Open main menu


Editing when logged outEdit

Hi, you might like to read WP:LOGOUT. The editor disclosed that they are editing when logged out, so any sockpuppetry is automatically out of question. Regards, — kashmīrī TALK 00:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Primefac raised this with me, and in my view it is a clear violation of WP:LOUTSOCK. Commenting negatively about a high profile user who was ArbCom blocked on their talk page is in my view equivalent to discussing internal project matters, which is quite clearly not allowed by policy. Logged out editing is governed by the spirit of SOCK. In this case, the edits by the person by the IP were inconsistent with these principles as they were an attempt to split up editing histories in a way that evades scrutiny. Primefac was correct to revert. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Kashmiri, the first bullet point of the entire page says Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address. The "nutshell" header includes Do not use ... to stir up controversy. Yes, editing while logged out (in the strictest sense) is allowed, but not when it's borderline gravedancing and (because of being logged out) borderline aspersions/personal attacks (i.e. no diffs to back up their claims). Primefac (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) The IP's post comment has been re-added yet again by a different editor. At some point the adding, removing, re-adding, re-removing, re-re-adding, etc. seems like it's just going to be an endless cycle that will only waste the community's time and energy. If Jytdog was still an editor in good-standing, there's a chance that he might just blank the IP posts without a response per WP:BLANKING; he'd be totally within his right to do so and there would be really nothing more that anyone could do about it. So, it's not clear why "his" user talk page should now be a free place for anyone to try and re-hash any grievance or dispute they ever had with him during his time as an editor, especially now that he's unable to respond. It would seem to be more venting and baiting to do so even if the poster was a registered account, but using an IP so as to avoid scrutiny seems much worse (at least in my opinion). Any problems which existed between Jytdog and others should've been resolved at the time through ANI. If that option wasn't pursued, then the ship has has long sailed and there's no point in bringing it up now. If, on the other hand, it was pursued, then the community has already decided what action was needed (if any) and it's time to move on. If someone is unable to move on by now, then they are acting as if they are WP:NOTHERE which is of no benefit at all.
If people want to post flowery things about how much they support him and want him to come back, then I see no real harm in that; I'm not sure how much of a point to it there is, but it seems harmless.At the same time, if "his" user talk page is going to attract so much heat, then maybe it's time to protect so that admins can only edit it. Just for reference, I'm not just posting this only because it's Jytdog; I think the same consideration should be given to any banned or indefinitely blocked editor regardless of how badly they screwed up. These editors have screwed up royally and the community has spoken and taken whatever action it has deemed appropriate. It serves no constructive purposes to turn their user talk pages into places to try and get even or re-argue past disputes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: I hope you don't suggest that it's okay to complain about a low-profile user who isn't an ArbCom member? No, the editor wrote about their own case, and they have full rights to do so, issuing gag orders is a step too far IMHO.
@Primefac: Is narrating own experience on WP really WP:CONTROVERSIAL? Or you call it "controversial" only because it differs from other people's experiences?
@Marchjuly: If it was up to me, I'd lock the Talk of every editor who's been booted out, to everything other than unblock requests and ensuing discussion. Talk pages are not '"graves", memorials, places to socialise, memory albums, etc., per WP:TPG and especially per WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. However, if we are allowing comments like "the editor was such a great guy", for fairness we should also alow comments "the editor was not such a great guy". Otherwise we deliberately introduce a WP:BIAS in the public perception of a particular editor.
If the editor was active, they would manage their public image any way they like. If they are gone, it is not the role of other editors to promote their specific image. — kashmīrī TALK 16:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I call it controversial because it's casting ASPERSIONS because they're accusing Jytdog of doing something without providing evidence. If the editor had sucked it up and edited with their own account, at least we'd know who it was, but as it stands it's just an (even more) anonymous complaint from someone with an axe to grind. Primefac (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Not difficult to figure out the account, and yes, this was an ArbCom case in which the editor was hammered by Jytdog (without prejudice to the merits). Recounting a negative experience can hardly be called aspersion – the editor did not question Jytdog's interity, honesty, etc., which is what aspersion is. They only explained why they are relieved Jytdog is gone, using quite balanced language. But this was a scar on a carefully cultivated image of a good colleague, wasn't it? — kashmīrī TALK 16:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
If it isn't difficult to figure out, then they should just log in so that those of us who have no clue who they are can view the context and agree with them. Right now, it is just an anonymous attack without anything backing it up. That is the definition of an aspersion and also the definition of logging out to evade scrutiny. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I also think it would be fair if they posted from own account, but assuming that they are doing this for "evading scrutiny" is casting aspersions. Maybe they only fear a reprisal from another admin? You are always welcome to engage and clarify, especially given that they seem to be a long-standing editor if my guess is correct. 07:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashmiri (talkcontribs)
No, I neither said nor implied anything of the sort. I said that in cases of a high-profile user that was ArbCom blocked it was a clear violation of policy as evasion of scrutiny. This is because the community as a whole would likely be interested in knowing who is saying this because of those factors. Context matters. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree it would be better if they openly posted from own account but I am far from punishing them for not having done this. — kashmīrī TALK 07:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
@Kashmiri: A talk page, let alone a user talk page, is not subject to the same encyclopedic standards as an article; moreover, a user talk page isn't written in Wikipedia's voice and there's no need to present a neutrally worded or unbiased view of its "owner" to anyone. The only time those things would matter would be if someone decides to write a Wikipedia article about the "owner"; so, trying to argue that negative user talk comments should be allowed just because positive user talk comments are allowed is likely not going to get you very far. There are plenty of "quasi-memorial-type" user talk pages (for example, user talk pages for deceased Wikipedians or for Wikipedians taking long-term leaves of absence) where editors post "thank yous" or other supportive messages, but there's no general need to ensure that user talk page comments critical of the "owner" are given equal weight on those or any user talk page. If you want to argue that this should be the case, you can; the place to probably best do that, however, would be at WT:UP or WT:TPG.
The most relevant policies/guidelines applicable to user talk pages in my opinion are WP:NOT, WP:UP#NOT and WP:BLP; if you think the page is clearly in violation of any of them, then perhaps WP:MFD it and see what the community thinks. At the same time, if you want to argue that {{Banned user}} should be added to Jytdog's user page and the page blanked, then you're probably going to need to go to AN to do so since his user page has been WP:GOLDLOCKED.
Regardless, nothing is going to be accomplished by others trying to re-hash any previous dispute they might've had with Jytdog by posting on his user talk because he simply cannot respond in any way. If others want the community to sanction him in some way over some past misdeed, they should've started a discussion about whatever the issue was when it actually happened since nothing posted now is going to lead to the community taking further action retroactively against him. If others are concerned about Jytdog someday being reinstated and feel they need to state their opposition to that ever happening, then there's no point in doing so until there's some real indication that Jytdog intends to appeal his ban. They should watch his user talk page for any indications that might be happening, and then express any concerns that they have at the appropriate venue where any discussion related to an appeal is taking place. In such a discussion, however, it's unlikely that a comment by an IP account which shows up out of the blue after having not made a single edit in over a year, which has also never previously edited Jytog's user talk page (or any other user talk page in fact) or otherwise has had no obvious interaction with Jytdog anywhere on Wikipedia is going to be viewed with anything other than suspicion; so, there's no reason why it should also not be viewed the same way when posting comments on Jytdog's user talk page page as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Thanks for posting the same links to WP:TPG and WP:NOT that I did. Glad to see we agree that these are relevant guidelines also for Talk page content.
there's no general need to ensure that user talk page comments critical of the "owner" are given equal weight on any user talk page Nobody is asking for equal weight. Just let them stay, don't censor Wikipedia, the comments were not libellous ffs!
If you want to argue that {{Banned user}} should be added to Jytdog's user page and the page blanked No I did not write about blanking and tagging, never was my idea. — kashmīrī TALK 07:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to be rude or dismissive by reposting the same links as you, and I apologize if it came off as such. At the same time, if you think NOT, TPG, or NOTCENSORED are somehow being violated by leaving the positive comments as is and just removing the negative ones, then perhaps you should start a discussion about this and seek greater community input. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Good idea. Will do in spare time because I find it unusual that a blocked user can only be praised but not even mildly criticised. I am sorry if I sounded dismissive, but I think you responded to what I did not say. — kashmīrī TALK 09:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
In addition to Marchjuly's excellent explanation, there is the simple point of banned means banned and an SPA IP posting aspersions on an opponent's talk page ticks every box at WP:DUCK. Wikipedia is not available for malcontents to tell the world about their grievances. Johnuniq (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: A "SPA IP"? Posting aspersions equal to WP:DUCK? Speechless here. — kashmīrī TALK 07:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

But that's just what a hacker would say!Edit

[1]. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be great if hackers compromised accounts and then made better edits than the original owners! Primefac (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Redirect and draftEdit

Hi Primefac, Greetings. Is there a way to reserve the editor who writes the article as the original creator (so they name would shown on the article) instead of the editor who did the redirect edit? Also how do we go about accepting a draft which the article name already existed via a redirect - article here - Draft:Expedition 62 and the redirect here [2]? (note I have the page move right - not sure this right is applicable for the question above). Thanks in advance. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, if you've got PGM, then I'd use User:Andy M. Wang/pageswap to simply swap the pages. You'll have to clean up the article manually, but it will preserve the original creator. A second option, if you want to use AFCH to do all the boring work, is to use {{db-move}} on the existing redirect and an admin will delete it. As a note, we almost never do a histmerge on these sorts of pages because there's no point. Primefac (talk) 10:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi Primefac, Thank you for the info above appreciate. Since I am here, I have another question. When an editor created identical article in mainspace and draft space, what is the normal protocol to remove one the the article? I usually tag histmerge on the mainspace article and Anthony would delete the draft space. Kindly advise. Thanks in advance. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
If Editor A creates Draft:Example and Example, there are four general scenarios
  1. Editor A is the only significant editor to both pages. The Draft can be turned into a redirect
  2. Editor A is the only one who edited the Draft, but others have edited the Article. The Draft can be turned into a redirect.
  3. Multiple editors have edited the Draft before it was copied over to the Article. A histmerge should be requested.
  4. Multiple editors have edited the Draft before and after it was copied over to the Article. In this case it's clear there's active editing going on in both places, so they should probably be left as-is. If it's an AFC submission or something, just turn the page into a redirect.
There are other side possibilities but this should deal with most cases; really there are few cases where a draft would need to be deleted or even histmerged. Primefac (talk) 13:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi Primefac, Thank you for the information. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for being an adminEdit

Thanks for this action. I know that being an admin is a difficult job, and I'm grateful to those of you who are willing to take it on, despite the negative feedback that inevitably comes with it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Always willing to help when needed. Those sorts of edits are the worst to do. Primefac (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Strange ifeqEdit

Template:Charmap seems to be broken... -- Polluks 17:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Looks like a subpage got tweaked and it broke things. Should be fixed. Primefac (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Re-open a deleted page.Edit

Hello, it's been a while since Primefac deleted

Since then the company has only grown and now we need to update the Wikipage as well as un-delete it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freeinformationfront (talkcontribs) 16:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Freeinformationfront, you're welcome to submit the draft for review; click the "Submit your draft for review" button on your draft and it will be reviewed by an experienced editor. Primefac (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Warner Chappel / Mumbo JumboEdit


I have seen from the historic of the wiki page of warner chappel that the part concerning Mumbo Jumbo has been edited/removed many time. Some of the reason were about that source that was not reliable.

I do not know if this will be sufficient as a source, but here the link to an article that I suppose could solve the issue:

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Please post your concerns/edit requests at Talk:Warner Chappell Music. Primefac (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit of my talk pageEdit


You recently deleted a post by Anthony Bradbury on my talk page. Could you please undo that change? I did not do a copy of the text just yet.

Thanks in advance.

Regards, Frederikwh (talk) 05:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

  Done, email sent. Primefac (talk) 10:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


Hi, Primefac! When you moved User:Binod2055 to Draft:Anish Luitel, [3] were you aware that Draft:Anish Luitel is create protected?[4] Knowing it had been salted, I was puzzled to see it as a blue link. Now I understand why: only an administrator could have created it. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, I was not aware; I only came across a draft on a user page and moved it to what I felt was the correct location. Primefac (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
No reason you should know; we don't normally check for a log of a potential target before we move to it! OK with you if I delete it? It's been G-11'ed three times. There are references but no reliable sources, just things like press releases from his Boy Scout council. Online search finds Facebook and his own web page. I wondered about that "Duke of Edinburgh International Award" but it turns out that award has been won by 8 million people. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Go for it. Primefac (talk) 10:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

can you add the symbol protection for dipika kakarEdit

Hi you have protected Dipika Kakar's page but you forgot to add the protection symbol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I tend to not do that. Don't know why. Primefac (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok but don't you have to do it. I just informed you so you know.

Bot requestEdit

Could you replace {{cite}} with {{citation}}. It is an outdated alias that makes CS1 and CS2 names confusing. {{citation journal}} to {{cite journal}} is a similar templat of CS1/CS2 confusion. Maybe even the spaces lacking {{citeweb}}, {{citejournal}}, {{citepaper}}, and {{citebook}} too which at least do not cross CS1/CS2 boundaries. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Primefac".