Since 2005

Archive I (Feb-July 2005) • Archive II (1 August 2005 - 8 August 2005) • Archive III (9 August 2005 - 21 August 2005) • Archive IV (21 August 2005 - 26 August 2005) • Archive V (27 August 2005 - 11 September 2005) • Archive VI (12 September 2005 - 14 September 2006) • Archive VII (15 September 2006 - 1 March 2007) • Archive VIII (2 March 2007 - 12 May 2007) • Archive IX (12 May 2007 - 19 October 2007) • Archive X (19 October 2007 - 8 August 2016) • Archive XI (9 August 2016 - 7 May 2017) • Archive XII (10 May 2017 - 25 July 2017) • Archive XIII (25 July 2017 - 20 December 2017)> • Archive XIV (23 December 2017 - 24 May 2018)

Hello. With regards to this thread, is it normal for admins to consider one specific violation at a time (or in this case, a tangent of a specific violation such that even the violation itself went ignored)? Evidently, it seems multiple PA violations, as well as RS, NPOV, FRINGE, and 3RR violations went ignored, while only a tangent of one specific violation was considered. One could say this is comparable to a criminal committing break-in, rape, murder, and robbery, but the criminal is only charged with breaking a plate. For future reference, do admins as a matter of policy consider only one violation (or a tangent of a violation) at a time even if a post contains quite a number of reported violations? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeriousSam11 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, drop the stick. When you notice that absolutely no one agrees with you, that's usually a good moment to re-examine your position. A Train^talk 00:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"No one agrees" being you and the accused. Just to make it clear, are you stating that calling me a "genocide denier" (for civilly correcting incorrect fringe-theory information), a "lunatic" (in response to being proven wrong by hard factual data), among other personal attacks is okay? Breaking other rules, including 3RR where there's no subjectiveness, is okay? Are you saying that breaking 5 different rules repeatedly is acceptable? I'd appreciate straight-forward answers to these questions, because it appears that sometimes rules are enforced and sometimes they're not. What I'm understanding from you is that I can call someone a lunatic for no reason, and you would be fine with that.

I'd just like to understand what the policy is, as it appears to be subjective, and ignoring all violations and focusing on a specific tangent of one (and still misinterpreting it) is particularly disingenuous. I'd imagine that even if an admin does not enforce the rules, they would still be able to explain them. SeriousSam11 (talk) 07:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SeriousSam11, here's a working link to the archived ANI discussion. I strongly suggest that you read it again. Several experienced users (ie, not just me and "the accused" — there's a term you stop using if you want to be taken seriously) chimed in. Not a single one of them found any merit in your accusations. Several of them suggested to you that you stop digging yourself deeper.

Bullet points for maximum clarity:

• None of the experienced uninvolved editors at ANI (including but not limited to @John from Idegon, Tarage, and NinjaRobotPirate:) thought that your accusations of racism had any merit. All of them suggested that you drop the stick and walk away.
• You have repeatedly made a claim that TTAAC has broken 3RR without supplying diffs to that effect.
• You brought a content dispute to ANI. That is not what ANI is for. (That 'is' what Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is for, btw.)
• I did you a favour by closing your ANI report before it led to your block for disruption. If you continue tilting at this particular windmill, casting aspersions at me and others, then I will bring us back to the previous course.

Please take a time out and return to Talk:Halabja chemical attack with an open mind, and re-consider your position in light of the policies that other editors are citing. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and if you can't meaningfully collaborate with users who don't hold the same opinions as you, then you will have a very difficult, frustrating time here.

Thanks for your energy and enthusiasm, but you really need to redirect it in a direction that isn't wasting other volunteers' time. A Train^talk 09:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me go one step further. Drop it or I'll go back to ANI and ask for a topic ban. --Tarage (talk) 09:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing. I have been collaborating well. Aside from me is a user who responds to factual data and evidence in response to unreliable sourcing and conjecture, with 1) personal attacks, 2) RS/NPOV/FRINGE/OR violations, and 3) edit warring (I did supply the diff where the user started edit warring on the thread, unless you're asking for something else entirely) that has proven to be less than ideal.

This focus on racism is misleading. The user was making personal attacks, whether or not you consider any racist undertones. And assuming someone's nationality/ethnicity in conjunction with an insult is almost always regarded as having racial undertones. Why would the user automatically assume I am Iraqi (then followed by an insult)? Again, the racist undertones are just a tangent to things such as "genocide denier" and "lunatic" among other things, which are insults and which still seem to go ignored. If a user responds to enhancing the reliability and NPOV of an article with insults, that's certainly absurd.

Having worked with current and former Reddit employees and also 2 former admins here, the difference in moderation is apparent, to say the least. Here, it appears everything in a case can be ignored except a small, misconstrued part of the overall case. There, everything is taken into consideration, especially on the largest (default) subreddits where I have moderated. Having played and being told I've played an integral role in building up the fourth most trafficked site in the US is certainly not a small matter.

Tarage: I cannot say I am surprised that a user very well-known on this site for attacking people has to chime in. Are you also stalking me? I advise to re-consider this behavior. Your activities on Wikipedia are largely relegated to attacking users and making threats. If you get your kicks from bashing people in order to assuage whichever maladies you may be suffering from, this isn't the place for it.

In any case, I have dropped the matter. I was simply asking for clarification on site policy, and I received about as decent a response as could be expected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeriousSam11 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personally attack me again and I'll report you. --Tarage (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you don't like how we do things here on Wikipedia, Sam. We'll do our best to soldier on without you. A Train^talk 21:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Appealing a block. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing the links to Goldmoney from Draft:Kelvin Al-Kasil Roy and Kelvin Roy. Just so you know, the two do not represent the same person. IPs have been copying the draft article on top of Kelvin Roy the past year.--Auric talk 14:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, Auric. I closed the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Goldmoney AfD and had the automated script unlink all the backlinks, so if I did anything above and beyond there it was through sheer coincidence. If you're having any sustained problems with IP editors at that article let me know and I can semi-protect it if appropriate. A Train^talk 16:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In the Pedro Perebal afd your deletion explanation was "Insufficient sourcing for a BLP, and a textbook WP:BLP1E as User:Joe_Roe argues". Can you tell me what is your threshold for sufficient sourcing for BLP? And how do you apply WP:BLP1E (notability for one event) if the reason I created the article was due to the subject's notability for its achievement of learning by himself several languages being a security guard and not because he is related to any event? Thinker78 (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thinker78, I'm sorry your article was deleted — I know myself how frustrating that can be.

BLP concerns are taken very seriously and trump almost everything else on Wikipedia. To understand how BLP1E applies, you need to think about this from the perspective of the media coverage (which all comes from a brief period of time), and not Mr Perebal's process of learning languages (which took many years). If you think of the references that the article used, they all arose from a single period of publicity from early April to early May, as the story of Mr Perebal's achievement percolated through the media around the world.

If Mr Perebal runs for president of Guatemala in 2019, or if he writes a best-selling book on self-improvement through language learning, then there will be substantial media coverage of him beyond just that about the one event that made him briefly famous. Put it another way, it is too soon to know if Mr Perebal will be a noteable figure in the future.

All the best, A Train^talk 08:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Can you clarify what would be sufficient sourcing for BLP for you? And you keep mentioning "an event". What event are you talking about? Thinker78 (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thinker78. The event we're talking about is the round of media interviews and human interest stories about Mr Perebal that appeared roughly around April-May 2018. If, in the future, there is additional significant media coverage of Mr Perebal for another reason, then you would have a slam dunk case for writing an article about him. A Train^talk 19:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really think you are misusing the term "event" in this one. It doesn't appear very reasonable saying that media interviews are an event that made Perebal notable, of course media interviews make people notable but saying that the media interviews themselves are an event that made people notable is stretching it past the breaking point in my view. Perebal is notable because he learned many foreign languages by himself working as a security guard in Guatemala in a seedy part of town. That makes him notable and that's why he got the round of media interviews. He is not a participant in any event that made him notable. Thinker78 (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, I've been around for a little while and closed more than a couple of AfDs. I'm pretty sure I've got this one right. But you seem quite committed to this article. If you want, I will reopen the AfD for another week and restore the article so folks can look it over.

If you opt for this, I would not get your hopes up. I would be very surprised if the discussion suddenly swung towards keeping the article, and you're just going to be disappointed all over again. But I'm happy to leave it up to you. Do you want me to re=-open and relist the discussion? A Train^talk 20:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would be nice. Well, yes, if you give me the option to reopen the afd discussion I take it. I think transcribing this talk page discussion there would be helpful to other editors too. But tbh you left me wondering about your reasoning for labeling the subject as related to an event. I try not to take dogmatic positions but I thoroughly defend the positions I take and I challenge other's positions. If I feel my position is untenable I change opinion and adopt the other person's position. You can see an example of that in this Requested move discussion in the talk page of the article Cold-stimulus headache, discussion in which I worked many hours, between pondering, writing and investigating, ultimately changing my opinion. Thinker78 (talk) 04:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Thinker78, I have restored the article and relisted the deletion discussion. It wouldn't be appropriate for me to close the debate again, so this is where I get off. Bon courage, I hope you are satisfied with the ultimate result. A Train^talk 07:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the relisting! Thinker78 (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I understand. There has been so much back and forth over this topic for so long that I'm refusing even to get involved now. Bobo. 18:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't blame you. I have no specific interest in the subject matter but I was coincidentally involved in some of the AfD's last year and I remember how acrimonious it got. Be well, Bobo. A Train^talk 19:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the AfD of Jasmine Directory. Even if I do have a decent experience of editing on Wikipedia I don't want to touch the article ever again to avoid any possible issues. All my proposals went through using the edit request template and obviously I plan to do so in the future as well when needed. The live version of the page is reviewed by a few independent editors (diff) and ce, cleanup, NPOV were addressed as well. So, I was wondering if you could remove the COI and notability tag, because I suppose I am not allowed to (I'd prefer not to edit at all the article). Thank you! Robertgombos (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robertgombos, it's great that you understand that it's better not to edit in areas where you have an interest or even the appearance of one. Given that I closed the AfD maybe it's better if someone else assesses the tags on the articles. All the best, A Train^talk 23:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, thanks! Robertgombos (talk) 23:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source: cartasdecuba.com: article in spanish language: Espana acelerara entrega de ciudadania a los cubanos. The Spanish ambassador in Cuba said "casi 150,000" "almost 150,000". Thanks. Cgx8253.

User:Cgx8253, thank you very much for getting back to me—after Googling I have found the article in question. It's very important that you start adding links to specific articles that you're citing when you're making edits. Otherwise your fellow volunteers have to burn a lot of their (and your) time asking you for more details and then hunting down the articles to verify that your changes are accurate and come from reliable sources. I'm not trying to discourage you, because I know that you're trying to be helpful, but in fact, many of your edits end up getting removed, and you are actually creating more work for other volunteers.

Please start including links to your references—even if you don't know how to format them into footnotes, you can just put them between square brackets to make links. Thanks again, A Train^talk 23:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hidden the edit summary from this edit of yours. I'm sure you were frustrated and just venting, but it really wasn't appropriate. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You thought “pick another hill to die on” was inappropriate? Have you not heard the expression before? I’m genuinely surprised. A Train^talk 23:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. My apologies. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		Welcome to Women in Red's June 2018 worldwide online editathons. New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/79|WiR Loves Pride]] New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/80|Singers and Songwriters]] New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/81|Women in GLAM]] New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/82|Geofocus: Russia/USSR]] Continuing: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00|#1day1woman Global Initiative]]
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Wikipe-tan. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello A Train, you closed the discussion as "Delete" and did the link cleanup, but the article itself wasn't deleted. Could you double-check the processing please? Just noticed this minor hickup while scanning through some related articles :). Thank you for looking into this. GermanJoe (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted, GermanJoe. Thanks for the heads-up. :) A Train^talk 20:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful request for comment, administrators are now able to add and remove editors to the "event coordinator" group. Users in the event coordinator group have the ability to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit. Users will no longer need to be in the "account creator" group if they are in the event coordinator group.
• Following an AN discussion, all pages with content related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, are now under indefinite general sanctions.

Technical news

• IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
• There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
• It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration

• A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous

• In early May, an unusually high level of failed login attempts was observed. The WMF has stated that this was an "external effort to gain unauthorized access to random accounts". Under Wikipedia policy, administrators are required to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 07:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello A Train, I noticed that you closed this AfD as delete and deleted all redirects, talk pages, etc. but not the main page itself. Would you mind taking some time to do so? Regards, JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey JTP, thanks for catching that. Second time in a week that's happened; I'll file a bug report with the developer of XFD Closer. A Train^talk 15:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to point out that Don Greene 1 (talk · contribs) is likely a sock of Dan Jones 3 (talk · contribs). If you will look at the edit summaries for both users, they seemed to have blanked a number of sock case investigation pages.--IanDBeacon (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, IanDBeacon; if there's an SPI at some point I'll remember that. A Train^talk 20:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:A Train, thanks. I've just opened an SPI. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dan Jones 3--IanDBeacon (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I ask an intervention for a case of serious conflict of interest.

Recently I edited the pages Templeton Foundation and Fenggang Yang.

There is User:Phoenixhill, who I am 100% sure is Fenggang Yang himself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fenggang_Yang), who continues to delete large sourced parts of the text in Templeton Foundation, a organization with which he is related, and add allegations that academics who have criticised him are "Communists" in the article Fenggang Yang (as written in the talk page of the article, many of them are not Communists at all). Page 1, page 2, his talk page.

He has already been reverted by multiple users. The most disturbing thing is that he insinuates that I am an agent of the Chinese Communist Party and I am "not qualified to make the editing until you have done your reading and homework". I am an unknown independent person who just happens to be knowledgeable in these topics.

Here another discussion about user Phoenixhill (which started from his insinuation that I am a Communist agent).--Amorphophallus Titanum (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Admin, can you please unlock this module: Module:Location map/data/Nepal, so I can update the location map? Or can you change the location map on this module?--- 👤Raju💌 04:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Raju, what's the change you want to make? A Train^talk 06:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Would you look again at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COSCO fleet lists. The nom and my support make two clear deletes. Eggishorn's Drafity means remove from mainspace, which equals a delete rather than a keep. Nosebagbear does not make a comment in favour of either keep or delete, he says that notability is an issue, but if sources could be found then he would !vote keep. There are no keep comments, and certainly no keep arguments. Murgatroyd49 is unclear on the process, and is mainly asking questions (such as should he move the list to the main article) - he makes no keep comment or argument, seeming in doubt himself if the list is notable. I put forward policy based arguments which were not rebuted (if you look at Murgatroyd49's comments he is asking for clarification on points I raise, and then makes an error in understanding that we can't rely on primary sources for notability). Numerically it is Delete 2, Draft/Userfy 1, Keep 0. And there is a "reasonable, logical, policy-based argument" for delete - per WP:CLOSEAFD. The main decision to make is to either delete or to userfy to Murgatroyd49's userspace. There are other options available at WP:SOFTDELETE, such as redirecting to the main article (COSCO), though I don't think any of those are appropriate for this situation. I would not object to userifying to Murgatroyd49's userspace. SilkTork (talk) 01:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree, SilkTork: I re-read the debate this morning and I think my interpretation of the consensus is correct. A Train^talk 06:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]