User talk:Abecedare: Difference between revisions

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

.

Doug Weller talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.

Hi, thanks for your suggestion. I am new to Wikipedia and am unaware of its guidelines. I actually wanted to create a page of the company i belong. Can you please help me for publishing the brand page?

182.76.101.202 (talk) 05:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)PoojaGoyal91[reply]

@PoojaGoyal91: it was a common and understandable error. I suggest that you read wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines so that you can avoid inadvertently falling afoul of them again. As for creating a wikipedia article on LopScoop: unfortunately I don't believe it passes passes wikipedia's standard of notability for websites/internet businesses. However, if after reading the concerned guidelines (see WP:NWEB), you believe otherwise, just contect me again and we can see how to proceed. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 06:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare: Hi Abecedare, I have written the article, I have 2-3 genuine references and a small history, can you help me publishing the article named "LopScooop", i can provide you the content if you need? PoojaGoyal91 (talk) 06:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PoojaGoyal91: since you have a declared conflict about the subject, you will need to go through the "Article for creation" process to create the article. That is: you'll create a draft, which will then be reviewed by an independent reviewer for compliance with wikipedia's content policies and then, if the draft is found acceptable, it will be moved to wikipedia mainspace where it will be easily accessible to general readers and search engines. To begin the process:

1. Read the AFC page, paying close attention to the disclosure requirements
2. Once ready use the Article wizard to upload the draft.

I should forewarn you though that the review process will take time (a few weeks would not be unexpected) and that at the end of that, acceptance of the draft is far from a certainty. Also wikipedians often take a very jaundiced view of COI and paid editing and sometimes that shows up as rudeness; the fact that you have openly declared your association with the company should help prevent that from happening but you should nevertheless be prepared. I'm letting you know all this just so you begin the process with eyes open. :)

Feel free to contact me if you run into any problems. Abecedare (talk) 06:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare: Hi Abecedare, i have created a draft, please check and give me a genuine feedback. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:LopScoop 171.61.155.5 (talk) 05:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PoojaGoyal91: I have read through the current draft and see several issues:

• There are several claims in the draft that cannot be verified through the exiting sources (for example: the ownership, inverstment and partnership information in the History and Funding and Partnership sections)
• More importantly there is no indication that the company/app meets wikipedia's standards of notability (WP:NWEB, WP:NORG or WP:GNG). The brief blurbs in the "five best apps to make money" lists produced by Dainik Jagran and Khabar india doesn't meet the expected "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" standard.

For an independent opinion you can submit your draft for review, but I wouldn't hold much hope that it will pass the AFC review, or survive a deletion discussion. Abecedare (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abecedare. Have you seen the {{in use}} template? It is designed for exactly this purpose. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Martin of Sheffield: Thanks for the pointer. I knew of {{Under construction}} but that would have been an overkill for the scale of my edits at SBC. {{In use}} would have been perfect though. Will be throwing it around from now on. Abecedare (talk) 12:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was reading Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Unreferenced BLPs. I don't know/remember intersection tool, but with the availability of quarry.wmflabs.org or some tools like petscan.wmflabs.org perhaps we can generate or update a few lists. Here is a search result page. Perhaps we can generate a few such results and use for quick access. --Titodutta (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Titodutta: What is it producing results of? I see that it's a list of articles, but I'm unsure what the connection is (other than they mostly seem to be about India).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Titodutta and SMcCandlish: I too don't recall what exact search criterion we had used last time, but (in Category:All unreferenced BLPs) ∩ (has {{WikiProject India}} template), which is what I read your petscan to be checking for, seems to be a perfectly reasonable approach. Btw, it is heartening that "only" 70 articles were found; WP:BLPPROD process seems to have had a positive effect!

Would you go ahead and start a discussion at WT:INB to invite editors to go over the listed article? Maybe someone there can also suggest additional search possibilities. Abecedare (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, looking at this discussion, it seems back in 2010 we searched for (in Category:All unreferenced BLPs) ∩ (in Category:India or its subcat). Can such a search be repeated using the current tools? Abecedare (talk) 23:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, unsourced BLPs and India. Quarry could do it much better, but I have very little knowledge about SQL. --Titodutta (talk) 05:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Petscan can be set to search for (in Category:All unreferenced BLPs) ∩ (in Category:India or its subcats to depth N). For example searching the India sub-categories to depth 10 finds 187 reasonable-looking candidates. Increasing the depth to say 15 though, produces a much-larger (734 candidates;) and much-weirder list, which could be a tool issue or issue with categorization.

Can always ask at WP:VPT, if needed. Abecedare (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I missed your message. I apologise sir. There are more than 5000 pages on my watchlist, I should work on it . The reason I started this thread was perhaps we can work on a few lists with Petscan or more importantly quarry and link it on the project space, that these are some of the areas to work on (I have little knowledge about SQL, I can learn if needed), such as "unsourced Indian BLPs" or "Uncategorised Indian articles" or "Indian book articles with ISBN errors to fix", or "Indian movie articles with CS1 reference errors" etc. These are just a few examples. Such lists should be very helpful. --Titodutta (talk) 15:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Titodutta: I hadn't taken a look at Quarry in any detail since I didn't find a documentation page at a quick glance. However looking at some example recent queries, I don't think insufficient SQL knowledge would be a barrier, although it will take some time/effort to learn what exact Wikipedia-specific data is available and the corresponding data-structures. Asking at WP:VPT should quicken that process.

Overall, I like your proposals, and perhaps we can get started with what we already know to do through Petscan and gauge interest at WT:INB. After all, we will eventually need human volunteer editors to go through the "articles that need attention" lists we generate through petscan/quarry. Abecedare (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear respected editor,

Just because you are writing in fighting mode, do not make your story a fact. Go ahead and do research about author of Ram dhun and actual phrases of the same.

Thanks in anticipation Best Regards Manishasinghal (talk) 05:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 13:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Abecedare. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 20:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re the DS alert you placed on Talk:Adam's Bridge. I think you also need to place an edit notice for the alert to be effective. Not sure but @NeilN: will know if it is necessary. --regentspark (comment) 16:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN has abandoned all his responsibilities and gone vacationing, but I'll look through the process pages in around an hour and try to figure it out. Abecedare (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey RP, as I understand from the template documentation:

• {{Ds/talk notice}} can be used just for informational purposes that "use of discretionary sanctions has been authorized by the Arbitration Committee" for the relevant topic area.
• {{Ds/editnotice}}, on the other hand, is used to inform editors that some particular editing restrictions have been applied by an admin under the remit provided by the DS regime

Afaict, the latter is not the case for Adam's Bridge article and I, in any case, would be considered involved and thus not the right person to formulate such restrictions. Is that reading correct? Talk-page stalkers are welcome to chime in. Abecedare (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. The form of template you added is for informational purposes and can be added by anyone. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, Neil! Abecedare (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks NeilN. Good to know. And welcome back!--regentspark (comment) 18:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this user and username appears to be representing a business --> [1].... Another problem he is doing self promotional editing... but I Am not able to find the appropriate speedy deletion criteria or tag to tag this page... please advice me how to tag this for speedy... thank you.. --Adamstraw99 (talk) 06:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamstraw99: Thanks for spotting this. I've blocked the user for username violation and promotional editing, and told them how they can regain their editing privileges. Is there some article that needs to be deleted too? I didn't find anything in the user's contribution history except for the promotional material they added Shirala and Karad, which you and other editors appear to have already cleaned up. Abecedare (talk) 07:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for your action, I don't think they edited much beyond the mentioned articles.. Thank You --Adamstraw99 (talk) 07:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have brought the unfruitful Sarah Jeong discussion to dispute resolution and am notifying you because you have commented on the Talk page since August 3. You can find a link here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Sarah_Jeong. All the best, Ikjbagl (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikjbagl: The DR will likely be declined as the current "dispute" is unlikely to be amenable to reasoned, slow-paced, discussion that is expected at that venue. And to answer your question about why some changes to the page are being allowed through while no addition regarding the tweet-controversy has been made: that is as per wikipedia's WP:PROTECTION policy with the former being non-controversial changes (unrelated to the edit-war or dispute that led to the article being protected) that I have posted in response to open {{edit-protected}} requests on the page, while the latter issue is still being discussed (although, frankly, the discussion is a mess!). If you wish, you can ask another admin whose opinion you trust to review the matter. Abecedare (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC) .[reply]

You might want to ECP or at least semi the article before full protection expires or else we're going to get BLP vios/vandalism as soon as protection expires. If you're concerned about WP:NO-PREEMPT, do it as a arbitration enforcement action. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: As of this moment I am of mind to let the full protection expire, and imposing semi/ecp/1RR depending on what happens. May be somewhat of a make-work plan, but any intervening vandalism and BLP violations can be reverted, revdelled etc, and this will prevent later second-guessing of whether the restrictions were really necessary; and if those steps somehow prove to be unneeded, even better. Trust you have the page watchlisted; you assistance may be needed in a few hours. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 12:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here here, I'm ready to revert a ton of edits based on what happens with the article. Jdcomix (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jdcomix: Can you clarify what you mean or intend to do? Abecedare (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just patrol the page like I would do with any other article that's being targeted by sockpuppets, vandals, etc. I have a lot of experience dealing with vandalism here. Jdcomix (talk) 18:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That will be appreciated. Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN and Drmies: are there any further hoops to jump through to impose an editing restriction, besides

• Statement on talkpage (jump to "OK, in interest of time")
• Edit notice on article page
• DS alert on talkpage
• Logging at WP:AELOG/2018

Abecedare (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ha, ping Sandstein, they know the formalities much better than me! Drmies (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abecedare can you please review this edit, I do not think that it received consensus on the talk page to insert information about her book in the lead of the article Ikjbagl (talk) 03:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Jeong&type=revision&diff=853628491&oldid=853626931[reply]

P.S. Actually, it looks like someone CREATED the whole article from a redirect so they could insert information about it on the Sarah Jeong page.

@Ikjbagl: This is not within the scope of the edit-restrictions, but if you object to it, you can always follow the usual WP:BRD process. That's the formal admin answer.

As personal advice fwiw: consider how much this matters to you and how much time and energy you are willing to devote to this minor dispute in a minor article? For instance, I saw the Utilis Coquinario article you created, which I thought was very good contribution to encyclopedic knowledge and of more value than whether that one sentence remains or not in the this articles lede. Wouldn't it be more satisfactory to work on something similar rather than get caught up in these passing wiki-battles? Btw if you do create a new article in the future, don't forget to nominate it for WP:DYK so that it can appear on wikipedia's front-page. Abecedare (talk) 03:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is really frustrating. It DOESN'T matter to me, at all, I really don't care about this person any tiny bit. I have been trying very hard to propose neutral edits and source them well, and from my point of view, it seems like edits that slant in one perspective are indiscriminately allowed on the page, while any edit critical of Ms. Jeong is put to the third degree (and then only admitted when seriously weakened). It seems like two users in particular are doing everything to fluff up this person's page, the fluffery seems VERY obvious to me, and yet it is allowed. I even get yelled at when I suggest that something of the sort is going on, when it seems pretty obvious to me that people trying to add extraneous and non-important information about a book published years ago are only adding that information now to dilute controversy on a person's page. I just don't understand how this is allowed on a website that prides itself for not taking a point of view. If I removed that sentence from the lead, or if someone tried to put anything remotely critical on the page or in the lead (which I don't understand why putting things in the lead but not the body is allowed), I am sure that I would be warned again or blocked for violating some rule I've never heard of, while anyone editing the page to add more positive information is allowed to do so. This is wrong, and it doesn't feel anything close to neutral. Again, this really doesn't matter to me, and I would honestly be a much happier person right now if I just ignored the page and pretended it didn't exist, but I just can't do that at this point. It's wrong. It's not neutral, and it's not encyclopedic. Ikjbagl (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt you have a conflict-of-interest with the subject, but you have obviously got emotionally invested in SEEING THE RIGHT THING DONE, DAMIT!. All I can tell you from experience, is that it is easy to lose perspective on wikipedia in this way, and sincerely suggest that you at least take a break from the article/wikipedia for today. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 03:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand how that would be a bad thing. Wouldn't wiki be a better place if people wanted to see the right thing done? Why would you want anything else? I disagree with what you linked (I wasn't trying to expose anything controversial, and I always cited nothing but mainstream news organizations), but I guess I agree with your paraphrasing of its title. I do feel emotionally invested in presenting neutral information on this subject. I think there are more people editing who are invested in presenting non-neutral information on the subject, and they are here from each side. I guess I'll try to ignore this stupid page, but I feel like it's a failure to cede it to more partisan people. I think Wikipedia is worse off for this whole ordeal. Nobody won here, everybody failed and it's very sad. Ikjbagl (talk) 04:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abecedare First of all thanks for your involvement with the article and its talk page. It seems like this proposal is quickly devolving into a mess, with bad motives being assumed, suggestions that voting doesn't matter anyway, and people on both sides saying that WP:UNDUE demands that the quotes be included, and that the quotes not be included.

It's fairly disheartening since SWL36 and I have already spent considerable time beforehand trying to craft some text that would be as acceptable as possible, without watering down or obscuring the controversy. SWL36 also dug up 10-20 RS links after being told how critical that was by the same people who now insist it doesn't matter.

I'm asking if maybe it doesn't make more sense for other admins or seasoned editors to step in here and resolve the question about whether quoting the tweets verbatim is acceptable or not. Then the discussion won't have to keep going endlessly in circles. Sorry if this isn't the right place to ask. I'm not too acquainted with WP's other mechanisms for resolving this type of dispute. 2600:1700:B951:3F40:9E40:FEE3:9AD8:9C28 (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2600, you won't like hearing this but User:GorillaWarfare, User:Drmies, User:Jytdog and some other editors opposing the proposal are among the the most seasoned editors around on wikipedia (I won't list their wiki-credentials but go check their contribution history, and their user and talk-pages). I'll also point out that when SWL36 had first proposed the text under discussion as an edit-protected request, I too had advised him that uncontextualized tweet-quotes (as in just "one tweet said...") have no chance of passing the BLP-test, so I'll preempt 'voting' on the above proposal to prevent editors wasting their time. Please rethink, and ask for advice from editors experienced in the BLP area or at WP:BLPN, if needed. (Unfortunately, he chose to ignore that)

I know it can be frustrating, but shouldn't you at least consider the possibility that GW, Drmies, Jytdog et al know what they are talking about as far as application of wikipedia policies goes? Abecedare (talk) 07:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I did consider what they've said. I just don't see the consistency with other recent controversies where the articles tend to include quotes for context. Admittedly I didn't see their talk pages or try to determine how seasoned they are. I just saw existing editors both agree and disagree so I thought that's where it stood. I think if they're unambiguously right then more people should step in to say so, for everyone's sake. It was more like a request for more eyeballs on the issue. One last thing: I can't speak for SWL36 but I believe I saw somewhere that he/she missed your advice or got confused somehow. It wasn't intentional. 2600:1700:B951:3F40:9E40:FEE3:9AD8:9C28 (talk) 08:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the understanding. Just use Sarah Jeong article as a learning experience (baptism by fire!), and realize that not all articles on wikipedi are so contentious and such a challange to change even minimally. I'd also suggest that you sign up for an account since that makes communication easier and you obviously have valuable skills to contribute. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 08:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just add that I do not oppose including tweets per se, and it is easily argued that some of her tweets are so widely quoted that the article should include them--but, as I hoped I made clear on that talk page, the problem isn't so much the tweets themselves (I'm fine with two being cited, I think) but the context. I don't doubt that they're hers, I don't doubt they're much-discussed, but I have serious problems with the context in which they were placed in that one proposal I looked at, and the almost universal clamor of "INCLUDE THE TWEETS" ignores the seriousness of the issue. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: As a reader of a significant fraction of the discussion on the talkpage over the past week, I think that's the position of many experienced contributors. GW made that argument repeatedly in this section. And User:Gandydancer had a beautifully concise summary of the issues involved with the various options. But given the traffic on the page and the rush to make everything a support-oppose poll, many of these point are getting lost or needed to be repeated continuously. Abecedare (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: These are the tweets here and here. As I've been saying they're the closest I could find among what was widely reported to self-contained thoughts. That's because initially people were insisting on the controversy part being very succinct, to not make it the entire article, and these tweets seemed the most self-explanatory. They weren't replies to anyone. Twitter makes it clear when you're directly replying to someone, by showing what came before. All the context/explanation she ever provided is already summarized in the article ("'counter-trolling' in reaction to harassment she had experienced") and almost all (or all?) RS leave it there. On the talk page someone was repeatedly asking detractors what exactly is the extra context that's needed and no one could supply it. Additionally, a couple of the most vocal editors have already explicitly or implicitly (by linking to a Vox opinion piece which makes the case) claimed this is all a hoax or right-wing conspiracy or something, so when they insist their objection is about lack of context or undue weight they've made it hard to accept that at face value.

If you see Sarah's explanation here, the abusive tweets she received are not even in the same months as the two tweets being considered, so apart from that catch-all defense about "counter-trolling" already in the article I can't see why they'd be included. Unfortunately, as a tech writer like her knows, it takes 10 minutes to create a new Twitter account and post whatever you want. So they haven't been checked out, they're not included in any RS that I'm aware of, and we just don't know much about them but we do have Sarah's own words which she's said are hers. I hope this at least clarifies my reasoning. 2600:1700:B951:3F40:9E40:FEE3:9AD8:9C28 (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could you please check Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Karunanidhi? As the person seeking help is good friend, my action may not be fully neutral. That's why I am not doing anything there, other than suggesting discussion page and noticeboard(s). --Titodutta (talk) 22:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Re: It is quite possible that the claims/requests are not valid, and it's completely fine to treat accordingly. --Titodutta (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will take a look. Abecedare (talk) 00:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It has been very helpful. --Titodutta (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. wumbolo ^^^ 21:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For being the first editor to mention Sarah Jeoung's controversy on her article after admin block

--RandomUser3510 (talk) 06:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You had warned Obaid Raza[2] but he has continued to engage in WP:PROXYING. While more than a few of his recent contributions can be construed as such, the ones from yesterday were completely in violation of what you had warned, i.e. "battleground conduct". Yesterday he came online after being offline for over 7 days for supporting a faulty report against Kautilya3,[3] and his messages were similar to those ones from NadirAli, who is topic banned from the reported article and he is presently blocked.

ObaidRaza: {{noping|Kautilya3}} has already been warned for edit warring on this noticeboard '''twice''' by {{ping|Bbb23}}.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=741455773#User:Kautilya3_reported_by_User:SheriffIsInTown_(Result:_Warned)] I don't see any need for favouritism or extra chances here which were not given to new users such as {{U|Son of Kolachi}}. Kautilya3's "clean block log" means nothing. He has gotten away with all his previous disruption by sheer luck, favouritism and elaborate deception (for example he escaped sanctions for abusing multiple accounts some years ago[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kautilya3/Archives/Archive_1#Use_of_alternative_accounts]) [4]

NadirAli: He has convinced sysops before that his abuse of multiple accounts was "accidental" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kautilya3/Archives/Archive_1#Use_of_alternative_accounts] and he has even convinced them that his edit warring was not a 1RR violation because he "misunderstood" policy.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=741455773#User:Kautilya3_reported_by_User:SheriffIsInTown_(Result:_Warned)] I believe the administrators have already been too lenient in dealing with his wrongdoings.[5]

Another edit from Obaid Raza showed nothing more than desperation to get the user blocked anyhow. Swarm criticized these comments of Obaid Raza.[6]

To be more accurate, Obaid Raza was never involved in any of the events he has cited. He never edited the article in question[7] nor the very popular noticeboard where the complaint was resolved.[8] Lorstaking (talk) 10:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the responding admin User:Swarm already saw through the speciousness of the report. As I am sure you realize, proxying is behavior that we can sometimes recognize when we see it ourselves, but is hard to prove to others, so I'll take a look later to judge if there is cumulative evidence in Raza's case to make the the proxying suspicion concrete. Abecedare (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked him indefinitely for disruption at the same time you imposed a topic ban. Which is the better path, would you say? I am not certain. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now looking back at their previous (non-contentious) edits in other areas, I think trying the topic ban is possibly worthwhile. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Erik: No issues with both sanctions being in place. I haven't researched their contributions outside this topic area, to determine if the indefinite block is worth lifting (through regular unblock appeal). But the topic-ban will be a back-stop in any case, since its clear that Sarah Jeong is a not a suitable area for them to be editing in. Abecedare (talk) 02:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree. Their history in editing football-related topics includes problems with edit-warring, but not nearing the level of disruption related to the Jeong topic. I have unblocked to give a chance for the topic ban potentially to help. Thanks. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 02:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now (appropriately) re-blocked by User:Ian.thomson for immediately violating the sanction. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After all our head-scratching and fine-tuning to not be unfair... <bang-head-on desk> Abecedare (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it was worth a try. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the topic ban instead of the block was a good idea.

I told him that he needed to stop using "#cancelwhitepeople" as an edit summary.

He didn't listen. That's his problem, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly. Abecedare (talk) 03:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide by cop, eh, Ian.thomson? What a waste. Abecedare (talk) 04:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's weird, the family DNA tests don't show me having all that much Irish. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, hi. Is this a bot or a person? Why are my edits being constantly reverted? Okay thanks. I did change the wordings a bit. So what am I supposed to do in this case? This person is now no more and I am also referencing the original link. Is there a better way you suggest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Praveentech (talk • contribs)

@Praveentech: See your talkpage. I left you message regarding copyrighted text. Also note that there is already a section on Karunanidhi's death in the article. Abecedare (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare: Woops. My bad. Will check again and update accordingly. Thanks. :) Hope I haven't caused any damage to my account. BTW, who are you? Just curious. Praveentech (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Praveentech: No problem. Just a common occurrence at rapidly developing articles when news breaks. You can see some (non-personal) information about my wikipedia profile on my userpage. Abecedare (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As per your invitation to discuss your removal of the {{press}} template on Talk:Sarah Jeong - can you explain? --GRuban (talk) 20:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for opening this here. I also invite Openlydialectic to join in. Please give me a short while to get back to you on this. Abecedare (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe the template should stay. First, it exists for a reason - to let wikipedians know the article they are discussing has been mentioned on the news. Even Breitbart technically qualifies as news - but we can discuss that. I dont see why we should remove that entire template from the talk page because of 2-3 bad sheep. I also strongly believe you should start a discussion on the talk page of the article, not on yours, so that other editors have a better chance of seeing and participating in that conversation Openlydialectic (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here is my experience with use of the template at Talk:Sarah Jeong and my subsequent thinking:

1. I originally reverted addition of a Breitbart article to the template, because of the nature of the source and most importantly because of its headline, which I believe to be a BLP violation. I realize that BLP doesn't dictate what sources outside wikipedia write or say; but IMO it still applies when we choose to bring that material here, and the scale of the violation needs to be balanced with the encyclopedic gains of including it. So while I think discussing and citing BBC's 'racist tweet' headline is perfectly fine, I am not convinced that the Breitbart article passes that bar.
2. I was asked at that time why the Daily Caller links were left in even though that source is equally suspect. My (weak) excuse was that at least those headlines, like BBC's, applied the 'racist' label to the tweets and not the subject herself. My (stronger) unstated reason was to avoid unnecessary drama and Streisand effect (yes, I am aware of the irony).
3. Since then two independent editors (acting in good faith and likely not aware of the earlier removal) have re-added the Breitbart article back in the template. More recently, an article from The Western Journal was also added; I am not really familiar with that source, but do scroll down that article page to see their note on how Facebook is treating their content.
4. I assume you are aware that wikipedia's coverage of Sarah Jeong has caught-on on conservative/alt-right media and I would expect more such articles to be published in the coming days. I don't want to see the {{press}} template provide a carte blanche for any media to publish any article headline/article about the BLP subject and have it automatically included at Talk:Sarah Jeong. Of course, any source or press coverage that helps us improve the Sarah Jeong article can still be discussed on the talkpage, irrespective of the presence of the template.

For those reasons, I removed the {{press}} template for now. Once the current furor has died down, we can revisit the issue and add back the template after some discussion of what articles to keep in or out (for example, The Atlantic article would be an obvious choice to keep in).

Your thoughts? Abecedare (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The press template is literally for press coverage. It has nothing to do with a source improving the article, that template is template:refideas. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC) (please  mention me on reply; thanks!)[reply]

• Hi Abecedare, I placed 3 of the 5 article entries into the {{press}} template before its removal. They were from The Daily Caller (August 6), Breitbart News (August 7), and The Western Journal (August 7). I didn't know that the Breitbart News entry was previously removed before I inserted it in my edit.

The articles were found from a Google News search with the query sarah jeong wikipedia, and I included all articles published by news organizations that have their own Wikipedia articles (excluding one classified as a blog by Google News). I added these entries to give other editors context on the history of the article and its talk page. The {{press}} template serves the same purpose as the {{connected contributor}} template: to disclose more information regarding the article's editing process.

Whether or not the {{press}} template should be on the talk page parallels the discussion on the talk page regarding whether or not Jeong's tweets should be in the article. However, the contentious bits in the headlines are in quotes and attributed to the publisher, not Wikipedia or its editors. If redacting the headlines would make the {{press}} template conform to WP:BLP, I believe a redaction would still be a better option than removing it entirely. — Newslinger talk 20:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input User:Newslinger. I'll wait for User:GRuban, User:Openlydialectic to add their thoughts (others are welcome too) and then think it over myself. I don't want to indulge too much of your time on this either, since this meta-issue is really several steps removed from actually improving the article. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly feel you should start this discussion on that article's talk page. Openlydialectic (talk) 22:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Openlydialectic: This is indeed the right venue for action taken as a discretionary sanction. In any case, can we please discuss the substance of the arguments, rather than the venue? I really would like to know your thoughts in response to my explanation above and the comments by the other editors. Abecedare (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I like your original reasoning, that we should exclude articles that make a personal attack on the subject in their titles. The point of the {{press}} template is to note which news organizations have taken notice of our article specifically; it's sort of a scrapbook, "look who's noticed our work". That's not a good enough reason to include disputed text that could be seen as an attack on a living person, especially, as you note, there are already a number of these, and the number could grow. However, I think we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater, and should still include articles that do not violate BLP in their titles. We can put an HTML comment regarding this dividing line by the template. --GRuban (talk) 21:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good suggestion. Do you think only the headline should be a consideration, or should the iffi-ness of the source also count against it? Are any of you aware of prior discussions on this topic in general; so that we don't try to reinvent the wheel. Abecedare (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @GRuban:: Is this what you had in mind? Others: is this an acceptable resolution for you all? Abecedare (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For holding the fort on Sarah Jeong and making non-contentious edits through full protection, and dealing with complaints (some stupid) as a result. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:Robert McClenon. Abecedare (talk) 22:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]