User talk:Yunshui/Archive 53

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 → Archive 60

Unblock of user Redom115

I am nonplussed that you would allow the above-mentioned WP editor to be quickly unblocked after two previous blocks (and repeated warnings). I am multilingual and work on other language WPs. Their admins not only intervene regularly in rowdy behavior, they often won't allow longtime (registered) editors to pass changes without admin approval. They do not abide edit-warring. English WP is different: it is rather soft on vandalism and it quickly forgives rude behavior by anonymous editors. I've even seen non-native speakers of English determine English nomenclature and grammar, and it is difficult to revert them without being called a xenophobe or a racist (which this editor also did). WP-EN admins who permit such editors to continue petty POV edits and edit-warring help make WP-EN the unmanageable mess that it is. Mason.Jones (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Other language Wikipedia's have varying rulesets and community norms - some are stricter than en-wiki, some less so; some are stricter in some areas but not in others. However the approach taken by other iterations of Wikipedia are not usually relevant here - we have our own rules, processes and expectations of editors, and as with any version of Wikipedia, your milage may vary depending on the individual administrator. To the best of my knowledge, I've never been regarded as a particularly lenient admin; I decline more unblock appeals than probably anybody except Yamla, and the number of editors I've blocked here is well into four figures. I do, however, try to give people another chance if they meet the criteria for unblocking, and that's what I did in this instance (with the addition of an editing restriction to help prevent further disruption).
Having looked over Redom115's edits for the last couple of days I will admit that I'm starting to wonder about the wisdom of the unblock, but given that he has yet to violate the 1RR restriction or repeat the behaviour that led to his block, he should be allowed to continue to edit. Several administrators, myself included, now have him on their radar, and he's on a short leash - any further infractions are very likely to lead to a very permanent reinstatement of the block. Yunshui 雲水 08:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I very much appreciate your reply but disagree with your assessment. Of all the major-language Wikipedias (I can't speak for Finnish or Icelandic), English Wikipedia is by far the most indulgent or "libertarian" toward contributors and their edits. It could be the fact that English-speakers all live in nations of immigrants, speak the international language, and are more forgiving about most matters than, say, Germans and French. I just know that WP-EN admins are typically loath to take action that WP-DE and WP-FR admins would take without hesitation. The proof is that toxic editors like Redom115 are allowed to come back so quickly and continue to hijack several WP articles and discussions. "Blocked indefinitely" generally doesn't mean "blocked for 2 days with a slap on the wrist." Mason.Jones (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, you would probably know better than me; I rarely edit anywhere except en-wiki. Still, it doesn't change the fact that the rules are different here than elsewhere (not a value judgement, simply an observation), and those of us with the tools do our best to work within those rules. You are welcome to disagree with our interpretation of them, and if you can point to a policy violation in my unblock of Redom115 I'll happily review the decision again. Yunshui 雲水 22:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello! I need help

Good day. There is an account that has bad words on his user. Tell me soon or i'll have to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arepticous (talk • contribs) 05:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Difficult to offer you an opinion when I'm not quite sure who or what you're talking about... Wikipedia has no requirement that people avoid using bad language, so unless the language is directed at another user or real-life person (which would constitute a personal attack), there's no reason that they can't swear on their userpages. If you let me know that actual page you mean, I can offer you a more informed response. Yunshui 雲水 07:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Zeitgeist (film series)

Thanks for protecting that article. I just created (and closed) an SPI regarding the sock puppetry that's been going on there. You can view it here if you want to. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

A more obvious case of sockage would be difficult to conceive of. Thanks for creating the SPI - nice to have all the info in one place. CU won't be any use here (it's clear that they are using multiple IPs, either dynamics or proxies) so I haven't bothered looking for any other accounts - hopefully the page protection will stymie them for the time being. Yunshui 雲水 11:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Blocking VPNs

This may be a stupid question... but why can't we block VPNs preemptively? Obviously there are legit reasons to use them, but the illegit reasons seem to be more common! SmartSE (talk) 12:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

We generally do block most sorts of proxy IP on sight; trouble is they jump around quite a bit, and the ranges can be either huge or tricky to pin down. Personally (and this may come as a surprise) I'm actually in favour of reducing the restrictions we have on proxies; more and more people use them for internet access these days as people wise up to how very non-private our internet browsing has become. But that's me, not the policy! Yunshui 雲水 12:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Ok that's kind of what I thought but wanted to check. I just get a bit frustrated by the cat and mouse game with UPE socks and wondered whether there was any way to preempt them. And yeah I was in Turkey last week so sadly the only way to access is through VPNs. A tricky one to balance. SmartSE (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The Winslow Boy

Hello Yunshui,

I was extremely disappointed to see that you'd deleted my addition to the page on The Winslow Boy regarding its forthcoming production at the Chichester Festival Theatre.

Please can you explain why you think something staged by one of the UK's foremost regional theatres - which itself has a Wikipedia entry - isn't, in your words, "a notable production", especially as the play hasn't been produced for many years?

To have it staged by the Chichester Festival Theatre is a significant recognition of the play's status.

Kind regards,

Cybersub (talk) 05:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it read very much like a "come and see our show!", the sort of edit that plagues any article about a reasonably well-known play. It's not entirely true to say that the play hasn't been performed for many years; a quick Google search found me examples of productions in 2012, 2013, 2014 and last year (and that's discounting am-dram performances in church halls, of which I'm sure there will have been a few in the last decade). Aside from the theatre's own sales website, where is the coverage in independent sources that calls this a "revival" of the play? I'm afraid at face value your edit looks and awful lot like someone involved with the theatre or production company trying to use Wikipedia to promote their work; if it isn't, then I apologise, but I'd still expect to see at least a couple of independent sources which talk about the importance of this particular production before I'd be happy seeing a whole subsection dedicated to it. Yunshui 雲水 07:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Please be assured that I have no connection whatsoever with the theatre or the production company, and there was no intention to promote the production any more than, say, the presence of the Wikipedia article about Blade Runner 2049 promotes that upcoming film. It was simply a line acknowledging that it is going to happen. Bearing in mind the length of time before the production will be staged, separate acknowledgement of its status as a revival would be non-existent. I'm sorry if I inadvertently broke Wikipedia policy. The information was presented in good faith, but I can understand why you feel it shouldn't be included. Cybersub (talk) 01:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Removing edit summaries?

Hey, sorry to drag you into this, but I don't think Bish, Drmies, SpacemanShiff et al. read Japanese, and Alex Shih is "involved" (especially in that some of the more virulent attacks were against him). Any chance you could remove all of this gibberish? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm shivering in my boots at the empty threats of violence against me and my mother. But seriously, removing these might be a good idea. And since you seem to be on a Wikibreak I'll ping User:Alex Shih and User:Drmies. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
These too. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Done. Sorry you have to deal with this idiot, Hijiri. Drmies (talk) 11:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@Drmies: Thank you! But, uh ... any chance you could get these other ones as well? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Hadn't had coffee yet. Was there an SPI? Is one of the smart ones, like Ponyo, xaosflux, Zzuuzz, informed? Drmies (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Oh you flatterer. I removed two of the 'other' edit summaries, via Google translate - one of which definitely looks threatening, the other more than a little sinister. I'm having trouble translating the other summaries into policy-compliant deletions, but I'm open to other views. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@Drmies: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richeagleeye#15 September 2017. I assumed you had seen it, as you commented in the other one after they were merged. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Don't expect much of my memory, Hijri. Sorry, and thanks for the link. My head is overflowing with SPI and socks these days. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@Drmies: No idea how one of them escaped the notice of you and User:Callanecc, but apparently, no matter where I hide my family, General Zodd here WILL FIND THEM! ;) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@Zzuuzz: Thank you! Yeah, the more recent ones are all threats to "hunt down my family's/mother's address" and "kill me". The earlier ones -- the 115.144.218.21 ones -- are defamatory, out-of-context quotes from my ja.wiki block log and/or user talk page. Ironically, the reason I have such an apparently "checkered" history on ja.wiki is that my first edits to ja.wiki under this username (and the only reason I edited there at all before 2016) were to appease an anti-Korean Japanese ultranationalist who refused to communicate with me in English and took our dispute to ja.wiki, where an admin misunderstood my behaviour as "harassment" when it was actually the other way around. (I say "ironically" because in the past four years I've had Japanese nationalists accuse me of being Korean, Korean nationalists accuse me of being Japanese, and most recently Korean nationalists accuse me of being Chinese. The current one is in the latter group, but is mysteriously defending the activities of the first group.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Such lovely folk one encounters on Wikipedia... Thank you to the genuinely nice ones who helped out. Not much left for me to do here, except to clear up a small misunderstanding: while I'm flattered that you'd assume I spoke Japanese, I really don't - beyond a few conversational phrases and a lot of highly specific martial arts terminology, I'm about as fluent in Japanese as my cat. Yunshui 雲水 08:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Shit, really!? I recall you seemed to be reading Japanese sources (and ja.wiki) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satō Tadanobu, and have thought you read Japanese ever since... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
In one of my old jobs I used to have access to some pretty good Japanese translation software, but these days I'm reliant on my own poor little brain, sadly. Yunshui 雲水 08:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

More trouble with user Redom115

User talk:Redom115#September 8th 2017

Our old friend, previously blocked and reinstated, continues to edit-war in the article "United States." This time he is making the same repeated reversions, but in a different sentence to avoid a formal "Undo." This is his way of circumventing his one-revert limit from Wikipedia. I think it might be time to at least review his edits, as he is continuing his bad-faith behavior. Thank you for your patience. Mason.Jones (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Redom115 .--Moxy (talk) 04:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Mason, I should have listened to you the first time. This user has had more than enough rope and has chosen to string themselves up with it every time; I see virtually no likelihood of them being allowed to edit again. Yunshui 雲水 08:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply, Yunshui. Mason.Jones (talk) 20:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

CGCN Group

Hi, Yunshui! Thanks again for your recent edits to CGCN Group and sorry to be bothering you again. I'm wondering if you can take a look at two other edit requests at CGCN Group Talk to improve the History section and add a Partners section? (You can also see my full draft proposal in my user space, if you'd prefer to just peek at the whole thing). I have posted messages to seek review and comment from others, including WikiProjects and other individual editors who have made substantial edits in the past, but I'm not getting any response. Any additional assistance or input from you would be appreciated. Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

:) BigSugarDaddy 06:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Edith Wharton and the missing Pulitzer Prize

Thanks for the talk page suggestion. I happened on the page because a fairly new editor is rapidly removing mentions of Pulitzer Prize wins from author pages, calling it a violation of WP:NPOV. I reverted ~ 16 of these changes and left a message on the user's talk page, as well as a message on the tp of Alice Walker where the issue was slightly different: the Alice Walker article starts with a two sentence intro (not really a lede)

Alice Malsenior Walker (born February 9, 1944) is an American novelist, short story writer, poet, and activist. She wrote the critically acclaimed novel The Color Purple (1982) for which she won the National Book Award and the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction.[2][a][3] She also wrote the novels Meridian (1976) and The Third Life of Grange Copeland (1970), among other works.

from which critically acclaimed was removed. My take on using the "critically acclaimed" phrase in this case is justified since it is immediately followed by mention of winning the National Book Award and the Pulitzer Prize for The Color Purple. That seems to me to be a very concrete justification of "critically acclaimed novel", neither POV pushing nor puffery.

I could be wrong in my understanding and in my approach to what I consider to be a problem with mass removal of mention of the Pulitzer Prize in ledes. Could you give me feedback? My reverts of edits made by Fronticla are the only edits I contributed here on September 14, 2017. Neonorange (Phil) 16:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, you're kinda asking the wrong guy here - while I'll agree that Fronticia seems to have a pretty one-track mind when it comes to article cleanup, and a very hardline take on NPOV, I can't honestly say I don't sympathise with their approach. Possibly a side effect of spending much of my time deleting promotional crap and blocking folk whose only interest here is hawking their wares, but I too find the term "award-winning" a bit puffy, even when (as in these cases) it's clearly true. What I do take issue with is the removal of pertinent information: it's fine to remove the phrase "Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist", but only if you ensure that the fact they won a Pulitzer is still properly represented in the article, with appropriate weight. So I'm not really planting my flag in either camp here; Fronticia needs to perhaps slow down a bit and look at rephrasing such statements rather than outright deleting them, but on the whole I can't say what they are doing is wrong. I'll potter over to their talkpage in a minute and leave them a note to that effect.
Equally, I wouldn't say that you are wrong either; restoring valid information about awards is totally correct. It comes down to the two of you having differing interpretations of NPOV; my personal take is perhaps slightly closer to Fronticia's end of the spectrum but that isn't to say I can't appreciate your side of the argument too. What I would suggest is that you perhaps hold of on continuing to revert them, and try and have a conversation instead; the two of you probably have more in common than you realise. You're both working to protect the encyclopedia, you just have different (and equally valid) ideas about how that should be done. Yunshui 雲水 19:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate your even-handed approach—in two meanings of the phrase. I also believe "award-winning" is puffery because the phrase is not concrete and could indicate many different levels of awards without being incorrect. It's either unwitting or deliberate use of a promotional style—if the awards are very significant, then there's no reason not to use the specific award names (the phrase "award-winning" immediately followed by the names might be seen as a valid style if there are numerous awards that include the National Book Award, the Pulitzer Prize, and others in the top tier.) But the main point is that judgement is required. The editor in question is not using judgement, has an inadequate grasp of the meaning of NPOV, and is leaving a trail of degraded articles. For example, in an edit to John Isaacs, removing "early" from the opening sentence "...was an early African-American professional basketball player." and leaving the edit summary "(informal/pov)". I can try to discuss this with the editor, but the problem is quite broad, and not just a difference in sensitivity to puffery. (I am quite sensitive to promotionalism—I worked in U.S. television news at the network level for fifteen years (we often joked about the cliché-ridden promotional nature of local TV news.) Suggestions welcome. — Neonorange (Phil) 06:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I see Fronticla's back this morning. I'll keep an eye out for their contribs taking a turn for the worse; hopefully we'll see some talkpage communication rather than more of the same... (I've always been an optimist...) Yunshui 雲水 07:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Possible socks of a user you recently blocked

I noticed that you recently blocked Antichrist is better than Mythical Jesus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I opened an SPI case a few days ago after noticing a number of similarly-named users, including that one, which were registered in a short span of time. You might want to take a look there and see about the others. dalahäst (let's talk!) 04:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Good call. I've blocked the lot, and found another account they'd squirreled away for later. Thanks for doing the legwork. Yunshui 雲水 07:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Know-how-newbie IPs

Hey, I've got a question. How should we deal with Know-how-newbie IPs, i.e. IPs who seem skilled enough and their history shows they're just new to the project. I know that they might be using a dynamic IP changing every time they get connected but are they usually counted as puppets or anything else? Thank you. --Mhhossein talk 14:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Three simple letters: AGF. You could also consider WP:HUMAN as well. If they rock up and straight away head into an ongoing dispute, edit war or deletion discussion, you may see some raised eyebrows. Generally, though, they're just folks who have either done the recommended reading before starting, or who've just been given a shiny new IP by their ISP. Or they forgot to log in. Either way, probably not something to worry about. Yunshui 雲水 14:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Your concerns are a recognised problem for newbies. Yunshui 雲水 14:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanations. --Mhhossein talk 18:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
By the way, I'm not concerned, just asking question. Thanks again. --Mhhossein talk 19:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Just wanted an excuse to link to my essay, if I'm honest Yunshui 雲水 19:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
That was certainly interesting and informative, I ought to thank you for that. --Mhhossein talk 02:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

A hidden essay

In last few days, some ideas came to my mind. They are about spotting paid editors. But I do not want to spill the beans, or give them new idea, so is there any way to have this essay published for a limited/trusted editors?

If not, would it be okay if I work on this essay offline, then see which sysop is online, and publish the essay after contacting him, so that he can delete it. This way, the essay will remain visible to sysops. Kindly let me know what you think. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

There's no way to limit who can view a page on Wikipedia, only who can edit it, so if you publish anything on-wiki it will immediately be visible to anyone who can find it. Your idea about an instant deletion would work, but relies on finding an amenable admin. A better approach, if you don't want to make it widely available, would be to send it as an email to, say, the functionaries mailing list (you can always upload your essay to Google Docs if it's a bit long for an email). Checkusers (who are on the functionaries list) are probably going to be the group most interested in your ideas. Yunshui 雲水 07:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@Usernamekiran: There are plenty of editors who discuss paid editing via email (no CUs, many not admins either). I'd be happy to send it to them and share feedback. SmartSE (talk) 08:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
There you go, a nice neat solution. Thanks for volunteering, SmartSE! Yunshui 雲水 08:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the idea Yunshui. And as you said, SmartSE's solution is very feasible. It is very much appreciated Smartse. Actually, it is better than essay. In email, I can be precise, and present my thoughts/opinions point-to-point. I will start working on it soon, and I will send you an email when done. To both of you, thanks again! See you guys around. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
@Usernamekiran: Ok great. If you haven't already started, can I suggest you review some of the current threads at WP:COIN and also look at what https://tools.wmflabs.org/nppbrowser/ can help you find. SmartSE (talk) 09:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
@Smartse: Hi. I have sent the email which we discussed a few days ago. But it is not "perfect", and might contain confusing wording, as I wrote it hastily. Kindly let me know if you received it. Also, kindly let me know after reading it. Do you think I should forward a copy to Mortuna Imperatrix Fundi?
@Yunshui: Would you be interested in a copy?
—usernamekiran(talk) 19:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Please do so, usernamekiran :) and thanks for the ping. — fortunavelut luna 04:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Question about vandalism blocking

I saw you recently blocked an account for vandalism on the Postmodernism page @Yunshui:. Thanks for that! A question -- while this clearly seems to be vandalism, I am teaching a course now and have a number of my students editing Wikipedia, so I want to explain to them how this was found and done so quickly. Can you help me better understand how these things get identified and stopped so quickly, or at least in this case? Thank you! FULBERT (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi FULBERT. Wikipedia has a fairly wide variety of anti-vandal tools. One you may have seen in action is ClueBot - this is a scripted bot that patrols changes to pages across all articles, and quickly flags and reverts any changes which trip its filters. If you type "Wikipedia is gay lol" in an article*, chances are good that ClueBot will be there within a minute to change it back and tell you off. Some vandalism doesn't even make it that far - we have a whole bunch of edit filters which pick up and prevent certain edits from ever making it to the live page. There are also ways we can lock pages to prevent certain groups of editors from making any changes; a common example is semi-protection, which prevents very new users and unregistered users from editing a page.
In the case of the Postmodernism article, none of that happened. The vandalism was picked up by a real-life human-being editor, User:Simplexity22 (who is super-welcome to explain exactly how they found it if they wish, I'm just going to guess). Simplexity22 is one of those useful editors who patrols the feed of recent changes (you can access this yourself from the "Interaction" menu on the left), or perhaps he happens to have the Postmodernism article watchlisted; either way, he spotted that an inappropriate change had been made, changed it back, and left a warning. When the other user continued to add vandalism, Simplexity22 reported it to the Administrators' board for vandalism, where I picked up the report. On checking the user's edits and seeing that they were doing nothing except vandalising, I blocked their account indefinitely, as well as preventing anyone on the underlying IP address from creating a new account.
If you'd like to read up on Wikipedia's anti-vandalism processes, I recommend checking out the Counter-vandalism unit, which has lots of guidance and explanatory materials for users looking to help out in stopping vandalism. As well as bots and filters, there are also editor tools like igloo and Huggle, created by volunteers, which make reverting and warning much easier. Wikipedia is (if I say so myself!) pretty good at resisting outright vandalism these days; content disputes are problematic still, but if you stick a swear word in an article, it won't be there for long. Yunshui 雲水 19:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
*please don't try this
P.S. V. important: if you have students editing Wikipedia, please make sure you get in touch with the Education Program before they get into trouble and someone blocks your whole college. It happens more than you'd think. We love having students edit, but unless their assignment is very well-thought through (which we can help with) it often ends in disaster. Should probably have said that first... Yunshui 雲水 19:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC) Nevermind, you've got User:Tokyogirl79 as your wiki expert - you'll have no trouble, she's exceptionally helpful, knows tons and is one of the best editors we've got. I am no longer worried! Yunshui 雲水 19:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
This is so very helpful, Yunshui‬ (talk · contribs). I knew there were ways this happens, though I have not been able to see all this clearly or in as much detail as you stated it. This is so very helpful and appreciated. I will use this in my instruction as it is so clear (and the links you shared are helpful, too!). I agree with you, Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk · contribs) is fantastic! Thanks again! FULBERT (talk) 06:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Cloudwater, thank you for your comments at my RfA. Your support is much appreciated! ansh666 22:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Always happy to see a new mop-wrangler join the ranks. Welcome aboard - if I can be of any help, just ask. Yunshui 雲水 07:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Reply to your talk to user Devonte

Hi. Thank you for replying for my request for help. You havce made an assumption that I am being paid for the creation of a wikipedia page for Irko. This is not the case. It is probono work. So again, the request is that I am seeking assistance with formatting the wikipedia page to the a convention wiki layout. If you have no desire to offer guidance, there is no need to reply to this dialogue.

Thank you.

Devonté

The sad thing is, when this message was sent a couple of days ago, I probably could have helped knock the article into shape. Unfortunately, I didn't see it until this morning, by which time you'd added a load of completely inappropriate promotional bumf and been blocked for it. Pro-bono or not, you're clearly too involved with the subject to write neutrally, and should not be the person to create this article. Yunshui 雲水 07:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).

Administrator changes

added Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem
removed Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
  • A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Cathry

Please check her talk page again. I can quite assure you I'm not her (the extended ban reason) and false claims (lies) were made about her in the original ban decision too. I'm the one who created the Talk section and Jytdog/Zefr are the ones continually avoiding 3RR by playing tag team, making changes without discussion. Not to mention Zefr intentionally provoking responses with rude comments in his deletes without explanation. He also has the audacity to blame others for not using Talk pages, yet continually ignores talk pages himself. Multiple users have observed that, over a range of topics (clearly not involving Cathry or I). There is zero NPOV maintained on EGCG or RA pages. I'm interested in it from a research perspective only, as the condition affects family. It's depressing to see evidence on EGCG's effectiveness (17+ years of lab work, plenty of NIH funding, international reviews, etc) buried and the lack of human clinical trials. American College of Rheumatology have covered it in their journal. If there's any chance it works as well in trials as all other evidence suggests its likely to, then it'll save enormous human misery. This of course means other patent holders will be on an aggressive campaign against it, since it's naturally occurring and likely can't be patented, so should be cheap. Anyway, please take another look at Cathry. EGCG isn't even her thing (check the history and you'll find I started it), but she's been done an injustice and for the sake of Wikipedia too, I'm speaking up. There's a serious issue of a couple of admins really NOT displaying competence and damaging both content and damaging relations with (relatively) new/infrequent users. p.s. Do I even write remotely like a Russian/Ukrainian? 120.17.83.90 (talk) 02:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

p.s. If you can't tell, I'm Australian and we're far more sweary for a start. 120.17.83.90 (talk) 02:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Cathry has been engaged in slow edit warring against consensus on a number of articles; a one week block is actually pretty lenient. I don't agree with the extension for block evasion (I'm 99% sure you and she are different users) but your sudden entrance as her white knight has done nothing but exacerbate the situation. My decline of the unblock appeal was based on the fact that it was a direct repost of the previous one, with the addition of the denial of block evasion; since the meat of the appeal had already been addressed and turned down, I had no choice but to decline. Yunshui 雲水 07:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, I can only go by the EGCG and RA pages. Personally , I think other admins are acting in collusions as a power block, which is why I just keep calling them 'cabal'. Admins follow each other to auto-confirn each other. Increases their perceived acceptance and chance for promotion, or to sell their services. 120.17.218.156 (talk) 13:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I didn't see her EW at all on those last pages ( the ones she was ultimately reported for). She undid a deletion that had been made by an admin, because it wasn't explained, that was her only 'crime'. She was accused of breaching 3RR there, which simply DID NOT HAPPEN, even though everyone said it did and that was the basis of her block. There were lots of claims made, but I don't see the evidence, or it relates LONG ago, which she was already 48 hour blocked for and is being reblocked. If you're 99% sure, then don't you feel that should be said on her blocking record? Because you know the false sockpuppet claim will be used as another 'past crime', unfairly, when that cabal ultimately succeeds in blocking her. p.s. Possibly best not maybe not use "white knight" as description, as it's often read as being a gender loaded term, like some Don Quixote figure. Could presumptively imply that gender was involved in my decision to defend, rather than her content/actions. A presumption that wouldn't come up if she were male and could therefore be interpreted or misread as discriminatory. 120.17.218.156 (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Log something on WP:RESTRICT?

Hey, happy October! @Beeblebrox: is apparently out, and you're the only admin I've been in touch with lately who wasn't "involved", so...

It recently came to my attention that this was never logged at WP:RESTRICT. Given how difficult it is to get proper enforcement of IBANs, I kinda feel like not having them properly logged where anyone can easily check them does more harm than good, and as it stands the only place it is logged is the ANI archive beneath an unfortunate heading and with all the context-settint discussion collapsed.

I get the feeling that if it appeared more prominently on a "live" page rather than an archive, with the name of the thread hidden in the code (as the discussion is hidden behind collapse templates), I could perhaps avoid having to deal with occasional misunderstandings like the one to which this was responding.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Good point; I've logged it. Yunshui 雲水 07:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent block

I see that you recently blocked Benchester2017. I'm not disagreeing with the block, they have been inadvertently violating the conflict of interest guideline, but they've been made aware of it, by me with the last hour.

As I see you are an OTRS agent:

ticket:2017100910008505

Can we talk about next steps? My ideal solution (which arguably is an unfair request) is that you take over the OTRS ticket. That's sort of a joke, but I have lots of open tickets, and would love to resolve this one quickly.

Short of that, I'll start by mentioning I haven't looked at any of the editing history; I only know what they told me an email which I obviously can't share in this public place, but it is possible that we could unblock them upon a promise that they will follow the conflict of interest guidelines and only edit on the talk page to request the changes be made.

Is my personal opinion that requesting a page move, which is not technically filing a COI request, is also permissible but I haven't discussed this with anyone so I'd be interested in your thoughts on that matter. I don't know whether the request move trigger the block or whether it was something else.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to pick up the ticket from you. There are two issues here; the name of the article and the use of the account. I'm inclined to think a move would be fairly uncontroversial, given the sources; the "and Spa" part of the title seems to be under-represented and per WP:COMMONNAME I don't see there's likely to be much objection to moving the page.
The account is more problematic; it would appear (based on the ticket you've linked) to have more than one user. I don't see much scope for unblocking based on that, but I guess I could relax the account creation limitation and allow them to set up a new account for themselves. Yunshui 雲水 15:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much for offering to take it. The backlog hit 240 and I made the "mistake" of responding to a large number of tickets, some of which I hoped would be a single response but several have written back so I'm a bit underwater. Can you change the owner to yourself or do I need to change it to you?
As you can see, I did comment on the shared use issue but I think your suggestion that they create a new account is the best option.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
No problem. I've now commandeered the OTRS ticket and replied to the user; we'll see what they want to do. Thanks for the information. Yunshui 雲水 15:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to discuss the soon to built, Interaction Timeline

Hi Checkusers and Checkuser clerks,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input about building the Interaction Timeline feature.

We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you use similar tools such as the Editor Interaction Analyser and User compare report during sockpuppet investigations.

You can leave comments on the on wiki discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for the unblock! —Ecstatic Electrical, 14:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks :)

No duty is more urgent than that of returning gratitude. Thanks Yunshui. --Inside the Valley (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Seems to be my day for unblocking folk (or, let's be accurate, forgetting about folk that I said I would unblock and then getting pinged by them...). Noses to be kept clean in future, etc. but welcome back to editing. Yunshui 雲水 15:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Zack212345

Hi Yunshui. You might want to consider removing Zack212345's user talk page access if they remove the declined unblock requests one more time. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I've tried one last time with a post explaining how this type of thing works. If they remove the decined unblock requests again, then I don't see any other option than to remove their user talk page access. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Your replies there were well-explained, cordial and thorough. Thank you for taking the time to lend this editor a hand. Whether they take it or not is up to them, but at the time of writing they do seem to have taken your comments on board, which is promising. Yunshui 雲水 07:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Yunshui. 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.

~ Rob13Talk 18:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CMCreator900

All accounts have been blocked but the case hasn't been closed. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 01:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

The section on Bhaz26 still hasn't been resolved; I daresay the clerks are waiting to archive it until that issue is sorted out. Personally I'm not seeing the relationship; aside from hoping you are well (which is just polite, lots of people do it) I don't see anything to connect the accounts or to warrant a CU investigation. SPI is hugely backlogged at the moment, so the focus (at least for me when I go there) is on looking at open cases to see if blocks need to be made, and not on the more "housekeeping" elements such as closing and archiving. Yunshui 雲水 07:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:KA$HMIR. Marvellous Spider-Man 05:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Another one, I'm afraid!

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — fortunavelut luna 14:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I was already aware, but appreciate the notification. Yunshui 雲水 14:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.


To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Nice, thank you! Yunshui 雲水 07:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017/Electoral Commission

Just in case you have pings turned off, or the software messed up, I've closed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017/Electoral Commission, and ... (drumroll) ... tag, you're it. Please take a look at that page for a couple of comments I made in the close. Good luck. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, bollocks. That's what you get for volunteering... I was hoping DoRD would pip me at the post. High point of my life indeed. Thank you for the closing advice; once we've recovered from the shock I'm sure we'll seek out some assistance from Mdann52 and TParis (so get ready to check your emails, guys...) Yunshui 雲水 07:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Yunshui:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – North America1000 14:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)



Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Template:Did you know nominations/Call Me by Your Name (film)

Please see note on your DYK review. Yoninah (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. It still currently fails as being too minor an expansion, of course, but at least there is now an opportunity for the nominator to perhaps get it up to the required size. Will happily re-review if they do so. Yunshui 雲水 12:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Need some advice

Hi Yunshui. I need some advice on how to best deal with something I've sort of stumbled into. I was doing some non-free file checking and came across some files being used in EFL Cup. I didn't believe their non-free use was policy compliant so I was bold and removed them. I was subsequently reverted, so I started a discussion about the files at WP:FFD. I don't mind being reverted and have no problem discussing things, but out of curiosity I took a look at the user talk page of the editor who reverted me and noticed User talk:Flix11#WP:NOTBROKEN, again. So, I took a peek at some recent edits made by this editor and noticed that for some reason they are still going around "fixing" redirects with edits like this, this, this, etc. (all made just today).

I realize that WP:NOTBROKEN is one of those guidelines that can be hard to understand because it seems so natural to "fix" links, but this editor has been advised about it as far back as 2012 yet they still seem to be continuing as if it doesn't matter. Anyway, I was going to post two things on their user talk page: one about the FFD discussion I started and one about "fixing" redirects. However, I don't want it to seem as if I'm doing the latter just to try and discourage the editor from participating in the former. So, I am wondering if something needs to be done about the NOTBROKEN stuff and if it does would it be better to post another "please be careful" kind of post or something a little stronger considering the fact that this editor has been told about this multiple times before. -- Marchjuly (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I actually just noticed that this editor had been indefinitely blocked back in 2012 for "fixing redirects" by Amalthea and then subsequently unblocked when they promised not to continue doing such things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 17:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Phew, five years ago, and I can barely recall it. I think the block was indef to get him to talk -- he kept ignoring everyone who tried to make him aware that he's editing against community consensus. Your diffs appear a bit more harmless than then, IMHO (the first one was pointless, the other two aren't really a problem I think, in the context of that edit, but I haven't looked into his recent contributions), but it appears he's just as non-responsive as before.
Since I'm not active anymore I won't really have useful advice to offer, I'm afraid ... :/
Cheers, Amalthea 18:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to provide some clarification Amalthea. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Left the user a note, since this is basically the exact behaviour that led to their last block. Further infractions will see the blockhammer descend. Yunshui 雲水 12:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look at this Yunshui. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Yunshui:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – LinguistunEinsuno 19:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)



Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Saluspopuli

Not a problem! GiantSnowman 13:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for prompt answer

Dear Yunshui, Thank you for prompt answer regarding publication of my sandbox. I am a beginner working on scientific topic and, thus, I am focused on the content. I expect that my text is not optimized. I would be grateful if you could critically analyze this article to meet high standards of Wikipedia. We intend to edit this text in future by appending carefully selected scientific information based on citations from scientific papers and books. The topic is interesting, this is why I must be extremely precise and make careful selection of information. Is it possible to translate automatically this article from English into other languages? (where I can find a guide line on this problem). Fortunately, someone has corrected misprints in French version.

Thank you again,

The best MScoordinator (talk) 15:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad I was able to help, but I do have a couple of concerns. Most pressingly, who is "we"? Wikipedia accounts can be used by one individual and one individual only, so your use of the first person plural (both here and at 331dot's talkpage) is very concerning. I'd also echo the suggestion that you change your username.
Automatic translation into other languages isn't possible, I'm afraid, but there are editors at WP:TRANSLATE who would be happy to help with the gruntwork of doing the translations. Yunshui 雲水 15:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yunshui/Archive_53&oldid=1142674037"