User talk:Girth Summit/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Thank you!

Hello! I wanted to say thank you for the CVUA training and help in general that you provided me and I do not agree with the views of the person who impersonated me. Eyebeller 19:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Eyebeller, I'm glad to hear it. Welcome back. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I would to be trained for the CVU

I am fairly new here an would like to try to help Wikipedia as much as i can. This seems like a good option to start doing some right in the community. Please respond when you aren't busy. Starman2377 (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Starman2377, thanks for reaching out, and I'm sorry I took so long to get back to you - I'm afraid it slipped my mind. I've got a student on the go at the moment, and don't really have time to take on another at present - have you considered approaching another one of the trainers listed at WP:CVUA? GirthSummit _(blether) 09:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Ill look for another trainer. Starman2377 (talk) 17:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Facts versus Rumours ;)

Hi, Girth Summit hope you are doing well - heads up, seeking for some advice: I am struggling with Richard_Scott_Smith, a blp - I have research access to all new U.S. Newspapers and the results give me that there is "only" a warrant for ident theft for this man - for anything else which is mentioned in the article or in the referring movie Love Fraud I do not find anything related. The given sources are articles about the "True Crime Documentary" covering the reports of the apparently betrayed women but this is not independent, reliable coverage in my eyes especially since I do not find no Court proceedings and logically no guilty verdict. Any idea? BLPProd impossible since sources given, I marked the frases with CN - anything else? PRODing? CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Girth Summit. 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Question

Hi, Girth. I hope it's okay for me to ask you about others' behaviours when I can't decide since you're the only admin I know.

So, to give a little background, I moved some articles a few months back to anglicize the name and/or fix a mistake in the name. I recently requested a technical move to anglicize article (redirect was blocking move, so I couldn't do it myself) about the city of Şərur (as the anglicized name was the common name in English-media) and another admin understandably moved it into an RM (Talk:Şərur#Requested move 10 February 2021). There is so far one oppose vote in the RM. And the same user who opposed, has mass-reverted moves today that I had done months ago (some of his reverts weren't even my anglicizations and were basic title fixes). I asked them to not do such reverts without discussing, yet they just removed the discussion. So, I reverted 2 of their revert moves that were basic name fixing and not anglicization. And then.. this discussion happened on my talk page, where the user says they "do not care" and gives me a sort of "ultimatum" to revert my moves under 24 hours.

What do you think? And do you have any recommendations about what I should do? Thanks in advance. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 11:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

CuriousGolden, so, first off I advise you not to tell an editor with their history of contributions that they are vandalising - you know what vandalism is, and you know that to accuse someone of it frivolously isn't acceptable. I think that a broad RfC would be a good idea - it's clear that there have been historical discussions about place names that include non-standard letters in English, but I'm not familiar with them myself, so it would be good to get some participation from editors who are familiar with the history there. Changes that would affect lots of articles should be discussed thoroughly and centrally before implementation - there is no WP:DEADLINE, there's no reason to rush to make the changes. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit, you're right, I was quick to jump to a conclusion there with the word vandalism, but the editors' mass reverts of moves and refusal to discuss made me think that it was acceptable. And I don't mind an RfC, my plan was to make separate RMs for each city/town article, but the editor's behaviour caught me somewhat off-guard, especially with the 24-hour ultimatum at the end.

What do you think I should do about their ultimatum? The article he has asked me to revert a move on is not even related to the topic dispute is about, it's a simple formatting fix. Should I comply with his demand or not? Thanks for the suggestions, they'll be great help for me in future. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 14:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

CuriousGolden, well, the BRD cycle would suggest that you shouldn't have reinstated your change after they had reverted it without discussing it. I think that the best thing for you to do, the way you could demonstrate most clearly that you are acting in good faith, would be to self-revert back to the status quo ante, and discuss. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit, got it, will do that. Thanks for help! — CuriousGolden (T·C) 14:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Hounding

Hi, sorry to bother you with this ongoing situation but because you have dealt with it before, I figure you have some background. Newimpartial is under a One-Way I-Ban and not supposed to interact with me "in any way". El-C placed the I-Ban last year when they were a very active admin, in response to Newimpartial HOUNDING and refusing to stop when told to repeatedly by admins; I understand El-C has become busier and no longer has time to handle regular complaints so I am bringing this to you.

Newimpartial continues to jump into every disagreement or debate I have with any other editor to pile on me, currently on the LGB Alliance Talk Page. The only concession they make to the I-Ban is that they indent their responses under the other person's replies instead of mine, although they are clearly attacking everything I say. What is the point of an I-Ban for Hounding at all if the person is just going to keep ignoring it and Hounding anyway while simply pretending they're just talking to whoever you're debating with? Newimpartiall just can't resist following me around and trying to pick fights with me, even under a ban. It is beyond exasperating. Lilipo25 (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Query Per WP:BANEX point 2, I would like to ask whether I understood correctly this previous clarification, by El_C, who said in response to a similar question I'm not seeing where you have been addressed or mentioned by Newimpartial. They are allowed to engage content disputes, even when these also involve your edits. My understanding is that I have been observing both the letter and the spirit of WP:IBAN, which specifies that users not reply to each other in discussions or make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia with the exceptions specified in BANEX. I would encourage you to review the history of LGB Alliance and Talk:LGB Alliance and please let me know if you see anything questionable, or could offer any further clarification. Newimpartial (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Lilipo25, look, if there's something happening with respect to interaction (as described by WP:IBAN), then there are enforcement remedies that can come into immediate effect. But with both of you being regulars of the the WP:ARBGG topic area, WP:HOUND is not something that you are really able to invoke, unless egregious. It is reasonable to assume that both of you watch for any developments of note in GG pages, overall. As such, establishing any sort of prohibition to curtail an intersection (as opposed to an interaction), that's a challenging proposition, to say the least. El_C 02:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

El_C I honestly don't know what the point of an IBAN is at all, then. Newimpartial just pops into any discussion or disagreement I have with any other editor and piles on, over and over and over, openly responding to the things I say while simply putting the indent under the other editor's comment. It's deliberate baiting and taunting and they never quit. It's like having some creepy Wikipedia stalker who just won't stop trying to make everything I do here as miserable as possible.Lilipo25 (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Lilipo25, the point of it is that they are not allowed to revert you and that they are not allowed to speak to or about you (and the same informally applies to you). And that's about it. Again, from an enforcement perspective, for you to be able to form a cogent presentation alongside decent evidentiary basis, for something which may be this nuanced, I foresee challenges in that, is all I'm saying. Certainly, if you want to escalate your grievances, you are free to file a detailed report at WP:AE alleging a violation to the spirit of the interaction ban. I dunno, possibly you would be able to obtain relief? Ultimately, I just don't know. But to elaborate on the above, my sense is that it could prove difficult to achieve. But maybe not? Who knows. El_C 03:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

El_C Fine, but I have played by every single rule - and the spirit of the rules, too - no matter how hard Newimpartial follows me around and baits and taunts and harasses me, for months and months on end. I am officially done. From here on out, I will behave in kind and I just hope I don't have to hear how I'm violating their IBAN when I do. Lilipo25 (talk) 03:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Lilipo25, what you do is your prerogative, and I can only offer my sincere hope that it all, somehow, works out amicably, even if against all odds. But, again, from my own perspective, I can only respond to a body of evidence in the form of a coherent report. I'd have to be outright omniscient to act otherwise. El_C 03:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Lilipo25, El_C, Newimpartial: So, I've read through that discussion and I have a slightly different take on it to El C. I'll begin by saying that I believe it's fine for NewImpartial to comment here in this thread, since I would view it as a legitimate and necessary discussion about the ban itself.

With regard to the discussion at Talk:LGB Alliance, I do see Newimpartial's comments as being in violation of the IBan. The References removed thread was started by a third party, asking what people feel about an edit that Lilipo made; Newimpartial chose to respond to their question, which is clearly commenting about her editing, and thus it encroaches on the ban. In the Lede wording thread, it's a thread that Lilipo started, again asking for views on an edit that she made - Newimpartial choosing to comment on that thread could also be interpreted as indirectly commenting on her, since they are again commenting about her edit. I can see that Newimpartial is making efforts to stay focussed on the content there, which is good, but I think they need to be more careful about avoiding commenting on Lilipo's editing.

With regard to the accusation of hounding, that's a pretty serious charge, and not one that should be thrown around without evidence. Newimpartial was editing the LGB Alliance article, and commenting on its talk page, before Lilipo was, and there can't be any suggestion that they followed Lilipo there. I don't particularly want to trawl through both editors' contribution histories - Lilipo, are there any other pages you'd like me to look at to support that charge? GirthSummit _(blether) 14:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit, well, myself, I've been stretched pretty thin lately (though this is really par for the course for me), so by all means, please do mete out any remedies you see fit. I'm the admin who has been dealing with these two editors pretty much single-handedly, so any assistance on that front would be greatly appreciated. Kind regards, El_C 14:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

El_C, I had been thinking about asking you to reconsider the one-way IBAN, since I don't think it has been a net positive for the project either compared to the status quo ante (where I was ignoring Lilipo's comments but not under a formal IBAN) or compared to a 2-way IBAN (which wouldn't lead to the same enforcement questions, in my view). If you would rather not be dealing with these two editors, could I ask Girth Summit to consider revoking the ban or imposing a different one? Or should I take it straight to AE? Newimpartial (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial, yes, absolutely, I invite Girth Summit to do whatever, by adjusting this AE sanction I had imposed (including lifting it outright or adding new remedies, etc.) as they see fit. Again, any assistance from them (or anyone!) would be greatly appreciated. The more eyes on this, the better, as far as I'm concerned. That said, not sure if the current state of the dispute warrants an WP:AE complaint (so as to tax scarce noticeboard resources — take a look there, there's so very few us active there, for the most part). Anyway, it may or it may not warrant that. I've not reviewed much recent evidence to be able to confidently advise on that at this time, one way or the other. But before even thinking about AE, if Girth Summit is inclined to step in, I'd let them do their thing first. I'm pleased to say that I'm leaving you in capable hands. El_C 15:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial, I'm not going to take any action right at this moment with regards to remedies and/or altering the ban right at the moment, I need to know more about the recent history. I will attempt to dig down into that soon. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

By all means please do take your time, and don't feel any urgency from my direction. I am staying away from Talk:LGB Alliance for now, pending some kind of additional feedback from you, though as you have seen there was no WP:HOUNDING involved. Nothing terrible is going to happen to that page as a result of my absence, anyway, since my perspective there (and at Graham Linehan for that matter) is very much that of the mainstream of informed editors. I question the one-way IBAN not because I desire to interact with the other editor, but because I do feel that my background knowledge of some of the gender-related controversies (including such sources as PinkNews) has been unquestionably beneficial to the project, and the conflicting advice I have received about Talk page participation (e.g. El C's previous guidance vs. your recent comment) adds a layer of difficulty for those (rare) pages where the other editor weighs in. That, and it is always a source of friction when I am accused of things I haven't done but am not (apart from this thread) allowed to say so (viz. "hounding" or "gaslighting"). So while this is by no means urgent, I do hope you will find an opportunity to take as deep a dive as you choose, whenever you feel so inspired. Newimpartial (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure, why not reward Newimpartial for repeatedly violating an IBAN by removing the IBAN altogether? Makes perfect sense. While Newimpartial didn't follow me to the LGB Alliance page (we both came there from the AFD discussion of it and from the talk page of the previous version of that article, which was first put back in Draft and then deleted last month bc it was wildly in violation of NPOV), they did follow me to the Graham Linehan page and the Fred Sargeant page and others. More importantly, they've followed me around the Talk page of the LGB Alliance article and elsewhere, violating the IBAN repeatedly, but apparently the IBAN is meaningless anyway.Lilipo25 (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Lilipo25, please actually read what I have written above: I have told Newimpartial that I judge those edits on that page to be a breach of their IBan, and I've asked them to be more careful to avoid any further breaches. I have not said that I will lift the IBan, merely that all options remain on the table and that I will look into the history. You have asserted that Newimpartial jumps into every disagreement or argument you have, but until this last post you only mentioned one article. Just like El C, I am not omniscient, and have a duty to investigate properly and understand the situation before taking any action, which is why I asked you if there were other pages I should look at. You've now mentioned a couple of further articles, and there are also editor interaction tools which will allow me to get an overview of what has been happening. However, I'm a volunteer, it's Sunday afternoon, and looking into disputes of this kind isn't my idea of fun. You've come here asking me to help you resolve a conflict with another editor; and I'm willing to do that when I have time, but sarcastic comments like the one above isn't making me warm to the task. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

However, I'm a volunteer, it's Sunday afternoon, and looking into disputes of this kind isn't my idea of fun. You've come here asking me to help you resolve a conflict with another editor; and I'm willing to do that when I have time, but sarcastic comments like the one above isn't making me warm to the task — welcome to my world, Girth Summit! El_C 17:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

El C, you deserve a pay rise! 20% sound about right? GirthSummit _(blether) 18:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Haha, Girth Summit — I'm just going to ask for a straight-up infinite pay raise (what's infinity times zero, again?). El_C 18:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

El C make it an easy decision for them - just ask for the sum of all natural numbers from 0 to infinity. You'll owe them about 8 cents... GirthSummit _(blether) 11:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

And here I imagined all the worlds I could buy. I guess you can't escape eternity, and also death and taxes.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 11:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

El C and Girth Summit You are both misunderstanding the target of my comment, which I will acknowledge was not artfully expressed immediately before falling asleep. My sarcasm was toward Newimpartial, for responding to an admin saying they had encroached on the IBAN by asking for it to just be removed altogether, not Girth Summit.

I have no expectation for an immediate solution to what is a very contentious and complicated issue between Newimpartial and I. I have been pushed well beyond exasperated. all the way to disgusted, by over a year of continual baiting, gaslighting, hounding and flat-out bullying and don't feel that my staying inside the rules when they simply will not has done me any good at all thus far.Lilipo25 (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Interactions analysis

Newimpartial, Lilipo25 OK, I've taken time to go through your contributions using an interaction analyser tool. Aside from various user talk pages and noticeboards, there have been four pages (and their associated talk pages) where your editing has overlapped:

• Vancouver Rape Relief & Women's Shelter Neither of you have been editing there since April 2020, so I don't think there's any issue there.
• Fred Sargeant We did this one to death last year. I see that Newimpartial has not edited the talk page since the IBan was imposed, and has only made a single edit to the article (to revert an IP editor), so I don't believe there is any ongoing issue there.
• LGB Alliance I've discussed this already. I do interpret a couple of Newimpartial's recent comments at the talk page as being in breach of the IBan, because they were made to threads that concerned Lilipo's editing.
• Graham Linehan You have overlapped in three discussions at the talk page here since the IBan was imposed. In this one from October, I see no interaction between the two of you, and so there is no breach. However, this thread from December was started specifically to address edits by Lilipo25. Newimpartial's contributions to the discussion were minimal, and focussed on content, but by my reading, Newimpartial's comment in a thread about Lilipo's editing was also a breach of the ban. There is another discussion on-going in February, in which I do not see any interaction.
• There are no examples I can find of articles which Lilipo25 has edited since the imposition of the topic ban which Newimpartial has then followed her to, so I cannot see any evidence of ongoing hounding behaviour.

With regard to the four pages above, Newimpartial is not banned from editing any of them, or from commenting on their talk pages, but while it seems to me that Newimpartial has been making efforts to abide by the Iban, I think that they have three times overstepped the mark by commenting in threads that concern Lilipo25's editing.

• @Newpimartial: You are banned from making comments about Lilipo25, directly or indirectly, so if the subject of a discussion thread is her or her edits you should sit it out. Provided you abide by this going forward, I do not see any need to apply further sanctions at this point.
• @Lilipo25: Newimpartial is still permitted to edit those articles and their talk pages, so you should expect to see their name crop up in general conversations there. I do not see any evidence that they have been hounding you since the IBan was imposed by following you to new pages. With regard to the comment above, please refrain from using sarcasm entirely when editing here - it really doesn't come across well, is easily misinterpreted, and just serves to add a layer of unhelpful hostility to any discussion. You should certainly not be directing it towards Newimpartial; if you believe they have breached their IBan, you should make a neutral, factual statement supported by diffs, and otherwise you should not comment about them at all. Please observe this going forward.

I'll be happy to address any further questions or comments either of you have about this. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 11:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Lilipo25, consider making no sarcastic remarks directed at anyone who is ibanned from you. It's unseemly for you to say anything sarcastic about them; really to say anything at all that isn't absolutely necessary, even in discussions like this one. —valereee (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Valeree Sorry, why are you involved in this conversation? Are you an Administrator? Because there are already two Admins here, so a third really seems like major overkill for one comment. And if you aren't an Admin, I can't even guess why you would have taken it upon yourself to intercede in such a manner on an Admin's talk page in an already-completed action between them and a user..Lilipo25 (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Valereee Pinged wrong username Lilipo25 (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Lilipo25, valereee is an admin, and she has just as much authority as I do when it comes to taking action with regards to arbitration enforcement. It's not uncommon for admins to have a lot of people watching their talk pages, or for admins to comment on one another's. There is nothing sinister going on, there is no need for you to take that tone, she is giving you very good advice. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

How would I have any way to know they're an admin, Girth? I checked their page and they don't identify themselves as one anywhere that I can see. Every other admin I've ever seen has the plaque on their user page. For all I knew, they're just another user jumping in to pile on. I don't know why they wanted to say the same thing you had already said to me on your page anyway, but I don't think it's necessary to act like I was out of line for not being psychic here and asking why they were involved when they don't even identify themselves as an admin. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Lilipo25, have another look at her user page. She has an admin stats panel right under the userboxes, and she is in the category 'Wikipedia administrators' (although you have to scroll down to see that). We're not all obliged to have that little mop icon, and you shouldn't put too much faith in that anyway since there's nothing technically stopping a non-admin adding that to their userpage (although they'd be reverted if anyone noticed). Even if she didn't have the tools, she's the kind of person whose advice I'd urge you to take on board - she has been editing for many years, has about 40,000 edits, and has written more articles than I've had hot dinners. When she speaks, I listen. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

At the risk of insulting you further with my lack of intuition, I had even less chance of knowing what "kind of person" someone I have never encountered before is than I did of knowing who they were. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Lilipo25, perhaps you're not in the habit of quickly looking into someone who contacts you - whenever someone I'm not familiar with addresses me, I check them out. I don't mean I do a thorough review of their editing habits, but I do a quick check to see whether I'm speaking to a newb, an SPA, a likely sock, or an experienced editor who probably knows how things work around here - my conclusions will influence whether and how I respond to them. Look at the user page (which, if you'd looked at it properly, would have told you about the admin status and extensive history of writing articles) and, if you feel it necessary, take a look at their contribs and hit '500'. There are various other user scripts you can use to find out more about them easily, but those two basic checks should give you an idea of who you're dealing with. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Lilipo25, you can go to Preferences>Gadgets>Browsing and enable Navigation Popups, it lets you hover over a user name and you'll see how many edits they have, how many years they've been editing, and what user rights they have. —valereee (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Valereee - I always get stuck helping people with that kind of thing, I have all sorts of gadgets and scripts enabled, and can never remember which one does what. I use that one too, very useful. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

GS, I have to actually open prefs each time to make sure 1. I remember correctly where it is and 2. they haven't moved it. I was expecting to find it at Preference>Gadgets>Editing. I would have sworn that's where it was last time I sent someone there lol... —valereee (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I am going to stay out of the discussion on me in Newimpartial's new section about below, but I will state here that I believe I should have been notified by them when they opened a request for me to be IBanned.Lilipo25 (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Lilipo25, I think it's reasonable for them to have assumed that you would be watching this thread, and also that they wouldn't want to be seen as breaching the Iban by pinging you. GirthSummit _(blether) 00:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, and just so we're clear on all of the rules, you have just agreed with Newimpartial's statement that even if they breach their Iban again in the future in the same way as they did - according to you - three times, you will not sanction them in any way? So although you have told them not to do it, you agree with them that there will be no consequences if they do anyway, because El_C interpreted it differently and they only need to abide by that interpretation and not yours in order to avoid incurring any penalties? Lilipo25 (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Lilipo25, no, I told them that I was not going to sanction them for the past occurrences; I did not say that I wouldn't sanction them if it happens again. Now let's all three of us go do something else for a bit and stop thinking about each other. GirthSummit _(blether) 00:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, I will but please, when you return later, please look again at what Newimpartial asked and what you replied, because I am afraid that you did (apparently inadvertently and in good faith) agree to not sanction them in future if they breach again in the same way the three times you mention are the one where El C offered a different perspective in response to Lilipo's query, and the two nearly-identical instances at LGB Alliance that Lilipo asked you about here, yes? And that difference of opinion will not result in me being sanctioned unless I post again based on El C's prior interpretation rather than your current one?. Sorry to be a nudge about it, but that's kind of a large point. GN. Lilipo25 (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Lilipo25, I've looked at this again with fresh eyes, and I don't see the ambiguity that you do. The bit you have bolded is indeed the pertinent bit - sanctions will not be forthcoming unless they post again based on the assumption that it's OK to comment on your edits. I think that's clear; I also think that NI has been making efforts to abide by the ban, as they understood it to be; hopefully this will be the end of the matter, let's leave it there. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Request for 2-way IBAN

My preference about this has taken time to firm up, but I would now ask that the 1-way IBAN to be converted into a 2-way, and I believe I can raise the question here per this diff (if I am misinterpreting, I will willingly revert this edit, but I believe it to be appropriate here based on the comments cited this comment by El C).

The circumstances of the 1-way IBAN were as follows:

• On 8 July 2020, Lilipo accused me of incivility [1] and submitted that I had followed her to other pages [2] [3]
• I replied that I had not initiated any conflict or engaged in any HOUNDing behaviour [4].
• El C then recommended that I avoid the appearance of hounding by refraining from following her around to pages you've never edited before, which I have observed scrupulously since then (I have not joined any Talk pages after Lilipo since that time, as far as I am aware).
• Nevertheless, Lilipo has continued to accuse me of "HOUNDING"[5].

• Three weeks later, Lilipo took offense at a comment I made in an RSN discussion and raised the issue with El C [6]
• El C then issued me a final warning [7]
• Since that final warning, I have not responded to Lilipo in any way prior to the Talk page discussion (covered under BANEX point 2)
• However, one day after the warning I was participating in an ANI discussion and cited a comment by another user, which had been left at Lilipo's Talk page many months earlier [8] Although this comment that had nothing to do with Lilipo and was relevant to ANI in relation to the other user, I now recognize that this was a mistake and that I should have reflected further before making the decision to post it.
• When Lilipo raised the issue with El C [9] his initial reaction was that this was not an "interaction"[10]
• Lilipo objected to this interpretation [11]
• El C changed his mind and issued an IBAN [12]
• I offered a voluntary one-way restriction instead of a formal IBAN [13]
• El C refused to change his mind[14].

• Since that time, Lilipo has objected when she saw me participate in content disputes on Graham Linehan; [15] she withdrew that objection [16] after El C's clarification [17]
• However, when I participated in a content discussion on another article, LGB Alliance (which I edited long before Lilipo), she raised the same objection[18], brought it to a different admin[19] and received a different result[20].

Now I have never been confident of the merits of 1-way IBANS In general; in this instance, I have become tired of Lilipo's repeated accusations of things that I have never done - things in fact that no admin has ever suggested that I've done. This has culminated in the very recent accusation that I bait and taunt and harass Lilipo,[21] - that I have been following (Lilipo) around and trying to pick fights with her - even though I have not replied to her or commented on her editing/behaviour in any way since last July (until the present discussion). I understand that Admin are not omniscient and that one can disagree with El C's previous clarification that I was allowed to engage content disputes, even when these also involve [her] edits so long as I did not respond to Lilipo or comment on her interventions. But at this point, converting the IBAN from one-way to two-way would give me some piece of mind as I edit, and should result in less admin attention being required over time. Newimpartial (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial, so, on the one hand, I agree with you that the accusations of ongoing hounding are not supported by the evidence, and have to stop. On the other hand, I don't see how I could justifiably respond to discovering that you have breached your Iban three times by sanctioning the other party. I am not minded to modify the Iban, but I will repeat my advice to both of you. You, NI, should desist from commenting on L or on her edits, being careful to avoid involving yourself in threads where she or her edits are the subject under discussion. L should refrain from making any further accusations about you, or indeed commenting about you at all, unless it is a factual and evidenced report of a breach. If hope you will both be able to abide by this going forward. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 23:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Right. Just to be clear, the three times you mention are the one where El C offered a different perspective in response to Lilipo's query, and the two nearly-identical instances at LGB Alliance that Lilipo asked you about here, yes? And that difference of opinion will not result in me being sanctioned unless I post again based on El C's prior interpretation rather than your current one (something I am not foolish enough to do)? Newimpartial (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial, yes, those are the three breaches that I see, and no, I don't intend to apply any sanctions over them. Instead I've let you know that I view them as breaches, and why I view them as breaches. GirthSummit _(blether) 00:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, I hear you. My last comment on this topic is that, while you don't see how [you] could justifiably respond to discovering that [I] have breached [my] Iban three times by sanctioning the other party, I would observe that WP:BOOMERANG is an actual thing, and an editor managing to repeat at least a dozen unfounded accusations in this filing alone, after being told by multiple admin that they should not behave that way, might have earned more than advice, particularly as I am far from the only one that has had difficulty with the limited WP:AGF practiced by said editor.[22] Newimpartial (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial, I think it would be best if we were to draw a line under it there - I think you just crossed the line between legitimate and necessary discussion of your own ban, and something else. You've said that will be your final comment on the matter - please make it so. GirthSummit _(blether) 00:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Scope of IBAN

I have just made this Talk page edit, which I believe to generously respect the requirement to avoid involving yourself in threads where she or her edits are the subject under discussion, and the principle from WP:IBAN that interaction-banned users are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other. I would like to verify that my interpretation fits with yours and that this is represents appropriate participation. It is a sincere edit, not a POINT edit, but I will naturally revert it if you see a problem. Newimpartial (talk) 15:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a debate with another editor over my editing of the lead section, which I believe you told Newimpartial to "sit out" in future: You are banned from making comments about Lilipo25, directly or indirectly, so if the subject of a discussion thread is her or her edits you should sit it out. Girth Summit, this appears to be merely an attempt to draw your attention to my disagreement with the other editor, which was not reported to you by either that editor or me. Lilipo25 (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

NewImpartial It's possible that you didn't realise that the content under discussion was written by Lilipo25. From a skim through this history, I see that it was, so yes, please self-revert. I'd also suggest that your joining a discussion that is almost exclusively between two editors, one of whom you have an IBan with, looks pointy, even if meant sincerely. Please try to avoid giving the impression of pushing at the boundaries of the ban, and ask for clarification before, rather than after, making an edit. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial Capitalisation issues, sorry - reissue ping. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Self-reverted, but I don't agree with this interpretation of policy. The proposal I was discussing was written by another editor from whom I have never been banned, and I did not make any comparative comments or "join" the discussion between the other two editors. Perhaps you could take another look at the actual proposal and my comment on it? WP:IBAN seems fairly clear that it is supposed to prevent the banned editor from commenting the other editor's work, but I do not understand that it is intended to prevent an editor from commenting on new proposals by other editors. The statement that interaction-banned users are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other doesn't seem to support your suggestion that I am giving the impression of pushing at the boundaries of the ban. Is this a question I should take to WP:AE for further clarification? Newimpartial (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial, you are at liberty to seek further clarification - that is definitely the preferable approach, compared to testing the boundaries and then checking after the fact. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I do not feel comfortable with the implications of test(ing) the boundaries, which was not what I was doing at all - rather than checking after the fact, I was trying to verify my (quite cautious, in my view) interpretation of policy from the relevant admin. Had I been pushing boundaries (which is what testing implies to me, based in the prior discussion), I would simply have made an edit and hoped to evade scrutiny, but rather I invited scrutiny for what seemed to be an unquestionably safe edit. The talk page discussion in question concerned text that I had edited [23] [24] well before the editor from whom I am banned arrived on the page, and I was not referring to any of the intervening edits when I made my comment/!vote[25]. The idea that I am banned from discussing new proposals concerning text I have edited before, just because another editor has made changes in the interim (which I did not in any way engage with), just seems like an implausible interpretation of WP:IBAN. The policy carries pretty clear message about what "interaction" means, when it lists reply to each other in discussions; make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly; undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means as the relevant examples. I clearly did not do any of these things, nor was I discussing any edits made by the user in question. I'm afraid I am at a loss here - it is not as though I didn't have a track record of reading policy text accurately for content and even participating helpfully in drafting discussions. I assume that it does not reflect your intent, Girth Summit, but from my standpoint this feels like gaslighting. Newimpartial (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial, that's an ugly word, but I appreciate that you've said it about your feelings, not my intentions. FWIW, I'm sure that Lilipo feels the same way about your editing, despite your intentions. I'm trying to be even handed here, and to apply my interpretation of policy evenly. One editor has proposed changing content that Lilipo wrote; in a conversation that was almost entirely between the two of them, you decided to add a comment. I see that as a breach but, as I said, you are free to seek another opinion. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that WP:IBAN makes a distinction between not interacting with another editor, and not participating in a discussion where that other editor is also participating. The policy seems to say that that second thing is OK so long as the banned editor doesn't comment on the other editor in any way (including edits they have made). But you seem to be saying that IBAN means not to enter the same discussion at all - that the second thing is not OK.

Also I didn't see any reference in the proposal I !voted on to content that the other editor wrote (or I would not have commented). It would be equally reasonable to regard the new proposal as replacing the content I had added or changed before the other editor arrived in the discussion - which was, indeed, the way I read and responded to the proposal. In fact, I didn't even look at the intervening edits in preparing my comment, only the proposal itself, which I suppose is why your interpretation seems so bizarre to me.

And apply(ing) (your) interpretation of policy evenly doesn't make sense to me in the context of a 1-way IBAN; I can see how it might be more plausible in a 2-way IBAN, though I still couldn't endorse your interpretation as an exegesis of our written policy. Newimpartial (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial, I have not said that it is about entering the same discussion. I have said that it does cover discussions where the editor or their editing is under discussion. When the material under discussion was entirely written by the other party, I veiw that as an indirect comment on them and covered by the Iban. You are free to seek other opinions on that. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 20:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

But GirthSummit, you are talking about discussions where the editor or their editing is under discussion. That simply is not true of the proposal that was made and my response to it. The proposal didn't refer to anyone's editing, and I didn't refer to anything except the proposal. Nor is the material under discussion was entirely written by the other party a factual or accurate statement - the first sentence, for example, is still substantially similar to how it read when I edited the lede earlier on. This still feels like gaslighting, TB completely H. Newimpartial (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I did just have a eureka moment, so thanks for that. It seems that what may matter the most in admin enforcement is not whether an editor actually was "interacting" with another editor, but whether an admon feels that they were interacting. In case of the previously discussed edit to Talk:Graham Linehan, El C didn't feel that I was interacting but you do. And in the case of the recent edit, I don't see any plausible interpretation of facts or policy that would make it into "interaction", but that is the way it feels to you and people can't be talked out of their intuitions by appeals to fact or hermeneutics. It would be well for me to remember that admins in this sense are just like everybody else. Newimpartial (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial, if by that, you mean that admins are human, then you are correct. All we can do is interpret policy as best we can. It is impossible to write a policy in such a way that interpretation is not necessary, and that we can all follow it mechanistically, judgment is required. I have already explained why I feel/view/interpret/understand your edit to be a breach of your Iban. I have not applied sanctions after finding three interactions that I see as breaches, because I viewed them as historic, and instead explained the situation. I did not apply a sanction for the clear and obvious breach that you made at 0015 this morning, on this talk page, because I understood that it would be your last comment on this theme. I have not applied a sanction for this most recent breach, because I really, really, want you to get what I'm saying to you without having to block you from editing. If you think my interpretation is faulty, you should ask for clarification. GirthSummit _(blether) 00:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

My understanding had been that the comment I made at 00:15 was covered by BANEX point 2 as part of my request for a 2-way IBAN, which I was actively pursuing at that time (I thought I made this explicit when I opened that subsection and cited your statement that this discussion was covered under BANEX 2, while offering to revert the request if it were deemed inappropriate). If this discussion were talking place somewhere other than your Talk page, I would simply remove the comments that you feel are inappropriate; in any case, that appeal is over, and I'd encourage you to remove/archive the whole section. There won't be any other breaches, since the next step clearly would be for me to invoke BANEX point 2 for a community review of the IBAN. I am not sure that would be a productive use of my available energy, however. Newimpartial (talk) 00:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Can this user be blocked?

Hello admin, sorry to bother you but can Clock UTTP KKTK 2009 be blocked for vandalism as soon as possible? --Ashleyyoursmile! 12:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Block needed ASAP

Could you please block Clock UTTP KKTK 2009 asap for vandalism and being a sock? i hate to skip the AIV queue but nobody seems to be watching it and they seem to have no intention of stopping. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Pahunkat, Ashleyyoursmile  Done GirthSummit _(blether) 12:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Girth Summit :-) Pahunkat (talk) 12:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Ashleyyoursmile! 12:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Operation Claw-Eagle 2

Good evening GS. I hope that things are going well with you and yours. I confess that the current state of the world is rather getting to me.

Meanwhile, on Wikipedia, things here seem to be getting unreasonably heated. I am not sure where to notify it/what to do, but imagine that an admin of your talents would know where to punt it. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gog the Mild, must go to bed. I'll take a look first thing tomorrow. Sorry to hear that the current shit is getting to you - can't say it's great here, although Fleet is a great comfort. At least I'm on half term this week :) GirthSummit _(blether) 00:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit, cheers Girth. No real rush, but things seemed out of order and not of the sites I looked at seemed appropriate for reporting it. If there is an easy answer to that, could you let me know it Gog the Mild (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, well, while I was asleep two of the editors at that talk page got blocked. I've offered some words of advice, and will keep an eye on it. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

See [[26]] and [[27]] Shadow4dark (talk) 11:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Greetings, oh King of Kings. I shall have to try leaving a saucer of milk outside my bedroom door myself. Where should I have reported that? I first went to ANB, but their list of things not to post there seemed pretty all inclusive and nowhere else seemed to fit. I am pleased to heat that you are adapting well to Fleet. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, heh - you've been looking at my userpage! I am enjoying knocking off a few architectural articles as an enjoyable change from whacking people with the block hammer.

I think that WP:ANI was probably the right location to take it. WP:POVN is there for POV issues, and there's WP:SPI for socking, but that page is a mess of both of those with plenty of personal attacks thrown in for good measure - ANI (rather than regular ANB) seems like the right place. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit, thanks. I shall do that next time. I did look at that, but the list of warnings seemed to include several reasons not to post that sort of thing there. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Karthison R

Hi. I'm not understanding your comment "I can't see any evidence that they are using multiple socks", but you blocked them for socking anyway? -- RoySmith (talk) 03:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

RoySmith, I meant that I didn't think there would be sleepers - it looked like an obvious case of creating a new account after the old one was blocked and coming back to exactly the same subject, rather than someone with a load of sneaky sleepers. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit, Sounds logical, thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Interaction ban

Hi @Girth Summit: Do I still have an interaction ban with mztourist. I was hoping to leave a comment in an Afd they have posted. scope_creep^Talk 11:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Scope creep - your IBan is logged here. It is still in force, it can be appealed at any time via AN, the suggestion was that you not do so before November of last year. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I think I will leave it for the moment. I'll appeal it some point. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 12:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Remove wrong and bad words from my company wikipedia page

Remove wrong and bad words from my company wikipedia page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpsshj (talk • contribs) 13:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Reverting a Talk page?

Why did you revert a talk page. A talk page is there for a purpose. WHEELER (talk)

Its purpose is to discuss improvements to the article. Nothing can possibly be added to the article using your self-published research or blacklisted YouTube videos, and the rest of your post was your personal opinion about a conspiracy theory. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Rough editing.

Dear Girth Summit. We were in contact a couple of years ago when I initiated the article Ross Kolby. Your assistance was very helpful and kind. I have enjoyed editing on the article and some others during this time. Now I wish to ask you about a couple of things. A Wiki editor has put a COI tag on the article and another tag has also appeared. I have tried to answer the questions this user has posted as best as I could, but he/she has simply stopped replying me. Personlally I think one should continue a dialogue one self has started. But there is not much I can do, it seems.

And today another user removed about some 80 % of the article, calling it "spammy nonsense". I try to make all my edits neutral, in a good explanatory language with reliable sources. But this user simply cut it all away as "spammy nonsense". I believe that is not how we should edit here at Wikipedia or treat oneanother. He/she correctly pointed out that I had uploaded a photo in a wrong way in 2019. Back then I was all new and did not know how to do it correctly. And I stated my point to his user that we are all new at a point, and that we learn and get things right after some time. I will now ask the person who gave me permission to use his photo to write to Wikimedia and send the standard text of transferring the rights.

I wish to ask you if that is really OK, to remove great chunks of an article because you personally find it to be "spammy nonsense"? Who decide what is good or not? I really loose the spirits in this editing when people are so unfriendly, respectless and become so harsh. I have done all my edits in good faith. Things might have been incorrectly edited sometimnes, but I always try to do things right, and I am willing to correct and learn. Now this first user who put the tags on refuse to reply to me so I have no idea what he will do or what will happen. And this other one seems a brute. I do not perform vandalism. I write as good as I can. Can I continue to edit when tags are being put on an article? Is it any use? Who can remove the tags, and what need I to do myself? I have tried to answer and sort all out. And can this other user just continue to delete any edit I do, because he finds it to be "spammy nonsense"? How may I handle this in the best manner would you say; Girth Summit? I am grateful for your advice. Best, Constituto (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Constituto, Praxidicae is not a "he", and Girth Summit, you may want to see [28]. Best, Blablubbs|talk 22:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Blablubbs I wrote he/she in the beginning of the text to include both sexes. That aside, is Praxidicae's edit OK? Are we to call other editors' work "spammy nonsense"? I have no problem with you checking, but wouldn't it be good to keep a respectful dialogue going? You asked me questions I answered but when I ask you something you go silent. I asked you what i might do to solve this, but you did not answer. I really try to respond in a respectful and professional way here. Best, Constituto (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Constituto, spammy nonsense isn't how I would have phrased it, but it seems that a lot of material there was a violation of our copyright policy, and potentially written in an overly promotional manner. I'm not going to get involved in the sock-puppet investigation; because of our prior interactions, I would prefer a different admin to look at that. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 18:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit Thank you for getting back to me. If I have violated the copyright policy in my editing I of course wish to correct that. Also if text is in an overly promotional manner. I never thought is was. To me this is a question of learning how to write and edit as good as possible. And as I have replied to the other two users I fully understand the need to correct things if they arre are wrong. And I wish to contribute to that. I just don't understand why dialogue and reversing of edits need to be so confronting and unpleasant. I try to learn as best as I can here. So again thank you for your advice and for responding. Best, Constituto (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi

Sup Girth, are u on discord? 223.191.2.106 (talk) 10:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Nope, I have heard of discord, but I've never used it. Anyone on there claiming to be me isn't. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

But someone whose discord username is AndrewBase said that he was you. 223.191.2.106 (talk) 10:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, it's not. Must be a fan. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Scope_of_1-way_IBAN:_Query. Thank you. El_C 17:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

OK I just came to tell you this but El C beat me to it. I don't think I have to notify the other user since they are already there (they began the section) but if I am required to put something on their page, please someone tell me. Thanks. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

You're not required to do so — it'd be ill-advised, in fact. Obvious WP:NOTBURO reasoning against doing so would apply, regardless of anything. El_C 18:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Happy to

take you up on your kind offer. Feel free to e-mail me. Best regards, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Notifications

Girth, I know you are aware of the rule which states that when an editor files complaints about another editor with an admin, they MUST notify the person being complained about. Yet again, it wasn't followed and no attempt was made by anyone to let me know so I could defend myself. And while I know the excuse will be used again that it might have violated the Iban to let me know I was once again being reported on, I think we both know that the report itself repeatedly violates that ban with statement after statement about me that has nothing to do with that user or with the ban, and so letting me know about it wouldn't have made that any worse.

There seems to literally be no end to how many times the same person can violate the Iban and even be told they are violating the iban by you without any consequences whatsoever. Worse, somehow if I point out that it has been violated yet again and I wasn't given the opportunity, again, by either of you, to even defend myself from false allegations, I seem to be the one you yell at for being in violation of their ban.

I will state only that I couldn't have misgendered anyone whose gender I do not know. I have now gone and looked at their bio and see they added - AFTER I mistakenly referred to them as he/him - that they use they/them pronouns. Please tell me that an attempt to trap me into a violation by adding pronouns AFTER I said 'he' and then claiming 'misgendering' is not going to go by unnoticed as every other violation does.I have ignored and stayed away from that user this week as you told me to, but as always, they cannot stop the harassment of me that never seems to bring any consequences. Lilipo25 (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE: I wondered why I received a message saying the "page has been restored" instead of "your edit has been saved" so I looked - are you serious? You not only did not notify me, you removed the whole complaint from your page so I couldn't see it? How is this ok, Girth? Lilipo25 (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to keep coming back, but I am very upset by this happening yet again. I do feel harassed and stalked by this person everywhere I go on Wikipedia and with every edit I make, knowing they are combing through my contributions constantly, taking notes and reporting them all back to you, and this harassment is taking place with admin permission. It simply never matters how much I follow admin's rules to ignore someone - they aren't followed in regard to me, and that now seems to be not only permitted, but openly encouraged with things like this, where once again you just say "this is another violation of the Iban - now, you know you shouldn't do that".

I ignored that user completely for the last week and they still spent that time going through my contributions page, sifting for every negative thing they could find that has nothing to do with them - my opinion of a source that used an anti-feminist slur, even - and crying "she seems to feel empowered to keep on keeping on accusing!" about things that happened a year ago between me and some other editor, and once again - no consequences from you. Every single time, they end by saying to you "OK, I won't bring it up again" and then a few days later, another long list of things they've found in my contributions shows up in a complaint to you, even though I have not interacted with them at all in the meantime.

So I am now asking for your permission to do the same in response. I have repeatedly refrained from going through their pages of contributions to find every negative contribution they have ever made every single time they do it to me again, but I'm tired of having my reputation trashed like this repeatedly and never being able to fight back because I know I'll be the only one yelled at. I would like to go through their contributions on a regular basis and report all of their negative interactions to you and El C. I would like assurance from you that I will receive the same gentle consideration they receive every time and not be given any consequences, and that you'll only reply to my doing this in the very pleasant, encouraging tone that you use for all of their violations against me. Thank you. Lilipo25 (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, Lilipo25, but I'm out as far as any of that is concerned for the foreseeable future, due to reasons which are my own (also, sorry, I didn't even read your lengthy message, since there isn't a point for me to do so considering that). I do hope things end up getting resolved amicably, somehow, even if against all odds (damn, feels like I've been saying that a lot lately, but I do genuinely mean it in every instance). El_C 22:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, El C, sorry to have bothered you. Lilipo25 (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Lilipo25, I confess that I'm not aware of a rule that says a user must be notified when someone mentions them, or even complains about them, on my talk page - this isn't ANI. I realise that it's polite to do so, but good manners wasn't the only consideration when I decided not to notify you.

I understand why you would be upset by that exchange. As you know, I agree that it was a violation of their Iban. I did not choose to sanction them for it, but others may feel differently - you are free to make a request that someone do so at WP:AE or at WP:ANI. Please consider the following before deciding whether or not to do that.

I don't pretend to be the perfect admin - I don't have all the answers. We have a very limited number of fairly blunt tools with which to encourage positive collaborations between editors. My block log shows that I am not afraid of using the block button when it's obvious that someone is a troll, a vandal, or a block-evading sock, but I very rarely use it on contributors who are actually trying to improve the project. I believe that both you and Newimpartial fall into that category, and so in dealing with the issues between yiu, I tried my best to encourage you to work together constructively, and then after the Iban was imposed, I have encouraged you just to ignore each other, to stay out of each other's way. My encouragement has not, so far, been entirely successful, but I hold out hope that it will be, if you choose to drop this.

I don't think that NI would have had to trawl through your contribs to find the diffs they presented here. I didn't read through them (since I considered their post to be an Iban violation, and told them as much), but I'm going to guess that they were all to pages that were on NI's watchlist. Having said that, if you continue to ignore them, and if, going forward, you follow WP:TPG scrupulously avoid personalising content discussions (as you have agreed you have done in the past), you'll have nothing to worry about if anyone does decide to review your contribs - you would have demonstrably stopped doing anything which anyone would need to do anything about.

So, why didn't I notify you, and why did I archive the discussion? Well, as I've said, I thought it was an Iban violation, so I wasn't going to act on it, I was not going to allow the discussion to continue, and TBH I didn't see what possible benefit there would have been in notifying you - you did not need to defend yourself, I wasn't going to consider a request made in violation of a ban. That being the case, the only possible result of keeping it live on my talk would have been for more people to read through it - essentially advertising an Iban violation. I preferred to archive it, in hopes of minimising the number of people who would see it, and so reducing any chance of any negative effect on your reputation, and of allowing both of you to move on more easily. That obviously didn't have the desired effect, so here we are.

I can't tell you what to do next. You are at liberty to file a report against NI at an appropriate location, if you want to do that. I'd urge you to keep it factual and to make no accusations that can't be clearly supported by diffs (in other words, don't speculate about their motivations) if you do so. Please don't bring it here though, I feel that any such report should be placed in a formal channel. If you want my advice however, I'd say just drop it. I think that NI has got the message about the Iban, I don't think they'll breach it again. This would be a point at which everyone could walk away and do something productive. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

This wasn't a "mention" of me. It was a formal request to an admin that you place a ban on me (their second such request in ten days). And it was archived because they very specifically told you that you should archive it in their last comment. And with all due respect, you said pretty much the same things about how they learned their lesson about not violating the Iban any more and I should stop making a fuss the last three times they violated it [29] [30] [31] and you didn't do anything. Not to mention the times you decided they just didn't realize they were violating it [32]. And now it's "well, they probably follow those pages anyway, so it's no big deal if they spent the latest time they were ordered to leave you alone taking notes about every edit you make and reporting you for disagreeing with sources, etc"

I am genuinely curious at this point what they would actually have to DO before you acknowledge they don't care in the least that they have an Iban and intend to keep harassing me nonstop until they succeed in bullying me off Wikipedia? Lilipo25 (talk) 07:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Lilipo25, please don't tell me why I took certain actions. I had decided to remove the text before NI's final post - I was just waiting for their confirmation that they had read my last comment before I did so.

I still don't see that a request I can't possibly take any action on requires a notification, but I'm sorry that you have been hurt by my decision not to notify you. I have not told you to stop making a fuss, and I am also sorry that you have interpreted my advice in that way.

You assert that they intend to keep harassing you nonstop, and that they want to bully you off Wikipedia. That is the kind of speculation about their motivations that I am urging you to avoid, because it simply can't be supported by evidence. In suggesting that you simply disengage, that you ignore them, I think I am offering you the best advice on how to prevent any such outcome. Nobody can do anything to you if you abide by TPG, and ignore people who you think are trying to get a rise out of you. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

It's amazing how my behavior must be "scrupulous" and abide by every rule to the letter if I don't want consequences, but at the same time, I must also just learn to ignore it when their treatment of me violates the rules over and over again. I can't imagine what the difference could be between them and me that the rules apply to us so very, very differently. Lilipo25 (talk) 08:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Lilipo25, I have not threatened you with any sanctions, so I don't know why you think you have to be perfect to avoid consequences. I am encouraging you to follow the guidelines, and observing that if you do, you don't have anything to worry about from people reviewing your contribs. I do not think I'm holding you to a higher standard than anyone else. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I have taken some time to calm down because frankly, your response on top of their repeated stalking of my editing and harassment has been extremely upsetting.

I honestly wish you got just how offensive it is to reply to me on what is, by your own admission, your fourth (and is in reality your sixth) time giving them a wink and a pass for being abusive in direct violation of their Iban: if you continue to ignore them, and if, going forward, you follow WP:TPG scrupulously avoid personalising content discussions (as you have agreed you have done in the past), you'll have nothing to worry about if anyone does decide to review your contribs.

You might as well just say "Well, if you don't want to be harassed, stop asking for it." You made their abusive behavior and continual violations of the Iban entirely my responsibility. Again. Lilipo25 (talk) 12:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Lilipo25, all I can say is that I'm truly sorry that I have upset you, and that you have interpreted my comments in that way. I don't know how to express myself in a way that you will understand. I'm not saying that you are asking for it; I'm saying that if you believe that people want to use your contribution history against you, you can guard against that by ensuring that there is nothing in there that could be used against you. I don't see how I am making anything your responsibility; your own contributions are already your responsibility, regardless of any Iban that someone has with you.

Again - you are at liberty to request further action from somebody else, or even to complain about my lack of action and insensitivity, if that's what you want to do. I'm only human, I can only do what seems to me to be the best course of action, using my best judgment. Reasonable people could take a different view from me, and might respond differently. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe I have just made an error. I was writing up a report of this incident as you suggested to make to the Noticeboard and saved it to my sandbox to work on later. I did not realize that pings put in my sandbox would be sent out. I therefore accidentally pinged you, El C and the user with the Iban, as I had to name you all in the report and will be required to notify you when it goes up (to be clear, there is no complaint about either you or El C in the report - you are only named as admins who were involved). Sorry about that. Lilipo25 (talk)

This is what makes GoogleDocs so wonderful. You can compose w/o pinging. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - March 2021

Delivered March 2021 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

13:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Potential vio

This appears to be a violation of the 2-way IBAN, in the terms in which you have explained it to me. Newimpartial (talk) 12:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial, forgive me if I'm missing something - I haven't looked into the background behind that discussion - but on the face of it, it doesn't appear that the thread is about you or any content you have written/sources you have used? As such, I don't think you would be prohibited from being involved in the same discussion. I see that the initial indentation made it look like a reply to you, but Lilipo has (a couple of posts above) said that was accidental, which I can believe - her post doesn't appear to address anything that you said.

This may be moot now anyway, given the statement she made recently on her talk page. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, I don't know anything about her Talk page statement, but my reading of the diff I presented - not its indentation - suggests that it is a defense of the !vote I was responding to, in direct reaction to the (unusually succinct) point I made. It does not refer to me or cite my edits (nor did I of her, in any of the cases you and I have been discussing at AN), but unlike those cases, she seems to be directly responding to my argument. Of course the editor in question can be "involved in the same discussion" - and is, in several different subthreads - but in this instance she seems to be "interacting" with my argument in support of a !vote that I was questioning. Newimpartial (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Iban

Girth, I think I need to explain this before it possibly becomes an issue. I was just on the Reliable Sources page minutes ago typing an opinion in response to another editor about the new site "Lesbian and Gay News". My response took a long time to type (at least half an hour, maybe longer) bc I was going through the front page of LGN and checking all of the articles to list their topics. I pressed publish, and found that while I was typing it, the other person in the Iban - who had not previously been on the page, afaik, had also typed a response to the same user and my comment went under theirs and now looks like I replied to them. I did not. My reply is to the users Rad Fem Ish and SilverSeren: [33]

I figured I'd better explain what happened before this becomes a complaint. I've already changed the indenting once and may now change it a second time to look less like a response to the other user.Thanks. Lilipo25 (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

While I sit out this interminably long (from my standpoint) SPI, I will point out that my response was solely to the replies that Black Kite and SliverSeren made to Rad Fem Ish here [34], claiming that all or most of the LGN articles are about trans people. I did not see the other user's comment until after I published mine, as I stated. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).

Administrator changes

TJMSmith

Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

Interface administrator changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
• A request for comment is in progress to remove F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a, which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
• A request for comment seeks to grant page movers the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at Wikipedia:Page mover/delete-redirect.
• A request for comment asks if sysops may place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
• There is a discussion in progress concerning automatic protection of each day's featured article with Pending Changes protection.

Technical news

• When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
• When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
• There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).

Arbitration

• By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
• The Kurds and Kurdistan case was closed, authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2021 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AmandaNP, Operator873, Stanglavine, Teles, and Wiki13.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Question for you to help me understand

Hello. So I have accepted the ban and I want to make sure I follow it. For on Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, there is a notice about the post-1992 US political ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES. What exactly is the rule for my ban? I think I understand about not editing an article that that message, but I am confused on articles like Mike DeWine's article does not have any information about a arbitration sanction. Say for example I did find something that was completely good for Mike DeWine's article, for example a new bill or something like that. Would I be able to edit the article with the new information since there is no notice on the talk page, or would I still need to ask for it via the talk page? Hopefully you can clarify that for me. Thanks! Elijahandskip (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Elijahandskip, you should take a look at WP:TBAN. It applies to all articles and discussions that touch upon that topic area, regardless of whether they have the sanctions notice. Articles about anyone who is involved in US politics would be included - so yeah, stay well away from Mike DeWine or anyone similar. Find a completely different area of interest to work on - personally, I like writing about history, and historic buildings. Some people do music, or sports, or science - whatever takes your fancy really. Just stay away from anything that could be construed as related to post-1992 US politics. Note that it's not just articles - it also covers talk page discussions. If in doubt, ask an admin. Questions about the ban are OK (so you mentioning DeWine here is not a violation), but talking about him elsewhere would be. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 19:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, just noticed your final question - you can't ask for changes on talk pages either. You should basically pretend that our political articles don't exist. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: sorry, but I had one final question. After I take a break from editing to clear my head and emotions from the ban, I want to try to actually format/improve the Current Event WikiProject which I helped revive back last year. I got basic formatting down, but I never really mastered all the pages and stuff, which I want to learn and master during the next 6 months. As long as I don't actively edit articles or participate in discussions of the articles that are with my ban, am I allowed to Wikilink them while I work on formatting the WikiProject? For example, I recently got Wikipedia:WikiProject Current events/COVID-19 related articles created but not really formatting. That is my first thing to do after my break. Say that set of related articles was political current events. Would it be ok for me to wikilink them into the category as long as I don't edit them? I read the WP:TBAN and it talks about categories, but never mentioned WikiProjects. My question is kind of unique since the WikiProject isn't just on the topic of Politics. Thanks for your answer in advance. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Elijahandskip, remember that there are lots of countries apart from the US, an there are lots of current events that don't concern politics. You're banned from editing about or discussing post-1992 US politics. Other than that, current events are probably fine. Go careful though. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Elijahandskip, I re-read your question. Yes, I think that linking articles covered by your TBan into categories would be prohibited by your ban. Remember, the rule of thumb is that you should pretend that those articles don't exist. Hope that helps. GirthSummit _(blether) 03:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Violation of Editing Restriction

Hi, hope you are doing well, seems like User FloridaArmy violated his Editing Restrictions [35] by creating this article[36] in Mainspace - how do I have to proceed such issues?! ANI? CSD? Or just draftifying ? CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

CommanderWaterford, start by asking yourself whether there is a problem that needs to be addressed. Then ask yourself whether you are the person to address it. If the answer to both questions is 'yes', I'd probably start by reaching out to them on their talk. Others might take a more aggressive approach, but I wouldn't advocate that. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit, I moved it into draft - my question went in the end more into "if there is some kind of procedure for "violations" of such restrictions a page reviewer has to follow", anyway thanks for the advice. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

CommanderWaterford, with highly-tailored editing restrictions like that, there aren't usually standardised procedures agreed upon for dealing with infractions. In terms of handling the article itself, I'd treat it exactly as I would treat any other new article, without regard for the author; if I thought that the author's breach of an editing restriction was a problem, I'd start by speaking to them about it, and go from there depending on the response they gave. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Just noticed your comparison of me to Fonzie - really funny

At[]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sleyece#Discretionary_sanctions_alert_-_gender,_BLP,_American_politics]. When I told my wife she thought it was hysterical - and apt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 13:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Doug Weller, ha - I'd forgotten about that one. Well, I can't ever remember seeing you lose your composure, seemed pretty apt to me. :) GirthSummit _(blether) 13:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I have to cop to posting it on Facebook, with a quick response from someone saying that I've been his idol since the days of Usernet (that would be me debunking people promoting fringe archaeology). It was there that I learned to handle abuse by being cool - and having information to counter them. It's funny how much that can upset some people. Doug Weller talk 13:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Doug Weller, glad you enjoyed it - feel free to e-mail me a link if you feel like sharing. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Personally I think Fonzie is cooler than the Fonze and I think it funnier to imagine Doug as Fonzie but sure the Fonze it is. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

What the - these are different things? I meant the guy from Happy Days, is there another Fonz/Fonze/Fonzie? GirthSummit _(blether) 16:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

BK49, you're not thinking of Fozzie are you? Because that's who *I* think of when I think about Doug.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

*sigh* Yes you're right Floq. Best,Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Who is it who's got that 'admin menagerie' userpage? I'm thinking of something similar, sorted by which muppet they most closely resemble... GirthSummit _(blether) 17:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

on wikiperida

Hello, Girth Summit. 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, yep, seen it - just got home from work, I'll respond shortly. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

No hurries. no worries. ain't goin' nowhere. Retired! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, replied. (Very jealous too!) GirthSummit _(blether) 18:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Appeal the decision on Regushee request

Hi, The evidence they gave is faulty, and the article I'm accused of copying doesn't exist. (Regushee (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC))

Hi Regushee, I'm not in a great position to assess your assertion here. The link I see on the deleted version of the page is indeed a dead link now, and it doesn't seem to have been archived at the internet archive; having said that, the reviewer who tagged it, and the admin who deleted it, both know what they are doing - did you raise this with them at the time?

On a related note, if that page was a translation, attribution is required, but I'm not seeing that in the deleted version. Are you aware of the licensing requirements of WP:TFOLWP? GirthSummit _(blether) 18:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, when the copyright violation was made, I clicked on the link and got the result I just found today too. I have encountered more than my fair share of wikipedeans who aren't very friendly, with very few exceptions, and "blew them off" to avoid an edit war over an article about a car built 100 years ago. The translation on both German and Italian Wikipedia; I was attempting to add the English version using the references cited, while using my own words to create the article, and adding the "interwiki" links to the other sites. By creating a stub article, I was inviting other sources to find the article, with reliable sources, to contribute to stub identified articles. To date, I've yet to encounter a Wikipedean that doesn't have some axe to swing at the slightest provocation, and I'm assuming "good faith" you're the exception. (Regushee (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC))

Regushee, I'm looking at the deleted version of the page, and I'm not seeing any interwiki tags on it. Maybe you were planning to add them later, but ideally if you are translating a page, you add the tag in the first edit.

My experience of Wikipedians is very different from yours - I can't say why that might be, but I've found that with a few exceptions, they're positive, helpful people. Maybe I'm just lucky in the ones I've encountered. I don't know Cabayi, the admin who deleted the page, very well, but I do know Onel, who tagged it. He's one of the most hard-working and prolific New Page Patrollers on the project; I'm not saying that he's immune to making mistakes, but I don't doubt his good faith for a moment. Copyvio hits are usually generated by automated tools, but they're always checked by a human before a tag is applied. I don't know why the URL is a deadlink, that's a bit of an anomaly, but it's probably too asking too much to expect either Onel or Cabayi to remember the details now.

So: I assume you didn't intend to create a copyvio; on the other hand, I also have to assume that Onel and Cabayi saw something that concerned them. I don't know who was in the right in that situation, but unfortunately I don't see a way to find out.

With regard to the Autopatrolled flag, your last 25 articles take us back to 2016 (long before I wrote my first article!). All Autopatrolled does is mean that your articles will bypass the NPP queue - it doesn't affect your editing experience, it just reduces the workload on reviewers. Your articles are generally quite short, and with that number per year I don't think you are putting too much of a burden on the reviewers, so I'm going respectfully to stand by my decision to decline the permission. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 19:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, you are one of the very few civil contributors than others I've encountered, so this time I'll walk away without a battlescar back into my cave. I was lucky, this time.(Regushee (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC))

Regushee, I'm genuinely sorry to hear that your experience here has been like that. Here's an offer: before my RfA, I was a regular(ish) New Page Patroller, and I still keep my hand in with that when I have the time and inclination. Feel free to drop me a note next time you create an article, and I'll review it if nobody else gets to it first. Deal? GirthSummit _(blether) 19:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm waiting to add more Buick articles, one that's been rescued from deletion and added to my sandbox, while I attempt to create brass-era Buicks found on German and Italian Wikipedia, and I'm preparing to create an all new article on the Packard Six while expecting the same "notability" rejections. That's why I'm currently working on Studebaker...no one cares about a car company that disappeared 50 years ago.(Regushee (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC))

Regushee, cars are admittedly not my area of expertise - I mostly write about historic buildings, with the occasional historical biography or battle thrown in for a bit of variety. From my perspective though, if you have four reliable and independent sources (as the draft in your sandbox does) which write in significant depth about the subject of the article, that's an easy WP:GNG pass. As I said, feel free to drop me a note when you're finished with it and I'll review it; as it stands, I think you're going to need more in-line citations, you have four sources but only the first sentence is actually cited. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 20:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Anwoth Old Church

On 7 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Anwoth Old Church, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Anwoth Old Church, where Samuel Rutherford preached in the early 17th century, was used as a location in the shooting of the classic horror film The Wicker Man? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Anwoth Old Church. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Anwoth Old Church), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Duchess Bridge

On 8 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Duchess Bridge, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Duchess Bridge in Dumfries and Galloway is thought to be the oldest surviving iron bridge in Scotland? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Duchess Bridge. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Duchess Bridge), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Look upon my sandbox and tell me what you really think

Hi GS! LTNS! Hope you and yours are well. If you have some time/interest, I'd love to get your feedback on a couple pages in my sandbox: User:Levivich/sandbox2 (Stub Starter) and User:Levivich/Help (help page), both of which should be self-explanatory. (tpw feedback welcome too!) Thanks! Levivich ^harass/_hound 06:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Levivich, good to hear from you. I took a sneaky peak at those earlier (saw your comment on GN's talk page), I considered adding another few buttons labelled things like "Shout into the void", "Start a fight", "Complain about the injustice" all targetting ANI, but thought it might not be constructive :P.

On the face of them they look very useful, it's a great initiative. I'll try to get chance to give them a proper run through later on and offer you some more fulsome feedback. (btw, tpw? tbh idk what that is.) GirthSummit _(blether) 13:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Tuneful, poetic Welshman? Tiny purple whale? Trained personal weasel? Likely the far less exotic (talk page watcher). Levivich, it's an interesting idea. My concern is that the result could be hundreds or thousands of low-quality, minimally-referenced (if at all) stubs which would languish, unimproved, until finding their way to AfD. Under what circumstances do you picture the stub-creation wizards being used? Tasmanian plaid wearer, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@BlackcurrantTea: (lol) ...the result could be hundreds or thousands of low-quality, minimally-referenced (if at all) stubs which would languish, unimproved... Have you ever read Wikipedia? We got like six million of those. :-D But your point is well-taken. I think providing a template will actually encourage a better stub, rather than a poorer stub. I see the alternatives as: (1) editor saves a one-sentence stub, no categories, no infoxbox, no wikiproject banners, no stub sorting tab, etc., or (2) editor uses one of these templates and saves a one-sentence stub, but it's categorized, infoboxed, bannered, stub-sort templated, etc., and that's actually a better situation than #1. My intuition is that new pages of the #2 type will be easier to patrol (and more likely to get the attention of other editors who edit in the relevant topic area) than new pages of the #1 type.

But regardless, I think of it not as a tool for new users at all, but as a tool for more experienced users, or specifically, as a tool for myself, because I wanted something like this and it didn't already exist. This grew out of the experience of working on one article and stumbling upon something obviously-notable that doesn't already have an article (like a book, an author, a historical event). A gap in our coverage. And I'd have the sources to start a stub right in hand, but had no idea what an article about that topic is "supposed to look like": that is, what the typical section headings are, which infobox and what parameters, what categories, what wikiprojects, etc. And the notion of finding and reading the relevant notability guideline, MOS section, WikiProject advice, infobox template documentation, etc. etc., just discouraged me from even bothering. "I'll create a redirect instead" is usually what I think. Othismos, Semicolon Court, 42 USC 1983 are all redirects with possibilities and not stubs because I'm lazy to do all that legwork, even though I have sources in hand. Books like Hitler and the Jews and academics like Harriett Allsopp are redlinks for the same reason. (My plan is to test out the "Stub Starter" with those topics.) I envision a situation where WikiProjects (at least those that are active) create and maintain their own templates (as subpages in their WikiProject space), and when I want to start a stub about something, I can load up the "vetted" template and know that this is basically how it's "supposed to look" according to "editors who would know" (i.e., WikiProject members). And I imagine if it's useful to me, it'll also be useful to a new editor.

Would you use it? Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@GS: How is it there's something about Wikipedia that I know and you don't?! Allow me to introduce you to {{tpw}}, {{tps}}, and of course my favorite, {{buttinsky}}. I think you're on to something with those extra buttons. We'll have to make some kind of easter egg "more" menu, maybe an "all else fails" button, that gives the seasoned editor additional options like those you suggest... top which I'd add "haul to arbcom", "dramaquit", "run for RFA yourself goddamnit", "complain to Jimbo about the decline of Wikipedia", etc. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Levivich, I'm sure there's a metric shit-load you know about Wikipedia that I don't! tps I was familiar with, can't remember seeing tpw before but it seems obvious now. I massively prefer all of BlackcurrentTea's alternatives though - put this project to one side until all of those templates have been created! GirthSummit _(blether) 19:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

(trombone-playing wasps) Levivich, of course I meant 'hundreds or thousands of additional low-quality, minimally-referenced (if at all) stubs'. For experienced users with a modicum of self-restraint, your 'Stub Starter' could be a feature-rich update to saving a framework with subject headings and an empty infobox. (I probably wouldn't use it because I enjoy non-automated editing.) It has the added benefit of averting the pitfalls of using an old copy of something. Enthusiastic, less-seasoned editors, or those plagued by editcountitis, however, might find themselves running afoul of WP:MASSCREATE, or in the unpleasant position of having to defend their minimalist stubs at a noticeboard.

The extra options are an excellent idea. As someone who accidentally clicks things, I hope that you'll include a confirmation step: 'Shoot yourself in the foot? y/n'. 'Make an ass of yourself? Yes, I need an enforced wikibreak/On second thought, no'. 'Arbcom? Really? Are you quite sure about that? Yes. Yes, I am./Erm... no.' BlackcurrantTea (talk) 00:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

(tl;dr) But if no one has suggested it, you might want a button for, righting great wrongs. Cheers, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Ken Bridge

On 11 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ken Bridge, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that John Rennie the Elder built Ken Bridge twice? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ken Bridge. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ken Bridge), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Mya Thwe Thwe Khine

Hi Girth, please have a look at todays history of Mya Thwe Thwe Khine and I am sure you understand what I meant yesterday. Have a nice day, CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC) Addition: [37] and [38] and [39] - I let it up to you if and what to do. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
PS: And the next insult: [40] ! CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
PS2: Sorry Girth but once more against WP:AGF here [41] CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
PS3: And a another one, this time calling User Hawk a "minor editor" after removing warning templates on their talk page [42] Are we really tolerating this kind of behaviour? CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, CommanderWaterford What do you mean ? I did nothing wrong. I'm trying to protect newly created Burmese articles. You taken all of the new Burmese articles to AfD recently. Yes, I moved Mya Thwe Thwe Khine to proper name. See example Suicide of Khanakorn Pianchana. I have my right to protect articles on Wikipedia. Currently the article is in AfD, pls dont move to BLP name again and use talk page for further discussion. If the article doesn't meets WP, let editors decide. Thanks Taung Tan (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

What? this [43] is a insult? Oh my god! Why are you so sensitive? You look like my younger sister, once, I called her "Little mouse", and she cry and told my mother. My mother bash me 😞. Taung Tan (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

PS, I think CommanderWaterford have personal problem on Burmese. Pls check this comment in AfD [44] :

the page was only prodded once. And that was once too many as the prod process is only for "uncontroversial deletion".. CommanderWaterford did over action on Burmese articles. Taung Tan (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi sir, I'm not alone now, pls see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mya Thwe Thwe Khine. Hi is over the limit. Taung Tan (talk) 07:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Girth Summit, the account is not even 24 hours unblocked and now takes me to ANI for a Content Dispute - what do I need to do to get a Topic Ban with them? CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC) ANI was withdrawn, Editor says she is retired now and will not edit any further, no need for action. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

User Jeetchitanis

Hello, I noticed that you had deleted their userpage but they are doing it again. --Ashleyyoursmile! 06:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Potential new vio

I believe this may be a violation of the IBAN (from the other side), notably Newimpartial, who isn't the only person in the world to claim 'nonbinary' as a personality because they don't have one worth relying on. I have difficulty seeing how that particular statement could be covered by BANEX, point 2. Newimpartial (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial, I have to agree with you, that is not just a violation but I think it's also a personal attack. I have blocked Lilipo25 from editing, purely on the basis of that comment; I'll leave someone else to handle the original AE request. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you train me on Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy

Hello, you can please train me on Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy so that I could have more experience in counter vandalism? Thanks. Rodney Araujo Tell me - My contributions 21:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Rodney Araujo, thanks for reaching out. I'm afraid that I have a student on the go at the moment, and don't really have the time to take on another at present. You could consider reaching out to one of the other listed trainers, I see that some others have slots open. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 09:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, please can you look into training me on the Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy so that I can have some more experience and start clearing up more articles? Thanks -HyacinthBucket55 (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

HyacinthBucket55, thanks for reaching out, but I'm afraid that I'm not taking on new students at the moment. I'm a teacher, and the pressures of returning to face-to-face teaching are eating into my editing time. I may become active in CVUA again in a few weeks, but you might consider reaching out to one of the other trainers. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 18:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Deleted Draft

Hi!, Thank you very much for your patient and polite explanation on my page, unfortunately my first encounter with a moderation was quite rude. Regarding the review you left on my talk page today I've been trying to get the text back to keep working on it and fix it, but the moderator that deleted it (even though being on the list you provided) refuses to do so, furthermore, the replies me and other users have been receiving had been quite rude. My intention is to learn with this first article but if I start over that's just going to be impossible, whereas seeing what might have been the problem on my original text is the only way I can spot it and never repeat it. This is not a paid article, otherwise I might have kept a copy, it was a draft of a translation. thank you for your understanding and I hope you could tell me how to recover the draf.Pupypau (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Would you call this harassment? Deb (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Pupypau, you already asked for recovering your draft which had been denied by at least two admins. It makes no sense to ask now any editor whith whom you had contact if they can help you. Your draft was clearly promotional and your latest edits on the talk page of Deb were beside this very borderline. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Addition: I found the original spanish page - I would say it takes around a maximum of 5 minutes to translate it, perhaps 2-3 with a machine translator. And it is also marked with several tags for being promotional over there. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your replu, I wanted to avoid translating again because then I would be doing a promotional post again, since translating the Spanish article is what I did the first time, if I hadn't gotten the original text it wouldn't have been worth it to work again on this article so I would just have moved on after wasting a lot of time. I do have the original text now and I am deleting/restructuring it to make it wikipedia worthy. I think is a great exercise for someone new hence my insistence. I will ask a moderator to take a look when I finish. Pupypau (talk) 08:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Both - sorry, real life stuff is hectic with the return to face-to-face teaching. Briefly, there...

Deb: Yes.

Pupypau: There are very few reasons why an editor would ever have a legitimate reason to another editor's user page. This was certainly not one of them. Please be very clear about this: if you ever to anything like that again, your account will most likely be blocked from editing. The original page was obviously promotional, I agree with Deb's decision to delete it - I suggest you take a look at WP:FIRST to learn more about how to create articles, and remember that Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 21:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Buick Model 10 rollback reverted

Hi, the article I had saved to my sandbox where user Onel5969 revoked due to non-notability; I've reverted the edit and updated with four inline sources and oversaved the article I had in my sandbox...I thought I'd send you a note just to see if it gets reverted again.(Regushee (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC))

Regushee, can I ask whether you'd be willing to go through and add inline citations to support the content? I don't have access to any of your sources, but ideally I'd like to see which of the sources support each assertion. Page numbers would be good too - I can show you how to use the sfn template to add citations to specific pages in books without having to enter the full cite template each time, if you like? GirthSummit _(blether) 13:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, about adding pages to citations, I have the book "Standard Catalog of American Cars" written by Beverly Kimes but it was stored away. When I created the Buick and Oldsmobile articles from the translation citing this book at German and Italian Wikipedia, I translated the article and cited the book. Now that I've attracted the attention of Onel5969 who is running a script where all new articles citing sources but not pages are being flagged and deleted, the pages can be added. This book is enormous, with over 1600 pages with very small print and will now be referred to when filling in the gaps on brass era and vintage cars built until 1942, and other stub articles that might prove helpful. Oakland Motor Company is in this book, which was the precursor to Pontiac before GM renamed the division, and the content will be added too at some point, as will missing Packard content. If this conversation is being monitored, I can't copy and paste from a printed book so articles will be in my own words. I might still need your help fending off "whomever". Thanks(Regushee (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC))

Hi...Now that I have my book back, most of the brass era American Car articles, some of them neglected orphans that a Wikipedian used to work on, can now be reliably updated, while I'm not at this point considering adding over 400 manufacturers who were in business from the early 1900 through the Great Depression, when most of them went under. These articles, in my opinion, describe how the auto industry got started and influenced the manufacturing industry around the world. European and Asian companies are currently well documented, but the brass era American companies aren't, for now.(Regushee (talk) 23:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC))

That clarification request...

The discussion at DGG's talk page seems to have stalled. How shall we proceed? Given that the discussion at RSN seems to have produced no consensus, a clarification request seems advisable. I, for one, don't know if using this book as a source is ok or not (in terms of - if I use it, can I be reported to AE given the no consensus outcome of RNS?). This is a chilling effect for the topic area; the rules need to be clear, not confusing. As I noted on DGG's talk page, I submitted some clarification requests in the past, the procedure is not super complex and I offer my assistance with drafting the request if it is of any help to you. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Piotrus, the return to face-to-face teaching in the UK this week has kept me pretty busy the last few days. I should have a bit of time over the weekend, I'll see about putting something together then. Thanks for the offer of assistance, I'll let you know if I need it - I'll likely draft something along the lines that I suggested on DGG's talk, let me know if you think anything needs to be significantly different. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 06:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit, Take your time. The more I think about it the more I believe this needs to go away, as the chilling effects are scary. This type of remedy empowers indef banned editors who keep socking, as they can waltz into the TA with a sock, report some established editors to AE for some borderline references (like the very book that brought that up), and hope the admins sanction their opponents. And if it doesn't work? New sock, rinse and repeat, if Admins A, B and C weren't convinced Source X is bad, there are always Admins D, E, F, and Sources Y and Z... the socks are throw away, and they only need one diff to stick to ruin someone's reputation forever (And there's also the entire can of warms about ArbCom and AE moving more and more into the content rulings itself). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Piotrus, I hear what you're saying. I've raised the request for clarification (you should have received the notification on your talk), so I'll cross my fingers and hope that the committee is able to provide clarity about the situation - I agree that a situation where you are unclear if you are about to step on an AE beartrap is far from ideal. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 16:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Could you consider notifying WP:POLAND, WP:MILHIST, and any other WikiProject you think is relevant to this topic area that there is an ongoing clarification request? Unless you think such a notification would be inappropriate? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Piotrus, hi - sorry, time is very short at the moment. I don't think that either of those Wikiprojects would be inappropriate, would you be comfortable in notifying them yourself? Otherwise I can probably find time to do so this weekend. Sorry, parents' evening tonight, and generally flooded with real life stuff... GirthSummit _(blether) 21:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit, Thanks for confirming such notifications would be ok. I think it is best if you would drop a short notice, as the op of the request and a neutral party. No hurry, ArbCom is not a rapid process, for better or worse. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Piotrus, I've notified the two projects you suggested, and also WP:JUDAISM. No others immediately spring to mind, feel free to prompt me if any occur to you. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 19:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit, Thanks! Maybe Germany, given that most Polish WWII topics are related to Germany. Secondary Russia, I guess... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Republican Party (United States) and Talk:Postcrossing on "All RFCs" request for comments. 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 04:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations

Your DYK hook about the Duchess Bridge drew 5,420 page views (452 per hour) while on the Main Page. It is one of the most viewed hooks for the month of March as shown at Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics#March 2021. Keep up the great work! Cbl62 (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I can't help but wonder if this IP you blocked last month is a sock

[45] - their only edit to the talk page and there are no posts of mine there. My last talk page edit was Dec. 20 on an entirely different subject. My few edits in the last 3 or 4 months haven't dealt with this issue either. Doug Weller talk 16:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Doug Weller, you're probably right, but I don't recognise an obvious user. I've blocked again for DE, their comments on multiple talk pages range from outright trolling to pointless snark. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I couldn't find any obvious blocked accounts on the article or talk page, so presumably a sock of an active editors or someone using another IP address as well. Doug Weller talk 16:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Category talk:Faculty by university or college on a "All RFCs" 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 16:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Elodie Alice

Hello, Girth Summit. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Elodie Alice".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Sunday

Hi, sorry to disturb you. I have to log off for work purposes. Could you check recent edits to the above article by User:Jaredscribe about the eighth day of the week? Thanks Denisarona (talk) 06:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Denisarona, I've reviewed an reverted as unsourced and inappropriate additions to the lead (since the content is discussed in the body of the article as far as I can see). Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 06:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help. Denisarona (talk) 09:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Mariah Bell

Thanks for weighing in to shortstop the recent spurt unsupported anonymous POV additions to this article. I tried to do that a few edits earlier without success -- possibly due to an edit conflict which I did not reccognize. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Wtmitchell, no worries - I looked at a range block, but I think I was going to have to block the whole /16 range to catch all the IPs that were adding that stuff, so protection seemed the better option. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Block needed

Hello Girth Summit, could Kratz329 (talk · contribs) be blocked as soon as convenient. They're a sock of WP:LTA/Kingshowman, see the history of the AFDs. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 10:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Pahunkat, I have no view on the socking issue (I'm not familiar with that LTA), but they're clearly NOTHERE so  Done. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Girth Summit :-) I typed the LTA wrong - it's Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Kingshowman for future reference. Pahunkat (talk) 10:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

They'tr back as Pahunket (talk · contribs), could another block be issued please? Pahunkat (talk) 10:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Pahunkat, also  Done. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again! Apparently they're a confirmed sock of me, which is funny :-) Pahunkat (talk) 10:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Why do they bother? TPA revoked on both accounts. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Not sure, that's a question I'd like to ask all LTAs. Their accounts get blocked, their edits get reverted and they don't get anything out of it per DENY. Pahunkat (talk) 10:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit:, here we go again... Please block Water B29 (talk · contribs). – robertsky (talk) 12:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit:, hey, it's you! Girfh Summit (talk · contribs) (obviously not)... – robertsky (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Robertsky, yep, spotted that one in a quick skim through 'new users' GirthSummit _(blether) 12:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit, this is a long shot, but can a CU assist to see if the IP address(es) from which the accounts are created be blocked temporarily? – robertsky (talk) 13:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Robertsky, CU would show the IP addresses, but they won't be static so it's of limited use. I expect a CU is already looking into it to see whether there's anything that can be done. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Just a question, why are the socks being blocked with autoblock disabled? Pahunkat (talk) 13:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Pahunkat, because I am incompetent. ;) Thanks for noticing, I made a poor choice from Twinkle's 'type of block' options - I will fix... GirthSummit _(blether) 13:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

No worries, sorry for bringing you into this! I've put out a request at m:srg for locking. Pahunkat (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

You lied

Why did you choose to support Bola’s Tinubu, by changing his age, knowing fully well, he’s ten years above that age XAit12 (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

XAit12, I have no idea how old he actually is (I've never heard of him, and I haven't read our article about him) but I'm >99% confident that he isn't 121 years old. Don't accuse other editors of lying - it is an accusation of bad faith and a personal attack. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Bola Tinubu is actually 79 years old, was given birth to March 3rd 1942, would suggest you do more research. Meant no personal harm whatsoever, hope you have a great day. XAit12 (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

XAit12, if you have a reliable source to support that assertion, it's possible that a change could be made to the article. I have done a small amount of research, and what I found was sources like the Guardian and Legit saying that he's 69 today. If there are better sources giving a different date, by all means let me know - but the onus is on people wanting to make a change, not on the person seeking to stop the unambiguous vandalism that was taking place at that page today. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Could you train me on the WP:CVUA?

I would like to become a rollbacker. Can you teach me how to become one? Remember that I am not a native speaker and may not understand complex terms. Dr Salvus 12:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Dr Salvus, I'm afraid I'm going to decline this request. For one thing, I'm not taking on new students at the moment, I'm spending my time here doing other things. However, I must say that some of your editing from March gives me pause as to whether you currently have the judgment that counter-vandalism work calls for. Creating a 'male chauvanist' userbox template, adding categories to another editor's userpage - these were perhaps just lapses of judgment, but they were poor choices. I'd urge you to gain more experience in other areas of the project. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 12:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I think I have learned from this mistakes. If you don't feel like it, can I ask another user for help? Dr Salvus 12:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Dr Salvus, you're welcome to approach someone else, I'm not in charge of CVUA. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket on a "All RFCs" 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 21:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).

Administrator changes

Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
• Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.

Technical news

• When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
• Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)

Arbitration

• A community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure is open until April 25.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

RevDel

If I was a Muslim, I think I'd be grossly offended at this suggestion. – ².O.^Boxing 19:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Squared.Circle.Boxing, I'm not sure that merits revdel. I mean, the article does talk about terrorism and give links to articles related to jihadi terrorism and the sort. As worded, I agree it's a crude and unhelpful suggestion, and I don't disagree with its removal from the talk page, but I'm not sure that revdel is necessary. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 09:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kirkcudbright Tolbooth

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kirkcudbright Tolbooth you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 10:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kirkcudbright Tolbooth

The article Kirkcudbright Tolbooth you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kirkcudbright Tolbooth for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Chinese herbology

Hi Girth, I removed the editorialized comments and kept the peer reviewed edits. I also noticed you pretty much bulk reverted my edits when the majority were corrections about terminology and not about efficacy or anything controversial. If it helps, I'm in the last year of my Phd in pharmacology and simply want the page to reflect current research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robmix (talk • contribs) 05:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Robmix, your personal experience and qualifications don't give you any particular editing privileges here, and I don't agree with you that your edits were uncontroversial. The correct place to discuss this is the article talk page; what you should have done is start a thread there, rather than reinstating your edit. I see that another editor has reverted you - I'm going to put some information on your talk page about edit warring now, please don't reinstate any of your changes without gaining consensus, you have been reverted twice. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 05:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Library

Hi Girth, thanks for the suggestion regarding citing Wikipedia Library rather than Find my Past. I wasn't aware that this was available, so very useful. Furnival (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Simon Edwards Esq, no worries - they're very handy for articles like that. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 14:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

formatting to close discussion

Hi!

At ANI, it looks like the only issue was you used the wrong brackets to close after linking WP:TBAN|topic banned. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

oof, Patar Knight beat me to it by about 10 minutes. Sorry! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers, yep, spotted that after Patar Knight fixed it. Couldn't work out what was going on there, tired eyes... GirthSummit _(blether) 19:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

That was the first time I noticed that little script. Now added, but I haven't tried it yet. So in that sense, TY Girth. — Ched (talk) 00:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Ched, you're welcome! It's a useful script, if you don't screw up what you type. It doesn't sign automatically though, so remember the tildes. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Text Reverts

Hello Girth Summit,

Please do not revert the text within: "Non-Human Animal Personhood and Autonomy", "Implications of autonomy for domestic non-human animals", or the sidebar. I will undo only these reverts (for now). I assure you I shall cite sources when I have the time. In this special case - ethics far outweighs Wikipedia 'guidelines'. Incidentally.. I was born in York. :-) NonhumanAnimalAutonomy (talk) 11:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

NonhumanAnimalAutonomy, greetings from a sunny York. I'm afraid I cannot comply with your request. I've left you an explanation on the article's talk page - I would strongly suggest that you engage there, rather than reverting again, which will likely see your account blocked from editing. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

In future - please feel free to message me before reverting my contributions and edits. If there is an issue, it would be preferrable to discuss it here beforehand, don't you agree? Many thanks! NonhumanAnimalAutonomy (talk) 12:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I've reformatted your comment slightly, so that it complies with WP:TPG. Since you are refusing to engage with any of the reasons I have given you for reverting this content, I have no option but to ask another administrator to intervene. You may comment at the thread at WP:ANI to explain yourself, but I would very strongly advise you to show a willingness to edit within our guidelines by self-reverting and engaging with the comments I made on the article talk page. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 12:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Greetings! No worries, I assure you I have neither the time, nor desire to engage in an edit war. I prefer to discuss any issues on the talk page. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

NonhumanAnimalAutonomy, well, you already started the edit warring when you reinstated your content after Rasnaboy, and then I, reverted you, and even after I gave you the notice about edit warring on your talk page. You still haven't commented on the article talk page, here. To be frank, I don't believe that you are here to contribute to an encyclopedia, I believe you are here to advocate on behalf of a particular organisation or ideology; perhaps you will be able to show me that I am wrong though by engaging with those concerns. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Respectfully.. you are mistaken in this case. I am engaging here and now. Apparently my contributions and edits have made a point which you personally disagree with. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy (talk) 13:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

NonhumanAnimalAutonomy, I have no particular view on this matter, but I have a strong interest in ensuring that our articles summaries reliable secondary sources, and are not used by advocacy groups to push their agendas. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

It seems that any further discussion on this very serious issue is simply an excercise in futility. So, once again protocol is victorious over fundamental ethics at the cost of non-human animal lives. Congratulations! Those with no particular view on this matter are a contributing factor to the continuation of atrocities against non-human animals. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

NonhumanAnimalAutonomy, you are correct, in the sense that your continuing to try to change our articles without recourse to reliable, secondary sources would indeed be an exercise in futility.

This is exactly what I mean when I said that you were not here to contribute to an encyclopedia - you are here to attempt to right a great wrong. Our goal here is to neutrally summarise what reliable sources say about any subject, not to persuade people that a particular viewpoint is right or wrong, important or irrelevant, good or evil. If that's not what you're here to do, you're in the wrong place.

I am sure that your intents are noble, but they are not aligned with the purpose of this project, and while I harbour no ill-will towards you or your mission, I will not allow you to use Wikipedia as a mouthpiece for your views. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, I am not here to challenge Wikipedia policy. I sincerely believed I was making a valid contibution to Wikipedia. You are absolutely right when you say that Wikipedia is not about noble causes. Give my regards to York, I've not been back since my mum died eleven years ago. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the Sources.

As we discussed regarding the new sources for Draft:Zeyan Shafiq, I understood your point that there’s actually no new reliable source. So is there any possibility by which i can withdraw the deletion review? Because it would make no sense with presenting the sources that have been discussed at the AfD already and wait for any new source and then present the source and apply for a DRV. Also if I withdraw the DRV, is there any way i can save the draft? Because if incase there’s any new source in future, I would simply start working on this draft version rather then writing it from scratch. Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 02:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Abhayesports, you can add a note to say that you withdraw it. There's nothing stopping you from creating a local copy of the draft now, but I personally think that a rewrite from scratch would be a better idea. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, yes I’ll do that. I’ll put a note, can you do me a favour since I don’t have access to laptop for couple of days, can you move the draft to my sandbox? If i work on Shafiq’s article in the future i would re write it from scratch but this version of draft would help me with the references. Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 17:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Abhayesports, when I said a local copy, I meant a text file on your computer. If it is deleted again, a copy in your sandbox would not be appropriate. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh Understood, I’ve put up a note and since I don’t have a computer for some days I won’t be able to make a local copy so i will rather write it from scratch in the future if Shafiq receives any reliable sources. Thank you for the discussion earlier and thank you for clearing out my confusions. You’re probably the first admin who has had a rational discussion with me and talked decently and made me understand things more clearly. Much respect.Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 18:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Draghi Cabinet on a "All RFCs" 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 22:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Muhtarlıklar

Hey, I saw in the ANI thread about Lugnuts that you had asked a few days ago what this word means. To answer your question:

• "muhtar", is, as Lugnuts said, a local leader (from Arabic مختار; compare e.g. the name of the Tajik ASSR, Çumhūrijati Sūsiolistiji Şūraviji Muxtori Toçikston);
• "-lık" is, as I understand it, a suffix denoting a placename, in this context usually referring to a place governed by a certain type of ruler (compare e.g. Beyliks, ruled by Beys); and
• "-lar" is a plural marker in Shaz Turkic

Therefore, Muhtarlıklar would mean "places governed by muhtars/under the muhtar system". Hope that helps, M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 20:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

M Imtiaz, thanks, that's enlightening. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

For your comments at ANI. They were more caring than most. Thanks again. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome Lugnuts. It can't be pleasant having a whole bunch of people talk about you critically - I know I wouldn't feel great if folk were going through my contributions looking for problems (and I'm sure they'd find plenty if they looked for them). I've already said what I think about minimally sourced articles, so I won't repeat it, but we should always do our utmost to talk about concerns without making other people feel unappreciated or ganged-up on. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

FitGirl

It was initially written as a biography, but this person isn't known for anything else. Even the infobox image in the article says "FitGirl Repacks". is it a group of people (in which case WP:NCORP would presumably apply)? it's "officially" one person, but there's no way to know. For all we know FitGirl could be operated by a massive government-paid team. And if FitGirl officially took in some team members, nothing would really change. If FitGirl handed over the site to like-minded repacker, nothing would really change. I see it as a one-man group, if that makes sense. Stardew Valley isn't the same as Eric Barone (developer) even though he did everything from making the characters, writing the dialogue and creating the music to animating every pixel. And Mojang Studios isn't the same as Markus Persson even back when he had no employees. I guess it's a matter of perspective. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 09:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Alexis Jazz, I'm fine with the concept that a person is distinct from a company that they operate - I used to work as a freelance geophysicist for a while, and acted as the director of my own company, so if I or the company were notable we could have separate articles. I'm also fine with the idea that an artist is distinct from a particular artwork that they produce. We need our articles to have a clearly defined subject though, and that's what I'm a bit wooly on in this case.

You're saying that the article isn't about the person who does the uploads; fair enough, that means it's about either the website itself (WP:NWEB would apply), or about the (probably) one-person organisation that publishes the website (WP:NCORP would apply).

My problem is that the sources are mostly about the person - they talk about FitGirl as a person, they describe what she does, what motivates her, how she got started, etc. There's very little that I can see about the project as an entity in any of those sources, I don't think this would be an NCORP pass.

NWEB? Well, there's a sentence about the website here, and there's two sentences about it here; this probably gives it the most coverage, but there's not much there about the website itself, it's more about Google and some dodgy malware sites.

It's a bit of a strange case, but I'm not personally convinced that there's enough to write an article with a clearly defined subject myself. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Your reply at WP:AIV

Hello there. Regarding your reply [46] I was once told to report at WP:AIV for a prompt action instead of starting a thread at WP:ANI (I might search across my history of replies but it will take long). Nevetheless, the user in question has been warned many times for adding unsourced content and they seemingly keep ignoring the warnings. How to proceed with this?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jetstreamer, you're right that AIV is the better venue for obvious cases, but I took a minute to click through on a few of their contribs and from what I could see they were adding false information, promotion, or any obvious vandalism - it looked like accurate, but unsourced, trivia. I'm not saying that I think they're adding much in the way of value to the project, but I wouldn't hit someone with a vandalism indef based on that - if you think it's disruptive, I think ANI would be the better venue so you can explain why it's disruptive. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 15:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Hey, sorry I think there was an edit conflict at this discussion, I may have accidentally deleted your comment as I added mine! I have restored it (I hope!) Sorry, it was a complete accident!! Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 11:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Tommi1986, no worries, thanks for fixing it yourself. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)