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 see you have topic banned him. I read your note on his talk page and maybe your diffs were still an underestimation and there were more examples. He also filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AmritasyaPutra without any necessary interaction with me or Amritasya putra. Just giving my 2 cents for justifying the sanction :) Sdmarathe (talk) 05:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'd seen that and if the user appeals, we can present and exhaustive list of their proxy edits. Hopefully, the recent block/topic-ban will dissuade others from "lending" their accounts for such use... at least for some time. Abecedare (talk) 06:25, 13 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? Praveentech (talk)

@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]

  You have more faith in the word "consider" than I, I'm afraid. I'd think something like "no attacks on article subject in title". The iffiness is tough; sure we can start with Atlantic in, Breitbart out, but what about the vast grey area in between? Daily Caller, Slate, Salon, HuffPost, Washington Times...? I'd lean towards list them all (as long as they are actual media orgs, not one guy's blog), one article per source ( they'll generally link to their other articles on the subject themselves: "as we last wrote here..."). But that's my suggestion. You're the man with the mop. Uneasy hangs the head that ... Etc. --GRuban (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GRuban: I left it vague exactly because I didn't want to cook up a "rule" de novo :) Hoping that the notice will at least give (good faith) editors pause to think. I have also posted at BLPN for feedback and to see if the issue has already been discussed somewhere. The larger rule-making is best done on a wikipedia-wide basis. Abecedare (talk) 02:29, 9 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]

Talk:Sarah Jeong#User User:Abecedare removed the press template on this talk page without starting a discussion here. Should we reinstate it?

Please, come and partake Openlydialectic (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see how linking to sources can really be an legitimate WP:BLPDS enforcement issue. And I'm not sure you can block someone for attempting to discuss the issue when you invited people to feel free to discuss with me. I think you need to either unblock, or ask for a review at AN. Maybe I'm missing something. GMG^talk 23:58, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo: Have you see the discussion in the section above, and my discussion on the editor's talkpage ? Abecedare (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I think your reasoning makes sense regarding the {{press}} template, you really should not have been the one to block. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm obviously not endorsing Openlydialectic's behavior in general : [9], however, i try to be honest and unbiased, therefore, unless i'm mistaken, it seems that your block is against this. Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) 00:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree about Involved (will have to read the policy again) but given the feedback I will unblock. Can you or any other admin, review my pre-block actions? Abecedare (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a new user, and i may be mistaken as i said, however, the rule says something like "Admins cannot act as admins when they have been acting as editors". Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 00:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have been only acting in the administrative role at Sarah Jeong and with respect to the editors there. So I certainly don't believe I'm involved. @GorillaWarfare and GreenMeansGo: would you lease review my actions? Abecedare (talk) 00:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I started to reply and then had to clean up after dinner. With regard to INVOLVED, it's at best iffy. Removing the talk page template was not an admin action. "Iffy" is not a place you want to be in with respect to INVOLVED. I would recommend again either unblocking or asking to a self review at AN. If not unblocking, it looks a lot like someone is going to ask for a review, and if so, it's much better for you if you are the one to do it. GMG^talk 00:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I've already unblocked. Will address the rest of your concerns below. Abecedare (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo: I had unblocked at 00:13 UTC. So setting that aside, can you expand on your comment about me being involved? Abecedare (talk) 00:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I...feel like there's more here than someone with a toddler at 9pm local time can really address adequately and with any sense of nuance. I'll look into putting together a better answer tomorrow morning with an appropriate amount of coffee. GMG^talk 01:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo: Thanks for the offer. Abecedare (talk) 02:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I think you removing the template and agreeing to discuss it as you have above was well within your discretion. My concern more is that you were the one who removed the template for BLP concerns, and then blocked Openlydialectic for trying to discuss. I understand not wanting him to discuss it on the talk page, but that is where you should have gotten another admin involved. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: Quick replies (after edit-conflicts),

• blocked Openlydialectic for trying to discuss This part I disagree with, since I repeated invited and encouraged Open to discuss the issue (see above section and their talkpage), and the block was for disruption and not for disagreeing with me on the {{press}} template or trying to discuss the issue.
• but that is where you should have gotten another admin involved. This part I'll take onboard. I wanted to avoid further disruption at the talkpage, but I see that your suggested approach would be better.

Abecedare (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the disruption was repeatedly trying to discuss this on the article talk page, though? GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: As you can perhaps guess from the above (and this) section,I am not averse to discussing matters. So, in my view the sequence of disruption was:

1. Restoration of content deleted under WP:BLPDS, to which my response was this (I followed up with implementing GRuban's suggestion and posting above to see if that met everyone's objection).
2. Openlydialectic's response, which included the expressed intention to restore the Breitbart link. My response.
3. Openlydialectics's opening the talkpage discussion.

At this point, as you said, it would have been better to involve another admin instead of blocking myself. But for me the disruption was the escalating behavior, and not just the final step. Abecedare (talk) 01:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And oh, the reason I had proposed my talk page for discussion of the BLPDS action (rather than the article talk page) was because my understanding is that such actions are first appealed to the relevant admin and then AN etc, if that doesn't resolve it. I had pointed this out to the user; is my understanding of the process incorrect? Abecedare (talk) 01:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer Abecedare. I'll let the far more experienced users than me you have pinged give their opinion. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 00:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok. So, BLP dictates what we can say, not what sources can say. Sources can say whatever they want, and we can say objectively terrible things about people and not run afoul of BLP as long as we're sticking with the weight given in the preponderance of reliable sources. Further, the talk page template didn't actually say anything, but only provided citations. There is no even hypothetical way I can think of where simply providing otherwise reliable citations can violate BLP, since it is the sources themselves that decide whether something is a BLP violation. You could argue that a source like Breitbart is unreliable, akin to posting an attack blog with an inflammatory title, which probably would be a BLP violation. But that argument falls flat when the template was restored leaving only the Atlantic article.

Now you may feel that this template is not conducive to productive discussion. Maybe you're right. Maybe not. I can imagine good arguments on both sides. But that's an editorial decision, not a DS enforcement action. Making that editorial decision makes you involved. Discussing that editorial decision is exactly what editors are expected to do, and the discussion they opened on the issue was reasonable. It was a plain language question about how editors felt regarding the template, not anything akin to a foul screed or overwhelming bludgeoning that we would need to immediately hat. Even if you were technically correct, that the talk page was the incorrect venue, the post would have still been practically if not technically appropriate.

So yeah, it was an overreaction, and you should have asked for a second opinion, which would have probably advised you that it was an overreaction. GMG^talk 11:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo: I largely agree with your take and especially with the "should have asked for a second opinion" bit (I'd quibble with some details regd "involved" but that would be missing the larger point). Thanks for taking the time and providing the input. Abecedare (talk) 12:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, where are we on having a discussion on the contents of the press template at Talk:Sarah Jeong, will that be allowed? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: As I said on your talkpage, I believe that it would be better to have a broader discussion on WP:BLPN/WP:VPP to decide the policy issue, and then apply it to Talk:Sarah Jeong. But if you still want to discuss only the narrower frame, Talk:Sarah Jeong would be the right place to start that discussion. I'll recuse from participating in that latter discussion as an admin since I've already made my position on the topic clear, and ping user:Paul Erik to keep an eye on any BLP issues that may arise in the process. Abecedare (talk) 13:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged. I will try to keep an eye ...although I unfortunately will not be around as much this weekend as I was over the past week. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think of it more as a local consensus thing, mostly (there are exeptions like outing etc) under editorial discretion rather than written policy, my personal interpretation being "if it's press, add it". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• (Hi Abacadare, and thank you for admin-ing, which I am sure is a tedious job due in part to people like me showing up to ask questions about it.) I believe you are mistaken that this edit reflects a BLP violation. My discussion of whether ""dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants" can be factually regarded as a statement of racial animus was not talking about Sarah Jeong's state of mind, but rather the tweet's actual English meaning, interpreted as standalone. As such, my statement was uncontroversial and supported by all the best sources, including in fact the NYT, Jeong's employer, who found fault with these tweets. I am not suggesting that we inject editors' opinions into the article. The only sources in disagreement with me on this might be the sources that reflect a bias toward intersectional social justice activism. I respect those sources enough not to propose that Wikipedia speak in its own voice to say that the tweets reflect racial animus, but rather propose letting the tweets speak for themselves, with exactly the same context as is given by our best neutral RS's like WaPo. It's not clear to me why any of this would violate BLP.
• Similarly on the coatrack thing, I am not sure why you see my participation in this highly contentious and popular debate as a violation. I have never suggested (to my knowledge) that Jeong's problematic tweets should be the primary focus of her article. Where did I say that, or what am I missing here? Wookian (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wookian: By coatracking I am referring to your gratuitous and repeated quoting of the Jeong tweet, not in the particular context of proposing its inclusion in the article but in general discussion, including in the note above. Also you are not blocked; only topic-banned from Jeong related content and discussions. Abecedare (talk) 00:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I didn't know that you wanted people to (generally?) avoid quoting the tweets on the Talk page. To be fair, the verbatim content of the tweets was pretty much the subject of debate and comes directly from our neutral RS's like WaPo, so it is not obvious to me that the Talk page shouldn't refer clearly to the material under discussion. When you don't refer to it clearly, I think something is missing. Wouldn't you agree? Wookian (talk) 00:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wookian: As I said above it is okay (indeed unavoidable) to quote specific tweets on the talkpage discussion, in context proposing that those specific tweets be quoted in the article, as at the top of the section here. However, that was not the context that you were repeatedly quoting them including in this and this edit. Also note that the reason for the topic ban is "disruptive and tendentious editing and WP:BLP, WP:TPG, and WP:AGF violations on the article talk-page and other venues," with the gratuitous tweet quoting only being the last straw as I said in my note on your talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is my position that the point I was making in that comment on my personal Talk page necessitated a direct quote of the tweet. If somebody told me "it's just an opinion that 'fuck ornithologists' bears occupational animus", my reply would be much less effective if I don't quote the statement. Of course "fuck ornithologists" bears occupational animus as long as we are very clear what statement we are talking about. (Note that I also clarified to you already that I wasn't making a claim about what was in the speaker's heart, just what the statement says according to our reliable sources - in this case including the NYT which disapproved of the tweets). Wookian (talk) 01:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the tacked on complaints, all I can reply to is what you cite specific examples of. If your main precipitating trigger for this topic ban turns out to have been based on a misunderstanding, I'd politely request that you back up a step and reconsider. It is of course up to you. Wookian (talk) 01:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On further studying this, it seems unlikely that you will be responsive to my request. In reading your Talk page (you're a busy individual), I have discovered that you are already involved in the dispute over which you infracted me. In fact, you appear to have pre-judged the outcome of the very popular and contentious debate I was participating in over on the Sarah Jeong Talk page. I refer to your comment above: "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." As you know, I was participating in debate about whether to include quotes of the tweets very much as you describe above - those that Jeong posted publicly "without context", and were quoted as such by WaPo and other neutral RS's. The only context would then be what was already in the article for fairness - Jeong's excuse. The editor Jytdog had suggested (multiple times in the Talk page, actually) that it might be expected that people would inject tweets from third party racists and/or material about women and how they react to abuse online; and I challenged Jytdog on that, pointing out that accepting Jeong's excuse and bringing in all that narrative building infrastructure was not necessary, and would constitute adopting an editor's opinion instead of following our neutral RS's. It was of course after that that Jytdog piled on to my talk page. Did Jytdog get you involved? Is this part of a reprisal against me for calling out Jytdog for injecting inappropriate personal opinion into the discussion? I really hope not.

Anyway, you are clearly very deeply invested in the other side of the debate, and unlikely to agree with my position here. Cheers! Wookian (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wookian: If you have been following the page over the past week, I am clearly involved in the page as an administrator, which includes providing guidance to editors (esp. new ones) on what process is likely to be fruitful, or not. And no, I haven't had any on- or off-wiki contact regarding you with Jytdog or any other user, for that matter. Abecedare (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abecedare, you have not communicated effectively with me as an admin. Above, you said By coatracking I am referring to your gratuitous and repeated quoting of the Jeong tweet, not in the particular context of proposing its inclusion in the article but in general discussion, including in the note above.

It is worth noting that it was only after topic-banning me that you explained what you meant by "coatracking" with the above statement. Prior to that, such a meaning was not obvious from your remarks to me. If I had known you didn't want people quoting Jeong's tweets in the Talk page, then I wouldn't have continued quoted them after your warning. Of course, I would have still objected strongly over that censorship of free debate and discussion, since you were basically taking the opposing side in the debate and like many editors, I think your side in the debate is mistaken, per the example of our best neutral RS's. However, on my good faith reading of the WP:COATRACK article, the meaning I inferred was that an editor shouldn't give one obscure "sin" of a BLP individual undue weight, e.g. by making it the focus of an article when that is unwarranted. I asked you what you meant, however you quickly brought down the ban hammer (OK, topic block) without taking the time to explain your meaning beforehand. That is poor communication on your part, FYI. When the only way to comply with your extremely unclear and vague warning is to stop writing on a topic, then maybe you have room for improvement as an administrator. Of course, Jytdog's interaction with me suggests that getting me to stop writing on the topic and driving my voice away from the debate was a goal. Was it yours as well? Wookian (talk) 02:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wookian: Please see the full-justification for your topic-ban that I left on your talkpage. And despite you claims to that effect, we were not on "opposing side in the debate"; my role at the article talkpage has been to facilitate the discussion and ensure that wikipedia policies (esp., BLP) are not violated.

And if I may make an observation (take it fwiw): in the above comments as well as Talk:Sarah Jeong (eg, [10], [11]) you appear to be treating discussion on wikipedia as verbal-fencing matches in which one scores points by striking the other side, while trying to remain just within the boundary marked by the formal rules. That's not what this project is for. Abecedare (talk) 02:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To say that following our neutral RS's in posting the verbatim tweet content is a BLP violation (and infract me over it) is taking a position in the debate. Your words and actions show you to be are inextricably, undeniably involved in the debate, and your opinion is widely disagreed with by editors like myself. Some of the most relevant statements disagreeing with your position in that debate point out how other articles have a different standard. For example, our dear friend Jytdog argued (elsewhere) that Roseanne Barr's tweet of "muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby=vj" could be identified as racist in a "sky is blue" way. (Also, notice Barr's tweet is OK to quote even though she's BLP?) However, when I try to discuss whether Sarah Jeong's tweet "_{<abecedare doesn't want anybody to read this because he/she censors wikipedia>}" is a "sky is blue" racial slur on its face, as many of our neutral sources recognize and quote verbatim... suddenly everything must be censored due to BLP and there's a huge push to construct a favorable narrative about "context" favored only by POV conflicted sources. Wookian (talk) 03:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. If I may make an observation (take it fwiw), abuse of the admin system as a debate tactic is poor form. Wookian (talk) 03:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Abecedare, just wanted to say my opinion, which is that specific content does not have to be proposed in an entirely new section, because if that were the case, we would have dozens of proposals. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 11:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Wumbolo: Indeed, that's the case. But unfortunately it is not possible to herd dozens of editors to stop them from starting new sections for parallel, overlapping discussions. I'll try to guide and help when I can but there is no easy solution to the tragedy of the commons. Abecedare (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rejecting a host of quite-reputable and reliable news sources along with Britannica, on the pretext that the former have failed to properly check fact(s) and that the latter is a tertiary source (WTF??); claiming that an arrest of a chief-minister (on grounds of corruption-charges, as found by an official commission) is non-significant to be mentioned because he was ultimately non-convicted; white-washing attempts by removing mentions of LTTE connections (which have been a quite important locus of Karunanidhi-politics for a while and have been tended to, in vast expenses)---we are way too nice with a POV pusher.Pinging @Titodutta:∯WBG^converse 05:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello WBG I have not checked all the sources and claims mentioned on the talk (and have not edited or got involved). We should be careful about WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP (recently died, but is covered under WP:BLP). --Titodutta (talk) 06:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• And Abe is a gentleman, which we would all do well to use as a model for ourselves :-) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a certainty, given his patience and polite demeanor in dealing with someone who looks to be an obvious agenda-driven-editor, in my eyes:-) ∯WBG^converse 09:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my slow response at the page. I have been at the source-gathering and reading stage and haven't really worried about minor content disputes at the article because the current version is so bad that much of it essentially needs rewriting. See for example the Early life and family section in which:

• the first sentence makes bald statements about his original name and claimed Telugu ancestry, without giving the reader any idea as to why those facts/contentions are of significance (except that an experienced Wikipedia reader will see the ref-bombing and intuit that there is something scandalous afoot) .
• Second sentence on, the para is hard to parse (only now that I have read some background material, do I know what some of it is referring to)
• And suddenly in middle of the para the timeline jumps to 1953 and describes events related to the Kallakudi protests, which are also, and better, described in the Entry into politics section.

I hope to be rewriting this section today and then we can start to debate issues of phrasing, sourcing etc. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 12:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Hm, caste-related articles are sometimes very difficult to handle and we see regular disputes. I agree that Abecedare shows great patience and skill in solving disputes. About rewriting what Abecedare has suggested: that seems to be a good idea. --Titodutta (talk) 14:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now here comes another spurious SPI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DBigXray, filed by مھتاب احمد (talk · contribs) against DBigXray (talk · contribs). Alleging two unrelated editors as socks of each other. I expect someone to revert that SPI since it doesn't deserve any archiving.

This account has never filed an SPI or had any edits to SPI,[12] before SheriffIsInTown was topic banned and has his appeal rejected.[13] This account has been proxying for SheriffIsInTown who also used to file SPIs against obviously unrelated accounts to win content disputes.

It is also unnatural because this editor has WP:CIR issues as he wasn't even able to vote on AfDs and for that he had been topic banned per consensus on WP:ANI.[14] It is impossible that he has eventually became capable enough to file SPIs against the editors he never interacted.

Like I had already substantiated in Nauriya's SPI, the fact is that SheriffIsInTown is behind such SPIs.[15] I can name each of them.

SheriffIsInTown himself can't file SPIs because he is topic banned from this subject (conflicts between India and Pakistan). That's why he is exploiting those editors who either way don't even care about English Wikipedia as evident from the recent contributions of مھتاب احمد, with last edit being this spurious SPI,[16] second last edit was suppressed for outing another editor,[17][18] and third last was a contribution to another spurious SPI. Lorstaking (talk) 11:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the ping and the detailed explanation. I was wondering who this user مھتاب احمد (talk · contribs) ("Urdu_ID" henceforth) is and what is really his beef with me. I recall no interaction "ever" with this editor. And hence no reason to assume bad faith on either his side or mine. That he has filed an entirely bogus SPI against me is quite shocking to be frank. The loads of garbage being presented as evidence is frankly nothing more than wishful thinking. I dont even know who AccessCrawl is and why he is being clubbed with me. Urdu_ID and his handler seem or (trying to be) unaware of WP:RCP. I have seen AccessCrawl responding to some of the AfDs that I have participated. AccessCrawl seems to be regular at AfDs. Calling AccessCrawl's AfD contribution as Meat puppetry, is nothing more than Horseshit. The Comment on Twinkle is clearly laughable and I would leave it at that.
• I digged deeper in the UrduIDs contribution and found that UrduID has filed several SPIs all without no interaction with the users he alleged, on SPI. He is a clear case of WP:CIR for his poor English and bad comments, The ANI thread [19] where he got topic banned from AfD reveals more possible collusion.
• Due to UrduID's rather obvious poor english, It is quite clear to me that his account is being used by others to copy paste at ANI and SPI.
• Filing bad faith bogus SPI reports on behalf of topic banned users, as a part of SMEAR CAMPAIGN clearly a case of WP:NOTHERE. I expect an Indef block on this UrduID for repeating this again and again.
• Now regarding the question of who is behind Urdu ID, I am not sure, So I can only speculate. I am not aware of SherriffInTown and never had any interaction with him either. But what I clearly know is the first SPI against me was filed by a User TopGun who was also into habit of filing spurious SPI cases against editors who had content dispute with him wth an intention to malign the other editor. (probably TopGun changed his city/location and came back as SherrifInTown and now filing SPIs via UrduID.)
• I hope the admins will take a strong note of this and roll back the "bad faith SPI filling" clearly filed to malign editors in good standing--DBigXray 14:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lorstaking, no comment necessary on the WP:ADMINSHOPPING, but are you connected to any of those two accounts? Indeed Accesscrawl also sounds a lot like you. Maybe that is why this SPI has drawn such an emotional response from you. Or maybe its because these users' ask you offline to defend their socks? The last time my SPI caught a sock with his pants down[20] you and your crew went all over yourself just to defend the sock.[21] That is enough to diminish your credibility. And I thought Bbb3 already told you not to do mudslinging on SheriffIsInTown?[22] مھتاب احمد (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lorstaking, DBigXray, and مھتاب احمد: Thanks for the info. However, it would be best:

1. To argue the evidence/rebuttal about DBigXray-Accesscrawl's alleged socking at the SPI
2. If the discussion there could be limited to persons directly involved.

I have noted the accusation of proxy-editing, but will be able to delve into it only later. Abecedare (talk) 15:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you protected this noticeboard indefinitely - just wanted to let you know this in case you didn't mean to do this ;-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: Had to recheck because I am very much capable of making such a mistake! :)

But I think we are ok: The edit protection expires in another two hours. Only the move protection is indefinite (which has been the case since 2013). Btw, if you wish to undo the semi-protection early be my guest. I am not doing so myself since I'll be logging off soon and therefore won't be able to keep an eye for the IP returning. Abecedare (talk) 06:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abecedare - I'm a moron - you're absolutely correct, and I apologize for bothering you about this :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA please. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 06:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to block Oshwah for that; I think he's been warned before. O, that always gives me thought too, and I'm kind of happy I'm not the only one. Seriously, Abecedare, can I block him? Please? Just for like three hours as a first offense? Drmies (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confession: when I semi-protected AN3 for 3 hours I had inadvertently reduced the move-protection from indef to three hours too, till I got a pop-up message saying something like "Are you sure you want to do that?" And yet, when User:Oshwah left the above message, I had to double check what I had actually done. As with kids vs adults, if ""normal" editors knew how much we admins fake "knowing" stuff, we would lose all (remaining) trust.

So sorry User:Drmies, my Rawlian ethics (aka selfish sense of self-preservation) won't allow me give you the permission you beg for. :) Abecedare (talk) 02:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link--very interesting. And yes, same here. Also, damn. Not sure I've blocked an admin before; I was hoping it would finally happen. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 August 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Patna–Digha Ghat line, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Indian Railways runs loss-making trains on the Patna–Digha Ghat line to prevent encroachment? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Patna–Digha Ghat line. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Patna–Digha Ghat line), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, This user User talk:Pradeepchhatani is inserting his own name in various films Articles [23] , [24] , [25] ... Its really very hectic and time wasting exercise to clean up this mess.. He is clearly WP:NOTHERE... Can something be done?? Thanks -- Adamstraw99 (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamstraw99: Left them a message about wikipedia's promotional editing and COI policies. Lets see if they continue after your warning and this. Many persons don't even realize that they are not supposed to update wikipedia entries to document their life/careers. Abecedare (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your action --Adamstraw99 (talk) 13:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone might have to personally explain privately to both 'the new Mrs Sheikh' and Lord Sheikh, individually, that the House of Lords and the College of Arms (the College are a non-governmental department within the Royal Household (ie Buckingham Palace) which also administers the membership list of the House of Lords) demand and require, per protocol (set out by the Palace in consultation with the Home Office and the House of Lords, and recorded in the likes of Debrett's), that the previous wife (as she still sits as a trustee and a director of Lord Sheikh's personal and family charity, according to the filings released online by Companies House and by the Charity Commission) ceases the use of the title 'Lady' upon the remarriage of a life Peer, and that might cause 'some difficulties' (to put it mildly!) in terms of relationship between Lord Sheikh and his daughter (possibly also a trustee and a director), for one thing! Lord Sheikh and Muradova probably went off to Pakistani-administered Kashmir to undergo a 'customary Islamic marriage ceremony' in 2015, thinking that it doesn't count back here in England as 'wife' for the purpose of the College and the House authorities. -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at the particulars of the subject's marriage(s), which are best discussed, along with supporting sources and awareness of due weight, by editors on the article talkpage. In the meantime, I'd suggest that you too stop speculating about the motives of the various persons involved and insinuating that the IP editing the page is one of those persons. See WP:NOTFORUM. Abecedare (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peers of the Realm (such as he is, as a life Peer) are entitled to 'enroll' their (family) 'pedigrees' in the College of Arms and they generally also have the likes of the details of their marriages etc recorded and entered separately in the likes of Debrett's [26]... only those would suffice and nothing else, what I am really saying is! (The burden of proof has to be such, because the wife of a Peer, provided that the marriage ceremony (wedding) is known (and was legally valid in the first place, and the ceremony validly held), is automatically entitled to the style of (to call herself and requires herself to be called) 'Lady'.) -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

87.102, discussion of what sources would be acceptable is pre-mature until someone actually digs up some potential sources for the marriage(s). I am not particularly interested in the topic, so I haven't searched for sources myself. In any case, all this is best discussed at Talk:Mohamed Sheikh, Baron Sheikh, where interested editors are more likely to see it. Abecedare (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would be too libellous (I suspect you might in fact be based in India rather than here in England, but who knows and also that's 'by-the-by'!)... look, here in England, copies of the latest (or reasonably modern) editions of Debretts are generally available at the British Library and 'all good' University libraries and reference libraries. This is what we (generally) go by (rely on), for things like that. (And any future discussion should bear this (discussion) in mind.) -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]