![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
I am grateful you figured out how to remove the article I inadvertently created while trying to help with cleanup. I know zero about trot music, but I wanted to help a new editor who had put lots of work into the article and was threatened with speedy. So many new editors stub toes on WP:PROMO, understandably so because many sources they start from are written like promo. HouseOfChange ( talk) 17:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar |
Amazing Writing as Philosophy, Geography, Linguistics, History, Culture!
Thank you. As a fairly new editor, nearing 500 edits, now at 450+/-, I connected with your conclusion that we are in a "revolution" in language and communication, in journalism, linguistics, geography, and you wrote such a beautiful essay. Wikipedia is most definitely and undeniably important. And I am referring to your superb reflection essay, reprinted below, so I will not forget to read again, and for others. I am going to email your essay to me, so I have your writing close at hand. Thanks again. Peace, 'Roy' Robert Jan van de Hoek Los Angeles, California Why do I edit Wikipedia? We are in the midst of the biggest literary revolution the world has ever seen. Not since the invention of the printing press has there been such a leap forward in humanity's ability to record, share, and transmit information. We read books, newspapers, online news articles, blogs. We write Facebook posts, tweets, emails, and text messages. All that time we spend staring at our phones? We're reading, writing, and sharing information with each other. As with any new phase in human history, we are having trouble adjusting. We used to get our news and information from sources we implicitly trusted – the bookstore, the newspaper, the government, the church. Now we struggle with knowing who to trust. A flood of information from many different sources can leave us confused just as easily as it can inform us and help us make good decisions. The struggle to adapt to all this new information is evident throughout our institutions. News articles write clickbaity headlines in order to get more ad revenue. Advertisers make false promises in order to enrich themselves. Politicians spread fake news to prey upon our fears and sow discord, hatred, and confusion. We are getting used to being lied to. Humanity is together getting better at sorting fact from fiction, and separating those who are seeking to inform from those who are seeking to mislead. And at the forefront of that effort is Wikipedia, a project to document the sum of all human knowledge using the power of the Internet. Never before in the history of the world has such a project been possible, but never before has such a project been so necessary. Is Wikipedia perfect? No, obviously not, it's a work in progress. Thousands of people come here every day to promote their own products, agendas, and ideas. But thousands of people are also working tirelessly to help improve the encyclopedia and achieve its vision. If you are reading this page we have probably interacted in some way. If you are here in order to promote a particular person, company, or point of view, I hope that this page will somehow help you understand why I do what I do, and maybe even inspire you to join me in building this encyclopedia. The same applies if you are a new editor, or if you haven't yet made your first edit – please join us in our pursuit to document the sum of all human knowledge. After all, it is a revolution. Robert Jan van de Hoek ( talk) 13:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC) |
Just letting you know I've mentioned you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Interaction ban proposal. I don't know if you might have any suggestions to make? Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 16:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello Bradv, I just wanted to issue an apology for previous edits I made on the Kim Jong Un talk page many months back. While the issue is over, I still wanted to issue a formal apology as I continue editing. Happy editing! Lima Bean Farmer ( talk) 01:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC) Lima Bean Farmer ( talk) 02:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:Chadwick Boseman on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I knew there was something suspicious there - but couldn't put my finger on enough to do anything. Nice work. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 18:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Thirsty work, sweeping them streets :) —— Serial 18:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC) |
News and updates associated with user scripts from the past two months (July and August 2020).
Hello everyone and welcome to the 17th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter:
|
Stay safe -- DannyS712 ( talk) 19:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).
mustor
shoulduse the articles for creation process.
You claim that I am in an edit war when these edits have been on this page for weeks (some over a month) at this point. I have pointed to the other editor that they should be left (currently) due to edit consensus and I would be happy to debate on the talk page about their conclusion as well as the meaning of the article. No one has reached a consensus on either of these two things, and considering that these edits have been on this page for such a large length of time, the meaning of the article should have a consensus on the talk page before they are deleted. The other editor has continually deleted them while I have pointed them to this. I also pointed out to the other editor that I would be happy to debate on the talk page which I’ve been doing. However, no consensus has been reached and the other editor continually deletes these edits. Lima Bean Farmer ( talk) 21:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
This is ridiculous! I didn’t edit the page even once after you gave me the warning. Please give me back editing privileges now. Lima Bean Farmer ( talk) 01:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
This response doesn't meet either of my criteria. – bradv 🍁 04:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Lima Bean Farmer (
talk)
17:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello Bradv -
I was recently observing RecentChanges and noticed a large number of edits going by within a few minutes on the page List of Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign endorsements. Upon heading to the page, I saw several users apparently arguing over what persons to include and what language to use in reference to them, notably a debate over referencing Nick Sandmann. One user, Lima Bean Farmer, was in favor of keeping language describing him as "confronting a Native American activist," and the other, Alexandre8, opting to change that to the reverse, "being confronted by a Native American activist." Since I believe both of those qualify as non-neutral POV, I opted to change it to "a confrontation with," which is in-line with the accepted description for the incident on the incident's page itself. The previously mentioned user of Lima Bean Farmer, however, then opted to knee-jerk revert my edit as well, requiring a "source" despite the fact that changing to NPOV - especially where the NPOV is used on the page for the incident in question - should not require a source of its own. I then observed that the user had been involved previously a week ago in apparent battleground behavior on similar pages to this one, and that you created the partial editing block on said user; so I thought I'd bring the info to your attention.
Thank you for your time. NomadicNom ( talk) 01:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello. You CU-blocked IP 174.57.156.122 on September 1. There seem to be atleast 3 different IPs continuing World War II editing from this range: 2601:81:c400:3c70:60b9:2090:9d23:579/64 ( block range · block log ( global) · WHOIS (partial)). The ISP is the same, the geolocation is very close. In this edit, one of the new IPv6s is essentially re-doing 174.57.156.122's .
I'm not sure to which SPI this would belong so just letting you know. -- Pudeo ( talk) 06:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi User:Bradv. I am asking for Wikipedia:Mentorship advice in relation to being able to constructively edit on Talk:Kiev: there is a discussion right now here User_talk:Barkeep49#IP's behaviour at Talk:Kiev, which resulted in sysop re-blocking me a 2nd time. I explained myself User_talk:73.75.115.5 to User:Barkeep49, but he has not replied; I know that on enwiki there are sometimes arrangement when one editor takes mentorship over another (and even sometimes takes on responsibility to guide an editor as a condition for allowing him to be unblock), therefore I ask for your comment and Mentorship in this discussion User_talk:Barkeep49#IP's behaviour at Talk:Kiev (I do fully understand that per unwritten rules of enwii adminship, only the sysop who blocked a user can unblock them, so my request is not about unblocking but about Wikipedia:Mentorship advice that would allow me to continue constructively contibuting to Talk:Kiev discussion.-- 73.75.115.5 ( talk) 18:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
...that I'd love to see you re-running in ACE20.
I certainly disagree with some of your viewpoints, but as an arb who actively engages with large numbers of editors (your participation in the drug pricing case particularly impressed me) I'd much rather see you again!
Nosebagbear ( talk) 10:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Since you’ve blocked me on this page, it appears someone vandalism’s Larry Hogan’s name on this page. I ask that you please restore it since I am unable to. Thank you. Lima Bean Farmer ( talk) 01:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Bradv, the week-long block on LBF from editing the page has expired. And, their editing behavior has resumed as it was pre-block. I can elaborate if you need me to. – Muboshgu ( talk) 22:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Bradv - what exactly is the purpose of the 1RR sanction in the following scenario: an edit is made, and challenged as UNDUE in an article that is outdated and riddled with noncompliance to appear more as an attack page that pushes a particular POV, but one side refuses to accept that the article has issues, they outnumber the opposition and tag team to restore the challenged material - what purpose is 1RR supposed to serve? If the purpose is to prevent attack pages or whitewashing, it has failed because it opens the door to POV creep at the expense of NPOV. I also thought that when an edit is added and reverted as UNDUE in an article that is under DS, the ONUS to restore is on the editor who wants to restore it, which is more inline with BRD, meaning they must discuss on the TP and acquire consensus first. Instead, what I'm seeing is a bit of back and forth by opposing editors, each side reverting or restoring, while ONUS and consensus are ignored. What part am I not understanding about how DS 1RR is supposed to benefit the project? Atsme Talk 📧 11:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Brad, is it your position that reverts of different material don't actually stack, but are counted as separate actions and not considered 1RR violations
? Because that seems like a novel interpretation of
WP:3RR as pertaining to 1RR... 1RR, as being analogous to the three-revert rule
highlights that an edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.
Or am I missing something else here? Many thanks!
El_C
16:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
"the purpose of 1RR is to force discussion on the talk page, rather than through edit summaries."I would note that regular 1RR itself does not actually force talkpage discussion. It just slows things down (as Bradv noted elsewhere). The BRD sanction further encourages, but still doesn't force discussion, by making people discuss before making their second revert (even if that second revert is days after their first revert). The "consensus required" sanction goes further, requiring a discussion before any revert, partial revert, or any edit similar to the original "challenged" edit can be made. But in a case like this the end result of all 3 sanctions is the same...whenever you have twice as many people supporting as opposing something, the majority eventually wins out and the content ends up in the article. The difference is in how long it took to get there and how much discussion was required.
If we stick to the four corners of the text of ONUS, it is telling us only that among the set of all verified statements relating to any article, the article will incorporate only the subset that editors agree conforms to NPOV, speicifically DUE WP:WEIGHT. ONUS is not about a general policy that we elevate pre-existing content. That issue is discussed in the essay WP:QUO, but it is a separate issue. In some high quality articles, existing content reflects longstanding sources and the partipation of a large number of editors over an extended period. In others, either on controversial topics such as American Politics or Gender, or -- as at Aziz Ansari -- both of those, the existing text is begging for improvement. While all sourcing and content policies must be followed, old versions are likely to be improved and it is false to cite ONUS as a mechanism to freeze whatever happened to exist before the improvement. If no improvement is needed, that should be addressed on the substance of the sources and article text. SPECIFICO talk 16:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm coming here from the talk:Verifiability discussion. I'm very sympathetic with the question regarding 1RR and cases where those pushing for a change have a few more editors than those saying no. Several of us have been involved in a recent case like this. There is an open request for closure since the talk page has not been able to agree that a consensus has been reached for inclusion. In the mean time the FOR editors have added the disputed content to the article. This appears to violate NOCON but as there are a few more of them than the AGAINST editors, any removal can be met with one or two editors who are happy to restore. I think this is the sort of case where 1RR fails and should probably be changed to mandatory BRD or mandatory consensus. Is it really the intent of things like 1RR or 3RR to effectively allow and disputed change simply by one side having an extra editor, or in the case of just two editors, A adds (not a revert), B reverts (1RR), A restores (1RR) now the disputed content is in even though per, NOCON, it should be out. Springee ( talk) 15:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Here's another case study I stumbled on today at Nancy Pelosi.
I find it intersting that this is a mirror of the other edit war I analyzed above. The "teams" have switched places, this time with Mr Ernie's team trying to add new information over the objections of WP:UNDUE from the other team. Notably, Mr Ernie, who above said, "What I have a problem with is regular, experienced editors ignoring ONUS etc. to simply revert because they say "this should be in."...ONUS is black letter policy, and the BRD guidance should be followed."
is the editor who most violated ONUS and BRD by adding the material to the article twice in the same day without any talk page discussion. There's not a formal BRD sanction on the article, so it's not a blockable offense, but it still seems hypocritical to ask that other editors follow ONUS while ignoring it onesself. ~
Awilley (
talk)
19:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:Emmanuel Lemelson on a "Economy, trade, and companies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Brad, I was reading through some WP:RFPP requests, and took a look at the one for Neil Nitin Mukesh. I noticed that subsequent to protection you removed this sentence, sourced to Youtube per BLP. I'm not going to dispute it; I find the caste-warring stuff on Wikipedia to be very tiresome, but for my own understanding of how we're applying BLP in general, is not not permissible to use a Youtube video in which a subject gives information about their family? Would it be different if the subject had published the words on a social media account or official website? Cheers, OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Bradv, I am asking that this page gets deleted rather than a redirect. A redirect causes for it still to index on google with a knowledge panel. I want stiff little fingers to index but not jake burns. i dont see the purpose of having a title page with no content. I apologise for editing when you are trying to help but i would be grateful if you could understand my objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiuser2020belfast ( talk • contribs) 22:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello BradV, the Hindu Kush article is constantly getting vandalized by IPs or new accounts who change sourced material, is there a way to protect the article again? At least from new members and IPs? Best regards -- Xerxes931 ( talk) 15:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello Bradv. I saw your closure on Malisevo. You closed it as "no consensus", saying that "With the comments evenly split between the current name and the proposed name, with accusations of canvassing on both sides, there's simply no way to declare a consensus here". I think that both parts of your statement do not properly reflect the situation. Even with comments evenly split (one or two !votes more in the "support" side, if I am not mistaken), the consensus should be determined based on the weight of arguments against Wiki policy, not just the number of !votes. As for the mutual accusations of canvassing, it has become "normal" to see editors from srwiki coming to enwiki and "voting" out of the blue, and other editors in others discussions have raised concerns about that. Hence the number of !votes has not been that important in other recent Balkan disputes where roughly the same editors were involved ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myth of Tito, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demonization of the Serbs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destruction of books in post-independence Croatia). On the other side, one of the editors who accused the "Kosovo side" got warned for aspersions by an admin [8] [9]. In any case, since mutual accusations are not sth to be taken lightly, another way to judge the situation could by weighting the comments by non-Balkan editors, ie editors who are not focused on the Balkans, and might be more neutral rather than canvassed or biased. There were five such editors in the discussion (Ortizesp, Red Slash, Roman Spinner, Bermicourt, Blindlynx) and all of them !voted "Support". It is very meaningful, and that alone shows that your closure does not serve Wikipedia as it should. I expect from an experienced and valuable admin as yourself to take more into account such things in the future, as what benefits Wikipedia does not necessarily depend on how many commented somewhere or how much a discussion might appear to have no consensus. Cheers, Ktrimi991 ( talk) 07:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Do I understand that you semi-protected my talk page for 48 hours due to stupid sockpuppetry? If so, thank you. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, you might want to change your opinion of tje Sep 2020 Kiev/Kyiv RM based on this new evidence. An admin Ymblanter recently
found out that user who started the RM was later CU blocked as they turned out a logged out user who was topic-banned from all topics related to Ukraine
, and Ymblater later also found out that it was
most likely a user who was topic-banned by them earlier.
A friend already started a discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 September#Kyiv - you might want to take a look at that discussion regarding reviewing that move.-- 172.58.140.238 ( talk) 23:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Bradv--please see this, and recent edits to ANI. You left some instructions in your block notice, but I blocked account creation: four accounts were created from there, and I am not sure how to handle your request. Do as you see fit--but the note you dropped on my talk page the other day, that was the same person. They returned to file a fake complaint cause I told them to fuck off, which apparently violates something. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 19:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks ST47. Blocking those smaller ranges around the Wiki Education server would hopefully be a good solution that keeps this from coming up again for a while. Moving our server inside WMCS isn't a practical option for a few reasons; we're actually weighing an eventually move of outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org out of WMCS because it's running into some of the limitations of WMCS servers.-- ragesoss ( talk) 20:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Bradv. Thanks for your suggestions on Budoshin Jujitsu, which was declined but I believe has potential to be corrected to be acceptable. I understand your point about using independent, third-party sources, but can you please clarify what you mean about removing "external references"? Does this mean references to the website of Budoshin itself or something else? Most appreciated, 71.162.191.88 ( talk) 23:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.191.88 ( talk) 23:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, Brad, I read what you wrote earlier about external links. Given that I'm new to this, would you please give me an example in my piece of what you mean by such a link? You mean links to the Budoshin site? Or to material to other Wikipedia articles? (Tried figuring out what you mean from Wiki help guides, without complete understanding.) I'm also revising the piece to emphasize third-party (non-Budoshin) support, as well as making the tone less promotional and more neutral. I appreciate your help. Thomas Dineen III ( talk) 02:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello Bradv! I come to you with apologies. I appreciate that you blocked me on the Republicans opposing trump page, that conversation was getting just too riled up. I am sorry for edit warring and promise to not do it again, on any page. It seems like something that editors often get themselves into trouble for. I would appreciate if you could re instate my editing privileges to that article. I am also of the understanding that I must be very careful since another block could lead to even more editing privileges being taken away for a much longer period of time. To personally combat any inclinations I feel to edit war, I will 1) use the talk page, 2) get other editors involved using resources such as the tea house and an rfc, 3) if the first two don’t work, I’ll just step away from the article for a while. I appreciate your time. Happy editing! Lima Bean Farmer ( talk) 19:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Could you please honor my request? Thank you. Lima Bean Farmer ( talk) 01:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).
1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created.
What more could I do to get an unblock from the page? Not only have I laid out in detail my plan to prevent edit wars and to only add reliable and clearly opposing names, given examples of names, and agreed to the terms which every admin has set, I apologized and was friendly to everyone who I had previously bothered on that page, including yourself. Could you please be sympathetic and unblock me? I don’t know what more you’d like me to do. Lima Bean Farmer ( talk) 20:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:TransDigm Group on a "Economy, trade, and companies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello sir, May I know why did you removed my comment there? Thanks! 196.152.71.206 ( talk) 21:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
The ugly truth that other paid editor taking the clean up work as a cover for their paid work. I'm not reporting competitors here, I'm reporting bad editors. 196.152.71.206 ( talk) 22:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I understand the question I’m about to ask may be well above my security clearance & would perfectly understand if you refuse to reply me, but I’d have to take my chance & ask all the same, I’m a very active anti UPE editor & would want to understand what happened with the block on Lapablo, you state here that he was blocked for being a sock of Ukpong1 but I can’t seem to find an SPI case file substantiating this, if you could explain what transpired there id be grateful but if you can’t, I understand perfectly well. Celestina007 ( talk) 19:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your help on Jenny McCarthy. However, I noticed the protection you put in is significantly shorter than the previous protection, which expired only a short time ago. The page itself has been protected more than once over the past month or so, actually. Would you please consider making the protection longer? 104.49.59.121 ( talk) 21:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
I am grateful you figured out how to remove the article I inadvertently created while trying to help with cleanup. I know zero about trot music, but I wanted to help a new editor who had put lots of work into the article and was threatened with speedy. So many new editors stub toes on WP:PROMO, understandably so because many sources they start from are written like promo. HouseOfChange ( talk) 17:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar |
Amazing Writing as Philosophy, Geography, Linguistics, History, Culture!
Thank you. As a fairly new editor, nearing 500 edits, now at 450+/-, I connected with your conclusion that we are in a "revolution" in language and communication, in journalism, linguistics, geography, and you wrote such a beautiful essay. Wikipedia is most definitely and undeniably important. And I am referring to your superb reflection essay, reprinted below, so I will not forget to read again, and for others. I am going to email your essay to me, so I have your writing close at hand. Thanks again. Peace, 'Roy' Robert Jan van de Hoek Los Angeles, California Why do I edit Wikipedia? We are in the midst of the biggest literary revolution the world has ever seen. Not since the invention of the printing press has there been such a leap forward in humanity's ability to record, share, and transmit information. We read books, newspapers, online news articles, blogs. We write Facebook posts, tweets, emails, and text messages. All that time we spend staring at our phones? We're reading, writing, and sharing information with each other. As with any new phase in human history, we are having trouble adjusting. We used to get our news and information from sources we implicitly trusted – the bookstore, the newspaper, the government, the church. Now we struggle with knowing who to trust. A flood of information from many different sources can leave us confused just as easily as it can inform us and help us make good decisions. The struggle to adapt to all this new information is evident throughout our institutions. News articles write clickbaity headlines in order to get more ad revenue. Advertisers make false promises in order to enrich themselves. Politicians spread fake news to prey upon our fears and sow discord, hatred, and confusion. We are getting used to being lied to. Humanity is together getting better at sorting fact from fiction, and separating those who are seeking to inform from those who are seeking to mislead. And at the forefront of that effort is Wikipedia, a project to document the sum of all human knowledge using the power of the Internet. Never before in the history of the world has such a project been possible, but never before has such a project been so necessary. Is Wikipedia perfect? No, obviously not, it's a work in progress. Thousands of people come here every day to promote their own products, agendas, and ideas. But thousands of people are also working tirelessly to help improve the encyclopedia and achieve its vision. If you are reading this page we have probably interacted in some way. If you are here in order to promote a particular person, company, or point of view, I hope that this page will somehow help you understand why I do what I do, and maybe even inspire you to join me in building this encyclopedia. The same applies if you are a new editor, or if you haven't yet made your first edit – please join us in our pursuit to document the sum of all human knowledge. After all, it is a revolution. Robert Jan van de Hoek ( talk) 13:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC) |
Just letting you know I've mentioned you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Interaction ban proposal. I don't know if you might have any suggestions to make? Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 16:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello Bradv, I just wanted to issue an apology for previous edits I made on the Kim Jong Un talk page many months back. While the issue is over, I still wanted to issue a formal apology as I continue editing. Happy editing! Lima Bean Farmer ( talk) 01:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC) Lima Bean Farmer ( talk) 02:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:Chadwick Boseman on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I knew there was something suspicious there - but couldn't put my finger on enough to do anything. Nice work. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 18:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Thirsty work, sweeping them streets :) —— Serial 18:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC) |
News and updates associated with user scripts from the past two months (July and August 2020).
Hello everyone and welcome to the 17th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter:
|
Stay safe -- DannyS712 ( talk) 19:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).
mustor
shoulduse the articles for creation process.
You claim that I am in an edit war when these edits have been on this page for weeks (some over a month) at this point. I have pointed to the other editor that they should be left (currently) due to edit consensus and I would be happy to debate on the talk page about their conclusion as well as the meaning of the article. No one has reached a consensus on either of these two things, and considering that these edits have been on this page for such a large length of time, the meaning of the article should have a consensus on the talk page before they are deleted. The other editor has continually deleted them while I have pointed them to this. I also pointed out to the other editor that I would be happy to debate on the talk page which I’ve been doing. However, no consensus has been reached and the other editor continually deletes these edits. Lima Bean Farmer ( talk) 21:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
This is ridiculous! I didn’t edit the page even once after you gave me the warning. Please give me back editing privileges now. Lima Bean Farmer ( talk) 01:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
This response doesn't meet either of my criteria. – bradv 🍁 04:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Lima Bean Farmer (
talk)
17:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello Bradv -
I was recently observing RecentChanges and noticed a large number of edits going by within a few minutes on the page List of Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign endorsements. Upon heading to the page, I saw several users apparently arguing over what persons to include and what language to use in reference to them, notably a debate over referencing Nick Sandmann. One user, Lima Bean Farmer, was in favor of keeping language describing him as "confronting a Native American activist," and the other, Alexandre8, opting to change that to the reverse, "being confronted by a Native American activist." Since I believe both of those qualify as non-neutral POV, I opted to change it to "a confrontation with," which is in-line with the accepted description for the incident on the incident's page itself. The previously mentioned user of Lima Bean Farmer, however, then opted to knee-jerk revert my edit as well, requiring a "source" despite the fact that changing to NPOV - especially where the NPOV is used on the page for the incident in question - should not require a source of its own. I then observed that the user had been involved previously a week ago in apparent battleground behavior on similar pages to this one, and that you created the partial editing block on said user; so I thought I'd bring the info to your attention.
Thank you for your time. NomadicNom ( talk) 01:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello. You CU-blocked IP 174.57.156.122 on September 1. There seem to be atleast 3 different IPs continuing World War II editing from this range: 2601:81:c400:3c70:60b9:2090:9d23:579/64 ( block range · block log ( global) · WHOIS (partial)). The ISP is the same, the geolocation is very close. In this edit, one of the new IPv6s is essentially re-doing 174.57.156.122's .
I'm not sure to which SPI this would belong so just letting you know. -- Pudeo ( talk) 06:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi User:Bradv. I am asking for Wikipedia:Mentorship advice in relation to being able to constructively edit on Talk:Kiev: there is a discussion right now here User_talk:Barkeep49#IP's behaviour at Talk:Kiev, which resulted in sysop re-blocking me a 2nd time. I explained myself User_talk:73.75.115.5 to User:Barkeep49, but he has not replied; I know that on enwiki there are sometimes arrangement when one editor takes mentorship over another (and even sometimes takes on responsibility to guide an editor as a condition for allowing him to be unblock), therefore I ask for your comment and Mentorship in this discussion User_talk:Barkeep49#IP's behaviour at Talk:Kiev (I do fully understand that per unwritten rules of enwii adminship, only the sysop who blocked a user can unblock them, so my request is not about unblocking but about Wikipedia:Mentorship advice that would allow me to continue constructively contibuting to Talk:Kiev discussion.-- 73.75.115.5 ( talk) 18:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
...that I'd love to see you re-running in ACE20.
I certainly disagree with some of your viewpoints, but as an arb who actively engages with large numbers of editors (your participation in the drug pricing case particularly impressed me) I'd much rather see you again!
Nosebagbear ( talk) 10:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Since you’ve blocked me on this page, it appears someone vandalism’s Larry Hogan’s name on this page. I ask that you please restore it since I am unable to. Thank you. Lima Bean Farmer ( talk) 01:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Bradv, the week-long block on LBF from editing the page has expired. And, their editing behavior has resumed as it was pre-block. I can elaborate if you need me to. – Muboshgu ( talk) 22:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Bradv - what exactly is the purpose of the 1RR sanction in the following scenario: an edit is made, and challenged as UNDUE in an article that is outdated and riddled with noncompliance to appear more as an attack page that pushes a particular POV, but one side refuses to accept that the article has issues, they outnumber the opposition and tag team to restore the challenged material - what purpose is 1RR supposed to serve? If the purpose is to prevent attack pages or whitewashing, it has failed because it opens the door to POV creep at the expense of NPOV. I also thought that when an edit is added and reverted as UNDUE in an article that is under DS, the ONUS to restore is on the editor who wants to restore it, which is more inline with BRD, meaning they must discuss on the TP and acquire consensus first. Instead, what I'm seeing is a bit of back and forth by opposing editors, each side reverting or restoring, while ONUS and consensus are ignored. What part am I not understanding about how DS 1RR is supposed to benefit the project? Atsme Talk 📧 11:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Brad, is it your position that reverts of different material don't actually stack, but are counted as separate actions and not considered 1RR violations
? Because that seems like a novel interpretation of
WP:3RR as pertaining to 1RR... 1RR, as being analogous to the three-revert rule
highlights that an edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.
Or am I missing something else here? Many thanks!
El_C
16:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
"the purpose of 1RR is to force discussion on the talk page, rather than through edit summaries."I would note that regular 1RR itself does not actually force talkpage discussion. It just slows things down (as Bradv noted elsewhere). The BRD sanction further encourages, but still doesn't force discussion, by making people discuss before making their second revert (even if that second revert is days after their first revert). The "consensus required" sanction goes further, requiring a discussion before any revert, partial revert, or any edit similar to the original "challenged" edit can be made. But in a case like this the end result of all 3 sanctions is the same...whenever you have twice as many people supporting as opposing something, the majority eventually wins out and the content ends up in the article. The difference is in how long it took to get there and how much discussion was required.
If we stick to the four corners of the text of ONUS, it is telling us only that among the set of all verified statements relating to any article, the article will incorporate only the subset that editors agree conforms to NPOV, speicifically DUE WP:WEIGHT. ONUS is not about a general policy that we elevate pre-existing content. That issue is discussed in the essay WP:QUO, but it is a separate issue. In some high quality articles, existing content reflects longstanding sources and the partipation of a large number of editors over an extended period. In others, either on controversial topics such as American Politics or Gender, or -- as at Aziz Ansari -- both of those, the existing text is begging for improvement. While all sourcing and content policies must be followed, old versions are likely to be improved and it is false to cite ONUS as a mechanism to freeze whatever happened to exist before the improvement. If no improvement is needed, that should be addressed on the substance of the sources and article text. SPECIFICO talk 16:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm coming here from the talk:Verifiability discussion. I'm very sympathetic with the question regarding 1RR and cases where those pushing for a change have a few more editors than those saying no. Several of us have been involved in a recent case like this. There is an open request for closure since the talk page has not been able to agree that a consensus has been reached for inclusion. In the mean time the FOR editors have added the disputed content to the article. This appears to violate NOCON but as there are a few more of them than the AGAINST editors, any removal can be met with one or two editors who are happy to restore. I think this is the sort of case where 1RR fails and should probably be changed to mandatory BRD or mandatory consensus. Is it really the intent of things like 1RR or 3RR to effectively allow and disputed change simply by one side having an extra editor, or in the case of just two editors, A adds (not a revert), B reverts (1RR), A restores (1RR) now the disputed content is in even though per, NOCON, it should be out. Springee ( talk) 15:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Here's another case study I stumbled on today at Nancy Pelosi.
I find it intersting that this is a mirror of the other edit war I analyzed above. The "teams" have switched places, this time with Mr Ernie's team trying to add new information over the objections of WP:UNDUE from the other team. Notably, Mr Ernie, who above said, "What I have a problem with is regular, experienced editors ignoring ONUS etc. to simply revert because they say "this should be in."...ONUS is black letter policy, and the BRD guidance should be followed."
is the editor who most violated ONUS and BRD by adding the material to the article twice in the same day without any talk page discussion. There's not a formal BRD sanction on the article, so it's not a blockable offense, but it still seems hypocritical to ask that other editors follow ONUS while ignoring it onesself. ~
Awilley (
talk)
19:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:Emmanuel Lemelson on a "Economy, trade, and companies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Brad, I was reading through some WP:RFPP requests, and took a look at the one for Neil Nitin Mukesh. I noticed that subsequent to protection you removed this sentence, sourced to Youtube per BLP. I'm not going to dispute it; I find the caste-warring stuff on Wikipedia to be very tiresome, but for my own understanding of how we're applying BLP in general, is not not permissible to use a Youtube video in which a subject gives information about their family? Would it be different if the subject had published the words on a social media account or official website? Cheers, OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Bradv, I am asking that this page gets deleted rather than a redirect. A redirect causes for it still to index on google with a knowledge panel. I want stiff little fingers to index but not jake burns. i dont see the purpose of having a title page with no content. I apologise for editing when you are trying to help but i would be grateful if you could understand my objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiuser2020belfast ( talk • contribs) 22:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello BradV, the Hindu Kush article is constantly getting vandalized by IPs or new accounts who change sourced material, is there a way to protect the article again? At least from new members and IPs? Best regards -- Xerxes931 ( talk) 15:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello Bradv. I saw your closure on Malisevo. You closed it as "no consensus", saying that "With the comments evenly split between the current name and the proposed name, with accusations of canvassing on both sides, there's simply no way to declare a consensus here". I think that both parts of your statement do not properly reflect the situation. Even with comments evenly split (one or two !votes more in the "support" side, if I am not mistaken), the consensus should be determined based on the weight of arguments against Wiki policy, not just the number of !votes. As for the mutual accusations of canvassing, it has become "normal" to see editors from srwiki coming to enwiki and "voting" out of the blue, and other editors in others discussions have raised concerns about that. Hence the number of !votes has not been that important in other recent Balkan disputes where roughly the same editors were involved ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myth of Tito, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demonization of the Serbs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destruction of books in post-independence Croatia). On the other side, one of the editors who accused the "Kosovo side" got warned for aspersions by an admin [8] [9]. In any case, since mutual accusations are not sth to be taken lightly, another way to judge the situation could by weighting the comments by non-Balkan editors, ie editors who are not focused on the Balkans, and might be more neutral rather than canvassed or biased. There were five such editors in the discussion (Ortizesp, Red Slash, Roman Spinner, Bermicourt, Blindlynx) and all of them !voted "Support". It is very meaningful, and that alone shows that your closure does not serve Wikipedia as it should. I expect from an experienced and valuable admin as yourself to take more into account such things in the future, as what benefits Wikipedia does not necessarily depend on how many commented somewhere or how much a discussion might appear to have no consensus. Cheers, Ktrimi991 ( talk) 07:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Do I understand that you semi-protected my talk page for 48 hours due to stupid sockpuppetry? If so, thank you. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, you might want to change your opinion of tje Sep 2020 Kiev/Kyiv RM based on this new evidence. An admin Ymblanter recently
found out that user who started the RM was later CU blocked as they turned out a logged out user who was topic-banned from all topics related to Ukraine
, and Ymblater later also found out that it was
most likely a user who was topic-banned by them earlier.
A friend already started a discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 September#Kyiv - you might want to take a look at that discussion regarding reviewing that move.-- 172.58.140.238 ( talk) 23:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Bradv--please see this, and recent edits to ANI. You left some instructions in your block notice, but I blocked account creation: four accounts were created from there, and I am not sure how to handle your request. Do as you see fit--but the note you dropped on my talk page the other day, that was the same person. They returned to file a fake complaint cause I told them to fuck off, which apparently violates something. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 19:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks ST47. Blocking those smaller ranges around the Wiki Education server would hopefully be a good solution that keeps this from coming up again for a while. Moving our server inside WMCS isn't a practical option for a few reasons; we're actually weighing an eventually move of outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org out of WMCS because it's running into some of the limitations of WMCS servers.-- ragesoss ( talk) 20:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Bradv. Thanks for your suggestions on Budoshin Jujitsu, which was declined but I believe has potential to be corrected to be acceptable. I understand your point about using independent, third-party sources, but can you please clarify what you mean about removing "external references"? Does this mean references to the website of Budoshin itself or something else? Most appreciated, 71.162.191.88 ( talk) 23:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.191.88 ( talk) 23:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, Brad, I read what you wrote earlier about external links. Given that I'm new to this, would you please give me an example in my piece of what you mean by such a link? You mean links to the Budoshin site? Or to material to other Wikipedia articles? (Tried figuring out what you mean from Wiki help guides, without complete understanding.) I'm also revising the piece to emphasize third-party (non-Budoshin) support, as well as making the tone less promotional and more neutral. I appreciate your help. Thomas Dineen III ( talk) 02:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello Bradv! I come to you with apologies. I appreciate that you blocked me on the Republicans opposing trump page, that conversation was getting just too riled up. I am sorry for edit warring and promise to not do it again, on any page. It seems like something that editors often get themselves into trouble for. I would appreciate if you could re instate my editing privileges to that article. I am also of the understanding that I must be very careful since another block could lead to even more editing privileges being taken away for a much longer period of time. To personally combat any inclinations I feel to edit war, I will 1) use the talk page, 2) get other editors involved using resources such as the tea house and an rfc, 3) if the first two don’t work, I’ll just step away from the article for a while. I appreciate your time. Happy editing! Lima Bean Farmer ( talk) 19:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Could you please honor my request? Thank you. Lima Bean Farmer ( talk) 01:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).
1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created.
What more could I do to get an unblock from the page? Not only have I laid out in detail my plan to prevent edit wars and to only add reliable and clearly opposing names, given examples of names, and agreed to the terms which every admin has set, I apologized and was friendly to everyone who I had previously bothered on that page, including yourself. Could you please be sympathetic and unblock me? I don’t know what more you’d like me to do. Lima Bean Farmer ( talk) 20:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:TransDigm Group on a "Economy, trade, and companies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello sir, May I know why did you removed my comment there? Thanks! 196.152.71.206 ( talk) 21:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
The ugly truth that other paid editor taking the clean up work as a cover for their paid work. I'm not reporting competitors here, I'm reporting bad editors. 196.152.71.206 ( talk) 22:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I understand the question I’m about to ask may be well above my security clearance & would perfectly understand if you refuse to reply me, but I’d have to take my chance & ask all the same, I’m a very active anti UPE editor & would want to understand what happened with the block on Lapablo, you state here that he was blocked for being a sock of Ukpong1 but I can’t seem to find an SPI case file substantiating this, if you could explain what transpired there id be grateful but if you can’t, I understand perfectly well. Celestina007 ( talk) 19:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your help on Jenny McCarthy. However, I noticed the protection you put in is significantly shorter than the previous protection, which expired only a short time ago. The page itself has been protected more than once over the past month or so, actually. Would you please consider making the protection longer? 104.49.59.121 ( talk) 21:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)