trends to boycott donations to wikipedia. As a dedicated wiki user and editor i really dont like that any financial prospect of wikipedia should be affected in any way as it is a very noble project.
  • Still lot to write, but i really have other works. See you again. And sorry for the grammers BlackOrchidd (talk) 12:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
    @Doug Weller BlackOrchidd (talk) 12:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
    @BlackOrchidd Thanks very much. Would you note on your talk page please that you accept my plan of suggesting 100 standard edits .Appreciated. Please take care in the India-Pakistan-Afghanistan area, I'd suggest that if you get reverted to discuss on the talk page, which I see you've done. It's a very sensitive area. Doug Weller talk 12:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the heads up. I would certainly do. Try giving definition of "standard edits"
    • Curious whether I am getting my ECU rights back ?
    BlackOrchidd (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
    I’m thinking of adding sourced text, adding sources to text, if possible identifying bad sources. WP:RSNP is a great resource or search WP:RSN. It’s good to learn how to use RSN, The WP:HELPDESK is a great place to get advice or the Teahouse. Let me know of you need other sources of advice. And don’t forget accept good faith. I know you felt hounded by more experienced editors but look at it as the content disagreements I saw. There’s also WP:DRN. When you’ve got about 100 edits let me know. This will definitely make you a better editor than vandal fighting. By the way I don’t think Ultraviolet has finished development. Always try to stay calm and take the high road. Doug Weller talk 19:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
  • @Doug Weller I think there is a misunderstanding here. As i already quoted above and quoting here again "ECU must be given as per set standard criteria established over a very long consensus discussion involving a spectrum of editors. ". Your suggestion of me having 100 edits despite having 12+ months old account and 500+ edits in order to reinstate the revoked ECU rights gives me a sense of single me out.
  • And my second point, as I have already asked above and you didn't responded on it "Curious whether I am getting my ECU rights back ?" Plz reply on this before I escalate. Thanks.
BlackOrchidd (talk) 05:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
See WP:AN#I'd appreciate a review of my decision to remove extended confirmed user rights from an editor. Doug Weller talk 07:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Here's some data for interest. Not sure whether it helps in this case. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland Malware blocked. Doug Weller talk 10:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Interesting. I get no malware, plenty of adverts blocked. Not great news for pasteboard if correct. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
I put the .png in my Google Drive. If that gets flagged that would be very interesting. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For reinstating ECU rights. Cheers! BlackOrchidd (talk) 04:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Pinxton Castle Lidar.png

Thanks for uploading File:Pinxton Castle Lidar.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I know bots don't get replies, but it " Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0" . Doug Weller talk 16:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2024

Recent edits

I just want to say good job at the Geopolymer article with these edits [43], [44]. Regards, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll look more tomorrow. Doug Weller talk 15:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Need help.

Hey, I noticed that you're an admin. I need help, a user is continuously editing and deleting the citation in a biography page of a person, which is a clear case of vandalism. I can't give warning cuz Im new here. So, how should I report this issue, I'm new here. Please, can you guide me? TheDarkKnight433 (talk) 08:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@TheDarkKnight433 You need to go to WP:BLPN to complain. Doug Weller talk 08:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. TheDarkKnight433 (talk) 08:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

YOU JUST RUINED MY KEYBOARD!!!

because I've just laughed a mouthful of crumbs all over it. In 100 years, I doubt that anyone has ever used the phrase "vanilla Nazi" before.

We need a Barnstar of Keyboard Ruining award.

Feel free to just revert this. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman Just pleased to make someone happy! Doug Weller talk 17:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Holiday Greetings

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, people's rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. Check out Editor Clovermosses invitation above. I'm sure you will find many friends there. Stop by for a chat. ―Buster7 

HAPPY HOLIDAYS 2023

New legal article

I have finished enough of Consciousness of guilt (legal) to go public with it. Further development will be appreciated. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Valjean: Whatever you feel guilty about it's OK. It can't be that bad. Can it? I am not going to ask you to confess your Wikipedia-sins. At least not here. Have you recently violated policies and guidelines? Let me see if I can find an editor-priest. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
LMFAO! Luv it! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Good one, Steve! LOL. ButlerBlog (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Valjean, I suggest you fess up, before Javert gets wind of this. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Ha! I don't have to worry about him anymore. His conflicted conscience drove him to suicide in the Seine. The "good" cop died in the water and the criminal went to heaven. What a twist of karma! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Looks great. Excuse me please if I don't have time for this. Between real life, normal watchlist, Admin/CU/OS and trying to write User:Doug Weller/Pinxton Castle for which I have sources and images... Ah, anyone here good at adding images? I'm rubbish. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 09:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Doug, do you need help uploading the images, or putting them onto the page once they have been uploaded? I'm middling at the former, but happy to help with the latter. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
@Tryptofish I could certainly use your help with the latter once I get time to flesh out the article. Wasted a lot of time today over someone messing with an article. I’ve uploaded one and have written to the local parish council hoping to get permission to use theirs. Failing that I migrant to take my own photos. Doug Weller talk 19:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Sounds good. Just let me know when you have them uploaded (and of course which files they are), and I'll be happy to to help. By the way, KJP1 is very good at articles on that sort of topic. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) FWIW WikiMaps turns up the following Geograph images from the site:
Odysseus1479 21:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't know the site, but it sounds/looks a little like this, Hen Gwrt Moated Site. If I can help at all, just ping. KJP1 (talk) 04:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Doug Weller. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Harvici (talk) 09:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

You've got another email

Hello, Doug Weller. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Harvici (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Doug Weller. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)