User talk:JzG/Archive 152

onecentury blacklist url dupe and possible typo

Hi JzG, and thanks for your interventions at ANI and the blacklist regarding the possible malware url.

I believe you duplicated an entry in the Spam blacklist in these two edits, but I imagine the duplication is benign. However more importantly, neither one of them will do the trick, as I believe there is a typo in the url. Will look again tomorrow, but pretty sure the url is onecentury not oncentury. I noticed the typo when it was introduced by another editor at WP:ANI#Introduction of a malware link into a citation and meant to correct it, but felt constrained by WP:TPO although maybe I'm just being too cautious. If my memory is wrong about the possible typo, I apologize. Mathglot (talk) 13:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks. Browser / script issue. No, it is "on century avenue", not "one century avenue". I did double check that because I misread it as well. Guy (Help!) 13:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Lorentz transformation

Thanks, that's another option for now, as opposed to this. Time will tell, right? . - DVdm (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure. I don't know if the blacklist works well for deep links, but sprot fixes IP spamming real good :-) Guy (Help!) 18:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JzG. You have new messages at PAKHIGHWAY's talk page.
Message added 12:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

PAKHIGHWAY block review

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Yamla (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

FWIW

You may be interested to know that 'cromulent' is now found at https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/cromulent but that, so far, oed.com does not show it. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

That is heptaglemious indeed! Guy (Help!) 21:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Interesting..

Draft:Forest Therapy--Sigh....:)~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Just when you think you've seen it all. Guy (Help!) 21:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

It was bloody well there when I ivoted. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 23:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

There's a thread about a block you made at ANI

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_talk:Scbritton. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

ANI close

Would you please unclose your close here?

The request was for a TBAN from COI matters. You address that in point 1 a bit - but there was actually acknowledgement in the discussion so far that the detagging was inappropriate and that Andy should not be so aggressive. The other matters you counted off were off topic and not what the thread is about Please let discussion continue. Part of this has developed because the initial edit warring board report was bizarrely closed with only page protection instead of a block, which Andy has actually cited as justification for his behavior. You are going to make this problem yet worse. Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

↑(+1)↑--I won't comment on the merits of the thread but the close was surely premature.~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

No, it was not, because it was the wrong venue. Guy (Help!) 10:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

And, what will be the right venue?~ Winged Blades^Godric 10:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The question of tag removal / reinstatement, and forming a clear consensus around that, should be a centralised discussion or at least an RfC. Reasonable people can and do differ.

The question of PAID in the context of GLAM is a separate and likely much messier discussion, but one we need to have. I guess again that would be an RfC.

The question of Andy being Andy is not going to get settled absent a clear and unambiguous consensus on tagging. At the moment it's "I think X, Andy disagrees, therefor topic ban Andy". That won't get consensus. Andy can be obsessive over the most trivial things, and I have previously argued to boot him, but his work speaks for itself, and I think he has at least earned the right to be handed a clear policy. If he then chooses to ignore it, well, that's his funeral. And to be clear here, Jytdog is equally capable of being obsessive, and has already raised hackles for his excessively binary approach to COI. I largely share his views on that, but I recognise that on the bell curve of opinion, we are in the long tail, albeit the more correct one (i.e. the opposite one to Kohs).

And that's why I closed the discussion. It was never going to reach a consensus because there were too many interrelated items, all it was going to do was make good and committed people look bad. Guy (Help!) 11:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a conduct issue -- especially the POINTY tag stripping; three admins expressed dismay over that. That at least needs a clear warning to knock off. If you cannot bring yourself to admonish him then please unclose so someone who can do so will. This cannot become something he also uses to further justify his behavior. Jytdog (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

It's an interpretation of policy issue, and policy is ambiguous. Remember: WP:NCR. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Please at least unclose. I don't really want to go to AN but that will be my next step. The other thing that I didn't mention, is that Andy should not be directly editing this stuff about COI. I really don't want this to turn into a community discussion on GLAM and COI but the more Andy keeps doing this, it is going to lead there and Andy will be the centerpiece. That will be an ugly and divisive discussion and it doesn't have to get there. Most GLAM editors are way more respectful of the slack they are given. Jytdog (talk) 11:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I do hear you on the reichstag thing. This is not that. The policy/template debate is one thing. The stripping campaign and aggressive, direct editing of the guidance is another altogether. Jytdog (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, I think if you press this, it's likely to rebound on you. Your characterisation of Andy's actions as uniquely problematic is dependent on accepting your worldview re COI. The correct thing to do is first tow settle what consensus is around tagging and also GLAM. Andy's view, as far as I can tell, is that this is not conflicted. You are effectively asking admins to sanction him for COI, but it's absolutely not black and white. Did you even try WP:DR? An RfC? Third opinion? Srsly, this is like watching the good guys fight to the death while the bad guys look on laughing. Guy (Help!) 12:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful and considered close. I have a very real fear that simply accusing another editor of having a COI is going to become justification for many disputes in future. We need rational voices to avoid the situation where if sufficient mud is slung, some of it will stick. Your insights are appreciated. --RexxS (talk) 13:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

User:RexxS Your accusation that I did that with respect to Andy is baseless, and your descent into playground "daring" in that diff shows just how unclear your judgement on this matter has become. Your loyalty to Andy is admirable but your wikipoliticking here is not. it is... unfortunate, as is your refusal to talk with me about this to clear the air. Your role here has been very disappointing to me. You are somebody who could have de-escalated this but you are feeding it and adding smoke instead of light. Jytdog (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your warning. I don't mind having the policy discussion and it is important, but the tag-stripping campaign should not continue, likewise the aggressive direct editing of relevant guidance. I will ask the close to be overturned. I am asking the community to judge this and cutting off the discussion early was not helpful (this was also noted by WBoG above.) I did expect some trolling by my haters and i expect there will be more. I don't mind that and i believe folks see that for what it is. Thanks for talking, in any case. Jytdog (talk)

done, here. Jytdog (talk) 13:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

You're using loaded language. Remember WP:DEADLINE and WP:AGF. Andy is, as I say, often maddening, but IMO his motives are pure, as are yours, so knocking six bells out of each other over this doesn't help anyone. Obtain unambiguous consensus re tag placement and GLAM, and then move on. You already know that wars n article space over differences in interpretation of stylistic guidance are a fruitful source of work for ArbCom - I don't think anybody needs that. Just chill a bit (and I have said the same to Andy). Trying to reopen that particular discussion with its multiple intertwined threads, is simply not going to fix anything. Guy (Help!) 13:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I understand that Andy's motives are pure. I believe I understand what happened from his perspective. He thought removing the tag at the Saidler article was "correct" under the template instructions and was shocked and then upset to have that contested. Andy being Andy, he became determined to justify and uphold the template instructions.

I believe he did not consider -- at all - the spirit of the matter (the Saidler article was the product of conflicted editing), or how awful it looks for a GLAM editor to "help out" a commercial paid editor Wikifriend that way or how disastrous it is for a GLAM editor to go on any warpath that interferes with COI management. The optics of these things matter. The entire Gilbrartarpedia scandal was about the optics of WP's front page becoming a tool of the Gibraltar Tourism Board.

I believe Andy's wikifriends are doing him and the GLAM program a dramatic disservice by not urging him to back the hell down and by actually supporting him.

And the longer this goes on, the more diffs and badness are going to build up. This really should be stopped before it gets worse. That is what is best for everybody, in my view. That is why i filed the ANI. Jytdog (talk) 13:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

OK.. I just re-read what you wrote. So you are talking with him, is that right? Jytdog (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me Guy for taking space on your page, but I am now sick of the crusade being waged by Jytdog. He has now attacked not only Andy, but me personally, simply for expressing my appreciation of your close. He is out of control and needs stopping before he does more damage with his wild accusations and distortions. I'll start preparing an ANI report.--RexxS (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

It is too bad you are taking this stance, RexxS. As a board-level person I would look for you to take a broad view, and you are not doing that and instead are "daring" me to do silly things.

Andy is going to hang himself; I was hoping to get the community to head that off, but it looks like the way is left clear for him to go right on over the cliff. You should not be egging him on. I have seen this several times when people get over their heads on the COI stuff. Ah well. My invitation to discuss remains open. Jytdog (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Andy is not going to hang himself. He has the advice and support of many editors who value his contributions, and he has productively listened to counsel for the past three or four years or more now. If you were to reach out to him and show your intentions are principally to keep him from running into problems, you'd see a very different response from what you get when you simply attack him without apparent foundation. Apologies, once more, Guy. I think I'm done here. --RexxS (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Exactly my experience as well. Guy (Help!) 20:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Historical vindictiveness against SvG

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Trackinfo (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

What Trackinfo means is that they've posted an intemperate, rhetorically overblown diatribe about your G5 deletions of some SvG articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for that astute clarification. Trackinfo (talk) 09:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

thank you for talking. talking is good. :) Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

It always is, and the pleasure was all mine. Text is a lousy medium for nuanced conversation. Guy (Help!) 21:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

you were going to do something about this....i thought. i don't want to nag. Well actually i do. :) Jytdog (talk) 05:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

This may be of interest to you.

See here - Wikipedia relevance is a short way in. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Damn. Whose bright idea was it to blacklist the YouTube shortener. BRB once I get the full url. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I spent some time down that rabbit hole, thanks - I think :-) I wonder which article they refer to? Guy (Help!) 18:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Alex Rose (athlete)

Please restore Alex Rose (athlete). Just because SVG created it, doesn't invalidate the content. Further, if you are so inclined to delete more SVG articles, particularly about athletes, don't use Speedy. Run them past me first. I'll get them up to snuff, as I did when we had the project. And if you have already deleted any others, put 'em back and I'll fix 'em. I only watch about 13,000 articles, I can't watch them all. Trackinfo (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

the problem is this: SvG created it, the decision was to move his marginal articles to Draft, and then he moved them back using a sockpuppet with comments like "checked" and "no SvG issues". So this is an abuse issue. You are absolutely welcome to clean start that article. Guy (Help!) 23:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't care if SVG created it, it is a valid subject, a Samoan Olympian. I will gladly clean up any copyvio or sourcing issues and post it again under my name. I have checked hundreds, possibly thousands of SVG articles and have not found a problem, nor has anyone found a problem on any I have certified. Trackinfo (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Looking below, you have obviously done the same thing to other articles. Before you do such overt actions, run them past project people. I will gladly take on any athletics article SVG created, rather than to have you delete them, in secrecy, by speedy. Trackinfo (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I did. There was no secrecy. There was, however, sustained and deliberate abuse of Wikipedia by SvG. Guy (Help!) 00:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

More bluntly, I don't give a shit what SVG did in the past. That is history. I am talking about wikipedia content for the public to use. That does not deserve to disappear because of your vindictive retribution against what SVG did in the past. Trackinfo (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

In regards to athletics articles from the SVG list, those were the first I checked. Obviously other editors also checked and approved some. In the early stages of the cleanup, those were ALL DONE. If a sock was among those checking them, OK your system was evaded. Tough. If the sock checked them, before you destroy that work, I will check them again. Send me the list of athletics articles you plan to destroy, uerfy all you have destroyed. That is my subject. I can handle it. Spending the labor to track down and recreate SVG's good work will be much harder than to eliminate the microscopic number of things he might have done wrong. Trackinfo (talk) 00:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Here's a list of articles I see you have destroyed after this list was checked by @Sillyfolkboy: and myself here. Restore all. I'll probably find more and will add them here. Trackinfo (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

[1] here's the history. You can see how methodical I was on these. So all of my subsequent work you destroyed needs to get restored. They have my checkmark on them. This is an attack on my personal integrity. Trackinfo (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

[2] More here. Why did we go through this checking exercise if you are going to come back and destroy the articles anyhow? And using speedy is a sneaky process to evade AfD. That is what I refer to as secret. If you have a problem with these articles, take them to AfD, one by one. After you get laughed out of the first few, you should learn to back off. What SVG did was create stub articles for Olympians and World Champions. That passes WP:NTRACK. If SFB and I checked off on the article, it had sourcing to prove those claims. That was a year ago. Why is this coming up now? Trackinfo (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Here's the thing: the articles were not edited by you. They were edited by SvG, moved back by SvG's sock, and then edited only by bots. If they had remained in Draft they would have been G13'd. This is not an attack on your integrity because your checks formed no part of the record on any of those articles. There's nothing saying SvG spam is fine if checked by YOU. Guy (Help!) 08:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi JzG, not entirely sure what's happening here as I considered this a closed case for the affected articles that were checked. Other editors have subsequently made contributions to articles as well (e.g. User:Montell 74 on Aisha Praught). It would have made a lot more sense to engage with those who helped review the articles (or contribute to affected articles) than suddenly delete articles which fellow users have taken the time to check as having no issues. Picking up the conversation at User talk:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up/Guidelines. SFB 01:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The issue is that the article history shows these articles as "checked" by a sockpuppet of the abusive user who created them. Guy (Help!) 08:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Random example:

(diff) 02:36, November 23, 2017 . . Osplace (talk | contribs | block) (1,711 bytes) (removing flag per WP:INFOBOXFLAG)

(diff) 12:51, February 21, 2017 . . Slashme (talk | contribs | block) m (1,899 bytes) (fix cats)

(diff) 12:39, February 21, 2017 . . Slashme (talk | contribs | block) (1,904 bytes) (Added {{BLP sources}} tag to article (TW))

(diff) 11:29, February 21, 2017 . . MFriedman (talk | contribs | block) m (1,869 bytes) (MFriedman moved page Draft:Marianela Alfaro to Marianela Alfaro: Checked the info with reference)

(diff) 11:29, February 21, 2017 . . MFriedman (talk | contribs | block) (1,869 bytes) (not sure)

(diff) 20:01, January 24, 2017 . . MusikBot (talk | contribs | block) (1,883 bytes) (Deactivating categories)

(diff) 20:01, January 24, 2017 . . MusikBot (talk | contribs | block) m (1,878 bytes) (MusikBot moved page Marianela Alfaro to Draft:Marianela Alfaro without leaving a redirect: Moving to the draft space per User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up/Guidelines)

(diff) 00:36, September 12, 2016 . . Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talk | contribs | block) m (1,878 bytes) (→‎References: recat using AWB)

(diff) 01:39, January 8, 2016 . . Zyxw (talk | contribs | block) (1,903 bytes) (Corrected height which displayed as "166 m (544 ft 7 in)" due to comma used in "{{convert|1,66|m")

(diff) 00:43, October 11, 2015 . . Sander.v.Ginkel (talk | contribs | block) (1,840 bytes) (←Created page with '{{Infobox volleyball biography | name = Marianela Alfaro | image = | caption = | fullname = | nickname = | nationality = Costa Rica |...')

If MFriedman was not a sock of Sander.v.Ginkel this history would be fine. But MFriedman is a sock of Sander.v.Ginkel. And f MFriedman had not moved the article to mainspace it would have been nuked as WP:CSD#G13. As always with complex abuse cases, it is a mess and some people get upset. The litmus test for me is whether anyone else has put any significant work into the article itself. The above is pretty representative: no, they haven't. A few of them have additional edits by Beatley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a sockpuppet of a different abusive user, but most have no substantive input by anyone other than the SvG sock since moving to Draft, and all were moved back from Draft by the SvG sock. This is one of the worst abuse cases I can recall. Guy (Help!) 08:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The existence of MFriedman deceived all of us. Had that sock not existed, legitimate editors such as SFB and myself would not have let those go as unchecked. But this is about content. Those subjects, I believe every one of them, are legitimate subjects for wikipedia. SVG did the legwork to create them, as stubs or whatnot but they exist. They give us a start when any of those people return to say the World Championships in two weeks. So they might be also rans (or not), but its a question of red links or blue links. Because of the positive work done by SVG, our project has blue links for almost all, if not all major competition performers the last few years. Its legit stuff. You wiped all that out because of your vindictive retribution against something SVG did. I want the work back so I don't have to find the red links in our thousands of articles, look up each athlete, then spend the work to type and format that information. Verifying a couple thousand articles will be bad enough. YOU have now done the damage to wikipedia. This will be my last request here. Restore all of them. Or I will consider you resistive (you already are) and will take these to Undeletion. Trackinfo (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

From your perspective it's about content. From mine it's about abuse. Those articles would have been CSD#G13 if left in Draft, they have no substantive edits other than by SvG and abusive socks. Guy (Help!) 18:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Re HistoiredeFrance

Regardless of whether or not the sockpuppet investigation determines that HistoiredeFrance, etc. are sockpuppets, just noticed that Histoirede France made an edit today in this article, again, adding the false titleholder and a reference from a book published in 1722 (the false titleholder was born in 1982, author of 1722 work must have had a crystal ball). I think these accounts should be blocked. I reported this in Fr.wiki and had to undo several edits there along the same line. Many thanks, Maragm (talk) 08:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

If CU declines, I will block them, but blocking can stop the CU process. Guy (Help!) 12:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Maragm (talk) 12:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

They're at it again. The reference added to E. Britannica does not support claim. I had looked up that name in Google, has a Linkedin profile, works in Japan and it appears that the IP who made this last edit is also from there. The ridiculous lengths to which someone would go to claim they have a title! Maragm (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of BrowseAloud for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article BrowseAloud is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BrowseAloud (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. KTC (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Question

Why you deleted the articles of volleyball players Fernanda Garay and Alexandra Oquendo? Garay has won multiple medals in events such as the Olympics, World Grand Prix and others events. Oquendo hasn't won an Olympic medal but she has participated in the Olympics and as well has won multiple medals in international events. As far as I know that's notable. Seriesphile (talk · ctb) 00:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

See above. These articles were created by a problem user, Sander.v.Ginkel, moved to draft space due to substantial concerns over his article creations (he started over 37,000 articles of which more than 22,500 have been deleted over the last year or so, a number the like of which I have never seen before in more than 10 years as an admin), and then deceptively moved back by a sockpuppet pretending to be an independent editor with comments like "checked" and "no SvG issues". You are absolutely welcome to clean start these articles and help rebuild the integrity of Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 00:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I restored Fernanda Garay because as far as I can tell SvG has never edited it. Just letting you know since there might be other false positives depending on how you compiled the list of articles to delete. —Xezbeth (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

That's disturbing, sorry about that and thanks for fixing it. Guy (Help!) 19:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

note

I pinged you here but mistyped, so it didn't go. hence this notice. Jytdog (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey!

Are you around on IRC or anything?--Jorm (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Haven't used irc since the 17th Century. Email works though and I have Skype (though as Jytdog can attest, I am crap with it, I have been using Skype for Business for so long that I can't handle anything else). Guy (Help!) 20:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)